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)

MayorOfChicago May 10, 2007 3:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip (Post 2825674)
And a side note. I think the Redline, haven't rode the Brown line in a long time, is running better with one less track because of the recontruction, than before when all 4 tracks were in place. I am amazed. It is decent now, wtf. Some things I don't get and this is one of them.

I think it's partly due to the fact that everyone working on those routes is on their toes to make sure nothing goes wrong, and that they're running fewer trains on the routes. You don't get the huge back-ups of trains during rush hour that slow everything down.

j korzeniowski May 10, 2007 5:24 PM

New CTA leader announces cuts

By Jon Hilkevitch
Tribune transportation reporter
Published May 10, 2007, 10:49 AM CDT


Newly appointed CTA President Ron Huberman today took a first stab at reducing the agency's administrative costs by announcing the elimination of 49 management positions and other cuts totaling $12.5 million.

Link

maybe i should email this article to jones and madigan. you know, the two chicagoans who are in charge of each house of the state legislature to go along with our chicagoan governor ...

alex1 May 10, 2007 11:01 PM

well, I think Blago was made a lame duck governor if I ever did see one today. While I agree with him in principal that his pet projects are the right things to focus on, it was clear in the beginning that he needed to figure a way to either start more modest programs and/or reformulate his taxing structure. Heck, he should have worked hand in hand with business groups on ways to improve Illinois's healthcare and education He shouldn't have fucked with transit either (that's where he lost me). Typical politician who doesn't see the big picture. He wants better healthcare but doesn't comprehend that getting cars off the roads automatically improves people's health.


regarding the above article, I think its a bad idea to cut advertising. That's the one thing that should be increasing at this time of increasingly high gas prices. But instead of hte previous crap the CTA has put out, they need to seek an agency that will do their work pro bono.

ardecila May 11, 2007 4:09 AM

Well, getting cars off the roads would definitely increase the efficiency of ambulances. Twice in the last 2 days I have witnessed ambulances, with their sirens on, STUCK IN TRAFFIC because nobody wants to move.

whyhuhwhy May 11, 2007 3:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alex1 (Post 2827308)
well, I think Blago was made a lame duck governor if I ever did see one today. While I agree with him in principal that his pet projects are the right things to focus on, it was clear in the beginning that he needed to figure a way to either start more modest programs and/or reformulate his taxing structure. Heck, he should have worked hand in hand with business groups on ways to improve Illinois's healthcare and education He shouldn't have fucked with transit either (that's where he lost me). Typical politician who doesn't see the big picture. He wants better healthcare but doesn't comprehend that getting cars off the roads automatically improves people's health.

I agree he was made a lame duck.

The fact is the state is in a fiscal mess right now (under his leadership, and this is all while he INCREASED government spending over the past several years more than any other recent administration).

You can't tell people that we are in a fiscal mess in one sentence, which we all know, and then in the next sentence talk about raising taxes to spend more money on government and expand health care. You don't talk about how the government is in a bloated fiscal mess and then in the next breath propose to raise spending and expand government. It just doesn't make sense to anyone with half a brain.

When you are in a personal fiscal crunch and are in debt, do you think it is wise to borrow money at Best Buy to upgrade your plasma TV? Truly unbelievable behavior by Blago and no one was falling for it.

alex1 May 12, 2007 4:46 PM

jan-march ridership #s for cta train (compared to 2006):

Red line: -2%
north -3%
state subway -2%
dan ryan 0%


Purple line: -2%

Yellow line: -8%

Blue line: -6%
o'hare -5
dearborn subway -12%
forest park -2%

Pink line: 4%

Green line: 2%
lake 5%
south elevated 2%
e. 63rd -5%
ashland -9%

Brown line: -4%

Orange line: -1%

Loop elevated: 8%

blue line is getting hit hardest across weekends. Highest increases seen on Loop elevated sundays (up 31% in March (15.2k vs. 11.7k rides in '06)). The capacity project on the north side has affected just about every single line as expected.

System Total (train 20007): -2%

March numbers:
weekdays: -1%
saturday: 0%
sunday: 6%

alex1 May 12, 2007 4:54 PM

jan-march ridership #s for cta bus (daily averages):

weekday: 1,002,404 (979,504 (2006)) 2.3%
saturday: 615,598 (611,930) 0.6%
sunday: 424,658 (402,844) 5.4%

really good numbers for bus ridership.



CTA systemwide gains (bus and train) for the month of March, despite our awful state of rail, there's about an increase of about 19k rides per weekday, 5k on Saturdays and 32k on sundays.

Sundays continue to be the big ridership gainer on the CTA system as it has been for at least the past few years.

ardecila May 14, 2007 2:35 AM

I had an idea after I saw the Southworks plan - what if the Green Line took over the IC South Chicago branch? It would only require about 1.5 miles of trackage to link the two, and it would increase frequencies to both South Chicago customers as well as the customers on the IC Main Line. Additionally, it would add riders to the Green Line which is struggling right now.

You could go even further and build a subway. It would be cheaper than a standard subway, since they wouldn't need to disrupt the traffic to build it. The existing median is more than wide enough for a subway (I checked it against the clearances of NY's IND subways, which have bigger cars than Chicago anyway).

I'm not sure the Southworks plan will work without transit improvements. Without good transit, it won't appeal to the yuppies, and with its New-Urbanist plan and South Side location, it probably won't attract many families.

nomarandlee May 14, 2007 2:56 AM

hhmm...I like it, sounds like an intriguing idea. I was thinking of how to get transit over there when I saw the Southworks renders as well. That sounds like it may be a feasible solution. I was thinking just extending the green line to it since its not all that really far away but your idea may be more practicle and lost costley. To really get the most out of that site and its potential some good transit options would be key.

VivaLFuego May 14, 2007 4:32 AM

^ That is a cool idea. A few issues to consider:

1. How to extend the green line eastward to the IC, since so much blood was already let in the 90s to get it removed?

2. If I understand you correctly, this would involve shutting down the South Chicago branch for a couple years while the line is reconfigured to CTA standards.

3. Is there a market for travel to justify the expense? As it is right now, the #6, 14, an 26 express bus routes combine to wallop the South Chicago branch. Put another way: would such a green line extension provide service to where those residents would want to go, and would it provide that service with short enough travel times to win people over from either their cars or the bus? The South Chicago branch ridership is certainly hurt by a combination of its poor off-peak service level and the lack of fare integration.

On account of the all the infrastructure issues alone (overhead power collection, platform height, etc.) I've generally figured that the most plausible solution is to purchase more Metra Electric Highliners to allow for 15 minute headways throughout the day, coupled with vital fare integration between the CTA and Metra systems, i.e. so customers could take a bus to the Metra line and transfer, or transfer to CTA once they get downtown.

ardecila May 14, 2007 4:59 AM

Well, I think my idea would work politically. Metra would lose the burden of providing service to an in-city area, and the residents of South Shore would be happy since they would receive a transit upgrade.

The number of trains being run would not actually change. Metra would still run the same amount of trains on their Electric District; only without the burden of the South Chicago branch, they would be free to run more on their Main Line (or to eliminate those runs altogether). The number of trains being run on the Green Line would be the same as the number of trains being run to East 63rd right now.

As for the community opposition - I would in fact have the rest of the 63rd Street L torn down. It's too controversial, and I have a better routing. It would continue south through the CTA yard and onto the abandoned New York Central viaduct, which runs parallel to the Skyway. (the viaduct currently in use was built by the Pennsylvania RR, and is also parallel). From there it would diverge at 71st and enter a short subway over to Dorchester, where it would join the South Chicago Branch.

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/1...tensionxi0.jpg

Marcu May 14, 2007 4:03 PM

Lots of trouble
By the time you get a parking permit at a handful of suburban Metra stops with lengthy waiting lists, the Summer Olympics may be in town


May 14, 2007
BY MONIFA THOMAS Staff Reporter

If you apply today for a parking permit for one of the two commuter lots closest to the Naperville stop on Metra's Burlington Northern Santa Fe line, you should be getting it by, oh, sometime in the year 2016.

That's right -- the waiting list to get a quarterly permit for a parking spot there now stretches nearly nine years.

If you're the parent of a preschooler, you'll be getting her ready for high school then. Who knows, maybe the two of you can take Metra to see the Summer Olympics.

A third commuter lot by the Naperville station isn't as tough to get into -- the wait's just six years for a parking permit there because it's farther from the tracks.

Sound bad? It used to be worse.

"Actually, the wait lists have come down a little bit over the last five years," says Doug Krieger, Naperville's finance director. "We've seen the peak, and we're starting to come down."

That's small comfort to Metra commuters in the west suburb who say they set their alarm clocks two hours early to leave enough time to hunt for street or meter parking. Either that, or drive to another station, walk, take a Pace bus or arrange to be picked up.

Marlene Marino tried almost all of those options during the five years she waited to get a space in one of the coveted Naperville lots, back when the list was shorter.

Marino says she also "parked illegally . . . and got a lot of tickets. It was a long five years. I feel bad for the people on that list."

Marcea Holman, also of Naperville, didn't even bother to add her name to the list, which already has nearly 1,700 names on it. Her husband started taking her to and from the station after she tired of spending 30 minutes to an hour every day looking for a place to park.

"It's crazy," Holman said. "People get these permits, and they last forever."

Indeed, those lucky enough to get a permit can keep their spaces as long as they want. All they have to do is pay fees of $50 to $60 per quarter, depending on the lot.

Naperville does audits to make sure people are actually using their spots, Krieger said. But those are done only every few years.

Naperville isn't the only place with terrible waits for reserved parking near a Metra station -- just the worst. Other suburbs that have lengthy waits: Clarendon Hills, with an eight-year wait; Lisle and Midlothian, both five to seven years; and Hinsdale, at least five years.

Metra doesn't handle parking for most of its stations, but it has been involved in several expansion projects to ease the parking crunch, which is most pronounced in the fast-growing west suburbs.

Altogether, more than 85,000 parking spaces are available in lots near Metra stations. That's nowhere near enough, commuters say. And, with ridership at an all-time high, it's only getting worse.

Many of the communities with the worst waits have no plans to add more spaces or change the way permits are issued.

As Midlothian spokeswoman Gladys Schuler put it: "We have no place to expand. Other than maybe turning our whole town into a parking lot, I don't know what the solution is."

DePaul University transportation professor Joseph Schwieterman has one suggestion commuters may not like: raising the price of parking.

While adding new commuter lines to Metra's system would be the best solution, "a higher price would encourage more efficient use of scarce spots," Schwieterman said. "A nine-year wait is simply intolerable for a growing suburb."

VivaLFuego May 14, 2007 5:05 PM

^ A few obvious points:

1. The quarterly price for renewal is much, much too low; raising the price would reduce the demand, minimize wait time and maximize revenue for the low owner. What are they waiting for?

2. Ms. Midlothian: Demand is high. Build large parking garages instead of these awful huge surface lots!

whyhuhwhy May 14, 2007 6:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego (Post 2834125)
2. Ms. Midlothian: Demand is high. Build large parking garages instead of these awful huge surface lots!

No kidding. It's not like people won't fill up the spaces and they won't be able to pay for the parking garages. What are they waiting for? If you can't park your car near a metra station out in the burbs what good is the metra station--might as well drive to downtown, and that just adds to the problem.

Marcu May 14, 2007 9:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whyhuhwhy (Post 2834294)
No kidding. It's not like people won't fill up the spaces and they won't be able to pay for the parking garages. What are they waiting for? If you can't park your car near a metra station out in the burbs what good is the metra station--might as well drive to downtown, and that just adds to the problem.

This is just more evidence that the park 'n ride system doesn't work. It makes sense in theory but in the real world, it just forces an average suburban commuter to have to spend 15 min on the road just to get to a train station. On top of that, the state is forced to bankroll 2 forms of infrastructure (road and tracks) instead of just focusing on improving mass transit. But I guess at this stage it's too late in the game to try to change all of suburbia to TOD. We gotta live with the park 'n ride.

ardecila May 14, 2007 11:05 PM

The state is never gonna be free of the burden of funding roads. It's the high-volume, interstate or grade-seperated expressways that are so wasteful.

whyhuhwhy May 14, 2007 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 2834874)
The state is never gonna be free of the burden of funding roads. It's the high-volume, interstate or grade-seperated expressways that are so wasteful.

I really doubt that. The tollway system makes a hell of a lot of money and carries an incredible amount of (very important) business thorough fare. Sometimes I wonder if people forget that Chicago sits on the nexus of three states and is the major industrial/shipping/distribution hub in the Midwest.

VivaLFuego May 14, 2007 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcu (Post 2834647)
This is just more evidence that the park 'n ride system doesn't work. It makes sense in theory but in the real world, it just forces an average suburban commuter to have to spend 15 min on the road just to get to a train station. On top of that, the state is forced to bankroll 2 forms of infrastructure (road and tracks) instead of just focusing on improving mass transit. But I guess at this stage it's too late in the game to try to change all of suburbia to TOD. We gotta live with the park 'n ride.

I think Park n Ride does work as long as the parking lots aren't preventing any higher density, "sustainable" uses around the transit station. Out in Naperville, the BNSF stops are surrounded by vast rings of parking:
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...1310&encType=1

Witness the wrong way to implement park n ride. Of course, at least this one has an apartment development in the near vacinity; but a better plan would be to use just one or 2 of those lots to build multi-story parking garages, and develop the rest as apartments with some storefront retail. The retail would not only serve those residents, but also commuters on the way to and from work (dry-cleaning, convenience store/pharmacy, etc.)

For a much more viable model, see Arlington Heights:
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...9555&encType=1

Note apartments, retail, and parking decks (several of which are available to Metra commuters)

whyhuhwhy May 14, 2007 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcu (Post 2834647)
This is just more evidence that the park 'n ride system doesn't work.

Not every suburb has a metra parking problem--most in fact don't. And those that do, it's not like they can't replace the surface lots with garages. The park and ride system works great if there are places to park. It's not like the suburbs have the same land crunch the city does and the vast majority only have surface lots.

Quote:

It makes sense in theory but in the real world, it just forces an average suburban commuter to have to spend 15 min on the road just to get to a train station.
....which is a heck of a lot better than the same people all trying to squeeze through the Hillside Strangler, don't you think? There is nothing wrong with spending a few minutes on local arterials (which will ALWAYS be there) to get people off the major freeways and onto trains.

Quote:

On top of that, the state is forced to bankroll 2 forms of infrastructure (road and tracks) instead of just focusing on improving mass transit.
Are you saying to do away with ROADS? I think you may have it backwards if I understand you correctly. There will never, ever be a time where the only transportation money the state spends is on mass transit because roads are the only truly multi-modal, multi-usage, and omni-temporal commuting and distribution system we have and the economic health of the region is much more dependent on them for those reasons, besides the fact that a hugely significant portion of the metro's mass transit are via the same arterials (buses)...

VivaLFuego May 15, 2007 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whyhuhwhy (Post 2834957)
I disagree strongly. Not every suburb has a metra parking problem--most in fact don't. And those that do, it's not like they can't replace the surface lots with garages. The park and ride system works great if there are places to park. It's not like the suburbs have the same land crunch the city does and the vast majority only have surface lots.



....which is a hell of a lot better than everyone getting in their cars and trying to squeeze through the Hillside Strangler, that's for sure. There is nothing wrong with spending 15 min on local roads (which will ALWAYS be there) to get people off the major freeways and onto trains.



You can't be serious. Doing away with ROADS? I think you have it backwards. There will never, ever be a time where the only transportation money the state spends is on mass transit because roads are the only truly multi-modal, multi-usage, and omni-temporal commuting and distribution system we have and the economic health of the region is much more dependent on them for those reasons, besides the fact that a hugely significant portion of the metro's mass transit are via the same arterials (buses)...

I don't think Marcu was saying to do away with roads, but rather that by having people hop in their cars and drive a few miles to the train, you've already done away with a significant part of the benefits of transit to things like congestion (and its accompanying construction/maintenance costs), air quality, etc.


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.