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)

CTA Gray Line Sep 8, 2014 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 6719487)
^ Still don't get your point. There are plenty of impoverished areas of Chicago that do have rapid transit service, but it hasn't done anything to turn things around.

Just because you have a train that takes you downtown doesn't mean your whole neighborhood is going to see economic development. You have to have skills, education, and a hard work ethic. It's not going to come raining down on you...

There are also plenty of places where the "L" Station supports a thriving commercial district: Logan Square, North & Damen, Wilson, Lincoln Square, Bryn Mawr, Granville, 18th St., Loyola, Belmont, Harlem/Marion, Jeff Park, Davis St., etc., etc.

You yourself said that is why CTA is building the new Green Line Cermak stop: "The whole idea here is to create a district. The new L stop will service this district, not just McCormick Place."

And like other transit lines, it's purpose is not only to/from downtown; but to interconnect neighborhoods along the line - and provide what you say the Cermak/McCormick Place station will for that neighborhood (which has worked quite well at Morgan on the Green Line, and Oakton on the Swift).

I lived in that area for over 50 years, the people there HAVE a great work ethic, and want to EARN what they need (not have it "come raining down on them"); but there are FEW, or NO opportunities there now; and apparently not too many presently interested in creating any.

But maybe they are -- they are now trying to make the Pullman District into a National Park, and building the new USX/Lakeside Development; both of which will create lots of jobs, and are right adjacent to MED Lines (access to those new jobs, and for visitors and tourists?)

Mr Downtown Sep 9, 2014 2:53 PM

So if some areas around rapid transit stations are prospering, and some areas around rapid transit stations aren't . . . . maybe the transit isn't the determining factor.

CTA Gray Line Sep 9, 2014 5:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 6722560)
So if some areas around rapid transit stations are prospering, and some areas around rapid transit stations aren't . . . . maybe the transit isn't the determining factor.

That is YOUR opinion, to which you are completly entitled -- Just like I am entitled to MINE, and I work for what I think is right (and I will eventually succeed).......

the urban politician Sep 9, 2014 6:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTA Gray Line (Post 6721074)
There are also plenty of places where the "L" Station supports a thriving commercial district: Logan Square, North & Damen, Wilson, Lincoln Square, Bryn Mawr, Granville, 18th St., Loyola, Belmont, Harlem/Marion, Jeff Park, Davis St., etc., etc.

You yourself said that is why CTA is building the new Green Line Cermak stop: "The whole idea here is to create a district. The new L stop will service this district, not just McCormick Place."

And like other transit lines, it's purpose is not only to/from downtown; but to interconnect neighborhoods along the line - and provide what you say the Cermak/McCormick Place station will for that neighborhood (which has worked quite well at Morgan on the Green Line, and Oakton on the Swift).

I lived in that area for over 50 years, the people there HAVE a great work ethic, and want to EARN what they need (not have it "come raining down on them"); but there are FEW, or NO opportunities there now; and apparently not too many presently interested in creating any.

But maybe they are -- they are now trying to make the Pullman District into a National Park, and building the new USX/Lakeside Development; both of which will create lots of jobs, and are right adjacent to MED Lines (access to those new jobs, and for visitors and tourists?)

^ The area around Cermak has been seeing investment for years, even without the Green Line. I think adding transit to areas like this is where you are likely to leverage the most gain.

But to plop an L stop down in the middle of a neighborhood that is full of vacant lots, poverty, and crime, is not going to do a damn thing to turn anything around and you know it. People can still get downtown even without the train, and even then it's not like they are suddenly going to be getting hired as financial analysts at Goldman Sachs just because they NOW have a train stop to get to their jobs. That's preposterous.

Baronvonellis Sep 9, 2014 6:09 PM

Yea, I'm sorry Mr. Grey line but you are suffering from an acute case of tunnel vision for your project. You need more than a rapid transit stop to create jobs in areas of poverty.

orulz Sep 9, 2014 6:52 PM

OK, so the Grey Line idea does make a lot of sense. and I think Baronvonellis misses the point. The idea is not to bring jobs to poor areas but rather to give people in those areas better access to jobs elsewhere. This project would provide better transit access to many areas, at a small fraction of the cost of the boneheaded red line extension for example.

The ME (former IC) infrastructure is just sitting there massively underutilized. Why? Trains are not frequent enough and the fare is more expensive than riding buses or the red line.

This is a classic case of Organization before Electronics before Concrete. The Grey Line solution is a solution that is approximately 90% Organization, and 10% electronics (fare gates.) The CTA's plan to spend $2.5 billion to extend the red line is ridiculous in comparison.

I honestly can't find much to criticise about the plan. If I could offer one criticism of the approach, however, it is that you are being too specific. It may well be that you have the best answer to every problem/question regarding improving the Metra Electric line, but I think you might have more success if you concentrate more on the core of your solution than the specific implementation:

(1) Rapid transit frequency to all in-city stations on all branches of the ME line
(2) Fare equity and free transfers with CTA

It's an unfortunate thing that when a layperson comes in and professes to have all the answers (Even if he does have all the answers) the knee jerk reaction from those in the industry is to reject it - call it being territorial, elitist, "Not Invented Here" syndrome, or whatever. Basically, you will offend the professionals and bureaucrats who you instead need to impress.

So, if you present your specific implementation as the only way, they will find some nitpicky minute detail about your plan and dismiss it outright. If you take your passion and advocate for the broad picture, and then say "I leave the details up to you, you capable planners/engineers/politicians" you might have more success.

On the conspiracy theory side of things, the real reason this is going nowhere may be that there is no heavy construction to be done. While that would be awesome in an ideal world, here in reality that the big (politically connected) construction firms will have nothing to build, and no reason to lobby for it or to grease the wheels of democracy through under the table kickbacks to politicians and bureaucrats. Hence, nothing happens.

the urban politician Sep 9, 2014 7:02 PM

^ Okay, build a train stop. Now we can all take the train downtown and find out that....oh wait a minute, all the good jobs are taken by educated people. Damn! that didn't work either.

What, are you guys kidding me? Do you really think that Groupon, or JPMorgan Chase, or Google, or Kirkland and Ellis' biggest problem right now is, "damn it, if only we could tap the talent of more uneducated kids from the south side with 5th grade reading skills! That will give us the edge we need!"

If you really want more expensive infrastructure to get you downtown, then job #1 is to create a larger demand for your services in the downtown economy. That means skills & education. Fix the skills & education gap (and the crime too), and now we're talking.

Ironically, most of the skills being emphasized in these communities (technical training, healthcare, etc) are for jobs that aren't particularly transit-oriented anyhow. Hospitals, industrial sites, etc.

CTA Gray Line Sep 9, 2014 7:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 6722966)
^ Okay, build a train stop. Now we can all take the train downtown and find out that....oh wait a minute, all the good jobs are taken by educated people. Damn! that didn't work either.

What, are you guys kidding me? Do you really think that Groupon, or JPMorgan Chase, or Google, or Kirkland and Ellis' biggest problem right now is, "damn it, if only we could tap the talent of more uneducated kids from the south side with 5th grade reading skills! That will give us the edge we need!"

If you really want more expensive infrastructure to get you downtown, then job #1 is to create a larger demand for your services in the downtown economy. That means skills & education. Fix the skills & education gap (and the crime too), and now we're talking.

Ironically, most of the skills being emphasized in these communities (technical training, healthcare, etc) are for jobs that aren't particularly transit-oriented anyhow. Hospitals, industrial sites, etc.

F U C K DOWNTOWN -- As I stated, IT IS TO INTERCONNECT NEIGHBORHOODS along the Line (do you have some problem with reading comprehension??), and to create walk-to-in-your-neighbohood (probably entry level) jobs there, like all of the places I quoted (MY OPINION), and like you said about Cermak/McCormick.

Morgan on the Green Line attracted lots of new businesses that had no reason to be there before the station was built (or am I wrong?)

btw: Your "uneducated kids from the South Side" stuff is really beginning to rub me the wrong way.

the urban politician Sep 9, 2014 8:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTA Gray Line (Post 6723041)
F U C K DOWNTOWN

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2..._thumbs_up.jpg

THAT'S THE SPIRIT!

clark wellington Sep 10, 2014 1:11 AM

All right, you guys aren't being fair now...

Mr. D, of course transit isn't the "determining factor" (whatever that means) for economic success. There are a lot of factors, as I think we'd all agree. However, do you honestly believe that infrastructure and access to jobs are't beneficial to economic growth for an area? I don't see how you can make that argument...

And TUP, stop acting like the ME goes through some third-world hellhole. The route includes such impoverished and uneducated neighborhoods as the South Loop, Bronzeville, Kenwood, Hyde Park, and South Shore. Yes, there are poor neighborhoods, but you're painting the South Side with very broad strokes. People in these neighborhoods do and can work downtown.

You can definitely make the argument that there are better uses of precious resources, but overall this idea doesn't deserve the type of scorn you're throwing out. Particularly when we're planning to build miles of new track parellel to this and in economically worse areas.

Mr Downtown Sep 10, 2014 1:29 AM

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer previously given on this subject.

CTA Gray Line Sep 10, 2014 1:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 6613556)
No, it's unlikely because—despite its instinctive appeal—it's just not that great an idea.

The RTA's 2012 South Lakefront Corridor Study found only modest benefits and high costs for the "Gold Line:"
"If it were assumed that capacity expansion at Millennium Station and along the main line was not needed, the capital cost per new rider would be over $13 and the overall cost per new rider (including operating costs) would be over $35. . .. The operating cost of the Gold Line service plan would be substantial at approximately $60 million annually. The average operating cost per rider would be $12.90. Current operating costs per rider are about $8 per rider.. . given the relatively low cost-effectiveness of the project, obtaining the necessary Federal New Starts funding would be very difficult. TOD impacts are not expected to be large since there already is existing rail service in the corridor."
http://www.rtams.org/reportLibrary/2282.pdf

POLITICAL LIES and POLITCAL B/S (like "The Emporer's New Clothes" -- and the "Alex Clifford" incident) -- I wonder what the GLOWING REPORT that got the Block 37 SuperStation Unanimously Approved by the City Council looked like, can you repost that study here, along with all of it's benefits. And the Station's present fantastic operating Profit Margins?

Yeah "existing rail service" that doesn't do shit.

untitledreality Sep 10, 2014 1:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 6723448)
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer previously given on this subject.

Much of the high costs can be attributed to FRA operating mandates correct? The Port Authority's PATH system has obscenely high operating costs due to the very same FRA guidelines. But whereas PATH's issue might be resolved with lobbying and a restructuring of operational guidelines, the Highliners (and the IC mainline) will always be regulated by the FRA.

This would seem to imply that any hope of a south lakefront system along the IC mainline would have to be completely detached from the rest of the rail network (much like the Orange line), and utilize non heavy rail equipment, allowing it to operate under FTA mandates.

CTA Gray Line Sep 10, 2014 1:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 6723448)
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer previously given on this subject.

The outcome of that "Study" was decided before they even hired the Consultants (this is afterall Illinois -- "Most corrupt State in the Union", remember Alex Clifford?)

ardecila Sep 10, 2014 1:58 AM

Let's compare apples to apples, then... What is the capital cost per new rider of the Red Line Extension? The operating cost per rider? How about the raw number of new transit riders?

The stated rationale for the Red Line Extension is to shorten travel times for existing transit ridersand improve access to jobs for the Far South Side.

If you do a cost-benefit analysis of Red Line Extension and Gray Line, on the same terms, which project wins?

oshkeoto Sep 10, 2014 4:42 AM

^ So, happily, that's an easy comparison to make.

According to the study Mr. D cites, the Grey Line is impractical because its capital cost is $13 per new rider. Capital costs for the Red Line extension per rider are estimated at over $86. I'm not sure if that's for all riders, or just new ones; if it's for all, then the apples-to-apples comparison would be well, well over $86.

The additional operating cost per new rider for the Grey Line would be $4.90; the operating cost per rider on the Red Line extension would be $1.90.

Source: http://www.transitchicago.com/assets..._June_2009.pdf

Also, TUP, honestly, we get that you're so witty and everything, and if you win this argument you win...whatever it is you think you win, but it's like you've never been to South Shore or these other neighborhoods the ME passes through. Fifth-grade reading skills? Seriously? You're embarrassing yourself. Stop.

CTA Gray Line Sep 10, 2014 5:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 6723481)
Let's compare apples to apples, then... What is the capital cost per new rider of the Red Line Extension? The operating cost per rider? How about the raw number of new transit riders?

The stated rationale for the Red Line Extension is to shorten travel times for existing transit ridersand improve access to jobs for the Far South Side.

If you do a cost-benefit analysis of Red Line Extension and Gray Line, on the same terms, which project wins?

http://www.grayline.20m.com/photo.html

CTA Gray Line Sep 10, 2014 5:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oshkeoto (Post 6723676)
^ So, happily, that's an easy comparison to make.

According to the study Mr. D cites, the Grey Line is impractical because its capital cost is $13 per new rider. Capital costs for the Red Line extension per rider are estimated at over $86. I'm not sure if that's for all riders, or just new ones; if it's for all, then the apples-to-apples comparison would be well, well over $86.

The additional operating cost per new rider for the Grey Line would be $4.90; the operating cost per rider on the Red Line extension would be $1.90.

Source: http://www.transitchicago.com/assets..._June_2009.pdf

Also, TUP, honestly, we get that you're so witty and everything, and if you win this argument you win...whatever it is you think you win, but it's like you've never been to South Shore or these other neighborhoods the ME passes through. Fifth-grade reading skills? Seriously? You're embarrassing yourself. Stop.

Well, if TUP wins -- I guess the South Side doesn't get Shit (apparently to him appropriately)

If I win $300 Million gets spent on the probability of creating 10,000 new permanent jobs there -- mostly "walk-to" jobs WITHIN the disadvantaged communities along the Line (building local community economic strength), not just providing access to whatever jobs might [repeat - "might"] be available Downtown.

CTA says the RLE will "shorten travel times, and provide access to jobs" -- but they can't say that it will CREATE any new local community jobs, other than during construction (like Morgan/Lake did). And remember, that was CTA -- do you think they would report positive stuff about the Gray Line -- and then say "but we just don't want to do it"? They must provide "reasons".

At this point I wouldn't believe CTA if they said Newly Fallen Snow was White!!

CTA Gray Line Sep 10, 2014 10:10 AM

Architect Jeanne Gang to help Museum Campus planning
 
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...909-story.html

The Chicago Park District has tapped acclaimed architect Jeanne Gang to help it develop a long-range plan for the Museum Campus, the district will announce Wednesday.........

Mr Downtown Sep 10, 2014 3:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTA Gray Line (Post 6723719)
If I win $300 Million gets spent on the probability of creating 10,000 new permanent jobs there -- mostly "walk-to" jobs WITHIN the disadvantaged communities along the Line

Remind us what respected econometrics firm did the study claiming that 10,000 nonbasic-sector jobs would be created merely by installing Ventra™ turnstiles. What methodology did they use to calculate the unmet or exported retail demand of South Shore and South Chicago—both of which already have plenty of Walgreens, dry cleaners, convenience stores, hair care, etc.? What multipliers were used for different sectors?

Or do your job figures turn out to be rectally derived?


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:55 AM.

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