SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   CHICAGO: Transit Developments (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=101657)

alex1 Sep 28, 2008 9:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ginsan2 (Post 3827285)
Secondly, does anyone see the bus rapid transit system as a means to cut funding for light rail within the city, should it become successful?

BRT is many times a poor solution to transit but in Chicago's case, it hopefully makes existing bus operations smoother and faster. Especially considering that Chicago would have never gotten a rail system where the proposed BRT target areas.

fyi, Chicago has little light rail in the city. In fact, I don't think it has any outside of O'Hare's rail link.

jjk1103 Sep 28, 2008 9:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 1950613)
i was just checking out megabus' website, and it looks like if you book early enough, you can get a one-way ticket to milwaukee for a buck! that means a daytrip up to milwaukee will set you back 2 measely friggin dollars, how sweet is that? take that amtrak, and your obscene 40 dollar chicago-milwaukee roundtrip train ticket.

when this service starts up, we're gonna have to set-up a chicago invasion forum meet up in brew city. shit, for two bucks, i'm gonna be making daytrips up there once a month.

...Megabus has been in Chicago for a few years....

jjk1103 Sep 28, 2008 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ginsan2 (Post 3827285)
In general, for people living in Chicago (and as someone shortly about to move there), would anyone say that the Chicago transit system has actually improved? In the most general sense, do all these news clippings amount to improved service over the past 5 years?

Secondly, does anyone see the bus rapid transit system as a means to cut funding for light rail within the city, should it become successful?

..i think the CTA has really improved over the last 2 years.......the slow zones almost everywhere has been eliminated (or will be soon)....over the last 15 years the CTA has almost completely re-built itself (Douglas, O'Hare, Brown, Red South, Green, and Orange)....just let the current construction finish and a few improvements like GPS and digital signaling get widespread and it will be doing very well.....rolling stock replacement is probably the biggest problem now......

jjk1103 Sep 28, 2008 10:05 PM

.in general people are so used to bashing the CTA (particularly the press) that it has almost become a religion......

MayorOfChicago Oct 1, 2008 5:08 AM

I see we just shelled out Midway Airport today!

I'm glad the city proved I wasn't crazy when I rationalized selling my car was the only way to pay for next months gas.

ardecila Oct 1, 2008 7:58 AM

^^ 90% of the proceeds have to be used for infrastructure... I'm sure the city can bend these rules (we're good at that in Chicago) but that basically means $900 million for CDOT projects - streetscapings, US-41 South Works extension, bike paths, riverwalk improvements, new overpasses, etc.

honte Oct 1, 2008 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MayorOfChicago (Post 3832566)
I see we just shelled out Midway Airport today!

I'm glad the city proved I wasn't crazy when I rationalized selling my car was the only way to pay for next months gas.

Yeah, I agree... it's like a mini national debt. I'm not really seeing long-term gain here.

Mr Downtown Oct 1, 2008 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alex1 (Post 3827537)
Chicago has little light rail in the city. In fact, I don't think it has any outside of O'Hare's rail link.

No light rail at all, as that term is usually understood. O'Hare's peoplemover is usually categorized as automated guideway transit.

jpIllInoIs Oct 1, 2008 1:19 PM

Amtrak grant Spgfld-Chicago route
 
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7784079.story

Improvements on track for busy Amtrak routes
Federal grants help speed ride to St. Louis
By Jon Hilkevitch | Chicago Tribune reporter
October 1, 2008
About 30 minutes will be shaved off the 5 1/2 -hour Amtrak trip between Chicago and St. Louis when train speeds increase to 110 m.p.h. within about a year on parts of the route, state officials said Tuesday.

Two federal grants totaling $3.4 million were awarded to Illinois for passenger rail projects aimed at boosting train speeds and reducing delays from south of Chicago through Springfield. The state must provide $3.4 million in matching funds to get the federal funds.

Ridership has grown 15 percent on the Chicago-to-St. Louis route, where Amtrak operates five round-trips daily.
.....
The improved technology will also boost train speeds from 79 m.p.h. to 110 m.p.h. on sections of 118 miles of track between Mazonia and Ridgely, near Springfield.

Illinois has invested about $100 million on track improvements to make way for high-speed rail on the Chicago-to-St. Louis corridor, according to the Illinois Department of Transportation.

pip Oct 1, 2008 1:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte (Post 3832762)
Yeah, I agree... it's like a mini national debt. I'm not really seeing long-term gain here.


the long term gain here is another service that is not run by the city. There will no more unaffordable pensions, bloated expensive work forces, etc for the city to pay for. Governments are inefficient at running things, and labor is extremely expensive and cumbersome. Its off our back now. You notice part of the proceeds from the sale have to by law go towards pensions. Chicagio is about, off the top of my head, about 7 billion in the hole for underfunded pensions.

the urban politician Oct 1, 2008 2:02 PM

Good news on the Amtrak article. For those of you too lazy to read the article, federal money will also go towards improving service reliability and (to a small degree) speed between the Chicago-Milwaukee route.

Looks like the Midwest High Speed Rail Coalition may finally have its first 2 routes if all goes well in the next couple of years.

the urban politician Oct 1, 2008 2:08 PM

Illinois tollways
 
Hey guys, I just wanted to ask a question for those of you in the know. Last week I spent a lot of time driving the 294 and 88 tollways in the suburbs. The monumentous traffic that I saw (and yes, I really think legends can be written about what I witnessed) caused me to wonder why the tolls were so cheap ($0.30 in some places, but mostly $0.80 to $1.00).

Seems as if the state could easily get away from raising tolls if even by a small amount (a quarter?). I read somewhere that tolls haven't been raised for 30 years. Is this all true?

VivaLFuego Oct 1, 2008 2:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 3832959)
Hey guys, I just wanted to ask a question for those of you in the know. Last week I spent a lot of time driving the 294 and 88 tollways in the suburbs. The monumentous traffic that I saw (and yes, I really think legends can be written about what I witnessed) caused me to wonder why the tolls were so cheap ($0.30 in some places, but mostly $0.80 to $1.00).

Seems as if the state could easily get away from raising tolls if even by a small amount (a quarter?). I read somewhere that tolls haven't been raised for 30 years. Is this all true?

Tolls are about 1/3 what they should be, at least during peak periods. The tollway board is de facto run by politicians, not businessmen nor planners. So, the anti-tax yahoos in the suburbs who threaten to storm the bastille whenever anyone deigns mention a toll increase make sure the system is chronically short of adequate money and failing in its ability to control congestion. There hasn't even been a nominal toll increase since the early 1980s, except for a significant hike to commercial vehicles a few years ago to pay for the current ongoing reconstruction of the whole damn system because it all crumbled to hell because there wasn't enough money for adequate maintenance or phased rehabilitation.

I love toll roads in principle, but not when they're run like political playthings.

Chicago3rd Oct 1, 2008 2:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego (Post 3833000)
Tolls are about 1/3 what they should be, at least during peak periods. The tollway board is de facto run by politicians, not businessmen nor planners. So, the anti-tax yahoos in the suburbs who threaten to storm the bastille whenever anyone deigns mention a toll increase make sure the system is chronically short of adequate money and failing in its ability to control congestion. There hasn't even been a nominal toll increase since the early 1980s, except for a significant hike to commercial vehicles a few years ago to pay for the current ongoing reconstruction of the whole damn system because it all crumbled to hell because there wasn't enough money for adequate maintenance or phased rehabilitation.

I love toll roads in principle, but not when they're run like political playthings.

1. Again....implying business people run a business better seems kind of ironic in these days of massive financial problems in this country.

2. Money should NEVER be used to create order. If we raise the fare on tollways to "control congestion" what we are basically doing is creating a private tollway for the wealthy.

3. Tollways stink to high heavan. Get all the revenue from the gas tax get rid of tollways or make all the down state roads and Interstates tollways.

VivaLFuego Oct 1, 2008 4:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago3rd (Post 3833022)
1. Again....implying business people run a business better seems kind of ironic in these days of massive financial problems in this country.

Poor, unsupportable logic, but we won't go there in this thread.

Quote:

2. Money should NEVER be used to create order. If we raise the fare on tollways to "control congestion" what we are basically doing is creating a private tollway for the wealthy.
A trip on a road should be priced to include 1) construction/maintenance cost, or the fixed cost, and 2) the amount of congestion that additional marginal trip will cause thereby imposing costs on every other user of the system, the variable cost. Creating order or reserving roads for the wealthy has got nothing to do with it. A marginal trip on a roadway creates a certain amount of congestion and delay, and presently that marginal trip is underpriced - the person causing congestion should have to pay for it.

Quote:

3. Tollways stink to high heavan. Get all the revenue from the gas tax get rid of tollways or make all the down state roads and Interstates tollways.
The gas tax, while decent, is not nearly as good as tolling in capturing the cost of a trip. It has no means of factoring in the cost of congestion, and furthermore becomes less effective as the auto fleet become more fuel efficient.

All I'm advocating is drivers pay their fair share, nothing more nothing less. Our current system is rife with immense amounts of cross-subsidization, between drivers at different times of day, between drivers and transit users, and so on.

Chicago3rd Oct 1, 2008 4:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego (Post 3833189)
Poor, unsupportable logic, but we won't go there in this thread.

Your initial statement seemed political.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego (Post 3833189)
A trip on a road should be priced to include 1) construction/maintenance cost, or the fixed cost, and 2) the amount of congestion that additional marginal trip will cause thereby imposing costs on every other user of the system, the variable cost. Creating order or reserving roads for the wealthy has got nothing to do with it. A marginal trip on a roadway creates a certain amount of congestion and delay, and presently that marginal trip is underpriced - the person causing congestion should have to pay for it.

Again I am not for privatized Tollways for the rich. It should only be based on use....not economical status.


Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego (Post 3833189)
The gas tax, while decent, is not nearly as good as tolling in capturing the cost of a trip. It has no means of factoring in the cost of congestion, and furthermore becomes less effective as the auto fleet become more fuel efficient..

When that point comes we will raise the tax. It is the same way our home gas is. If we use a lot the price goes up yet on mild winters when we don't use as much the gas company gets a rate hike to offset the lower usage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego (Post 3833189)
All I'm advocating is drivers pay their fair share, nothing more nothing less. Our current system is rife with immense amounts of cross-subsidization, between drivers at different times of day, between drivers and transit users, and so on.

Fair share to me is usage. Not how much money people make. Chicagoland area needs to stop building and maintaining roads outside of our area and put that money to our infrastructure.

I do agree with you 100% about your assessment of where we stand currently and the mess we are in.

honte Oct 1, 2008 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip (Post 3832935)
the long term gain here is another service that is not run by the city. There will no more unaffordable pensions, bloated expensive work forces, etc for the city to pay for. Governments are inefficient at running things, and labor is extremely expensive and cumbersome. Its off our back now. You notice part of the proceeds from the sale have to by law go towards pensions. Chicagio is about, off the top of my head, about 7 billion in the hole for underfunded pensions.

Yeah, I agree with this. But I do sense risks... perhaps because this is a newish concept for me, critical infrastructure being owned by third parties.

VivaLFuego Oct 2, 2008 2:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte (Post 3834202)
Yeah, I agree with this. But I do sense risks... perhaps because this is a newish concept for me, critical infrastructure being owned by third parties.

It's still owned by the city, just operated under a contractual agreement. In theory the city could terminate the contract if the operator breaches the terms. Of course that would be a very costly process, but I'd like to think the actual concession agreement will protect the city pretty well.

the urban politician Oct 2, 2008 3:02 AM

Never fear! Midway Airport will be back in Chicago's hands in 2107! By then, of course, it will offer regular discount service to Mars, the Moon, and Alpha Centauri (the latter being a bit of a longer flight, but they have deluxe meal service)

honte Oct 2, 2008 3:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego (Post 3834417)
It's still owned by the city, just operated under a contractual agreement. In theory the city could terminate the contract if the operator breaches the terms. Of course that would be a very costly process, but I'd like to think the actual concession agreement will protect the city pretty well.

OK, thanks.

I must be the most annoying person in this thread, since I know so little about transit and only follow it casually lest I get depressed. I usually try to keep my mouth shut!


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.