I typed into google CTA BRT and it took me straight to CTA's webpage.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Pilot Program

In 2009, the Chicago Department of Transportation and the Chicago Transit Authority will begin a pilot program to test Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service.

BRT refers to a collection of improvements to infrastructure, vehicles and scheduling, that combine to provide bus service with reduced travel times, increased service predictability, and improved customer amenities compared to local bus service.

BRT will operate along certain high ridership corridors across the city that are not currently served by rail. BRT will connect key destination points such as employment centers, shopping destinations, rail stations, and significant CTA transfer points. The BRT Pilot Program is designed to examine and test BRT technologies and services to determine the best way to implement Bus Rapid Transit service in the CTA service area.

public meetings were held in September, the program starts in 2009.

Oh, that's fine then. I have no problem paying $1/hr for the privilage of driving to the Musicbox when driving is the best option. That's a fair rate.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thaught the Feds money for the BRT piolt program was tied to the city privitizing the meters and having congestin priceing on them as well. It seems to me this is a step in securing the the federal funds.

CTA announced that the Purple Line will resume it's previous clock-wise route around the Loop starting December 29th.

I was just wondering about this!! Thank god the 4 tracks will be open by the end of the month. The 10 minute Sheridan to Belmont is a killer...

Although I'm also pissed at the lack of expansion, I think there's a fundamental disgust for this kind of planning at CTA since Kruesi pushed the Circle Line and the Red-Orange-Yellow extensions while neglecting basic maintenance. Almost all of the plans under Ron Huberman have been improvements to existing transit service - slow zone fixes, new railcars, new buses, Bus Tracker, LCD screens at L stations, bike storage, etc.

Perhaps we'll see more of this in the future, but for the time being, I doubt it. People are still fundamentally disappointed with much of the CTA, which seems incredibly ridiculous after having lived in a city where even bus transit service is an afterthought. However, almost every major city in the country is beginning or in the midst of major transit expansions. NYC has the Second Ave Subway and East Side Access, LA has new light-rail lines and extensions to existing ones, plus planning for much more, SF has the Central Subway, the Caltrain tunnel, and San Jose BART, and even Houston of all places is getting serious about a dense and useful light-rail network.

^ It's annoying, but the news that the BRT program indeed is going forward (my bad, thanks for correcting me guys..) certainly makes one feel better. I visited the CTA website and reviewed the plans for every planned BRT corridor as well as reading the answers the CTA provided for questions about the system (these answers were just released 5 days ago, btw).

If successful and coupled with good land use planning (a point made by the AIA in one of the questions to the CTA), this system could certainly improve the transit situation. I like how Halsted and Chicago Ave's corridors have long distances of BRT-only lanes in the densest areas. Halsted in particular will have its own ROW from the Orange Line stop at Cermak to the south to another L stop on North Ave to the north, serving the entire University Village/UIC/Greektown/Near West & Northwest area.

My only criticism is that there appear to be too many stops. Obviously the CTA knows better than some shmoe like me, but when looking at the routes I felt as if half of those stops could easily be done away with. BRT should be about getting people from point A to point B quickly, after all.

^ On another note (regarding BRT), if I were a driver I would get to know that BRT schedule and route really well. Imagine just driving alongside one of these buses, benefiting from all the lights turning green as you approach :haha:

Halsted is one lane in each direction for a whole lot of that distance. It will be very interesting to see how they manage this--are they going to just ban parking along that entire stretch of Halsted during rush hours to create a dedicated lane? Sounds like the kind of thing that will drive certain Chicagoans into a frenzy. Certainly looking forward to it though.

Yeah, some people with be apoplectic. There would be no parking on one or more side of the streets during rush hour - I imagine that, through the core sections with lots of bi-directional traffic flow (e.g. between about Roosevelt and Grand) the parking restriction would be both directions in both rush hours.

Some businesses will have a fully valid concern regarding these restrictions: the evening rush may coincide with customers dropping off their cars for valet service for dinner. I'm not sure exactly what will happen, but it won't be pretty: will the city crack down on Greektown (those restaurants are sure to go bananas), give in completely and negate the program, etc? Ideally there will be a compromise and the parking restrictions are only enforced to the extent needed - e.g. only from 4:30-6pm at the latest.

I'm not a huge fan of this proposed style of BRT - the streets where bus enhancements are needed due to gridlock (narrow streets, lots of parallel parking, pedestrian traffic, etc.) are exactly the type of streets you don't want to have 60ft behemoth buses blowing by at 30mph just inches from the sidewalk. Talk about a detriment to pedestrian-oriented retail...

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for bus service improvements and application of techniques to speed up the process (particularly pre-paid boarding, signal priority, and queue-jump at intersections), but I'm definitely apprehensive about the potential impact on retail of being overly inhospitable to passengers arriving by car - taxis and valet parking included. The response, of course, is that the restrictions are only limited to those hours of peak street congestion and peak transit commuter volume, and nothing more. But so far, such precise details haven't been released in the public operating plans.

But what about, say, mid-day on Saturdays? Traffic is pretty bad (and buses are pretty slow) then too. I think it speaks to the fact that BRT is really only a consistently effective solution (and effective, indeed) when it runs in the median of a wider arterial: Western and Ashland Avenues would be great candidates for a proper BRT service. Unfortunately, streets like Halsted in Greektown and Lincoln Park are exactly the streets that New Urbanists would like to slow down traffic on and induce congestion, as this is part the composition of a bustling pedestrian retail street.

^ Wow, Viva. In regards to transit discussions I hold your opinions with the highest regard, yet even I'm surprised as this is the first time I've ever heard you show concern about the inconvenience of a transit project on drivers ;)

Yes, my thoughts exactly. I wonder if it's time for Chicago to consider doing what a number of cities did ages ago, which is to convert a few sleepy residential streets into small arterials. I know this rather destroys the existing character in favor of a new one, but it can work out well in the end. I just don't see proposals like the existing BRT working well - too much crammed into too small an area and a lot at stake.

The other question is if the city will ever consider the abandoned or underutilized air lines around the city for BRT... it kills me to see infrastructure like this reduced instead of reused, which I have noted many times in the last 10 years. I know it's costly, but those dedicated ROWs are too tempting to ignore, and could do a lot to break up the rigid grid that is sometimes very inefficient in getting from A to B, not to mention convenient access to many existing Metra stations. I could see a clever BRT network making a lot of use of those to become much more productive. :shrug:

^ But guys, we are talking about rush hour only here, and that's the key to remember. For the vast majority of the time, the chosen streets will maintain their usual character.

What you're talking about here is sacrificing street parking/vehicle accessibility to some streetfront commercial districts a few hours every day to theoretically improve citywide transit access to centers of employment (with the exception of 79th st).

The problem with turning residential districts into transit arterials is what I expect would by overwhelming NIMBYism. And the problem with converting existing ROW into BRT is even more devious--it makes too much sense, and we all know that elected officials would never want that on their record.. :rolleyes:

^ Yes, understood.

But seriously, has there ever been a serious investigation into using the Metra / RR air lines for BRT, bike and jogging paths, any kind of alternate transportation mode? If not, is this due to complications in gaining permission to use them from the railroads or MTA, perceived dangers, sheer cost, or what? It seems so obvious - you have to be blind while driving through Chicago not to notice all of the overhead infrastructure.

Even if Daley doesn't give a crap about transit, he could be lured into this simply by showing him how much nicer the city would look if these overhead viaducts were spruced up - and, bonus, partly with federal money.

^Well, the Bloomingdale viaduct conversion from freight rail to a bicycle trail has been talked about seriously for years now. Another vacant rail line up north through Sauganash has also been targeted for a bicycle path (I think it might be open now). I know of another plan in study right now using existing rail ROW (sharing it) for other transportation use (I can't comment on that any further though).


All honesty, I don't believe the BRT plan is the greatest, however this is free money that was NYC's loss from turning down congestion pricing. If successful, I believe it would spread to other artierials like Roosevelt, Ashland and Western, as Viva mentioned, which make a lot more sense for BRT. Nonetheless, I do believe this plan will really help on the Halsted and Chicago routes, which are gridlocked during rush periods. The Chicago bus can literally take 25 minutes to go from Milwaukee/Ogden/Chicago to Michigan/Chicago, which is only 1.75 miles.

:hmmm: Hmm, interesting....

Daley wants road money in his hands, not gov's
By: Paul Merrion Dec. 06, 2008
Mayor Richard M. Daley is lobbying to keep Gov. Rod Blagojevich's mitts off several hundred million dollars Chicago is poised to get through a proposed economic stimulus package under debate in Congress.
Historically, almost two-thirds of federal road funds go to metro areas, where locals decide how to spend them. But Mr. Daley and other U.S. mayors and local officials are worried that Congress will shift highway project decisions to the states in an attempt to simplify the process and create jobs more quickly.

Daley might just walk over to the Office of the President-Elect to make the request in person!

Latest 5000 Series L car from CTA .pdf
 

Not sure how real or accurate this rendering is. I find the fancy paint job a bit ridiculous. The front end is looking good though.

http://forum.chicagobus.org/index.ph...ndpost&p=16129

Exactly, if there some lots or open parcels that city can convert into parking during rush hours that will quiet the concerns and becomes a peace making olive branch to potential NIMBY's.

What I would love for the city to do is to pass, in one fell swoop, a TOD Act which specifically upzones land in a 200' radius around EVERY L stop in the city (outside of downtown) to a designated T zoning. That T zoning can be defined as x number of stories, x number of units, x amount of parking per unit, etc (landmarked buildings continue to keep their protection, however)

The beauty of creating this Zoning designation in one fell swoop is that it prevents NIMBY's from blaming their individual Alderman for supporting an individual zoning change, as it is really a citywide Act. If Daley had a bit of vision and balls, I'm sure he would have the clout to hammer something like this through given all that I've read about this man in the past several years.

Example of T zoning (simplified, but you get the idea):

1.Building of up to 20 stories allowed
2.Not more than 1 parking spot per housing unit
3.Buildings on the very edges of T zones are zoned T2, and are not to exceed 10 stories
4.Buildings can be residential, commercial, hotel, or mixed

That's a great idea. One other add-on because that is something some of the Transit advocates are brainstorming to draft up here is with that TOD zone differentiate between a station of one line to one station where two lines intersect each other.

For example in Chicago if they ever do a Western Avenue Elevated corridor (or utilize the railroad ROW that is usually a block or two from Western), the stations in which they intersect with this line would be eligible for an even higher density because there is a greater transit demographic on two lines compared to only one line.

^ That's a good amendment. I'd also add that T zoning should be legally designated as permanent once implemented--it cannot be changed by any Aldermanic act.

So it's official: Chicago needs to pass the 2009 Chicago TOD Act. Everybody call/write your Alderman and the Mayor! ;)

Seriously, though, do people here have thoughts about this plan? Does it have merit/pitfalls? I'm just curious..

The only pitfall I would see is intense pressure on the existing buildings in those districts... hence requiring much closer scrutiny by Landmarks / DPD. It's very difficult to police things like this once you make the dollar potential of certain properties so high. Unfortunately, a lot of our best building stock for obvious reasons clustered around elevated stations. It would just need a lot of coordination and careful planning to be successful and not backfire by losing important, but unofficial neighborhood landmarks.

You also run into the funny situation of people possibly opposing a new elevated station due to the zoning potential. Could you imagine that? :doh:

^ But is that such a bad thing? Actually, if a neighborhood is going to ask for an expensive transit station, it should be expected to generate enough ridership to justify its existence.

In regards to the rest of your comments about historic non-landmarked buildings, I'd like to think that it is actually buildings other than these that can be replaced with highrises. For example, historic commercial buildings lining a thoroughfare adjacent to a subway stop can be landmarked, but all the other buildings on side streets within 200' of the station (currently occupied with useless single family homes, townhouses, etc) receive T Zoning designation and developers automatically have the right to build denser projects to replace them. Imagine a scenario where historic commercial buildings immediately surround an L stop, yet with highrises poking out behind them--is that so bad?

Obviously, some intersections which are heavily surrounded by landmarked buildings may not see a lot of change, but I don't think this is a problem since most landmarked districts are prewar and thus pretty pedestrian-friendly with minimal off-street parking, hence already doing their jobs in promoting transit use.

The proposed 2009 Chicago TOD Act exists mostly to promote higher densities in areas where land is heavily underutilized at this point in time. For example, even though the Belmont Stop along the Brown Line is surrounded by only 3-4 story buildings, I frankly don't believe that correcting this particular vibrant district is really what the Act would be for in spirit.

I think a Chicago TOD zoning amendment is the best route to go, since as you say it would be citywide and thus the responsibility would be diffuse enough that aldermen might go along with it.

Rather than create an entire new classification allowing highrises etc., however, I would simply build in variances to the existing zoning districts (don't get me wrong, I'd love Toronto-style highrises clustered around each stop, but I'm thinking pragmatically here). So, it would be like the 25% reduction in parking ratio within 600 ft of transit stops that currently exists, except with several other additional built-in variances:

1. Less lot area required per dwelling unit: increase the number of units that can be built on a lot, while maintaining the same overall Floor Area Ratio / bulk of the district. Thus, rather than a 3-flat "condo on steroids" with the duplexed first floor unit in R4 districts, maybe one could actually build a straight-up 4 flat, or even a 6-flat with front and rear units. The reduced parking ratio requirement would further make this feasible. Maybe switch back to the old regulation of 1 off-street space per unit for 1 bedroom and above, and 0 spaces per unit for studios.

2. Less required open space, particularly allowing the elimination of rear setbacks. Ensures that the full buildable square footage allowed by the zoning districts FAR is indeed buildable, and not restricted by the setback/open space requirements.

3. Increased allowable percentage of efficiency/studio units...most districts currently allow a maximum of only around 20%, I think.

These are just a few ideas.

As you say, some lower-scale districts (Belmont/Sheffield) are nonetheless bustling and dense enough to support rail transit. Let's allow areas like that to be built, again, around transit stations. We can keep the height limits, so new construction has that traditional Chicago neighborhood scale.... but we kick the unit density up a notch or two. Higher unit density = more boots on the street supporting retail, more commuters using transit, and so on.

In an ideal world, I would pair all of the above with a substantial revision of the overall zoning map to remove much of the excess commercial zoning throughout the city, instead concentrating such zoning around transit stations, at least in those neighborhoods where applicable.

Of course not, it sounds excellent. My point is simply that this would require a planning process with a lot of sensitivity, and there's not a whole lot of that when it comes to planning in this city.

Similarly, it's hard to argue to an owner that his non-landmarked building is now somehow important to the neighborhood and therefore he's going to miss out on the 20-story bonanza that's enriching all of his neighbors. The official landmarking therefore generally has to be in place for quite some time before the upzoning takes place. I suppose you could allow all of these people to do facadectomies, but I doubt we really want to see that all around us. Also worth considering is that many of these districts in fact do not have insignificant buildings on the side streets either - meaning that in some areas it would be hard to work at all. A lot of the Red Line probably could qualify in the above statement.

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that any blanket action like you're proposing will always have inevitable drawbacks. I still think something like yours is a good idea, because the vast majority of the areas surrounding Chicago's Elevated stations (Orange, Green, some Blue, South Side Red) probably would seriously benefit from your proposal. The key word, as always, is sensitivity. The inner Blue, most of the Brown, a lot of the Pink, and North Side Red would present a lot of problems though.

Perhaps the simplest thing would be just to say that any existing vacant lot or strip mall within x feet of the train station would automatically be zoned for, let's get crazy, 350 feet of building. Otherwise-improved parcels would be potential candidates, requiring historic resources review and closer scrutiny - but then again, this leaves the door ajar for NIMBY intervention. See the issues? It's a kind of take-it-or-leave-it situation, which is probably why something like this hasn't been done yet.

There's definitely a tradeoff here. The historic buildings have had their density reduced and unit size increased because they're more profitable that way, but that also means that those buildings no longer provide the critical density to support the adjacent transit service.

Clearly, the market has shown that homebuyers/renters, at least in Chicago, want larger units instead of the shoeboxes that their Manhattan counterparts occupy.

If the historic building stock can no longer provide the required density, then there are three courses of action the city can take.
1) Leave the neighborhood as it is.
-This is wasteful of energy and transit funding.
2) Legislate the buildings to subdivide and increase their density.
-This will increase the supply of units and reduce their demand, leaving many units unfilled.
3) Replace the historic buildings with new, taller ones that can accommodate the proper densities in the larger units that the market demands.
-This will result in the loss of historic buildings.

Now, I personally think that there is a shortage of low-cost, small studio units, and the larger units with their larger pricetag keeps buyers out of the neighborhood. The key is a balance between the two. How about this: exempting buildings with an Orange rating or higher from T zoning. You may argue that the insignificant buildings in a neighborhood nevertheless establish neighborhood character, but if history has shown us anything, it's that neighborhood character almost always has to be sacrificed for density increases. It's why Lake Shore Drive is no longer lined with mansions and instead forms the dense spine that holds the North Side together. It's also why Streeterville is no longer full of warehouses and instead with dense condo towers that have their own unique character. It's the attempted preservation of these historic buildings, and the requirement that new buildings fit in with them, that has held West Loop and, to a lesser extent, South Loop, back from their wholesale densification.

At the same time, other city incentives would be put in place to ensure that the historic buildings do not deteriorate and suffer from their loss of relative property value. Tax credits to people who renovate the Orange-rated properties could be created from the surplus tax revenue of the residents of the dense buildings.

By the way, is this a serious proposal? If so, maybe we should put CBP behind it. Getting the interest of planning groups like CMAP could also help.

I was heartened when I found out the other day that a modified version of the CTA Gray Line proposal, redubbed the "Gold Line", was pitched to Ald. Toni Preckwinkle, and it now enjoys her support. While the City Council has little control over the CTA, they would be the place to pitch such a TOD Zoning Act. The first step is finding a sympathetic ear on the Council - the first name that comes to mind is Manny Flores, who seems to be supporting exactly this concept in his 1st Ward, he is willing to stand up for it, even though his constituents are not in favor.

^ ardec raises a good point - there are real limits to how much land use regulations can overpower underlying market trends, such as demands for certain types of housing.

That said, I think this demonstrates the value of the perverse technique of underzoning land, thereby ensuring that the property owners' highest return is to maintain the current subdivided property with many units rather than redevelop to a lower unit density. This can be seen in Pilsen, where the unit density is much higher than that allowed by zoning, thus creating a disincentive to redevelopment with resulting reduction in density. This is risky though, as the potential result sometimes winds up like portions of Lincoln Park and Bucktown, wherein 3-flats are torn down and replaced with mansions anyway.

Generally, I believe (though I don't have peer-reviewed evidence to support this) that there is a natural demand for denser, smaller, more affordable units near transit facilities. Let the zoning regulations allow that to happen, with allowable density high enough to make the ROI on the property higher with multi-unit than a luxury single family or an underutilized parking lot etc. Such a TOD zoning overlay proposal has to be tied to some economic and land market analysis, since even in healthy areas there are still many "underdeveloped" properties near transit, but it is likely because the current use offers an adequate ROI as compared to redeveloping to an otherwise low allowable density.

I'd be very curious to see a survey of this hypothesis... review all new construction, it's unit density as compared to that allowed under zoning, and it's proximity to transit. My gut tells me there is a natural tendency to maximize density in those locations where transportation capacity (particularly transportation for moderate- and lower-income individuals via transit) is highest. To the extent such density maximization doesn't happen, it is either due to 1) a complete lack of market demand for space in the area, e.g. the south and west sides), or 2) land use restrictions preventing it from happening. In the case of #2 (restricted development), my hypothesis would also suggest that to some extent, there would be an increase rent/values for those desirable properties in the zone of shortage near the transportation facility.

^ OF COURSE it's a serious proposal! I didn't take time today to post this concept among my esteemed forumers because I was passing time. ;) To the contrary, I did a lot today (went to an Indian restaurant, holiday shopped for my wife, drank whiskey & hot cider in a bar in Bryant Park, etc.)

I would love for some of the "higher ups" in Chicago Government to look seriously at a citywide TOD zoning code, but I'm not sure whether CBP has the clout (is CBP even having meetings, btw?) or connections to push something of the sort through. Of course, this is one case in which I'd love to be proven wrong.

Bottom line is, piecemeal Aldermanic Prerogative is a legacy that's here to stay and if a city like Chicago wants to really boost the role of transit in its way of getting around, it needs to centralize planning around its rail stations. Let the Aldermen piddle-fuck around with everything else (give these dogs a bone..), but those 200 feet around the L stop belong to US, the city.

I think Daley has the power to push something like this through. It just needs to be introduced to powers-that-be, and it needs to be well-conceived..

The problem with this is that the survey that produced Orange-rated buildings is haphazard and woefully inadequate in many regards. It's a nice tool, but I disagree with writing it into any legislation.

Actually, any preservation effort in these areas has largely been thwarted, particularly West Loop. And the preservation community largely supports smart densification of these areas. It's mostly view / anti-congestion preservation that has resulted in the West Loop developing as it has. Compare to the South Loop, which has a far greater number of real landmarks, but also many more high-rises and probably will end up with much higher population density.

^ The issue is, we need to seriously think about what is in Chicago's best interests going forward. For the most part, Honte, I think you're right that the city should go through a pretty intense review process about what buildings need to be landmarked and which ones may need to be sacrificed for the benefits of higher density. Generous tax credits for owners of landmarked structures (as mentioned by somebody earlier) may need to be a part of the package.

But landmarking could be a tool used by anti-development community groups as well. It's important for the 2009 Chicago TOD Act to be as absolute as possible and to not allow for any NIMBY interference once implemented. It should be assumed that any building with T zoning is fair game for demolition and redevelopment unless it is a landmarked structure.

I say this with absolution because any ambivalence in the writing of such an Act could be taken advantage of by, you guessed it, lawyers.

Hmmm... I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I would not support such a proposal. How about starting with single-story buildings and vacant lands around El stops.

Purple Express Trains to Resume Operating on Inner Loop Track December 29

Pretty stoked about this. Will certainly make my commute easier in the morning.

Now that Blago is out, can we get that free rides funding back? How about restoring the half-price (instead of free) fares to seniors?

Just a quick update - the Irving Park brown line station reopened this past weekend and the Damen brown line station will finally reopen on December 19th after being closed for just under 13 months.

At that point, only Paulina and Wellington will be left to be completed in 2009! :tup:

^ What do you see wrong with the proposal?

Maybe he prefers it not be named after the Boston rail network ... try renaming the zoning at "L" and "L2" ;)

Seriously, though, he probably thinks that across-the-board upzoning would risk wiping out existing buildings that support existing vibrancy. He has a point. It might make the most sense to roll out such changes in a 3-step process:

Step 1) Upzone to your "T2" rules all vacant and 1-story buildings in the area you'd consider a "T" area. This should be all that's done for 5-10 years or until all affected lots are rebuilt, whichever comes sooner (if every available lot were rebuilt in 4 years, there'd be no point in waiting to upzone more). Also prohibit any down-zoning during this time across the full "T" and "T2" areas.
Step 2) Upzone all non-historic lots in that area to full "T" zone status. This should be all that changes for another 5 years. This will help enforce density closest to the "L" station, instead of allowing medium-density to creep into the neighborhood before high density is built by the station.
Step 3) Upzone the "T2" area to "T2" zoning.

Doing it as a stepped process allows time for areas to adapt to the changes, and step 1 will encourage infill instead of wholesale change of existing buildings that may have important economic roles in the community. Once you achieve infill, the area will have an easier time adapting when larger pre-existing structures are replaced with the very large buildings the new zoning will allow.

^ I think such a plan, while technically proficient from an urban land use perspective, doesn't take adequate account of the legal, political and personal aspects of zoning. Remember, an upzoning is a very valuable gift that has value because of the scarcity of buildable density: it's only valuable because you're not allowing density on comparable pieces of property. People with the "misfortune" of owning a historic 2-story occupied building next to a vacant parcel whose owner gets a bonanza of upzoning will ... not be pleased. And the papers will have a field day when it comes out that a partial investor on some large parcel that was being landbanked happens to have serious clout and makes off with a bonanza.

One option that might have been more palatable in years past would be to simply condemn the underutilized property: call the vacant lot or vacant storefront blight, acquire it via eminent domain, then upzone, then issue an RFP to sell it to the highest bidder. Of course, such a process (how much just compensation paid to owners? Whose land gets condemned and whose doesn't?) is itself very political.

Ultimately, I think, the "best" option would be to enact a true comprehensive plan for the city including a new zoning map re-drawn from scratch, applying transit-oriented zoning according to strict and evenly-applied rules. I believe that in general terms such a plan could have public support, but only in general city-wide terms because at the micro level every citizens hates the notion that others deign to anything to real property without permission of said citizen. But the aldermen obviously have no interest in a city zoning map redraw or comp plan, so it's kind of moot.

^ Viva, my problem with the whole comprehensive rezoning thing is that it's much more difficult and time-consuming to implement, will involve too many parties with too many interests, and in general may involve too much politics.

The reason I propose a "one fell swoop" is that it can be hammered through by a powerful mayor such as Daley and does not involve too many intermediaries. Any attempt to allege corruption can be rebutted by the argument that every transit station gets a 200 foot T zone, period--a blanket rule that covers the whole city. So one can't assume that one particular clout-heavy firm is getting a better deal than another.

And come to think of it, what's wrong with people suddenly profiting from owning property within 200 feet of a transit station? Heck, it's a good investment and it's about time it be treated as such! This sort of thing has happened all the time in American cities (ie people who owned land near future NYC subway stops made bank--and in Chicago's case the train stops have already been built so it's not nearly as bad) and it certainly isn't illegal. I would argue that such concerns as you've expressed are exactly what we should not allow to get in the way of the kind of aggressive policy-making that can finally prioritize transit in Chicago. I'd even go so far as to say that Aldermen and community groups that force land around CTA stops to be zoned to a low density are the real examples of unfair influence, not to mention unfair access to city resources that all Chicagoans are paying taxes to support.

I don't know how many of you have ridden the new hybrid Articulated busses, but they are SO much better than the old ones.

A. They don't give you back problems from having a horrible suspension.

B. The seats are reconigured so there is tons more space in the aisle. The all face sideways in the front instead of forward.

C. The LED lights they have make you feel so much better, much less depressing than florescant.

D. There are tons more rails and little loops to grab onto.

E. They even put two loops to hang onto coming from the ceiling in the middle of the Bendy part where there was normally nothing to hold if you were standing.

F. The join in the middle on the floor looks much sturdier, hopefully they won't pop up over time like the old ones and flap around making really loud slapping noises like the ones on the old busses.

G. The interior looks like its much more seamless than the old ones. Hopefully this means less places for them to break with age and less holes for condensation to leak through on rainy or snow days...

Overall I was thrilled, all improvements and no detriments!

...I noticed that the Belmont station was supposed to be completed AFTER the Wellington Station.......that can't be right ?!

This wouldn't stop the Trib from determining that it was all planned via cronyism.

We're not talking about someone speculating that a new transit line will increase property nearby. We're talking about upzoning certain properties, drastically increasing their value (all developers care about in land valuation is price-per-FAR-foot) - but that increase in value comes only at expense of nearby properties that have tighter zoning restrictions. The upzoning wouldn't have inherent value if it were done universally, but it does have inherent value when done selectively, and in the short run that value is extracted from the nearby properties on which higher density would still be prohibited. The windfall on the investment would be redistributive, and a lot of people would find that troubling politically.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see increased density near transit, my only point is that the politics and economics of zoning are quite complicated. These concerns about the fairness value transfers via zoning may be moot if we all determine that the public good of having real transit-oriented development outweighs the negatives of redistributive gifts. But I wouldn't be so quick to brush aside the personal-level politics involved in such a move. Part of the point of zoning is that it shouldn't be changed all the time - and this is one of those reasons. This is why a comprehensive plan would be the ideal solution, I think - I would of course also support something similar to what you're proposing if it were a viable option, but I forsee it being a very tough political sell, not even getting into the stupid traffic/parking/shadows NIMBY bullcrap.

I tend to agree - but that still doesn't change the fact that dramatically changing the zoning of a select group of properties would redistribute land values in the area. Such a TOD zoning proposal will ultimately have to be pursued carefully and subtly, though I do think such an effort is both warranted and possible. I'm just offering some critique/caution on the ideas being discussed.

Did you not like my "TOD Variance" proposal of basically allowing the existing zoning classifications to have more housing units, fewer cars, greater lot coverage, etc? Fair enough, it doesn't stir mens' blood...

The only detriment I've seen so far is both front and rear door malfunctioning - pretty annoying and time-wasting for now but this is common with new bus deliveries and should be fixable. Everything else you said is true, and I'll also add that the hybrid-electric drivetrain produces much smoother starts and acceleration, so the ride is less jerky than older buses as well.

Who's to say that it wouldn't be planned via cronyism? When they ran that exposé on zoning over the summer, I remember feeling a little condescension at the pathetic whining of the people interviewed, since I support taller and denser development anywhere within city limits. However, there is a definite value to setting a defined zoning code and then making all new developments follow it. If people move into a neighborhood knowing that it has zoning for taller and denser buildings, then they have no right to complain when such buildings are built. The same goes for the downtown area, where ever-taller buildings are simply a fact of life. However, the awful practice of spot zoning only gives people a total disregard for legitimate zoning and land control. What the hell, the only way to fix this may in fact be to go the way of Houston, with very limited zoning codes aimed only at historic preservation and reducing off-street parking. Let market forces cluster lots of people near L stations.

As to the Tribune: it's annoyingly self-righteous when it attempts to be populist, but I've gained a little bit more respect for John Kass and his comrades recently - their dire predictions have been vindicated with the indictment of Blago. Perhaps some level of corruption is harmless, but Chicago passed that point long ago, and now it's seriously holding our city, region, and state back as it cripples our education, healthcare, and infrastructure.

^ So if Chicagoans have accepted cronyism then what's the problem?

We're talking about a Mayor who demolished an airport in a midnight raid. Now he's selling off the parking meter system which will jack up meter rates; already having pissed off the Tribune. The Hired Truck scandal, etc etc you name it Daley's already survived it all.

The T Zoning would be an actual deal that, yes, puts a lot of money arbitrarily in the hands of people who made a good investment, but also could benefit the city greatly. Who cares what the Tribune says? I'm sure Daley doesn't..

Actually it is correct. Belmont won’t be finished, along with Fullerton, until late 2009. Wellington should be finished in the summer 2009. - the reason being that Belmont must stay open the entire time. Belmont still has to build both station houses (one is an antique).

What routes are they running on?