SkyscraperPage Forum

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

Beta_Magellan Jun 18, 2013 3:08 PM

From the posting for the meeting OrdoSeclorum linked to:

Quote:

• Learn about CTA’s plan to spend over $160 million to transform Ashland by eliminating 50% of vehicles, all left turns and bicycles
• Hear Coalition’s plan to modernize Ashland bus services and maintain Ashland’s capacity for vehicles, buses and bicycles
I’m interested to see how this will develop—there were a couple of comments on Streetsblog bemoaning the lack of bicycle facilities and I’ve observed a lot of low-level hostility from cyclists for buses, which is understandable given that they compete for the right side of the road (and now funding for dedicated lanes). Cyclist hostility to transit is an issue in Portland.

Let’s look at the Grand Neighbor’s Association’s list of accomplishments. Accomplishment no. 1 is…

Quote:

• Negotiated with developers to build (5) single family homes, instead of a large condo complex, which were more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.
Good to know we have some real city people here. :rolleyes:

the urban politician Jun 18, 2013 5:43 PM

^ The GNA is an absolutely toxic group of douchewads. If you visit their website they blatantly advocate for less density and more parking.

Too bad for them that condo and rental buildings are still going up everywhere in that area, although shitloads of frame 2 flats have been demo'd and replaced with expensive homes, creating even more NIMBY's in the process.

Eventually, like many other hoods, NIMBYism will reach intolerable levels like what you are seeing in Lincoln Park (where I am hearing they are about to hold a country music festival this weekend; I love it--a country music festival in an urban neighborhood). So developers, buy shit up and build what you can now, because the NIMBY shit-parade is about to close your operation down.

Regarding the Ashland BRT, I'm hoping that Rahm does what Rahm does best in this one and just ram-rods BRT down everybody's throats.

Via Chicago Jun 18, 2013 6:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 6168642)
Eventually, like many other hoods, NIMBYism will reach intolerable levels like what you are seeing in Lincoln Park (where I am hearing they are about to hold a country music festival this weekend; I love it--a country music festival in an urban neighborhood).

Not entirely surprising as a large contingent of Lincoln Park residents are recent transplants from other parts of the (more rural) midwest...in other words, Big 10 corn towns.

Anyway,

CTA unveils artwork for Red Line north stations

edit: heres the renderings
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...5.photogallery

emathias Jun 18, 2013 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago29 (Post 6167861)
He asked some questions and the discussion continues, no worries. Sometimes even the commonly known details of projects among people here are not easily found online. No need to be condescending. :tup:

The first question was answered in the article he quoted.

The second question wasn't so much a question, but rather a false statement easily corrected by reading the official CTA website.

This isn't kindergarten, and an easy way to avoid condescension is to fact-check oneself.

Do you really want to encourage people who seemingly want to lower the discussion to false claims about fares and don't read articles they are replying to? I don't.

jpIllInoIs Jun 19, 2013 11:15 AM

Rep. Lipinski Touts CREATE, Urges Commitment to Larger Projects
 
Looks like Lipinski is making a case for some CREATE Project money.
And he is focusing on the big projects: Rail/Rail and Rail/Road Grade Separations.

Rep Lipinski media release

06/10/2013

U.S. Rep. Dan Lipinski (IL-3), at a special House Rail Subcommittee meeting today on rail issues in Northeastern Illinois, touted the CREATE rail initiative as a model for a successful public-private partnership, but said larger projects, such as grade separations and rail flyover bridges, must be more of a priority going forward with the program. Joining Rep. Lipinski at the bipartisan hearing in Chicago were Rail Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jeff Denham (CA-10), Rep. Bobby Rush (IL-1), Rep. Cheri Bustos (IL-17) and Rep. Rodney Davis (IL-13).

“CREATE has been a unique transportation success story by bringing the private and public sectors together in a historic partnership. I am committed to fighting for funding for larger projects in our region and nation to create jobs and provide relief to local residents from both rail and highway congestion,” Rep. Lipinski said. “Looking at the CREATE projects that have been completed so far, the greatest emphasis has been on smaller, rail-specific projects. There has been less progress on the larger projects that in my view represent CREATE's greatest benefit to the public.”

In 2005, Rep. Lipinski secured the first $100 million for the program, which is funded through contributions from federal, state and local governments, as well as the freight and commuter railroads.

Rep. Lipinski noted that of the seven projects in CREATE that would fix locations where passenger rail lines intersect, just one is completed. Of the 25 projects to separate spots where busy roads and rail lines cross, two are finished and four are under construction, with 12 having no funding whatsoever.

“I believe one way to refocus our priorities is to bring back the Projects of Regional and National Significance to identify those projects that are deserving of significant federal investment,” Lipinski said. “But we also require an increased commitment from the other CREATE partners, including local governments and the railroads themselves.”

Rep. Lipinski, the state's senior member on the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, is one of 11 members on the new House Panel on 21st Century Freight Transportation exploring ways to improve the movement of freight throughout the nation and create jobs. The panel will be offering a list of recommendations for consideration by the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee later this year.

Kenmore Jun 19, 2013 12:33 PM

Really liking the artwork for Argyle.

K 22 Jun 19, 2013 5:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Via Chicago (Post 6168732)
Not entirely surprising as a large contingent of Lincoln Park residents are recent transplants from other parts of the (more rural) midwest...in other words, Big 10 corn towns.

Anyway,

CTA unveils artwork for Red Line north stations

edit: heres the renderings
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...5.photogallery


Granville's art I like the most. It has energy and life to it.

ardecila Jun 19, 2013 11:25 PM

The Argyle mosaic is cool. The rest is typical banal Arts-in-Transit stuff.

CTA's got some cool stuff around the system, though... It's about a 50/50 mix of cool and crappy. I like the sequined penis at Kimball or the sculptures at Cumberland and Rosemont. With space at a premium, there's really no room for sculptural pieces in the current new/renovated stations and so we get lots of mediocre 2d art. The words at Montrose (Brown) are pretty cool though.

Ch.G, Ch.G Jun 20, 2013 4:55 AM

I like the Granville, Argyle, and Lawrence station artwork best. That Berwyn station artwork is just... awful.

I adore David Lee Csicsko's mosaics at the Belmont station...

Baronvonellis Jun 20, 2013 7:45 PM

I'm not sure about the lawrence one. Is it that one small piece of art glass? If so that pretty lame. You could find something like that at an antique store for $100 lol. Or are they going to put stuff like that up over the whole stairwell?

In berwyns defense it will be a mosiac of some really nice looking terra cotta pieces. Too bad the overall design look like a kindergartener drew a crappy picture of Chicago.

God speaking of bad murals though, you should see what they are putting up on Peterson in Sauganash. Pictures of people in business suits next to old pickup trucks from the 40's. Who drives in cars from the 40's? This is the 2013 it would be nice if it was something from this century.

Busy Bee Jun 20, 2013 8:26 PM

Heres a question, why does every transit station have to have an art installation? To uplift people's spirits? Isn't that what good architecture used to be for?

the urban politician Jun 20, 2013 8:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 6171673)
Heres a question, why does every transit station have to have an art installation? To uplift people's spirits? Isn't that what good architecture used to be for?

Because modernist & institutional architecture lacks any ornament, and since human beings still want to see something that is complex and detailed with which they can interact, artwork fills this void.

To ornament, as modernists believe, is to sin. To ornament, as most other humans believe, is necessary.

IMHO

ardecila Jun 21, 2013 2:31 AM

I don't have a problem with ornament necessarily. I do have a problem with art that gets hung up like wallpaper and has no relation to the design of the transit station. CTA even moves artwork semi-regularly, so all the work that these artists undertake to capture the "spirit of the neighborhood" is sunk when the Albany Park artwork is moved to Lakeview.

Anyway, most modernists are generally fine with art or ornament that is an extension of the architectural ideas. I've always liked the Concorde station in Paris, where the subway tiles are used as a grid of letters that spell out the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (France's version of the Bill of Rights). The artist took the architectural tradition of placing tiles in a grid and found a way to make a unique statement by commandeering that tradition.

artist statement
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...oncorde_04.jpg
src

ardecila Jun 21, 2013 3:36 AM

Quote:

Blue Line study could lead to overhaul
$1 million effort to explore revamp of Forest Park branch

...the Blue Line study, scheduled to be completed early next year, aims to help establish cost estimates and determine sources of funding for design, engineering and construction of...a project [like the current Red Line south branch project], which would be the first major reconstruction of the rail line since it opened as the Congress Line on June 22, 1958.

Stations, park-and-ride facilities and commuter access points that are difficult for pedestrians to navigate also will be examined, officials said.

"In addition to a basic modernization of the line, we are working with the city and with Oak Park to make sure pedestrian access to stations is improved,'' said Michael McLaughlin, CTA vice president of planning and federal affairs. "We want to make it a much more livable and enjoyable experience for people to get to the stations.''

For their part, officials at the CTA said its study will not look at extending the Forest Park Blue Line branch farther west, something that area public officials say would be helpful.
Interesting. The Blue Line's always been wrapped up in the Eisenhower expansion process but CTA has never had the resources to study their end of the project in detail.

Oak Park wants something like these, which may make sense at places in Chicago too.

http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/7135/5xfh.jpg

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/2567/mcxe.jpg'

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/935/sle7.jpg

the urban politician Jun 21, 2013 12:50 PM

^ Those 'commercial islands' so to speak would be a great idea not only in Oak Park, but throughout the city where the L runs in an expressway median. The nice thing is that they could potentially be privately financed.

ehilton44 Jun 21, 2013 1:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 6172603)
^ Those 'commercial islands' so to speak would be a great idea not only in Oak Park, but throughout the city where the L runs in an expressway median. The nice thing is that they could potentially be privately financed.

One thing that I've always looked for is how the CTA could emulate the MTR in Hong Kong. In addition to rail service, MTR is a large property developer, specifically developing properties relating to rail. The revenues from these developments outstrip any revenue from fares.

I always day dreamed that if the CTA pursued the subway option for the north red line they could've developed the land above for a pretty nice revenue stream.

In addition to the commercial islands, the CTA can develop land under the L, similar to the Berlin S-Bahn. While there aren't a ton of prime locations for this a couple come to mind... Milwaukee and Leavitt on the Blue Line, Orleans on the Brown/Purple, and Wabash on the Green/Orange. But definitely, the commercial islands would be great.

dennis1 Jun 21, 2013 6:44 PM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7595204.story

metra service needs to close the two hour gaps imo.

Beta_Magellan Jun 21, 2013 7:56 PM

Or, where it doesn’t operate on two-hour gaps, space their two trains-per-hour half-an-hour apart, not less than ten minutes (*sneeze*Metra Electric in Hype Park*sneeze*)

Justin_Chicago Jun 21, 2013 10:02 PM

Six tunnels hidden under Chicago’s Loop

http://www.wbez.org/series/curious-c...9s-loop-107791

ardecila Jun 22, 2013 5:20 AM

The dispute over Clifford is astonishingly vague in all the published accounts. I hope somebody like Ben Joravsky can shed some light on this.

Beta_Magellan Jun 22, 2013 6:08 PM

From what I understand, it’s pretty much the combined result of fare increases and Clifford’s hiring of outside consultants (or maybe just one outside consultant).

1. Back in 2011, someone noticed that Metra was raising fares by 30% while simultaneously hiring a consultant for $225,000/six months, and decided to write their senators. Durbin and Kirk write to him, and I assume others do, too.

2. In 2012, due in part to the stuff from above, Brad O’Halloran, Metra’s then-new chairman, wants the board to have more oversight over things like hiring decisions and perks (Crain’s), and putting this online. He’s described as “reacting cooly” to this.

3. In its piece on Clifford’s departure, ABC notes:

Quote:

So it was Clifford's job to cleanse Metra of Pagano-era patronage and favoritism, and some think he did well toward that end. But Clifford's opponents - who grew in number - found the new boss to be abrasive, autocratic, unaware or unwilling to work with politicians who have say-so over Metra funding.
4. I’m not a Crain’s subscriber and hit my limit for articles, but it looks like there were contract issues, too.

5. Clifford resigns.

Based on this, I’d guess the big issue was that Clifford didn’t like the board hovering over him or constant political pressure on contracts and the like. Although I’m somewhat sympathetic, what did he expect when running a public agency, particularly one that’s been burned badly by its previous chief executive? There’s also an element of the board cutting off his head for stuff they approved (although I gather the board makeup has changed a bit since 2011), and I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the political pressure was more patronage than good-governance oriented. Overall I don’t really have sympathy for anyone here.

emathias Jun 22, 2013 9:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 6173761)
The dispute over Clifford is astonishingly vague in all the published accounts. I hope somebody like Ben Joravsky can shed some light on this.

Yeah, if Ben writes about it we'll know for sure that it was Rahm and Daley's doing ...

the urban politician Jun 22, 2013 11:19 PM

I'm just curious if anyone here has any pics of that new pedestrian scramble in the Loop in action? Life's been busy and I don't make it into the city as often as I'd like any more :( Thanks in advance if anybody is able to post some pics

pip Jun 23, 2013 2:43 AM

I don't have any pictures but I can speak from experience there the past few weeks at around 4-5 pm on Wednesdays.

It is a concept I was not familiar with so my natural reaction was not to look at the diagonal crossing of the intersection as a way to cross nor to look for a walk sign for diagonal crossing.

There are two I think CDOT people working the intersection in addition to recordered speakers say something at the diagonal crossing times- I didn't pay attention.

It is heavily used I will say that. I even used it but still haven't put it in my mind how to get to where I want fastest utilizing the diagonal crossing.

In conclusion I think it is a great thing to have but for me will take a little time to get used to.

It's a busy intersection and if this catches on it will be a great

denizen467 Jun 23, 2013 5:39 AM

^ Did Sylvester eat you before you finished the last sentence?

I have less interaction with it than (the late) pip did, but I think they installed additional don't/walk pedestrian signals to the traffic light poles at each of the 4 corners - giving each such pole 3 separate pedestrian signals spaced 45 degrees apart. Potentially this could be confusing in some cases; once could conceive of an eastbound driver glancing at "don't walk" on the diagonal axis, hastily mistaking it for a "don't walk" along the east-west axis, and making a right-on-red where there are in fact pedestrians about to enter the crosswalk believing drivers have been unambiguously cautioned to yield. So, slight customizations to the signage/signaling might be a smart thing to do. How about the diagonal ped signals being of a different kind, and having LED lettering saying "No Scramble 5pm to 10am" or something like that.

ardecila Jun 23, 2013 5:47 AM

Thanks for the summary. It sounds like this about management style and Clifford's refusal to play the game more than about any actual policy/operational decisions regarding the railroad.

I can't help but view this debate in terms of the conflict between transit-minded people and railroad-minded people, though. Clifford came from LACMTA where he was in charge of buses, and now he's running one of the most conservative, change-resistant commuter railroads in the country. His tenure was marked by serious improvements in on-time performance and a strong focus on customer experience (only small improvements, but surveys and plans to improve further). It wouldn't surprise me if he sought to increase frequency somehow and slowly shift towards a more transit-like operation, which IMO is much needed.

The board's stated excuse basically says that Clifford pissed off too many people to secure funding; I don't know if this is true, since the elected officials in charge of getting funding from the state and Federal gov'ts weren't the people impacted by Clifford's reforms/management style. Unless Clifford simply didn't approve the elected officials' patronage requests?

In recent years, I've seen established, friendly and helpful Metra personnel (conductors and station agents) replaced by younger "train nazis" with a chip on their shoulder. Last summer I was thrown off the train just because the conductor didn't like my look (I'm hardly a threatening guy, but I guess the conductor mistook me for some other troublemaker). A few days ago I saw a different conductor get into a shouting match with an elderly man because he couldn't find his reduced-fare card. Granted, these were on UP lines and thus the personnel were employees of UP and not Metra. I just hate the feeling of being treated like shit. CTA employees are usually just impersonal but I've seen several drivers help out tourists/unfamiliar riders.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan (Post 6174194)
From what I understand, it’s pretty much the combined result of fare increases and Clifford’s hiring of outside consultants (or maybe just one outside consultant).

1. Back in 2011, someone noticed that Metra was raising fares by 30% while simultaneously hiring a consultant for $225,000/six months, and decided to write their senators. Durbin and Kirk write to him, and I assume others do, too.

2. In 2012, due in part to the stuff from above, Brad O’Halloran, Metra’s then-new chairman, wants the board to have more oversight over things like hiring decisions and perks (Crain’s), and putting this online. He’s described as “reacting cooly” to this.

3. In its piece on Clifford’s departure, ABC notes:



4. I’m not a Crain’s subscriber and hit my limit for articles, but it looks like there were contract issues, too.

5. Clifford resigns.

Based on this, I’d guess the big issue was that Clifford didn’t like the board hovering over him or constant political pressure on contracts and the like. Although I’m somewhat sympathetic, what did he expect when running a public agency, particularly one that’s been burned badly by its previous chief executive? There’s also an element of the board cutting off his head for stuff they approved (although I gather the board makeup has changed a bit since 2011), and I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the political pressure was more patronage than good-governance oriented. Overall I don’t really have sympathy for anyone here.


Beta_Magellan Jun 23, 2013 4:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 6174631)

I can't help but view this debate in terms of the conflict between transit-minded people and railroad-minded people, though. Clifford came from LACMTA where he was in charge of buses, and now he's running one of the most conservative, change-resistant commuter railroads in the country.

This was the first thing that popped into my head when I saw Chicago’s representative on the Metra board abstained, but that says more about me than the actual situation here—it’s a very, very optimistic read on events. First, he raised fares to preserve existing service levels—I doubt increasing frequencies was ever on the table. Based on his LinkedIn profile the bulk of Clifford’s experience was with Metrolink, which is very much a big, old-fashioned American commuter railroad (and his experience running bus service was in the Gateway Cities, which is overall more suburban, not high-frequency-grid-building West Side). While I’ve heard their fare collection and staff productivity is a lot better than Metra, they’re still a diesel-powered, long-distance commuter-focused, SWS/NCS-level frequency (and, per line, ridership) railroad.

For what it’s worth, the contractor he hired, George Avery Grimes, is very much a railroad person.

Quote:

The board's stated excuse basically says that Clifford pissed off too many people to secure funding; I don't know if this is true, since the elected officials in charge of getting funding from the state and Federal gov'ts weren't the people impacted by Clifford's reforms/management style. Unless Clifford simply didn't approve the elected officials' patronage requests?
I read that more as being dismissive of political concerns. An element of that almost certainly comes from hiring people outside the patronage loop (edit: a little digging shows O’Halloran, the head of the Metra board who’s been posing as Mr. Open Government for the past few months, probably has a fair amount of that surrounding him). I also got the impressions was that he didn’t take politicians’ concerns seriously—the main one I found, the letter from Kirk and Durbin, asked why he was hiring an outside contractor when raising fares. From what I gleaned from those articles, Clifford’s response was along the lines of, “I’m the chief executive and I can hire who I want.” He’s right, but to an elected representative who’s received a ton of phone calls complaining about raised fares while some guy’s just gotten a big contract (and people do contact their reps about such things), that sort of response looks a like like hauteur.

The fact that the Metra board wanted to have more oversight over hiring decisions probably compounds this, since the two probably assumed the worst of each other (with reason). From Clifford’s perspective it’s the board wanting to keep politically-approved appointments okay while not allowing outside blood, while from the board’s perspective it’s making sure Clifford doesn’t go around throwing contracts to his old friends when they’ve got a ton of politicos on the phone yelling about the latest fare increase. Add in an argument over a new contract and you have a recipe for departure.

Edit: I think I should restate that I think that to a great extent the Board’s having Clifford’s head for their own mistakes, since they approved the policy Clifford ended up getting heat over. Scanning some other places, I think it’s unfortunate his main legacy in the memories of riders will be fare increases (the board’s fault) and the high cost of the contract buyout (cheaper than a lawsuit), especially given his improvements in stuff like OTP.

Quote:

In recent years, I've seen established, friendly and helpful Metra personnel (conductors and station agents) replaced by younger "train nazis" with a chip on their shoulder. […] Granted, these were on UP lines and thus the personnel were employees of UP and not Metra.
Holy sh!tsnacks! Attitude is one thing, but being kicked off a train is another. I can’t imagine that sort of attitude working on Metra Electric (the only Metra line I took semi-regularly).

Nexis4Jersey Jun 23, 2013 9:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 6174631)
Thanks for the summary. It sounds like this about management style and Clifford's refusal to play the game more than about any actual policy/operational decisions regarding the railroad.

I can't help but view this debate in terms of the conflict between transit-minded people and railroad-minded people, though. Clifford came from LACMTA where he was in charge of buses, and now he's running one of the most conservative, change-resistant commuter railroads in the country. His tenure was marked by serious improvements in on-time performance and a strong focus on customer experience (only small improvements, but surveys and plans to improve further). It wouldn't surprise me if he sought to increase frequency somehow and slowly shift towards a more transit-like operation, which IMO is much needed.

The board's stated excuse basically says that Clifford pissed off too many people to secure funding; I don't know if this is true, since the elected officials in charge of getting funding from the state and Federal gov'ts weren't the people impacted by Clifford's reforms/management style. Unless Clifford simply didn't approve the elected officials' patronage requests?

In recent years, I've seen established, friendly and helpful Metra personnel (conductors and station agents) replaced by younger "train nazis" with a chip on their shoulder. Last summer I was thrown off the train just because the conductor didn't like my look (I'm hardly a threatening guy, but I guess the conductor mistook me for some other troublemaker). A few days ago I saw a different conductor get into a shouting match with an elderly man because he couldn't find his reduced-fare card. Granted, these were on UP lines and thus the personnel were employees of UP and not Metra. I just hate the feeling of being treated like shit. CTA employees are usually just impersonal but I've seen several drivers help out tourists/unfamiliar riders.

A Lot of agencies and companies are facing huge shortages due to baby boomers retiring so they appear to be hiring just about anyone. Recently i've noticed similar incidents , a Conductor in attempting to wake an elderly slapped him with his newspaper. Another Conductor always acts like she owns the place ,barks at passengers and chats with friends.... Of course this isn't limited to Conductors , Ive had several light rail operators terminated for texting , breaking the rules while street running...of course being labeled a rail snitch in the process. A lot of these younger employees work these jobs while still in college.... I would say a decent majority of these younger employees just see this as job...unlike some of us who want to build a career in transportation.

emathias Jun 25, 2013 3:16 PM

I saw a Ventra device on a bus this morning lit up. I've seen them on the buses for the past few months, but this was the first time I saw one lit up.

Is the CTA about to go live with it, finally?

Beta_Magellan Jun 26, 2013 4:24 AM

Streetsblog/NewCity has a mostly substance-free interview with Bob Fioretti, although it does include the tidbit that he’s received nine-to-one opposition to Ashland BRT and that he wants to “do a few more studies” (i. e. study it to death, which is no surprise coming from him).

I have no idea of how much real bearing this has on BRT, I’m increasingly worried that it will either end up X9: Part Deux or quietly shelved.

ardecila Jun 26, 2013 4:46 AM

I don't know. This isn't a condo project that Fioretti can just tank with his prerogative. It has the full support of the Mayor. Fioretti's probably a lame duck anyway, since his ward has shifted so much. In the new 2nd Ward boundaries, there are only three blocks' worth of the initial Ashland BRT segment, and only half of those because Ashland is a ward boundary.

The initial BRT segment falls mostly within the wards of Moreno (1), Burnett (27), Ervin (28), and Solis (25). Out of those, Moreno's probably the only one who might object. The other three aldermen represent wards with high transit-dependent populations and without strong communities of uppity business owners or condo dwellers. Moreno's kind of a wonk on transportation and development, too, so he will probably try to sell it to his constituents rather than pander.

Beta_Magellan Jun 26, 2013 5:02 AM

:previous: I was curious about this—I usually don’t associate Fioretti with any neighborhood on Ashland. Moreno’s generally pretty pro-transit (and, for an alderman, pro-density—I recall him rejecting a ton of single-story proposals for Ashland/Division), and a quick Google search shows he hosted an Active Trans event that featured a BRT presentation, so it’s likely he’s mostly on-board.

the urban politician Jun 26, 2013 5:06 AM

If Rahm can hammer through the new parking meter deal and closing 50 schools (which are orders of magnitude more controversial), he can hammer this through as well. I'm not worried

untitledreality Jun 27, 2013 2:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 6178034)
If Rahm can hammer through the new parking meter deal and closing 50 schools (which are orders of magnitude more controversial), he can hammer this through as well. I'm not worried

Same here. No way Rahm lets some dickweed Alderman get in the way of this.

jcchii Jun 27, 2013 3:42 PM

ventra in august

emathias Jun 28, 2013 8:26 PM

I don't recall seeing it discussed here, but Center for Neighborhood Technology had a document last month about TOD in the Chicago area.

Particularly sad is page 10

Download it here

Quote:

CHICAGO (May 7, 2013)—While Chicago has made significant investments in transit-oriented development (TOD) over the past decade, the region has not seen the same levels of success as other major US metropolitan areas in the successful development of transit zones—the land areas within one half-mile of passenger rail stations. Whereas peer cities like New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and San Francisco saw positive growth between 2000 and 2010, Chicago actually saw a decline in development. A report released by the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) recommends a series of policy actions Chicago leaders can take to get transit-oriented development on track, and to improve the region’s economic, environmental, and social sustainability.

In the report, Transit-Oriented Development in the Chicago Region: Efficient and Resilient Communities for the 21st Century, CNT researchers evaluated the dynamics of the Chicago Region’s 367 fixed Metra and CTA rail stations and station areas between 2000 and 2010.[1] Using the National TOD Database, a first-of-its-kind web tool developed by CNT that provides access to comprehensive information about more than 4,000 transit zones across the United States, researchers identified the transit zones that performed well: those that anchored vital, walkable communities that possess an affordable, high quality of life with minimal impact on the environment.

...

ardecila Jun 29, 2013 1:43 AM

Most of the transit-shed decline is due to the demolitions of CHA projects, which tended to sit right by transit stations. IIRC over 18000 units were removed from the market.

The upside is that this gives Chicago plenty of land with convenient transit access for development, and smart planning could make it dense. But the CHA projects themselves were very dense and so far, the powers that be are pursuing lowrise housing models with tons of wasted open space (look at the amount of open space in the site plan for Oakwood Shores, for instance).

The suburbs have only seen minor gains aroud Metra stops, and it's unclear to me whether the quality and frequency of Metra service is actually enough to attract significant housing growth.

the urban politician Jun 29, 2013 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 6181582)
But the CHA projects themselves were very dense and so far, the powers that be are pursuing lowrise housing models with tons of wasted open space (look at the amount of open space in the site plan for Oakwood Shores, for instance).

^ Well, of course it's not dense. Why would you tear down CHA towers and replace them with more towers? Also, there is a lot of open space because land is cheap, you know, since nobody wants to live in a gang infested warzone and all..

ardecila Jun 29, 2013 5:25 PM

Doesn't change the fact that the development is short sighted. We shouldn't be building single-family townhouses next to L stations.

The former Cabrini Green is not a gang-infested war zone, and it's certainly not a place where "nobody wants to live" either; it's surrounded by the city's most successful neighborhoods. Same goes for ABLA/Roosevelt Square. Henry Horner is one of the worst examples, since the Green Line is right there, but it does border East Garfield Park and the United Center wasteland.

The Green Line, actually, is the locus for much of the flawed CHA redevelopment, but its reputation will drastically improve in coming years due to Morgan and Cermak stations.

the urban politician Jun 29, 2013 5:37 PM

^ I don't disagree in premise, but in areas where there is actually a demand for people to live (ie former Cabrini Green) I can understand complaining about lack of density.

But along the 63rd branch of the Green Line....just be happy that we are seeing something other than vacant fields..

ardecila Jun 29, 2013 6:10 PM

Yeah, the South Branch of the Green Line is a tough sell at present for development. The Lake Branch is definitely stronger, with a thriving anchor at the far end (Oak Park).

Beta_Magellan Jun 29, 2013 7:21 PM

I think a lot of the issues with transit are reflective of the Chicago region’s weak post-nineties growth—2000-2010 was a particularly saggy decade for Chicago, particularly relative to comparatively well-educated places like SF and Boston.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 6181582)
Most of the transit-shed decline is due to the demolitions of CHA projects, which tended to sit right by transit stations. IIRC over 18000 units were removed from the market.

The upside is that this gives Chicago plenty of land with convenient transit access for development, and smart planning could make it dense. But the CHA projects themselves were very dense and so far, the powers that be are pursuing lowrise housing models with tons of wasted open space (look at the amount of open space in the site plan for Oakwood Shores, for instance).

Look at the map on page 29 of the report, which shows change in households over 2000-10 in the Chicago region. With the exception of a couple islands, the station areas between outer suburbia and the core is either bleeding population (particular on the west and south sides, plus adjacent suburban areas) or stagnant—this latter category includes many of the predominantly middle-class single-family suburbs, but also a number of dense areas on the north side along the Red and Brown lines. You’re basically seeing the effects of frozen land use there—single-family, owner-occupied suburban housing is one of the hardest things to redevelop into something other than larger single-family, owner-occupied suburban housing, and basically all the urban north side neighborhoods are pretty solidly NIMBYfied as well.

I can’t help but think that a lot of this is non-transportation/land use related, too—Chicago rents and land prices are, compared to Boston and SF, fairly cheap. There’s not as much incentive towards redeveloping a lot of neighborhoods at higher density, and one of the things people like about Chicago is that they can live in a city with lots of suburban amenities—you can live in a bungalow in Edgewater, have a yard, and be steps away from the Granville Red Line stop (or single-family housing near Roosevelt Orange). People howl over four-story buildings in Bucktown. Urbs in Horto, just forget the urbs. Although big stretches of vacant/underutilized land are problems, so is not allowing more people to live in neighborhoods where people actually want to live.

Quote:

The suburbs have only seen minor gains aroud Metra stops, and it's unclear to me whether the quality and frequency of Metra service is actually enough to attract significant housing growth.
The report picks out the example of Elmhurst as a place where there’s been an attempt at fostering transit-oriented development that hasn’t worked out as planned. They weren’t able to succeed—a lot of that probably has to do with non-policy-related stuff, like developers not seeing Elmhurst as a good candidate for higher-density housing, developers wanting to build higher-density housing being laughed out of the bank (“Seven-story condos, in Elmhurst!”), and, as the report notes, not willing to accept higher-density housing for people without high incomes. And, of course, if it’s a soft decade for growth in the Chicago metro it’s a soft decade for new construction—no one’s going to densify without demand.

UP-West service is pretty dismal—people from communities directly served by the line actually will drive to BNSF stations. However, I think transit advocates generally underestimate the effect of job sprawl. If I’m relocating to the Chicago region and pick Elmhurst, it might be because I work in Cumberland and the sig. other works in Yorktown. Or Schaumburg and Hines. Or Oak Brook and downtown. Even with improved Metra service, you’re only serving one market among several:

http://s18.postimg.org/3maozmpk5/Onthe_Map_Elmhurst.jpg
(source: distance/direction analysis for primary jobs of people living in Elmhurst via http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/).

You won’t get any argument from me that downtown is important, should be strengthened, and transit links to it be improved, but better transit will, at this point, only make transit more dominant in a niche (even if it’s the largest one). It won’t transform the orientation of suburbs and suburban commuters.

emathias Jun 30, 2013 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 6181950)
...
But along the 63rd branch of the Green Line....just be happy that we are seeing something other than vacant fields..

Well, with U of C encroaching from the north, the east branch along 63rd could actually benefit from increased service and additional development. It'd be worth pushing it back to Jackson Park again, and I think that preacher who opposed it before will have seen the error of his ways and not block it this time. If you did that, connected the Dearborn and State subways, and ran, say, 4 trains an hour between O'Hare and East 63rd, you'd probably see a lot of growth right around there just because 7 trains to the Loop each hour would definitely beat the discouraging three an hour that it sometimes has.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan (Post 6182047)
I think a lot of the issues with transit are reflective of the Chicago region’s weak post-nineties growth—2000-2010 was a particularly saggy decade for Chicago, particularly relative to comparatively well-educated places like SF and Boston.

Chicago's education level increased dramatically during the last decade, though, so that's hopefully a good trend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan (Post 6182047)
You won’t get any argument from me that downtown is important, should be strengthened, and transit links to it be improved, but better transit will, at this point, only make transit more dominant in a niche (even if it’s the largest one). It won’t transform the orientation of suburbs and suburban commuters.

I was thinking about this today, and decided the way to get Chicagoland to work together on planning was to simply convince all the downstate people that not doing so would gravely injure Chicago and thus their biggest source of tax revenue. In other words, that they need to force Chicago to stay within a certain boundary or it'll become Detroit.

Chicagoland would benefit from a stronger, more effective version of Portland's development limits, and it would greatly benefit from forced TOD requirements to make use of existing investments. But it won't do that by itself, so maybe downstate could actually serve a useful purpose toward that goal.

the urban politician Jun 30, 2013 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 6182225)
Well, with U of C encroaching from the north, the east branch along 63rd could actually benefit from increased service and additional development. It'd be worth pushing it back to Jackson Park again, and I think that preacher who opposed it before will have seen the error of his ways and not block it this time. If you did that, connected the Dearborn and State subways, and ran, say, 4 trains an hour between O'Hare and East 63rd, you'd probably see a lot of growth right around there just because 7 trains to the Loop each hour would definitely beat the discouraging three an hour that it sometimes has.

^ I've heard all this stuff before and have become weary of it all.

There is no policy change that is going to promote development around the south side branch of the Green Line. If there was any demand to live in those areas there wouldn't be vacant fields. Increasing service frequency and upzoning won't do diddly shit.

Reality is, (especially white and professional) Chicagoans are allergic to the south side. It's a built in, hard-wired reality about the city, and it goes back several decades. It won't change in our lifetimes. Perhaps Chicago is a "sleeping giant" like New York was in the 1970's and suddenly people will start clamoring to live in every nook and cranny of the city, but nothing that I'm seeing is pointing to such a trend.

The best thing we can hope for is more development in the South Loop and Hyde Park, as well as increased gentrification in Pilsen, Bridgeport, Little Village, etc etc where there aren't bombed out fields of gunfire, dismay, and misery.

dennis1 Jun 30, 2013 2:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 6181582)

The suburbs have only seen minor gains aroud Metra stops, and it's unclear to me whether the quality and frequency of Metra service is actually enough to attract significant housing growth.

It's not, because of the inconsistent service from Metra. They need to improve significantly in order for these nodes to reach these housing projections.

emathias Jul 1, 2013 1:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 6182405)
^ I've heard all this stuff before and have become weary of it all.

There is no policy change that is going to promote development around the south side branch of the Green Line. If there was any demand to live in those areas there wouldn't be vacant fields. Increasing service frequency and upzoning won't do diddly shit.

Reality is, (especially white and professional) Chicagoans are allergic to the south side. It's a built in, hard-wired reality about the city, and it goes back several decades. It won't change in our lifetimes. Perhaps Chicago is a "sleeping giant" like New York was in the 1970's and suddenly people will start clamoring to live in every nook and cranny of the city, but nothing that I'm seeing is pointing to such a trend.

The best thing we can hope for is more development in the South Loop and Hyde Park, as well as increased gentrification in Pilsen, Bridgeport, Little Village, etc etc where there aren't bombed out fields of gunfire, dismay, and misery.

Hey old man: your reality isn't universal, especially when you constrain yourself to white people.

The facts on the ground are that, even with terrible service at 63rd and Cottage Grove, there is a measurable influx of educated academics and, to a certain extent, professionals choosing to live between 63rd and 59th Street, which is essentially a southern expansion of Hyde Park as a marketing name even if it technically is Woodlawn or some such place. With better service levels those numbers would grow faster.

There are also academics and some lower-key professionals (think nurse-type professionals) living between 25th and 40th, which will likely only grow as the South Loop gets filled in. This is more true of non-white professionals, but the level and source of income is what defines gentrification and we certainly do not need to tailor policy only for when white people deign to follow it.

For the record, I'm not a starry-eyed optimist, and I'm not one who thinks that people on the South Side help themselves by crying about racism or classism and lack of investment, but I do think that creating policy that assumes that the current generations will forever perpetuate the prejudices of their parents would be a fatal mistake.

LouisVanDerWright Jul 1, 2013 2:23 PM

Yeah, I don't think it is at all unrealistic that we will see major growth on the far South Side in the next 20-30 years. Places like Woodlawn and South Shore are just far too awesome not to eventually redevelop.


In other news: I used Divvy last night for the first time and it was awesome. I am seriously impressed with the system and it's only like 20% rolled out. I took it from Roosevelt and Wabash to Adams and Jefferson since I had parked my car in Skybridge earlier in the day and had been getting rides all over town from a friend all day and was abandoned in the South Loop. So I am walking towards Roosevelt to get a cab and I see the Chicago Blue of the Divvy station from down the block.

So I think to myself "I bet there is a Divvy station right by where I'm going" and I quickly downloaded the App and checked it out. Well I figured there would be one on Halsted, but there isn't yet (though there will be before the end of summer and it will be right next to Skybridge, so my experience would have been even better once the system is fully deployed). The nearest one was just across the highway so I went there.

Learning to use the system was a bit cumbersome because I had to click through all kinds of disclaimers and figure out how to undock the bike, but I think a lot of this was because I was just using it for the first time and had to consent to everything. I am seriously considering buying the $75 yearly pass now so I can just go up to a station and grab a bike and be on my way. The station gives you a code that you key in at the bike of your choosing if you buy a 12 or 24 hour pass and gives you a new one every time you swipe your card at a new station during that period. I believe the 12 hour pass is only $3.50 so I spent exactly $3.50 on what would have been a $10-15 cab ride.

Also, it is worth noting the intangible benefits of using Divvy. I absolutely love biking downtown and loathe using cabs. I hate having to give directions to some guy having a conversation with lord knows who on a bluetooth headset and hate having to check if I have cash so I can avoid the "are you really going to pay with a credit card" scowl cabbies give you. I ended my trip relaxed and exhilarated, rather than stressed and feeling dirty from sitting in a slimy cab seat.

The best part was the reaction everyone on the street was giving me. I got cheered by random people on two separate occasions during the ride and was asked questions by people at every red light. I had several people ask me how much the bikes cost to ride, how they ride, and even had a cabbie pull up and start probing about the cost of the bikes and lamenting that he thinks it will cost him business. Everyone was checking me and the bike out and it garnered a lot of curious stares.

I have to say the bikes are great. They ride well, have comfortable seats (adjustable too!), have 3 gears that shift like a dream and provide just enough "oomph" to haul ass or leisurely coast along, large flashing LED's that are powered by your pedaling, racks with straps, and completely enclosed chains to prevent your pants from being snagged. Plus, they are painted a catchy "Chicago Blue" that stands out from blocks away and makes finding the stations easy. My only concern is how they will hold up with long run maintenance issues. They seemed incredibly solidly built and I have high hopes that they will hold up in the long run.

I only had a few "complaints" about the system and I think most of them will be resolved simply by getting used to the system. The one challenge I had was figuring out how to "undock" the bike which took a minute to do. You kind of have to give the bike a good hard yank to get it to release which is something I could see some women and older folks having a harder time with. Also, as I mentioned earlier, the amount of waivers and liability read-me's I had to agree to before getting my pass was ridiculous. Hopefully some of them go away next time I get a pass since I've already agreed to most of them. Also, I don't what to do with the whole helmet situation. I don't like riding without a helmet (though I am known to do so on an occasion) and feel like Divvy encourages you not to use a helmet because no one is going to lug around a bulky helmet all the time just in case they need to grab a Divvy bike. Not sure if there is anything that can be done about that though.

The last complaint was that there aren't enough stations yet. This will change extremely quickly as there are only about 70 stations running right now and will be over 300 up and running by the end of July. They already feel like they are all over the place right now and I can't fathom how "saturated" with Divvy station downtown will feel once all 400 of them are installed. Also, there is no long run plan for a Divvy station by my house (Diversey and Milwaukee) and I will have to walk all the way to Logan Sqaure to get a Divvy Bike. This greatly hampers my plan which was to use Divvy as a convenient way to get from the Northwest to the North side and back. I would love to be able to take Divvy to the beach or when I'm going out on a weekend. That way I wouldn't have to worry about where my bike is, whether it is safe, how I'm going to get it home if I get drunk and take the red line back to a friends house in Edgewater and stay there. I could just grab a Divvy in Edgewater and take it back to the NW side with me the next day.


All in all I'm extremely impressed and can't wait to use the system some more. The best part was a strange sense of civic pride and excitement I had using the bikes. It feels like there is a lot of anticipation around Divvy in Chicago and everyone was watching me using the bike with great interest. I think this is going to be huge and really take off in Chicago especially once the full system rolls out.

PS: The bikes also have a bell which is great to have so I can catch the attention of unwary pedestrians or some cabbie who is merging without looking. It is loud enough that even motorists will hear it unless they are blasting music.

urbanpln Jul 1, 2013 2:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 6183119)
Hey old man: your reality isn't universal, especially when you constrain yourself to white people.

The facts on the ground are that, even with terrible service at 63rd and Cottage Grove, there is a measurable influx of educated academics and, to a certain extent, professionals choosing to live between 63rd and 59th Street, which is essentially a southern expansion of Hyde Park as a marketing name even if it technically is Woodlawn or some such place. With better service levels those numbers would grow faster.

There are also academics and some lower-key professionals (think nurse-type professionals) living between 25th and 40th, which will likely only grow as the South Loop gets filled in. This is more true of non-white professionals, but the level and source of income is what defines gentrification and we certainly do not need to tailor policy only for when white people deign to follow it.

For the record, I'm not a starry-eyed optimist, and I'm not one who thinks that people on the South Side help themselves by crying about racism or classism and lack of investment, but I do think that creating policy that assumes that the current generations will forever perpetuate the prejudices of their parents would be a fatal mistake.

That's not what we are seeing. I'm sorry but, I don't share your optimism. I tend to agree with UP on this issue. I work in those nabs as an urban planner. CMAP completed a housing demand analysis last summer that shows anemic demand in Woodlawn and the surrounding nabs over the next 30 years and the demand that is there is for low income residents. There will be a small increase in professionals, mostly from the U of C but it's not going to be an all out boom.

I do agree with you that Hyde Park will see some growth and perhaps Kenwood and Oakland over the next 2 decades but it's not going to be strong growth. Why? (1) The politics in many of these (Bronzeville) nabs will scare off the typical fickle north side buyer. There are many organization and people that are trying to keep these areas one race. This is not wrong, it's just a narrow focus. (2) Crime continues to be an issue. The gangs are still deep into many of these nabs. Some of them have vowed to make it uncomfortable for any affluent newcomers. This is changing slowly. Once again it's not going away over the next 10 to 15 years. (3) There is a ton of undeveloped land in the near south area. Micheal Reese and Lake Meadows are also a better sites to develop because they are seen as safer(closer to the lake and LSD, self contained). (4) Strong job growth is needed. Without this significant growth in the center and immediate area, there will not be strong demand for housing.

I could add more pressing issues but, I think these 3 have to be dealt with. I don't think these areas are dead but, they need extra attention in order to thrive.

jpIllInoIs Jul 1, 2013 3:50 PM

Extending the Green Line to Midway has always been on my wish list. Also rebuilding the eastern leg to the Metra Electric stop at Woodlawn.

the urban politician Jul 1, 2013 4:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanpln (Post 6183169)
There are many organization and people that are trying to keep these areas one race. This is not wrong, it's just a narrow focus.

^ Uhhh... yes, it is wrong. But otherwise agree with the rest of your post


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:04 PM.

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