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)

Chicago3rd Jan 28, 2009 2:56 PM

Since I was the idjiot who started vicious unsubstantiated rumors about the Wellington L stop not being built I feel I should come clean and say it appears to be being worked on. They already have support beams going into place.

ChicagoChicago Jan 28, 2009 4:47 PM

http://www.suntimes.com/news/transpo...nsit28.article

In the stimulus bill, they have allocated $1.545B for Illinois transportation. That's $1B for roads, and $545mm for mass transit. Out of $90B, Illinois gets 1.7% of the total allocation...for a state that comprises 4.3% of the country's population. We need some representation.

VivaLFuego Jan 28, 2009 5:44 PM

I thought our $1.545B in transportation money is out of a total of approximately $30B, which is a more respectable 5% of the total. The $90B figure included some other non-transportation infrastructure spending, like upgrades to the power grid.

...I think.

ChicagoChicago Jan 28, 2009 5:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego (Post 4053665)
I thought our $1.545B in transportation money is out of a total of approximately $30B, which is a more respectable 5% of the total. The $90B figure included some other non-transportation infrastructure spending, like upgrades to the power grid.

...I think.

Well, I have looked around, and every media outlet is posting a different number. Some say that the $90B includes funding of rthe electrical grid and federal buildings.

This website says the number is $43B. I suppose it’s always a bad sign when they can’t even decide how big the money tree is…

http://www.newsday.com/news/printedi...,2061659.story

And this website has infrastructure spending at $334B.

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/165009/Obama's-900B-Stimulus-'Post-Partisan'-It's-Not-But-Congress-Set-to-Approve?tickers=%5Edji,%5Egspc,TLT,QQQQ,SPY,DIA

the urban politician Jan 29, 2009 2:20 AM

^ I heard $43 billion, which is directly for transportation

ChicagoChicago Jan 29, 2009 5:14 PM

^^^
Ok, the number pushed through the House was $1.8B. The breakdown is as follows:

The stimulus package earmarks, in Illinois:
• $1 billion for highways and bridges;
• $262.5 million for the clean water state revolving fund;
• $352.8 million for transit capital;
• $191.8 million for light rail or other fixed route mass transit.

From - http://www.bnd.com/372/story/634547.html

To me, that is woefully inadequate on the mass transit side. I hate to berate Daley, but he’s done the city a huge disservice taking Huberman out of the top spot right as the CTA stands to gain a boatload from infrastructure spending.

ardecila Jan 29, 2009 5:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago3rd (Post 4053363)
Since I was the idjiot who started vicious unsubstantiated rumors about the Wellington L stop not being built I feel I should come clean and say it appears to be being worked on. They already have support beams going into place.

I emailed CTA about this a few weeks ago. Here's what I heard:

Quote:

The Paulina station is scheduled to open in April of this year, while the Wellington station is scheduled to open in August. Please keep in mind that these schedules are subject to change and that even though the stations may be open, construction could continue at these sites.

Nowhereman1280 Jan 29, 2009 6:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChicagoChicago (Post 4055869)
• $352.8 million for transit capital;
• $191.8 million for light rail or other fixed route mass transit.

From - http://www.bnd.com/372/story/634547.html

To me, that is woefully inadequate on the mass transit side. I hate to berate Daley, but he’s done the city a huge disservice taking Huberman out of the top spot right as the CTA stands to gain a boatload from infrastructure spending.

I don't know, its pretty good considering the massive hard-on the federal government has for subsidizing the automobile.

We could build quite a bit of transit with that money. Also take into account we may still be getting another 100 million for the BRT as well.

Attrill Jan 29, 2009 7:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 (Post 4056060)
I don't know, its pretty good considering the massive hard-on the federal government has for subsidizing the automobile.

We could build quite a bit of transit with that money. Also take into account we may still be getting another 100 million for the BRT as well.

I agree. Don't forget that this is NOT the federal transportation budget, it is the stimulus package. There will be separate bills to give additional money for long term transit projects. A lot of these projects are geared towards the type of employment they will create as well. There is a huge chunk for rebuilding schools, which makes a lot of sense since

a) it needs to be done
b) There are a lot of residential construction workers who can jump right into a school rebuilding job without much (if any) additional training.

MayorOfChicago Jan 29, 2009 8:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 (Post 4056060)
I don't know, its pretty good considering the massive hard-on the federal government has for subsidizing the automobile.

We could build quite a bit of transit with that money. Also take into account we may still be getting another 100 million for the BRT as well.

.

That total amount is basically what it cost to rehab the Brown Line.

I'm glad they re-did the Brown Line, but this package is being talked about like it's the next New Deal. For the entire state of Illinois...Metra, CTA, Pace, all those other cities, Metro East.....the equivient of funding for a Brown Line reconstruction really isn't too special.

That money would vaporize in a heartbeat concidering all the issues that desperately need money, let alone expanding any systems.

It's like winning the jackpot in the lottery and getting $200. Sure it's great to get it....but not really what you invisioned "winning the lottery".

the urban politician Jan 30, 2009 2:27 AM

^ I think the point people are making is that this is essentially extra money, which is on top of the money Chicago will already get from a separate Federal Transportation Bill. I imagine this kind of money could be used to buy badly needed buses, rail cars, perhaps upgrade some basic infrastructure (signals, etc)?

Plus, with Bagofshit finally out of office, perhaps there's hope that Quinn will work with the State legislature to pass a badly needed infrastructure bill. Fingers crossed, there is yet hope that Chicago area transit will finally get at least a chunk of what it needs towards becoming a better system.

emathias Jan 30, 2009 4:30 AM

Acting CTA President designated

Dorval Carter. Anyone know anything about him? The press release about his initial hiring in 2000 is still on the CTA's website. Reading that, I'm not especially hopeful about him, to be honest.

It's good he has federal experience, but it's kinda old unless he's done more with it lately. That he was hired by Kruesi almost 9 years ago doesn't bode well for infrastructure and service maintenance. If he's just interim, I guess that's fine, but I kinda hope the CTA goes outside the City to get a new permanent chief.

the urban politician Jan 31, 2009 5:18 PM

It's interesting that our new Secy of Transportation and, now, the head of Amtrak are from Illinois. Bode well?

Downstate mayor to be new Amtrak chairman
By: Paul Merrion Jan. 30, 2009
(Crain’s) — Amtrak’s new conductor is from Illinois: Thomas C. Carper, former mayor of downstate Macomb, was unanimously named chairman by Amtrak’s board of directors yesterday.
Mr. Carper, a long-time supporter of passenger rail, has served on Amtrak’s board since last March. He was nominated to be a director by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Il., a leading advocate of Amtrak in Congress.

lawfin Jan 31, 2009 5:35 PM

^^^^I am curious since we are on the topic of money / expenditures......
just for shits and grins does anybody have any informed estimates of how much it would cost to say run line down ashland or western or both...?

Preferably subway.....I mean I think it would be great to allow transport among all the spoke lines instead of having to schlep downtown or at least to Belmont all the time

Subsidize it with doubling allowable density with say 2 blocks of a rail stop

Thoughts

Attrill Jan 31, 2009 5:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawfin (Post 4059960)
just for shits and grins does anybody have any informed estimates of how much it would cost to say run line down ashland or western or both...?

Studies of this were done as part of the Circle Line planning. You can find comparisons of bus, light rail, and heavy rail along both Western and Ashland here.

I think Western heavy rail subway makes the most sense, but the study determined it was not cost effective.

Busy Bee Feb 1, 2009 12:42 AM

I hate those mandated bullshit comparison studies. Anybody with a brain knows that heavy rail is this obvious solution. All these federal mandated studies do is spend double digit millions telling us something we already know.

On a side note, can anyone tell me if quasi-federal socialist countries, i.e. France, Germany and to some extent UK are required to do these silly things or does it go from expert and political consensus to digging dirt?

ardecila Feb 1, 2009 1:05 AM

You act as if cities don't try to get more than what they need. The process is intended to prevent cities from building expensive transit systems when they don't have the density or the public consensus to build them.

For example, Miami's expensive heavy-rail line has 67,000 riders per day over 22.4 miles of track, or 3000 riders per mile. In contrast, Chicago's L has 620,000 riders over 106 miles of track for 6000 riders per mile.

On average, every mile of track built in Chicago serves TWICE as many people as a mile of track in Miami.

Let's look at Portland, which chose to build a cheaper light-rail system. They also have 3000 riders per mile per day, but because their transit system is cheaper to build and operate, the residents of Portland have gotten the same benefit as the residents of Miami for far less money.

Now look at New York City. They have a whopping 22,000 riders per mile per day, yet their system, with its extensive areas of 3 and 4-tracked lines, is to the L what the L is to Portland MAX Light Rail, an entire grade above.


Finally, let's take a critical perspective on this. Along the Western Corridor, from Berwyn to 79th, there is the 49 and the X49, which together have 31480 riders per day over 15.6 miles, or 2000 riders per mile per day. This isn't even high enough to justify a Portland-like light rail system, but even that would make more sense than a super-expensive subway line. Now, the ridership may be more concentrated within the Circle Line study area, but right now, it seems like the buses are doing a good job handling the traffic. The Circle Line alignment as it is currently chosen along Ashland allows costs to be reduced by using part of the Pink Line and by building elevated tracks through Pilsen instead of subway. Plus it avoids duplicating the bus service on Western.

Nowhereman1280 Feb 1, 2009 2:17 AM

^^^ What you seem to be forgetting is that buses are the less preferable choice for most commuters. What really drives people to take the train is traffic, which grade separated trains are immune to. Western is absolute hell during rush hours, bumper to bumper gridlock. Who is going to take a bus when you can practically out walk it? Also, a Western or Ashland Subway (would probably have to be subway because of the scores of NIMBY's that would protest a noisy El in their neighborhood) or El would be way faster than busses without traffic and completely blow them away with traffic. Not to mention the fact that an Ashland would provide a connection to all the lines, driving up ridership on all other lines as well by making the El an even more convenient way to get around Chicago.

I really like the idea of running something down Ashland because you could run it along the Metra Row and have it meet up with the Red Line at Howard while retaining an optimal ~1 mile distance between the lines most of the way. It would also be able to run along the Pink Line tracks by United Center and could terminate at the Orange line Ashland Station.

I have a feeling that a subway down Ashland or Western from the Brown Line to the Orange Line would cost at least $5 billion, much more if the line went further north. The #7 subway extension in New York is costing about $2 billion for about two miles of tunnel. I imagine a 5 mile stretch with no major corners in Chicago would cost a little under 5 billion assuming there is nothing in our soil that makes it more expensive. Now I would be much happier with a $5 billion stimulus to build a new subway from the Federal government!

honte Feb 1, 2009 2:21 AM

^ @ Ardecila: To me, admittedly a total novice, the problem with this kind of analysis is that it cannot factor in true ridership increases or the potential upside to better improvements. In a city with extensive existing public transit ridership and poor interconnectivity, something like the Circle Line could draw far more ridership than current systems serve. Similarly, I do not trust the projected ridership studies very much.

Busy Bee Feb 1, 2009 2:48 AM

Just to clarify, I was stating that heavy rail was the obvious solution for a Western or Ashland alignment in Chicago, Illinois and was not referring to a preference of heavy rail for any and all other random cities.

the urban politician Feb 1, 2009 3:54 AM

^ Not building transit because it's not justified NOW is not a reason not to build it. To the contrary, our country builds expensive highways to nowhere without a second thought.

Many of New York's rail/subway extensions were to undeveloped areas which subsequently exploded with growth as a result of rail access to employment centers in Manhattan (ie the Bronx).

Point is, with proper planning and without blockades to development (Aldermanic stupidity, manufacturing districts as in the case w the Orange Line), a new rail line project should not be shelved just because current population densities do not necessarily support it.

Abner Feb 1, 2009 4:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte (Post 4060679)
I do not trust the projected ridership studies very much.

I always seem to be seeing news stories from various cities about new rail service vastly exceeding ridership projections. Does anyone know if this a general trend, or do projections get it more or less right most of the time, and I only see the stories because higher ridership is the exception?

On the specific case of a Western subway or Circle Line, it seems especially complicated to figure out how many riders the service will attract because they would be used so heavily for transferring between lines--they would create a lot of possible rail routes. The increased ridership on all the connecting lines would have to be taken into account in addition to the ridership on the new line.

TUP, some of Chicago's rail lines were built speculatively as well. The most speculative line of all: http://www.chicago-l.org/operations/...stchester.html

Attrill Feb 1, 2009 6:10 AM

It's important to remember that all of these studies were done a few years ago, in a very different funding environment but after we realized that over $5 billion was needed by the CTA for maintenance alone. Being conservative on what they could expect for federal funding was a pretty reasonable approach at that time.

In terms of best service remember that this is all part of the Circle line, the main purpose of which is to connect Metra, the Red Line, Blue Line, and Orange Line to create an outer Loop - not run a single line all the way up to Howard. I have to commute from Logan Square to Andersonville every day and would benefit greatly from a line running that far North, but from my experiences riding both the Ashland and Western buses if I miss the train (Metra from Clybourn to Ravenswood) the ridership on both lines isn't huge at rush hour, and seems to mostly consist of short trips. And anyways, this does not look at any service running north of Armitage.

I think part of why the Ashland corridor is preferred is that it is giving service to an area that is already an established commercial and residential area. Running it on Western (which I prefer) presumes that development will follow the line, as opposed to the lines following development. I can see the merit of both sides of that argument.

Mr Downtown Feb 1, 2009 8:24 AM

I've never understood the point of an Ashland alignment to tie together the radial routes; it's only about eight minutes out from the center. Unless you have (unrealistic) five minute headways, I think a simple spreadsheet calculation will show that a single downtown transfer from one radial route to another will on average be faster than two transfers so you can ride the Ashland subway. In fact, I thought CTA had done a study showing exactly that.

A Cicero corridor alignment starts to make more sense in terms of tying the lines together, but is probably best done with BRT along the Belt Railway.

At any rate, I wouldn't start picking out a color for the Circle Line. The only three guys at CTA who thought it was a good idea have all left the building.

ardecila Feb 1, 2009 9:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte (Post 4060679)
^ @ Ardecila: To me, admittedly a total novice, the problem with this kind of analysis is that it cannot factor in true ridership increases or the potential upside to better improvements. In a city with extensive existing public transit ridership and poor interconnectivity, something like the Circle Line could draw far more ridership than current systems serve. Similarly, I do not trust the projected ridership studies very much.

I knew this was poking the hornet's nest when I wrote it... in hindsight, seems like a bad idea.

Admittedly, my analysis was extremely simplistic. I tried to convey that sense. My purpose was to explain why an alternatives analysis is necessary. In a world of super-cheap construction, say in Shanghai, we could afford to build an entire extensive subway network for the city. But in a country where funds for transit are limited, transit agencies must work to get the most bang for the buck. Hence, they choose the most cost-effective solutions to transit problems.

I'm not too sure the Circle Line is dead. The project is definitely on the backburner, though. CTA has on their website that Stage 3 Alternatives Analysis will begin this spring. Something will come out of it, I'm sure, even if it's only money for Ashland or Western BRT, which would be a valuable addition to the CTA system. Since an Ogden alignment was also under consideration, we may end up with a BRT line along Ogden (which would necessarily include a replacement of the long-lost Ogden bridge, perhaps bus-only).

VivaLFuego Feb 1, 2009 3:27 PM

^ The Circle Line Alternative Analysis study area was extended all the way to Cicero to include the Mid-City corridor, so the "study corridor" now, amusingly, basically encompasses the entire city.

FWIW, I think that acquiring funding for some sort of BRT along Cicero, Western, or Ashland is by far the most likely outcome unless either 1) someone with serious clout in DC pushes for a very specific project/alignment, or 2) the FTA cost-effectiveness evaluation guidelines are changed such that the heavy rail option doesn't (almost) always lose, as has been the case for many years.

The relevant example is the WMATA extension to Dulles. Under the FTA guidelines there was no way it was getting built, until many congressmen, senators, and so forth pulled strings to make it happen.

arenn Feb 1, 2009 4:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 4060557)
I hate those mandated bullshit comparison studies. Anybody with a brain knows that heavy rail is this obvious solution. All these federal mandated studies do is spend double digit millions telling us something we already know.

On a side note, can anyone tell me if quasi-federal socialist countries, i.e. France, Germany and to some extent UK are required to do these silly things or does it go from expert and political consensus to digging dirt?

The purpose and need statement and the alternatives analysis are what the EIS is all about. Transit supporters did themselves in. By requiring extensive environmental work for roads and other public works, they did themselves in too.

I for one am glad we have environmental laws, though I'd say that the process is way too cumbersome, lengthy, and costly. Every major project probably doubles in cost from concept to implementation thanks to inflation alone.

BTW: In Europe, they also have strict environmental laws.

alex1 Feb 1, 2009 10:59 PM

doesn't bus service become more expensive then rail ridership at some point? what was it? 20k?

obviously, creating the infrastructure to run trains isn't compared in this analysis but at some point, there is savings.

Theoretically, putting a train line on Chicago Avenue could pull in huge ridership numbers. Much larger then what you see now, although you'd also kill bus ridership along that and nearby bus routes (between grand and division).

Abner Feb 2, 2009 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 4061037)
A Cicero corridor alignment starts to make more sense in terms of tying the lines together, but is probably best done with BRT along the Belt Railway.

Is it the construction or the operation that makes BRT more cost-effective than heavy rail for a line along the Belt Railway? To an uneducated schlub like me, it doesn't seem like it should be that huge a deal (comparatively) to put in new tracks on an existing railroad embankment. Stations are expensive, but a BRT line would have to have them too, unless there were onramps and offramps at every station, which sounds even worse.

Mr Downtown Feb 2, 2009 1:41 AM

It's both. First, it's not clear that there's room or that FRA would permit new tracks alongside the Belt Railway. A rail line has to be signaled and have a power distribution system. It's doubtful that even a single grade crossing would be allowed. Somehow engineering and construction costs for rail projects have gotten way out of hand. The stations have become enormously expensive ($14 million to build ground-level platforms in Skokie). The equipment costs are even worse, now roughly eight times as much for a rail vehicle as an articulated bus. Yes, the rail vehicle lasts twice as long, but the cost of the midlife rebuild is more than buying an entirely new bus.

The biggest advantage of BRT over rail is that it doesn't have to just shuttle back and forth on a segregated guideway, forcing people to transfer to and from it. Buses can circulate through neighborhoods at either end, then run along the busway to various destinations at the other end. That means that there's a possibility for residents of West Lawn to have a one-seat ride to a Lincolnwood factory, or for Austin teenagers to have a one-seat ride to jobs at Ford City. Even someone going from Cicero to a job in Rosemont could have a two-seat ride rather than three.

orulz Feb 2, 2009 3:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 4061904)
It's both. First, it's not clear that there's room or that FRA would permit new tracks alongside the Belt Railway. A rail line has to be signaled and have a power distribution system. It's doubtful that even a single grade crossing would be allowed. Somehow engineering and construction costs for rail projects have gotten way out of hand. The stations have become enormously expensive ($14 million to build ground-level platforms in Skokie). The equipment costs are even worse, now roughly eight times as much for a rail vehicle as an articulated bus. Yes, the rail vehicle lasts twice as long, but the cost of the midlife rebuild is more than buying an entirely new bus.

The biggest advantage of BRT over rail is that it doesn't have to just shuttle back and forth on a segregated guideway, forcing people to transfer to and from it. Buses can circulate through neighborhoods at either end, then run along the busway to various destinations at the other end. That means that there's a possibility for residents of West Lawn to have a one-seat ride to a Lincolnwood factory, or for Austin teenagers to have a one-seat ride to jobs at Ford City. Even someone going from Cicero to a job in Rosemont could have a two-seat ride rather than three.

FRA has very recently started loosening rules for what they will allow in rail corridors. In Raleigh, we had a transit line planned (died in 2004, about 3 months from getting FFGA status due to tightened restrictions on cost effectiveness.) The line was to be in a railroad corridor, and the FRA refused to allow anything that was not FRA-compliant in the corridor without an unrealistic amount of separation, so the line was planned to use FRA-compliant DMUs. However, the transit line has recently been revived, but this time FRA is willing to accept LRV's. I see no reason why this recent change of heart should not also apply to Chicago.

BRT does allow circulation through neighborhood, but it's also not as good at focusing development. That is, if the neighborhoods will allow it. It's a trade-off. You do make a good point about the obscene construction costs of transit infrastructure, but I can imagine that pretty much the same thing applies to busways too, though maybe not to the same degree.

ardecila Feb 2, 2009 4:07 AM

"Focusing development" as you call it, requires the cooperation of the city with regards to zoning. So far, we've gotten no indication that the city is willing to upzone land around even the existing train stations. The aldermen have a great deal of control over the zoning patterns in their own wards and nobody wants denser development in their wards.

Currently, anybody wishing to build a dense development near a rail station will have to submit their projects as a "planned development", which means that it will be considered individually by the City Council. This adds a good deal of cost in terms of time and money spent.

Rational Plan3 Feb 2, 2009 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 4060557)
I hate those mandated bullshit comparison studies. Anybody with a brain knows that heavy rail is this obvious solution. All these federal mandated studies do is spend double digit millions telling us something we already know.

On a side note, can anyone tell me if quasi-federal socialist countries, i.e. France, Germany and to some extent UK are required to do these silly things or does it go from expert and political consensus to digging dirt?

Well things are different from country to country. But the UK is a sort of halfway house between the US and Mainland Europe. We never abandoned the railways as a means of moving passengers, the way you did in the US, but we are a very crowded Island, and we abandoned most of our plans to slice new roads through our cities.

The problem in the UK is that in the last few decades we don't seem to spend a lot on our Railways or our Roads. Planning for transport schemes seems to go on for decades. Most of the proposed new Tube routes in the London have been knocking round in one shape or another since the Second World War.

Often a scheme will be mooted and everyone agrees its a very good idea, but a bit expensive. It needs to be evaluated properly. So a study will be launched looking at the total transport planning needs for an area, then all the possible options will be looked at. What's the best route, technology, cheapest to build, easiest to get through planning without too much protest etc. Each stage of course takes many months, and will often have it's own public consultation round.

Then decisions will bounce around government departments, with the Treasury putting strong pressure to cancel anything that might cost money.

If your lucky it might only take 10 years from first thinking about it to it actually opening. Often though a new political whim or change of government will require everything to be re-examined, or budgetary crises elsewhere means that the funding has disappeared. Often the department of Transport own civil servants are the biggest enemy as they have their own departmental prejudices. (bloody buses are cheaper!)

After many years, when they can delay it no longer and existing routes are bursting at the seams a new line, or road is opened. By the time this has happened it has often been valued engineered down. So the stations are smaller with fewer escalators, the route has jumped about to satisfy changing redevelopment priorities. Within a few days it is rammed and the whole process starts again to relieve the overcrowded network.

To give you an idea of some of the documents available to look at I have a couple of a couple of big projects linked that are about to start.

Crossrail is the big one potentially with a potentially £15 billion price tag. Utillity relocation has started and a some properties are being vacated I won't believe this one is safe until the tunnels are being bored.

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/

http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk/

Thameslink is £5.5 billion scheme that is split into two stages, to avoid the Olympics.

http://www.tl2000inquiry.org.uk/

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/twa/ir/thameslinkreport/

arenn Feb 3, 2009 5:29 PM

London does carry significantly more passengers on bus than rail.

Attrill Feb 3, 2009 5:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arenn (Post 4064912)
London does carry significantly more passengers on bus than rail.

Unless there is a dusting of snow, then they don't carry anyone ;)

Mr Downtown Feb 3, 2009 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arenn (Post 4064912)
London does carry significantly more passengers on bus than rail.

I wonder if there's any city in the world where that's not the case.

Rational Plan3 Feb 3, 2009 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arenn (Post 4064912)
London does carry significantly more passengers on bus than rail.

That's true of most cities, but not London.

London is different from most other UK cities in that Public transport plays such an important role in getting people to work.

For example in 2006, the percentages for the main mode of travel to work broke down as this.

Across the city as whole 37% of people travelled to work in a car or truck, 14% by Bus, 19% by commuter train and 16% by underground or tram and 6% walk (the remainder is covered by bicycles, mopeds and motorbikes).

For jobs in Central London, that share brakes down to 11% for Cars, 12% Bus, 40% Commuter train, 28% underground and 4% Walk.

For Jobs in the Suburban outer boroughs, that share breaks down to 63% car 14% Bus 5% Commuter train 5% Underground 10% Walk.


http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/abou...ions/1482.aspx

VivaLFuego Feb 4, 2009 3:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 4065729)
I wonder if there's any city in the world where that's not the case.

Washington, DC?

the urban politician Feb 4, 2009 4:45 AM

Good news!
 
This news makes one somewhat happy... http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/adult/jackoff.gif

Quinn sets April deadline for capital bill
By: Paul Merrion Feb. 03, 2009
(Crain’s) — In office less than a week, Gov. Patrick Quinn is setting April 3 as his goal to enact a long-delayed capital bill to fund Illinois road projects and other improvements.
“It will give us a target to shoot at and keep an urgent approach,” he said after a 50-minute meeting Tuesday in Washington, D.C., with members of Congress from Illinois.

whyhuhwhy Feb 4, 2009 3:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 4066496)
This news makes one somewhat happy... http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/adult/jackoff.gif

Quinn sets April deadline for capital bill
By: Paul Merrion Feb. 03, 2009
(Crain’s) — In office less than a week, Gov. Patrick Quinn is setting April 3 as his goal to enact a long-delayed capital bill to fund Illinois road projects and other improvements.
“It will give us a target to shoot at and keep an urgent approach,” he said after a 50-minute meeting Tuesday in Washington, D.C., with members of Congress from Illinois.

Is April 3 too late to get federal matching funds? And how much does IL have to put up in order to get the $6 billion in federal funds? Anyone know the specifics of all of this? Thanks.

Taft Feb 4, 2009 3:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rational Plan3 (Post 4065778)
For jobs in Central London, that share brakes down to 11% for Cars, 12% Bus, 40% Commuter train, 28% underground and 4% Walk.

For Jobs in the Suburban outer boroughs, that share breaks down to 63% car 14% Bus 5% Commuter train 5% Underground 10% Walk.

Granted, Chicago's transit system couldn't handle percentages like that. But gods, I'm drooling over those ridership numbers. Here's hoping that any growth in the city over the next few decades is smart growth with adequate planning and funding for sensible transit options.

Taft

the urban politician Feb 4, 2009 3:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whyhuhwhy (Post 4067063)
Is April 3 too late to get federal matching funds? And how much does IL have to put up in order to get the $6 billion in federal funds? Anyone know the specifics of all of this? Thanks.

^ I don't want to sound too starry eyed hopeful, but I'm pretty sure the new Governor isn't going to commit that monumental of a screw up by missing the federal matching date

ChicagoChicago Feb 9, 2009 2:25 PM

I have what is likely by many of you a stupid question, but I was curious if anyone knows the answer.

Many valets have signs posted (speaking of fines) that occupy parking meter spots. I’ll try to take a picture next time I’m down there (River North) to show what I’m speaking of. My question is, how can a private enterprise stake claim to city streets? Do they pay the city for these spots?

emathias Feb 9, 2009 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChicagoChicago (Post 4076512)
I have what is likely by many of you a stupid question, but I was curious if anyone knows the answer.

Many valets have signs posted (speaking of fines) that occupy parking meter spots. I’ll try to take a picture next time I’m down there (River North) to show what I’m speaking of. My question is, how can a private enterprise stake claim to city streets? Do they pay the city for these spots?

I don't think they're supposed to reserve spots like that. But that doesn't usually stop them. City council just passed an ordinance (or is debating, I forget) that requires valets to have a higher number of off-street parking spaces.

emathias Feb 10, 2009 12:04 AM

Daley Releases A Few Details About Stimulus Plan Requests

What 15 miles would that be? North Main by itself isn't that long. I suppose if you added in Evanston you'd get closer, but still not to 15. I wonder what he has in mind. Getting North Main fixed out of this would be pretty amazing. I wish he'd added in all the subway stations, too - there are enough of them still needing rehabbing that'd it be nice to add them in.

Quote:

Repair or reconstruct 15 miles of public transit lines
Retrofit and improve more than 200 schools for the 21st century
Resurface more than 150 miles of arterial city streets
Retrofit more than 200 miles of city street lights
Install or repair 75 miles of sewer and water mains
Install solar panels in more than 200 city facilities
Repair a substantial number of bridges and viaducts
Expand broadband access to over 22,000 homes, including 10,000 Chicago Housing Authority units
Enhance technology at our schools and healthcare system
Weatherize thousands of homes to improve energy efficiency
Train workers for the new economy, including nurses and health care professionals
Improve education … by providing tutoring or remediation services, special education programs and continued training for teachers
Provide additional Head Start and early Head Start programs for children
Provide meals to children and seniors
Provide new funding for police

Attrill Feb 10, 2009 1:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 4077695)
I don't think they're supposed to reserve spots like that. But that doesn't usually stop them. City council just passed an ordinance (or is debating, I forget) that requires valets to have a higher number of off-street parking spaces.

My understanding is that they're supposed to use loading zones.

MayorOfChicago Feb 12, 2009 3:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChicagoChicago (Post 4076512)
I have what is likely by many of you a stupid question, but I was curious if anyone knows the answer.

Many valets have signs posted (speaking of fines) that occupy parking meter spots. I’ll try to take a picture next time I’m down there (River North) to show what I’m speaking of. My question is, how can a private enterprise stake claim to city streets? Do they pay the city for these spots?

It's most definitely illegal, and you're suppose to call 311 to report violations.

My friends call every day to complain about the restaurant on Oakdale and Halsted, Erwins or whatever.

They steal up the meters and then freak out at people who try and park there when it's temp. open.

Two months ago an alderman tried to park her car in River North and was screamed at by a parking guy who said he had a permit for that spot. She of course mentioned to him that she works for the city and there ARE no permits for metered spots to businesses.

The city is "suppose to be cracking down", although I highly doubt that's high on their list.

emathias Feb 12, 2009 5:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MayorOfChicago (Post 4082501)
...

They steal up the meters and then freak out at people who try and park there when it's temp. open.

Two months ago an alderman tried to park her car in River North and was screamed at by a parking guy who said he had a permit for that spot. She of course mentioned to him that she works for the city and there ARE no permits for metered spots to businesses.

The city is "suppose to be cracking down", although I highly doubt that's high on their list.

This illustrates how the ordinance Reilly enacted will likely do next to nothing to improve things on the ground except make valet parking more expensive.

His ordinance requires valets to have more off-street parking, but they reason they "reserve" street spaces is that it's more convenient for them. More off-street parking doesn't help with convenience.

I emailed his office that I thought his ordinance was wrong-headed, and even realizing more about what people disliked about valets and parking spaces it's obvious his ordinance is wrong-headed on even more levels than I thought it was.

Instead of making new laws, it would be a lot better for the Aldermen to simply force the city to better-enforce existing laws.

ChicagoChicago Feb 12, 2009 5:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 4083609)
This illustrates how the ordinance Reilly enacted will likely do next to nothing to improve things on the ground except make valet parking more expensive.

His ordinance requires valets to have more off-street parking, but they reason they "reserve" street spaces is that it's more convenient for them. More off-street parking doesn't help with convenience.

I emailed his office that I thought his ordinance was wrong-headed, and even realizing more about what people disliked about valets and parking spaces it's obvious his ordinance is wrong-headed on even more levels than I thought it was.

Instead of making new laws, it would be a lot better for the Aldermen to simply force the city to better-enforce existing laws.

Will the city be the one’s still enforcing the fines once Morgan Stanley takes them over? I’ll be curious to see how they react with the implementation of 24 hour rules on the meters as well.

Taft Feb 12, 2009 6:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 4083609)
Instead of making new laws, it would be a lot better for the Aldermen to simply force the city to better-enforce existing laws.

I agree completely. The problem, I think, is that there is likely a political disincentive to enforcing these types of laws. I mean, if you think about it, the city is looking to fill budget holes by nickle and diming us, with auto-oriented income being high on the list. So why wouldn't they be collecting income from abusers of laws around valet parking? My guess is that restaurant owners and the association that represents them probably give a ton of money to alderman who make sure these laws aren't enforced.

I mean, Erwin's (Halsted and Oakdale) valets regularly abuse metered parking and I know several individuals (counting Mayor of Chicago's friends) who have called 311 because of it. So why isn't the city picking up that revenue? Something bigger is at work, I think. I can't see it as being an issue of enforcement priorities given its ubiquity.

Taft


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.