Politics has a lot to do with it. When Nelson Rockefeller put the bridges under the MTA umbrella, he not only took away most of Robert Moses' power: he gave an immense and fairly reliable source of funding for multi-modal regional transportation.

Basically, imagine if all Chicago area tollroads had double or triple the toll rates, there was a commuter toll to drive downtown from outside the city limits , and all that money could back bonds to pay for transportation (both road and transit). It's not that the money isn't there in this region, it's that it's not mobilized to pay for infrastructure. Illinois Tollway is under political pressure to keep tolls as low as possible for non-commercial drivers at all times (aside from the tollway simply not being under a regional transportation umbrella), and there are no convenient large bodies of water separating the region's main employment center from the bulk of the population.

Good news on the HOT lanes, perhaps the first step towards a fully functional and reliable BRT system linking suburban business parks. Man the tribune commentators are really tearing into this concept. Some of them are pretty ignorant, but none the less its building support for blago's removal from office. :)

The bulk of complaints around construction headaches, but those should be minimal. If you look at the schematic of how the Green Lanes will be set up, it's really just some green paint and some I-Pass towers. The I-Pass towers will be set up in the center barrier and cantilever over the traffic lanes, like a traffic light. A double-solid line will separate the Green Lanes from normal traffic. Green Lanes will not be installed on 80/90 in the Southland, where they would make little sense due to the heavy volume of truck traffic. I disagree with putting these HOT lanes on the Northwest Tollway (i.e. Addams) which is only 6 lanes wide, and will be reduced to 2 regular lanes each way after this.

Really, this isn't that complicated or expensive. The lofty "Congestion Relief Phase II" program has a huge pricetag of $1.2 billion, but most of that money is going towards the two massive new interchanges.

Oh, I'm not surprised, either. I'm jealous! Just think of the improvements to the Metra/Pace/CTA that could be bought with 9 billion. My head reels.

Thanks for the info, Viva. That confirms my suspicions. I read the Trib and NYT every day and get the sense that even though NY has its problems, their political system isn't nearly as dysfunctional as ours here in IL. I think sensible transportation funding is just one area where we could improve greatly by having real leadership in Sprigfield and in Cook County. I'll just keep dreaming (and voting for fresh, ambitious voices).

Taft

^ I gather the Chicago area could accomplish some portion of an equivalent if the CTA/Metra/Pace management were folded together under the RTA umbrella, and if the Governor somehow also put the Chicago area tollways under the RTA's control

In theory, yes, but acheiving those includes a million little what-ifs along the way. I'd disagree with Taft that NYC's political culture is significantly less dysfunctional than ours (to wit: the City's recent humiliating failure in passing congestion pricing). New York has the MTA for a million reasons, and many of them are beyond the technically superior solution to regional infrastructure, involving rather personal idiosyncracies (e.g. Rockefeller v. Moses, Moses' prior leadership and development of the toll bridge cash cows under the Triborough umbrella, etc.).

Of course, all of the above does come down to New York having had several political leaders who could seriously get things done, working tirelessly and intelligently towards achieving their aims: Not only Rockefeller and Moses, but also LaGuardia, FDRoosevelt, & Al Smith, to name a few.

In fairness, Chicago has been "blessed" with two Daleys who could get things done in a serious way - but we've generally not benefited from the same sort of leadership in Springfield (either in the assemblies or the governor's mansion) as NYC has from Albany. Part of that is chance, part is geography, and part is demographics, with Chicago having a smaller percentage of our state's population than NYC has in New York.

It's an interesting topic, and I won't ramble any further so as not to threadjack. But I can recommend a reading list for those interested.

I understand what you're saying but in today's news, MTA is raising fares and cutting service. Not a good situation out in NYC.

Also very frustrating from an Illinois perspective is how often the state and municipalities drag their feet on matching federal funds.

Wahoo!!! :banana: :boogy: :cucumber: :eeekk: :awesome:

CTA Completes Three-Track Operation at Fullerton Station

I can't wait to ride the red line to work on Tuesday morning. No getting stuck behind a purple or brown line train that gets slowed down due to stopping at Diversey. :)

Hit up Fullerton on Saturday on my way downtown. Looks tight. The brown line trains were switching tracks south of Diversey though, so the red line trains were still backing up before Diversey. I imagine that's something they can fix quickly though.

It only took 15-16 minutes to travel from Addison to the loop on the red line this morning. We cruised right along from Belmont to Fullerton - I felt like jumping for joy. :)

I alluded to this over in SSC. With the new HOV/HOT lanes does anyone think there will or should be required to be point to point suburb-loop buses as part of the program? Burb to Downtown buses make much more sense with new HOV express lanes as opposed to now where such buses provide no time savings. I remember when I first visited NYC back in the mid-90's and they had nice charter buses from the Meadowlands NJ (though they didn't have dedicated lanes at the time) that seemed to work rather well. There could also be a few drop off points downtown instead of just the West Loop like Metra. Given that there seems to be a capacity crunch on at least some Metra routes it could help as a viable alternative to driving.

Running buses downtown presents two main problems:

1. the HOT lanes end where the tollway ends (with possible exception of the eventual I-290 widening from Oak Park to Mannheim, with the added lane being HOV/HOT). In short, where the travel time savings would be most needed - the congested urban expressways leading downtown - the buses would have no priority or benefit.

2. Potential to cannibalize ridership of existing commuter and rapid rail services.

I think the more likely scenario resulting from HOT lanes would be some sort of hybrid BRT/Express Bus distribution system to connect to CTA rail terminals, specifically with Rosemont feeding to the I-90 corridor northwest and I-294 north, and Forest Park feeding to I-88 west.

Generally, the only corridors that are strong candidates for enhanced express suburb->downtown commuter service (I-55, southeast suburbs, NW Indiana) don't involve the tollway system and might yet see enhanced commuter rail service.

JUst out of curiosity what are the compartative cost say per mile for a 1. subway in a city in chicago, 2. an elevated line similiar to what we have 3. an elevated line that instead uses a monorail or other light rail solution, and 4. an at grade light rail solution

I you know please post with sources preferably

Costs vary depending upon geographical conditions. As a general rule of thumb, light weight modern streetcars are the cheapest solution, just lay tracks in existing streets. Most streets have sufficient bases to carry their weight, so little street reconstruction is required. Next in line in costs, at more than twice streetcar costs, as a minimum, are rapid light rail trains. Since they are heavier, the streets will need stronger road beds to support the light rail trains, and much longer construction schedules including the street modifications, which is the main reason why they are more expensive. Light rail trains are very flexible, capable of street running, elevated above and depressed under. Elevated is twice as expensive as running at grade. Subways are twice as expensive as elevated tracks.

Modern elevated monorails and elevated light rail trains have approximately the same capital costs. Monorail switches (turnouts) are much larger in size that conventional rail base turnouts, which is their main disadvantage. Monorail cars are usually smaller in size than light rail cars, and carry less passengers. Monorails are very popular with the public until they see the huge stations 30 feet above city streets. The public dreams a Disneyland experience, but forget Disney places stations within buildings. The monorail station is usually contained within a building's lobby. It works at Disney because the buildings and monorail were designed and built at the same time, which an existing city can't do everywhere along the line.

All elevated tracks block sunlight, it doesn't matter if it's light rail or monorail, which is another sore point with the public. Grade separate tracks should only be considered in very dense areas with high traffic congestion. Once the tracks leave downtown and uptown areas, it's far cheaper to build the rest of the line at grade. Monorails must always be grade separated. Another advantage for light rail trains, which aren't limited.

The cheapest solution by far is commuter rail, which you forgot to list. Using the existing freight railroad right of ways really saves a whole lot of capital.

^^^Thank you, I was wondering thought about the $ price per mile.

Also in Chicago what would be the political possibility of increasing allowable density levels in areas "near" transit to help defray the capital and operating costs

Within city limits, approximately zero. Dozens of suburbs seem eager to increase density around their rail transit infrastructure, though.

^ Well, within the city we just need some people to hurry up and die.

It'll happen eventually, I hope..

That's a shame. I wish there was a way to stick it to the NIMBYs in the form of higher property taxes. :laugh: Just kidding...

In all seriousness, the CTA needs to have it's own planning authority to allow for high density development, where appropriate.

Opposition to increased density has proven to be an intractable problem everywhere in the US, preventing Portland MAX and BART and Washington Metro from doing more to reconfigure their respective regions. And the opponents are not entirely misguided. For all our wishful thinking, increased density does lead to increased congestion, because in an affluent free society transit only captures journey-to-work and a few other easily made trips. Those are a relatively modest proportion of all trips.

^ But if you allow density to increase enough, you reduce car-dependency. Hence people can walk to do their day to day tasks (more density justifies a grocery store every 2-3 blocks instead of every half a mile). The problem is that few NIMBY's have the brain power to look that far ahead and actually recognize such a potential benefit, and not enough people take the time (or have the desire) to educate them.

Increases in population lead to increases in congestion. It's far more efficient (for reasons urban politician has stated) to have people live near where they work and shop along with easy access to transit. This acts as an alternative to the automobile, and it helps reduce automobile trips.

Residents of Transit Oriented Developments are also high users of the transit system. Also, increases in ridership from TODs does not increase operating costs to the transit agency since infrastructure already exists; The transit agency would be taking advantage of excess capacity within the system. On that basis alone, transit agencies should be fighting tooth and nail for the right to allow for higher density development near stations.

Live closer to the wife's job or the husband's? His job now or his job three years from now?

Unfortunately, theory and practice are pretty far apart on TOD and trip generation rates. I challenge you to find a peer-reviewed study anywhere that shows a significant correlation. Robert Cervero at UC Berkeley has demonstrated that the only differences are easily explained by self-selection: people who are inclined to an urban walkable lifestyle choose to live there and those who aren't, don't.

You're challenging me to find a study showing a correlation that residents in a TOD are more likely to take transit?

We obviously live in a free country. Those who desire an urban lifestyle are free to have one as are those who desire a suburban lifestyle. The assumption being made about TODs is that they appeal to some segment of the population, otherwise there would be no interest in constructing them from the development community. It's not just some cooky invention by a group of planners to push an agenda.

The issue at hand is whether NIMBYism can prevent higher density developments near transit stops. Developments that represent good planning and be a boon for the transit operator in the form of increased ridership. I believe this is the case. By no means am I suggesting that this is an ideal transportation solution for everyone or it should be forced on anyone. You're example of the married couple is a prime example. However I do take issue when NIMBYism gets in the way of good, responsible planning.

edit

edit...dp

Indeed. Who cares if it's largely due to self-selection? It's still fewer auto trips per capita than at non-TOD sites, so why not provide more options for people to self-select themselves into, rather than mandate endless suburbia so we can maintain precious precious Level-of-Service C at all times of the day? I don't get why it's a given in this country that it's a constitutional right to make it through every intersection in the first light cycle at all times of day on every day of the year.

You even said yourself that housing location decisions have to balance the work locations of all workers in the household. Why not ensure that as many locations as possible give the option for the urban lifestyle, so couples aren't forced to live in transit- and pedestrian-hostile neighborhoods as a result of balancing husband and wife's commutes?

A deviation from the discussion at hand... Is there any newspaper articles regarding the new infrastructure stimulus being discussed, and what it would mean mean for the Chicago CTA, if anything?

Could Chicago finally see funding for a major expansion project like the Circle Line?

^ What is this? This is more of your hoogly googly garbage. In argument after argument, all you try to do is wrap people up in some scenario in which you ask them to provide some arcane study that answers a particular question that nobody in his right mind has the time to answer, putting the burden on everybody else as you enjoy Thanksgiving with your family. How about explaining to me how common sense doesn't apply here?

As you're eating your turkey leg, let me ask you this: compare a married couple living in a) 20,000 people per square mile versus b) 3,000 people per square mile community. In both cases, the husband and wife work in different locations. Perhaps those work sites are poorly accessible to transit in both scenarios, just to eliminate that from the discussion. All things equal, in which scenario is the couple going to be more car-dependent? I imagine it's nearly impossible to have a 20,000/sq mile environment without significant concentration of resources, so it goes without saying that couple a) will likely be doing a heck of a lot less driving than couple b).

Dense environments are congested because a lot of people visit these places from outside, and many of them inevitably arrive by car or taxi, or bus. Manhattan's ridiculous traffic congestion has nothing to do with Manhattanites owning cars and driving every which way to get to their jobs; it has to do with millions of people entering Manhattan by various means of transportation every hour of every day, trying to gain access to the incredible resources that such a rich, dense environment is capable of providing.

You gotta love transportation discussions that can be summed up as "OK, so it doesn't work so well in reality, but how's it work in theory?"

The reason I asked for a study is that—as far as I can determine—all the studies done so far (roughly a dozen) have found no significant reduction in VMT for people living in compact/neotraditional/TOD environments. This is a subject I've been following pretty closely since the early 1990s when I served on an ITE subcommittee studying the topic, but there might be some study out there that I'm unaware of.

How about some background on the studies. What cities were involved? Were "compact" or "neotraditional" neighborhoods included along with TODs?

The reason I ask is because there are a lot of so-called "Smart Growth" neighborhoods being built that are compact and neotraditional but lack any sort of transit component. If those types of communities were included in the ITE study, I could see how the results could be skewed.

While I'm not prepared to go search for a study linking TODs to reduced automobile trips, I have a really hard time believing that a residential development next to the El station would have the same transit ridership as single family homes in Palatine.

The Cervero study you cited:

http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT11-3Cervero.pdf
http://www.cityofsancarlos.org/civic...sp?BlobID=4453

...seems to run counter to your assertion of the brilliant and infallible NIMBY prophecy of inevitable congestion resulting from TOD. It doesn't 100% settle the issue, but pretty clearly higher density housing near transit facilities generates fewer vehicle trips per unit than lower density housing away from transit facility. See his chart on page 14.

You're generally correct in your skepticism, but it's more of a correlation effect than a causation effect, I think.

Of course, there is a difference in trip generation rates, and total trips. The correlation between trip generation and density is not (negative) one-to-one, so with dense housing there will be more trips than suburbia, but fewer trips per capita. Again, we get back to whether we should give a rat's behind that for 10 minutes a day some poor old lady might have to wait an entire light cycle (or 2! the horror!) to clear an intersection, or whether we should indeed give it the weight of a violation of constitutional rights, as seems to be the trend throughout most of the country. MrD is partially right, but I think being misleading: very dense housing can cause "congestion" but there's a big difference between the congestion caused by 4-flats and that caused by highrises, say. And around many rail stations in Chicago, there's no hope of anything other than single family homes or industrial/commercial uses.

All this further ignores that residential land uses really don't generate many car trips relatively speaking (except for very short time periods each day), and their trip generation rates certainly pale in comparison of the trip generation rates of retail and most other commercial uses. Remember all that smog-belching gridlock in Central Station and the Gold Coast (north of Division)? Me neither.

Its also important to note where exactly the people in the study work. Outside of two cities (NYC and Chicago), the majority of office space for metropolitan areas is decentralized into suburbs, where people are going to drive to work, unless they just can't afford to. Most of the suburban office parks have very, very limited transit service or no service at all; and if your work schedule shifts beyond the typical 9-5 hours, than transit is of no practical use to you. Despite the fact that people may still very well work in these locations, they may still choose to locate in suburban TODs to provide quick access to city attractions. However, since the daily commute is to the suburban office park, then declines in VMT will be minimal. However as was noted by others, short trips for small purchases can probably be made on foot in mixed-use TODs.

I just wanted to comment on the recent news that Chicago will stop running those free trolleys downtown next year. Every time I've been to Chicago, those trolleys have been full of people.

Is this a good idea for the tourism industry?

hmmm... as someone who works in a restaurant downtown that caters to tourists I have thought about that. It really depends on how you look at it. I would guess that whether the trolleys be there or not won't effect the number of tourists visiting.

The disadvantages is that it means more tourists on the CTA. To work I take an Express Bus to downtown and like clockwork when we get off LSD and onto Michigan Ave. Tourists think the CTA bus drivers are tour guides. Questions, like you go to such and such and what are their hours, ask directions, and figure out how to ride a bus. Small things but takes a lot of time, annoying day after day. Those are offenses akin to me going to lets say Cleveland and getting off a highway in my car onto the offramp coming to a stop blocking traffic and looking at a map.

the Advantages is that more people will be riding the CTA. Overall the benefits outweigh the negatives.

If this cutback includes the neighborhood trolley tours, I cringe to say this - I can't stand tourists that yell at you in your city from the trolley cars nor the gawking like the pedestrian is a freak show, then that is not a good thing.

If you can't tell while I think tourism is good I don't generally like many, many does not mean most, tourists. Probably a result of battle fatigue from working in a tourist restaurant.

Good question. Of course, I would have preferred all along that the city just spend the money to contract CTA to operate a shuttle service integrated with the CTA network rather than a bunch of separate heritage trolleys ("ride this quainte public transport, a crude facsimile of what poor ol' Grandpa used before he fled the squalid industrial city"). That said, intuitively I think some sort of free circulator service targeted at tourists and visitors, at least between the downtown destinations - Museum Campus, Mag Mile, Navy Pier, State Street, Union Station - has a great deal of value. I'd rather the heritage trolleys than nothing at all, but subsidized #124 and #157 service would be a decent compromise.

I like the way it's done in DC... a system of "circulator" routes was set up. It's subsidized by the city, planned by WMATA, and operated by a private company.

The system uses buses painted in a colorful and modern scheme to set them apart from WMATA's buses, but there is full fare integration with WMATA's payment system. The system also has separate signs at bus stops to help differentiate it from regular buses and allay the fears of tourists.

The free trolley system was financed by CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation Air Quality) grants which are handed out by the federal government, often to run trial services such as the trolleys. While running the routes, as part of the grant, the trolleys had to use a clean burning fuel, which was propane. During chartered services or public tours, the trolleys then could use conventional diesel. CMAQ grants have also financed CTA service extensions such as Yellow Line weekend service and later hours on the #65 Grand Bus. CMAQ Grants through a temporary, and after they expire, the operating agency must either trim the service back or find a way to pay for it if deemed successful. Right now the city in its budget crunch has no extra money to spare for convenient yet entirely supplemental service. There are not any trolley routes that do not already have CTA coverage.

Let me ask this: if Chicago were to stop running these permanently, could it ultimately be a good thing?

I sometimes wonder if the city bends too far backwards for tourists (parking, free tours, etc), sort of a "have it your way" philosophy. I'm not sure if this is based on some sort of concern that if it doesn't make itself easily accessible, people will go elsewhere.

But sometimes it is the actual urban environment that attracts people to Chicago's downtown, not just the shops and the theaters. People maybe will learn to use a taxicab, ride a bus, or just walk and explore the city.

That's the appeal--the "experience" of downtown. Let people figure these things out for themselves; after all, the resources for transportation are already there anyhow. When people are challenged they become more intrigued and more interested in what a place has to offer

I think the #65 was a JARC (Job Access Reverse Commute) project, not CMAQ. But yeah, the trolleys were partially CMAQ-funded if memory serves. Are you sure the ulta-low sulfur diesel-electric hybrid buses CTA runs wouldn't meet the regs?

I always thought it bizarre that tourists would wait for most of an hour on Grand/Lower Michigan for the free trolley instead of taking the #29 bus (marked Navy Pier) or just walking the 3000 feet to Navy Pier. But tourists are very apprehensive about places like Chicago. When you talk to them, they say strange things like "we don't have buses in Dallas" or they stand on the trolleys facing forward, hanging onto the overhead strap like slabs of beef. Think of the questions even scraperfans post in the Traveling to Chicago threads, the bizarre (to us) fears about their safety if they wander into the wrong neighborhood or stay at the wrong hotel, of how people will just say they'll skip the Museum of Science and Industry instead of taking an express bus to get there. People have been convinced by fearmongering newscasters that getting on the wrong bus in a place like Chicago will lead them and their family to certain death. So it's a real uphill battle to get them to remember the route numbers and persuade them to just hop aboard.

I'd like to think such behavior will eventually subside with the newer generation and progressive thinking of urbanism and diversity brought on through education and cultural influence—but we'll see.

the trolleys are "safety" to the tourists from smaller towns and areas around the country where Chicago would be extremely foreign.

I know looking at people in Iowa where I'm from, the average family or couple visiting would be 50X more likely to jump on a trolley to go around the downtown than try and "figure out" the CTA. Of course taking the CTA we all know it's fairly basic knowledge and obvious, but to tourists I don't think this is understood.

Tourists see all the residents and regulars on the buses and trains and I think that intimidates many people. They're not totally sure where they're going, there's a bunch of people who know exactly what they're doing already on the bus and they don't want to be delayed for a second.

I'm certainly one of those people who rolls their eyes when the tourists get on and you begin the "does this bus go.....well how do I get there......how do I transfer.....do you stop......how much is it.......which way is north......how do I get to Fullerton......well how long will I have to wait for that......but I don't want to go there........"

The trolleys are good because they're comfort for the tourists and separate the people who know what's up from the people that don't.

The trolleys are bad because they make Chicago's downtown even more of a disneyland to tourists. It's that much harder for a visitor to get a feel of what it's like to live in this city, and the excitment and intrige people seem to experience when they figure out and use the buses and trains. To most people that's an adventure in itself. Riding the play trolley with 50 other tourists just comes off as "fake".

I'll miss the trolleys though, people really did appreciate them, and were left with positive feelings at the fact they were all free. Impressions impressions impressions...

Why not simply charge for the trolleys? Obviously, they're being cancelled for financial reasons. If tourists feel more comfortable on them, then keep the existing system and stick some fareboxes in the trolleys. Tourists, in theory, would pay a premium to ride the trolley system over CTA, which should be able to cover the operating costs.

Well, there already is a paid trolley system. At $26/day it makes you realize how heavily subsidized the "free" trolleys are.

That raises the interesting question of whether private enterprises will just come in and fill the vaccuum created by cancellation of this popular service.

Although I question the relevancy of your $26 figure - (1) the underlying costs could be quite different (though admittedly I know next to nothing about either service) and (2) it could represent a sizeable private sector markup that obscures the true cost.

^ Oh, I think they'll be lining up:

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_u0VRFlV-sa0/RV...061108+123.jpg

In fairness to tourists, they don't know how far away Navy Pier is, or exactly the bus route they should take to get there. The free trolley isn't just free, it's also safer. It also let's tourists avoid apprehension about looking like an idiot or an easy mark if they board a regular bus without really knowing how it works. That's not just an artifact of suburbanism. I'm a hardened transit rider but even I struggle to know how the bus works in cities I've never been to before.

^ Oh, boo hoo. We need to stop acting like we're the military and non-city people are bright-eyed little civilians.

Morons who haven't finished elementary school can figure out a bus or train system, so I'm pretty sure that with a few minutes of effort & planning, a map, and some sign reading nearly anyone can find a way to get to Navy Pier from Ogilvie Station.

Chicago isn't Disney World. I'd really love to see the city just leave some things up to chance and not worry so much about being so easily accessible to as many people as possible. The more I think about it, dropping the free trolleys is a good thing. If people can't find a way to get to Navy Pier then they don't deserve to go there!

^^ You're starting to sound like a New Yorker. ;)

Not being a huge fan of Navy Pier, I'd argue that if they're too dumb to find it then they'd "deserve to go there" all the more ... ;-)