Most people I know would rather be in a fender-bender than mugged, raped, whatever. I certainly would.

Statistically, these things might not correlate; your argument might win. But you are ignoring the psychological aspect of things. Not feeling intimidated, harassed, or threatened simply trying to get home can be priceless. And people feel that they have some control of their situation when they are behind the wheel, even if scientifically they really don't.

The number of vehicular fatalities in the United States is over 2.5 times the number of homicides. In 2007, 13.4% of those fatalities were nonmotorists. There are about 500,000 motor-vehicle related hospitalizations each year.

False perceptions about personal safety are no reason to halt progressive policy. There's actually a pretty valid case to be made that going forward with these policies is exactly what's needed to combat such illusions.

^ I remain unconvinced, sorry. It's unfair to foist numerical statistics on people who physically interact with their communities every day and understand the situation inherently. Numbers can be misleading: How well does the above translate to Chicago? How well do those statistics translate to the local streets that many people will be theoretically walking from the train, vs. major highways and arterials? How, in Chicago, does it compare to the total number of victimizations that occur on the street overall, not just homicides? How would those numbers change if your policy were implemented? If people are on a bus rather than in car, how does that alter their risk factor to your stats? How can you statistically account for the acts that don't actually get perpetrated, or for abuse that isn't physical?

I think we shouldn't drag this on endlessly, but my point is that using some rather broad statistics to tell people that their life choices and real concerns are unimportant and wholly invalid, while using them to advance your "progressive" policy, seems totally inadequate.

^ Bottom line, these are all sorry, lazy excuses.

Downtown Chicago is one of the most transit accessible places in the western hemisphere. No excuse why somebody can't easily a way to get there without a car during rush hour.

I you want to drive, pay a bit extra. Maybe not you, but that makes PERFECT sense to me. And ultimately, it adds capacity to an existing system (highway and rail combined) whose expansion is otherwise prohibitively expensive and time consuming.

That's all fine, honte, but your criticism of the statistics I present and the questions you pose have equally valid counterparts in the form of criticism and questions about the "feelings" and "experience" and perceptions you advocate as a basis for policy decision instead.

Also, I'm not out to "change" the dangers of driving by advocating for policy x but to merely illustrate the fact that there are dangers in that mode of transportation, as well, and that the relative safety afforded by getting behind the wheel is illusory. (What better time of year to be making this point?) Considering your aversion to statistics, though, I might have been better off citing my "physical interactions" with and "inherent undertanding" of driving instead.

And it's probably an argument for another time or a different forum, but what would you rather base policy on if not empircal evidence? If numbers can be misleading, perceptions can be false and judgement lacking. The biggest hurdle for progress has always been unfounded fears.

^ I think you both are twisting what I've said around a bit. Let me restate my intent, which was solely to counter the concept that personal safety concerns and public transit are a totally unacceptable combination. I was not responding to this particular proposal on the table.

As someone with extensive engineering background, I can assure you that I am not fearful of statistics. But I respond better to proper and thorough data. In terms of formulating policy, it's a tool, often very powerful, which must be factored into a more robust equation.

I think most everyone who drives is aware of the dangers associated, if not the real data. But ultimately it should be their call what is most appropriate, based on their personal circumstances, which vary widely and in Chicago can reach almost unfathomable extremes. That's my only point. I am not rejecting the notion that there might be a penalty of sorts associated with these decisions, but I will advance (as before) that any such penalty can have a negative impact on quality of life unless improvements in public transit are produced in equal measure (to whatever extent that is possible).

Thank you for taking this thread on!

...which might be relevant in the case of the mean community, but not here because we are talking about people who live in especially dangerous neighborhoods. Also, you have to take into account not just the risk of death but also the risk of other crime (and on the other side, the risk of injury or property damage in a non-fatal car accident). I have no trouble believing that it's probably safer to drive straight to your house at Central Park and Lexington than it is to walk from the Kedzie Blue Line.

But most of the people I've known who have this problem usually drive to the train (parking is usually pretty copious in these neighborhoods, even near the stations) or just tough it out on CTA the whole way, since they're not the kind of people who can afford Loop parking anyway. I think they're already pretty well priced out of downtown garages.

I'm glad you're not as hostile to empiricism as implied by your initial statement.

But no one's twisting your argument, honte. It is what it is. You and a few others think "street" safety is a legitimate reason not to penalize those who choose cars over trains. I countered by saying this is not a valid reason to take a penalty off the table because driving carries with it its own set of safety issues.

This idea, which you weren't the first to put forward, that we're somehow denying people of their "right" or choice to drive is a straw man. No one is saying that. What we are saying is that the government has endorsed one mode of transportation (the automobile) at the expense of another (mass transit) and at the expense of the environment and of people's health and, more obliquely, national security and the built environment, and it's time those who choose the former start to shoulder their fair share of the cost.

Unless you advocate charging people different rates based on the degree of danger in the neighborhoods from which they commute, we are talking about the mean community.

Are you sure? That's not what I said. My reaction was to your very broadly stated argument that dangerous neighborhoods are a non-issue, followed by the concept that the sidewalk is always safer than the car.

To the rest of your above post, I find fairly little objectionable.

It is interesting to read posts from both sides of this issue, there are valid points on both. I personally think that we should not penalize drivers trying to get to the loop, but that's my opinion.

It seems to me that we have discussed hard evidence on the pros and cons here, but as honte has pointed out, there are also psychological reasons for wanting to drive. I think the "quality" of the commute should also be factored in. When I drive to the loop, I never have to smell someone else's urine that has dried on the floor of the car. I never have to listen to someone else screaming in their cell phone about personaly issues that probably shouldn't be discussed in public. I never have to push a drunken homeless person off my shoulder because they are wasted and falling asleep.

It also seems to me that the majority of people that are effected by the congestion of too many drivers at peak times, are simply other drivers. So lets let them vote on it. I think you would find that while they can be annoyed with the congestion, they are not so annoyed as to start charging themselves more. If the congestion is a problem for the CTA buses, then perhaps the CTA should go back and start looking at better rail alternatives to decrease the bus ridership.

I go back to my original point, before you decide to tax people for driving, look at your own transportation system and fix it first.

..

I'd say this is about as pathetic a post as I've seen. The excuses you cite are petty. If you feel that you're too good to deal with other people, then by all means drive, and pay more for it. After all, with that elitist attitude, you can afford it.

And FYI, I've never had a homeless person fall asleep on my shoulder. And the urine and loud talking exist everywhere. They aren't limited to public transit.

Merry Christmas, outer suburbs! You deserve all the stress you're about to receive in the form of increased congestion. Maybe you'll realize that you are part of the country's THIRD-largest city and the freight-rail capital of the world. Maybe this will finally break your illusions about a pastoral fairy-tale world, and start helping to solve problems on a regional scale instead of pursuing petty self-interests. Or maybe not. I feel justified in saying this since I am from Barrington, and I have seen small-minded squabbling time and again whenever there is any sort of change.

Decreased congestion in the city is always good, but the one upside I can see to this debacle is that Barrington was able to form a broad coalition of suburbs with a very wide range of race and income level to try to address a regional problem. I disagree with their goals, of course, but I really hope some sort of regional planning can come out of this, along with a resolve to reduce congestion through road and transit improvements such as widened roadways, bypasses, grade separations, and the STAR Line.

Maybe his excuses are petty, but he makes a point. If we are going to penalize people for driving then we should have a top notch public transportation system in place. Urine and loud noise don't exist in your Toyota unless you have the radio cranked up.

If you think people wanting to drive downtown and not pay a fee is some form of elitism, you need to get your head out of the water. Let me introduce to a few REAL elitists. (Not that I like elitists)

People already pay a fee in parking downtown.

I see a fee as potentially harming tourism, business, etc. I don't think the government has endorsed automobiles. Automobiles a re private investment, repairs to the infrastructure they run on is largely paid by taxes earned from gas sales to run the machines. Mass transit is much more subsidized by the government, and will always have to be. It's the nature of the beast.

BTW, I prefer mass transit.

The STAR Line? I sure as heck hope not. Talk about a waste of money and resources! It's so pathetic an idea, there aren't even ridership figures projected for it yet! It's unneeded and a horrid waste of resources.

Oh please...don't even pretend to say that urine and loud noises are any more frequent on trains than they are on the street. I suppose he refuses to walk on the sidewalk for fear of smelling a sewer vent too.

There is no question that mass transit could be better. For that to occur though, there must be funding for it.

Great news on the CN purchase.

So Chicago continues to be America's freight capital. With this and CREATE, I think you guys are in good shape for the long haul

^ Sounds like great news to me, too, but do you have any idea where they get the $60 million figure from and what kind of jobs CN predicts will be created?

The line running down the median of the Jane Addams Tollway from O'Hare to Prairie Stone isn't wasteful at all. It would provide a rail transit link between downtown and Woodfield, allowing city dwellers to access the lower prices and chain stores of the mall and its surrounding areas without a car. Reverse-commuters would also benefit from the rail access to all the office parks, including SBC, Motorola, and Prairie Stone. Events at the Sears Center will be accessible by rail.

When Airport Express is eventually built in the city, there will be a good set of express tracks along the Blue Line that could speed these STAR Line trains all the way downtown - which is why some smart people are needed at Metra to purchase vehicles compatible with CTA's system.

You need to see the big picture with things like this. Even the portion of the line running along the EJ&E wouldn't be a waste of resources if they do it in a low-cost way. DMUs can provide inexpensive, fuel-efficient trains, and Metra can use large bus shelters instead of stationhouses. If it is successful, then more permanent stations can be built.

The problem with the Tollway corridor is that none of the destinations are close enough to any conceivable track routing for users to feel the train offers a useful option. Suburban office parks are just too difficult to retrofit for people to arrive at a single rail stop. If you have a patchwork of shuttle buses, the system is utterly incomprehensible to casual or first-time users and users must endure a three- or four-seat ride just to have the privilege of being on a rail vehicle for a short part of their journeys. Much better, in my opinion, to set up an Ottawa-style busway in tollway HOT lanes. Buses originating in various Northwest Side corridors would make stops to interchange passengers before leaving the tollway to directly serve destinations such as Prairie Stone or Woodfield.

http://www.chicagocarto.com/NWC.gif

Nice map. I know Rail Claimore and I have discussed something similar... probably the most viable option from a cost/operations standpoint (with a comparable network extending from the Forest Park blue line terminal westward along the I-88 corridor).

I think the I-90 corridor definitely needs dramatic transit improvements, but I'm not convinced the STAR line would serve those needs without immediate and drastic changes in land use guidelines around station locations. Rail service of any sort (rapid, light, commuter) generally needs at least one major high-density traffic generator with difficult/expensive/constrained parking along its route to support ridership. The STAR line lacks this. This could be ameliorated if the proposal were reworked to send STAR line trains downtown to Union station from the get-go, so it's basically just another radial line with semi-decent reverse commute capabilities. But with the line terminating in Rosemont, it lacks such a traffic generator and thus lacks a reason for existence as a rail facility.

As I said, Airport Express tracks would allow this thing to run express from O'Hare (or Rosemont) to Block 37. Otherwise, it could potentially use the routing of the North Central Service to access Union Station.

The broad support of this proposal among northwest-suburban city governments makes me think that land-use changes would accompany this rail line. A few years ago, when it seemed like the STAR Line was imminent, they published plans for TOD along the line.

Here is just one of the proposed villages (Centex Meadows Pointe), at the NW corner of 90 and 53. Across 90, a dense business district was proposed and two of the buildings were even built. Schaumburg would thus become the closest thing in the Chicago area to one of DC's satellite centers. A large parcel exists in Hoffman Estates called Sutton Crossing that was also slated to become a transit-oriented office complex. As-of-yet, it has not been developed.

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/2...spointeln2.jpg

..

Sorry, I find the STAR line to have too many negatives. I see it as awkward attempt to retrofit past mistakes and place mass transit long AFTER the auto centered development and infrastructure rules undisputed. Trying to serve these dispersed office parks and car oriented retail with rail isn't a natural partner for rail or for the developments that were 100%built in according with the auto. You can't put lipstick on pig and those office parks and malls along the Jane Addams are car oriented and will still will be many hundreds of feet if not many blocks away from the primary destination and pedestrian will be asked to walk through many feet of overpass bridges and parking lots in order to get to them.

The Jane Addams portion makes more sense in that there is a lot of activity along the corridor already however that is by far the more expensive segment of the line. The EJ&E segment would be far cheaper but that doesn't have any appreciable retail or residential districts along the corridor and I haven't heard of any towns along it interested in say building new downtown TOD's type districts along the EJ&J. Nor have I heard any serious proposals to build density around other Metra lines with which the EJ&J intersects intersect and which the STAR lines advocates promotes the connectivity with those lines as one of its strenghts. If anything I think that both would best be served by BRT lines to carry dispersed rider ship more efficiently throughout the outer metro. Part of the STARS attraction though is that the EJ&E line would cost almost nothing to build but if you have to build a new busway then that plus is out the window.


I also have serious skepticism that a seamless sensible transfer that could be built around O'Hare to connect with the Blue Line with a Star that a good amount of people would make use for daily or regular commutes. A proper efficient transfer facility or even one that could use both METRA and CTA infrastructure to make it a seamless line would cost much more then the quoted figures and fall under a many multi-billion MEGA project label and I fail to see the payoff in it compared to countless other theoretical mega projects that could be conjured up to improve transit for the most benefit elsewhere in the metro. I just have a hard time thinking that any efficent route or station connection involving the Blue Line or its airport express tracks as not very unlikely. If there was a rail option I would think that a new seamless rail feed from the Jane Addams into the Metra NCS just north of the O'Hare Metra station though that short infrastructure connection I imagine would be cumbersome. I wonder if there are really enough reverse commuters with easy access to the NCS linked line in the city to those I-90 destinations to warrent it.


edit: Just saw the Schaumburg rendering. I think Schaumburg should focus on zoning around the Metra station they already have and is massively underutilized in regard to TOD. Perhaps they could even grow a semblance of a real downtown out proposals to build TOD adjacent to two autocentric expressways.

What kind of equipment could run in the EJE corridor (where FRA buff strength requirements must be met), run for miles along a new corridor at high speeds, and then switch to 600VDC and squeeze through the Kimball tunnel or around the corner at Lake/Dearborn?

I was thinking that the EJ&E corridor and the Tollway corridor could be operated with separate vehicles; fuel-efficient diesel multiple units along the EJ&E and some sort of CTA-compatible junior heavy rail along the Tollway. A transfer would be put in place at Prairie Stone.

From what I understand, the Airport Express would use new third-rail tracks between downtown and Jefferson Park built along the UP-NW line. From Jefferson Park to O'Hare, a set of express tracks would be built along the Blue Line.

I've actually been thinking about this on a regional scale - that is, creating a third rail system like the Paris RER or the German S-Bahn that mediates between the huge regional scale of Metra and the central-city scale of the L. The Forest Park branch of the Blue Line has space for express tracks along most of its length; this would dovetail with the planning efforts to extend the Blue Line out to Lombard. This could be operated as a direct-to-downtown service after Forest Park if the express tracks were built. Of course, the Chicago region already HAD such a system in the interurban railways a century ago - surely the vastly-increased population densities in the suburbs today justify the return of this concept on some level.

On the South Side, Metra Electric already operates a service similar to this.

First I've ever heard of that idea. Airport Express was to use new signaling and passing sidings along the existing Blue Line tracks.

I agree that Chicago would be well-served by a regional rail system, but we already have the basis for one, same as Philadelphia, München, Paris, Melbourne, Perth, etc. Just connect our existing suburb-to-city lines. I've always thought we missed a great opportunity to let the radial commuter lines do their own downtown distribution. Here's Bion J. Arnold's scheme for through-routing steam road commuter service. It still makes a lot of sense to me:

http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/7...hrouteslg7.gif
Hooker, George Ellsworth. Through Routes for Chicago's Steam Railroads. City Club of Chicago, 1914

1. IC to C&NW North Line via a new subway under St. Clair and Ohio
2. Rock Island, NYC, and C&WI to C&NW Northwest Line via a new subway under LaSalle and Ohio
3. Alton, Wabash, and Pennsy to Milwaukee Road lines via Union Station
4. Burlington to C&NW West Line via Union Station

Though I'd probably put the new subway under Chicago rather than Ohio, I still think that would be a useful and farsighted way for us to spend a billion dollars. Arnold took a lot of trouble to avoid crossing lines, which might not today be so essential. It might make sense to reconsider his threading, so that the Burlington, for instance, would link to the C&NW North Line rather than doubling back west. Or, since every line basically goes through a throat near Kinzie/Desplaines, a big transfer station there would allow any possible transfer. Of course, my first move would be to put all the Metra lines on half-hour non-rush headways, so the system could work as true regional rail rather than commuter rail.

The publication from which that was taken is fully available online and makes a very interesting read. Better put together and thought out than much of more recent publications out of the RTA.


You can read it here.

^^ It's interesting that, back in 1914, the railway terminals were regarded as psychological barriers to development and pedestrian traffic, similar to how to now regard the interstate highways carved through our cities. Of course, today, we now hold the old stations in high esteem, and development is flooding past those barriers that seemed so objectionable to previous generations. Nil sub sole novum.

Probably because of all the soot from the steam locomotives.

What makes you think that? Is there something about that in the book that I've forgotten?

In 1914 the railway terminals had all sorts of affiliated uses for LCL freight handling, locomotive servicing, and passenger coach storage that required big land areas. Those were removed or bridged over in subsequent years. Look at how much land (blue) was occupied by railroad facilities in those days:

http://www.chicagocarto.com/burnham/...lroads1930.jpg

It wasn't so much the stations per se that the report objected to, but what was necessary for them and also that there were too few of them.

There are fewer stations today than there were then. And where development near stations is strongest, the yards are either elevated (Northwestern) or have been torn up (Dearborn Station, plus the yards that Lakeshore East have replaced) or have been decked over (Union Station, and the yards Millenium Park are over).

But we could further reduce the impact if we through-routed routes. Not to mention that through-routing them would reduce the need for some bus routes, and for "L" or subway expansion. It would also make shorter headways during off hours easier and more cost-efficient. It would be really nice to have metra through-routed, because it would better integrate it with the rest of the system and make it easier for people from all over the region to commute to all over downtown. If you live in Evanston right now, and work in Streeterville, 90% of the people are going to drive. If they could take Metra to Watertower, I bet a lot more would ride. That was a big part of the report - reducing vehicle traffic into the central core, even before the vast majority of people owned a car. The author recognized that for people who didn't work near a terminal, they were more likely to drive. By through-routing, you increased the 1-seat options for people, with additional downtown "Metra" stations opening up non-driving options for people living outside of the central city.

That need still exists - in fact, it exists more today than it did then. Evanston to Streeterville, Oak Park to Roosevelt and Canal, Beverly to River North, Arlington Heights to Chinatown. All these would be useful and add tremendous value to Metra, and probably more than justify increased off-hours service. Hopefully even increase rush-hour frequencies.

Also, one of the objections in the report was that to get from the station entrance to the tracks for most of the stations took the better part of 1,000 feet of walking that was unavoidable. Better-integrated through-stations would probably decrease this, further increasing the attractiveness of Metra for commuting.

First of all if you have read any of my previous posts, you'll realize that I don't drive and that I do in fact take the train almost every day. Second, you might think my points are weak, that is fine, but they are just illistrations of what some people consider unacceptable issues. Again, my point is that before the gov. starts penalizing drivers, they need to have a world class public transit system. Chicago does not.

^ I don't know about terminals, but just the other day I was reading that rail lines laid out in the middle of dense urban cities in the late 19th/early 20th century were seen as a barrier and separated once unified neighborhoods into "desirable" and "poorer" ones.

Sounds exactly like the expressway story half a century later..

In fact, it's the same story. Many urban expressways ran alongside rail lines, reinforcing separations that already existed. This is particularly notable in Chicago, where only the Edens and part of the Eisenhower didn't follow that pattern.

The report specifically cites the elevated platforms of Northwestern Station (now Ogilvie) and LaSalle Street Station as being nasty, unpleasant spaces to pass beneath, discouraging any sort of through traffic and confining the density of the Loop.

In history, there has generally been a backlash by the upper-crust against the aesthetics of works of infrastructure, and only later do they come to be regarded as beautiful. The Romans considered their own aqueducts to be ugly, functional design. People of the early 1900s considered their rail overpasses, transit lines, factories and warehouses to also be ugly and merely functional. Today, we revere these things where they have been well-preserved. The next generation, or the one after that, will come to appreciate the aesthetics of stack interchanges and LA's concrete riverbeds.

I already love stack interchanges!

What book are you referring to, by the way?

The book referred to is Hooker, George Ellsworth.
Through Routes for Chicago's Steam Railroads. City Club of Chicago, 1914

I'm also a fan of stack interchanges, at least as done in California and, to some degree, Texas. Do you know the book LA Freeway: An Appreciative Essay, by David Brodsly?

California's climate allows soaring box girders, but most of the interchanges in the Chicago area are really lame. For the 355/88 interchange, the Tollway Authority managed to combine the worst features of box girder and segmented construction, and then hung ugly drainpipes on it to make it even worse.

How, then, has Milwaukee produced a soaring, Houston-style interchange at the Marquette if the northern climate doesn't allow it?

I've always been a fan of the 355/88 interchange. Where else in the US do you have two highways running so close side by side that you can crop a picture properly and make it look like England, with left-hand drive?

I expect the replacement for the 90/290/IL-53 interchange in Schaumburg to be a stack, although it's kind of mired in the Blago scandal right now, along with the 294/57 interchange and the Green Lanes.

As I understand it, the reason WisDOT had to demolish the Marquette interchange and start over was that it was built as a California-style box girder design. Once the top surface deteriorated from salt, there was no way to resurface it.

So the past three days that I've taken the Brown Line to work after they resumed full service - there have been horrible back-ups from just before Chicago all the way into the loop.

I'd forgotten how much I use to hate those when they ran more trains. Between the past 3 days I've had to sit and wait for between 7 and 15 minutes. Monday was the worst, and our conductor said they'd had out tardy notes if anyone wanted one.

Downtown, thanks for the book info.

On the backups on the L, I'm not surprised. Prior to construction there used to be big backups northbound from Willow Curve to Clark Jct. on the Brown every afternoon as well. I wish the CTA would figure out how to build a flyover at Clark Jct. It looks physically feasible to me, albeit probably expensive.

Maybe it's just the hangover, but that's really funny to me right now.

Here is an interesting one. Apparently under the federal port authority the mayor created to keep the suburban republicans from seizing O'Hare, Gary, Indiana has to vote to allow Chicago to privatize Midway. Looks like a potential cash raising opportunity for them.

http://www.indianaeconomicdigest.net...rticleID=45130
Gary City Council to vote on Midway Airport privatization

(Merrillville) Post-Tribune
By Erik Potter, Post-Tribune staff writer
epotter@post-trib.com

The fate of Chicago's privatization plans for Chicago Midway Airport will rest in the hands of the Gary Common Council on Tuesday.

Gary is being asked to approve an amendment to its 1995 compact with Chicago establishing a coordinated operation of the region's air service.

Under the compact, both cities must give their approval before any major changes can be made to the Chicago or Gary airports.

Privatizing Midway would be an example of one of those major changes.

FALSE. Nationwide, all vehicle taxes and tolls account for about 55 percent of all costs associated with road construction and maintenance. The percentage has been falling for years because so much needs to be rebuilt, and the federal highway trust fund, which the gas, tire and oil taxes are pooled into, will be in deficit by 2012. The trust fund, established in the Eisenhower era was only intended to be a temporary source of funds, but a more permanent source has never been established; just small incremental increases in the taxes over time. We can no longer afford to maintain the national highway system that we have, let alone afford upgrades and extensions to it. While the federal and state government often pay for new construction or reconstruction costs, operational maintenance must come from local tax sources, this includes snow removal, street lighting maintenance and electric bills, accident cleanup, pot hole filling and damage compensation and so forth. The state match on federal funds can come from a verity of sources, and is never exclusive to just fuel taxes. In fact, the vastly needed new capitol spending bill will come from a statewide tax increase of some kind, which will effect everyone whether or not they drive themselves. Further, private businesses must shoulder the costs of required providing off-street parking in auto-centric environments.

Sorry, but car ownership is heavily subsidized on many levels. Its really welfare on wheels. Yes, an infrastructure system largely for private vehicles has been a booster for economic activity in the past; but the drivers in such a system need to pay a bigger share, especially as material and labor costs for such a system have grown exponentially in recent years.

What is your source for that statistic?

Some accountings, which count things like sales taxes on autos, find that motorists pay more than 100 percent of direct costs attributable to auto use.

I usually just use the figures compiled in Table HF-10 of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics' Highway Statistics 2004. This is a summary of highway receipts and disbursements--for all highways and local streets--which balanced out at $143,807 million each in 2003. It's true that $35,967 million of the receipts shown are from non-user general revenues, but motorists in turn sent at least $79,860 million of user fees the other direction, to non-highway and mass transit uses.

The big gap is the cost of ordinary local streets, which were once paid for entirely by non-motorists. Because freeways, and arterial streets that have been widened and improved for auto use, carry so much traffic, I think it's fair to say that those roads are entirely paid for (plus some) by the fuel taxes they generate.

Local streets are primarily about access anyway, not cars. They can't be eliminated in any likely scenario - unless you want to abandon things like, let's see, fire and ambulance services.

This is a real problem. I’ve noticed it from Sedgwick to the Loop. Timing my ride this morning from Fullerton to Clark/Lake was 26 minutes on the Purple Line, a full 6 minutes slower than my typical ride during 3 three track operation from Belmont to Washington/Wells.

I presume part of it is that they are running more trains, which I don’t see the need for. Another issue has got to be the switching Lake and Wells. The CTA ought to be giving first priority to Loop-bound Brown/Purple line trains over Green/Pink line trains.