Why does it take so long? It doesn't look at all complicated, but maybe I'm missing something.

^So they can pretend that a $2 million project is worth $18 million.

fully agree. between this and the expos fleeing mccormick place, im getting very frustrated with these labor unions. is there a federal or state regulation that forces the CTA to deal with unions? cant they make their workforce non-union? im sure its a stupid question, but i honestly dont know...

Ever seen an old fenceline where a tree has actually grown into a barb wire fence, permanently fusing the two? That's like the labor unions in a place like Chicago. For better or worse.

My understanding is that explicitly, no there's not a mandate to deal with a labor union per se, but...

No - they cannot prevent employees from "organizing."

Per the RTA Act:
Also of note:

In other words, said unelected "impartial arbitrator" has the power to de facto force either cuts to public services, increases in taxes, or some combination thereof.

Would you trust any of our elected officials to have the financial savvy and management skills to make a fair decision in a CTA-union arbitration? Chances are, they'll just do the bidding of whoever whines the loudest. Unless they're a die-hard conservative (in IL, no less) they will probably side with labor over management... no better than any impartial arbitrator, but far more uninformed.

This is the problem with public-sector unions. Labor issues inevitably affect the amount or quality of the services offered on a monopolistic basis to the public . If I'm a transit-dependent and my bus line is cut because the union employees have to get their mandated raises, then I'm now screwed, even though I'm not part of the negotiation/arbitration process.

A given private company, on the other hand, is not essential to the functioning of society, and in a free market, has competitors. If the company is having labor issues, then a decline in the amount/quality of the good/service it offers will have a minimal effect on society due to the actions of the competitors.

This isn't an argument for privatizing transit - a company that is awarded a monopoly on transit in a given city is equally bad...


I'm not familiar with the arbitration process as it is used at CTA... is it done over the course of one session, or does the arbitrator give CTA/the unions time to evaluate the financial consequences of the decision before he shoves it down their throats? The process might be a little more equitable if, after the arbitrator suggests a compromise, CTA is given time to determine exactly what cost-saving measures or new revenue sources it would use, and vice versa for the unions (although the consequences of a decision unfavorable to unions are much simpler).

The difference is that an elected official would be accountable to the people who voted to elected him - notice how a ~60% Democratic majority on the national level couldn't move the ball over the finish line because not enough are willing to take ownership of some combination of service cuts or tax/fee increases. The same moderating effect would be at play if people with some accountability were responsible for public sector labor costs, as well.

Labor unions are, almost by definition, a construct by which employees can oppose management and ownership of the employer and seek to extract maximum value for themselves, and minimize the value extracted by management and ownership, so long as the employer stays can remain a going concern.

Unlike in the private sector, the ownership that a government union is opposed to is the public itself, and the employer is an essential public service that can't go out of business. There's a very good reason that, despite being a pro-labor president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was opposed to the formation of public sector unions, which didn't become pervasive until the post-War years.

In the private sector, the impact of labor unions has largely been able to play itself out, e.g. in order to remain viable, businesses just relocate. This is why public sector union workers dominate the organized labor landscape by now, as the playing field is tilted in their favor since the "management" and "ownership" they are opposed to have essentially unlimited resources (revenue raised via taxation rather than sales as in the private sector) and their employer, as a public agency, has a monopoly and thus there are no substitutes by which to introduce competition to keep the economics sane.

This all also why public sector unions are the most vocal supporters of income tax increases. They know that it means more money for them at the expense of "ownership" i.e. the public.

I don't recall the details of the process - there are a couple iterations and opportunities for appeals for both parties, but eventually the "impartial" arbitrator's decision is binding and enforceable in court.

Have I been under a rock? I can't recall where this has been talked about off the top of my head.

Never heard of it. No only light rail "plans" ive heard of are the Ogden streetcar and Carroll Ave.

I have a question for you guys, because I don't know anyone elses opinion I can count on. Do you think Chicago is as much of a central rail hub for the country as it use to be?I look at old pictures of Chicago and see pretty much nothing but railroads. Is it that we built over or around these railroads and now obscure them, or have many lines simply been eliminated? Thanks

Chicago as far as I've heard IS the central rail freight hub in the US. Perhaps what you are observing is smaller or consolidated rail yards in Chicago proper. Remember, rail freight is alot more efficient than it used to be so there are less rows and rows of boxcars sitting for days in a yard. Plus, many intermodel facilities have been constructed outside the city that eliminate thru-routing into and out of Chicago entirely. CREATE will continue the process of improving speed and efficiency of in transit rail freight thru Chicago, cementing Chicago's role in the nations movement of goods by rail. Plus, HSR will define it as THE midwestern passenger hub as well.

Chicago is what it has always been, the national rail hub.

The reason there are fewer active lines nowadays is because 1) there are fewer Class I railroads maintaining those lines and 2) there are fewer intracity passenger services in the US. But what services there are do go through the Chicago area, or Illinois in general.

This Cottage Grove LRT idea is intriguing and odd.

it seems like a great way to encourage development in a stretch of the near south side. BUT it seems like it would make more sense to implement the Grey/Gold line proposal, and add new stations.

To make this a reality, it would have to be incorporated into plans for the Lake Meadows, and Michael Reese developments. I haven't seen that thus far.

Lastly, it would seem more beneficial to encourage development around an existing transit line, which has the ability to increase capacity to match that of the Brown Line.

So, I just don't see this happening, and honestly don't think it would be the best use of funds.

For a lot less money, they could improve capacity and service levels on the #4 Cottage Grove Bus. Many times I've stood at Cottage Grove and 58th and waited far past the published schedule interval with nary a bus in sight, and then had two or three buses come down the street either together or a block apart. The buses are almost always so cram-packed that it's difficult even to find room to stand without being jammed up against other riders.

Often it's so frustrating that I choose to walk to the E63rd/Cottage Grove Green Line station and wait for a train. As an old white guy sometimes I'm the target of remarks that make me feel unwelcome walking there, but I've never been directly threatened with physical harm. Recently there seem to be fewer young men along that stretch with nothing to do but hang around the street corners.

Whether that's because crime is down, they've found employment or that neighborhood's population keeps dropping is undetermined.

A couple of reasons that railroading is less visible now than 75 years ago:

First, many of the big yards are now in outlying locations where you don't see them: Bensenville, Northlake, Bedford Park, Markham, Hammond, or south of Joliet.

Second, all the passenger, mail, and express car facilities, which completely filled the South Loop from State to Clinton, are no longer needed.

Third, railroading today is about moving bulk cargo such as coal and grain, or long strings of auto racks and containers. All these get unloaded in remote industrial locations rather than at team tracks or industrial sidings. "Loose-car" railroading, which requires sorting of individual cars in classification yards, is nothing like the volume it used to be.

One curiosity of containerization is how many of them are transferred in Chicago from one railroad to another by what's called drayage: driving them from one yard to another. Interchange facilities in Chicago are so overwhelmed and congested by grade crossings that it's much faster to unload the container, drive it across town, and reload it.

Ah yes... hence the reason for much of the ongoing highway expansion.

Chicago is the country's biggest hub for rail traffic as measured by the number of cars, while Kansas City is the biggest if you measure by tonnage. When visiting KC last summer, I was baffled by a sign at their Union Station claiming that KC was the country's biggest freight hub... now I know.

The reason is that traffic through KC tends to be more bulk cargo-oriented; the railcars there often contain things like oil and grain. In Chicago, there is much more emphasis on auto transport and container shipping - cargoes that take up a lot of space on railcars, but don't weigh as much. These cargoes also tend to be value-added, so Chicago is also tops if you measure by the value of the goods that arrive/depart by rail.

^What highways have been expanded as a result of drayage? After all, 400 loads a day would only increase traffic on the Dan Ryan by 0.125 percent.

Not the Ryan, but the Tri-State... heavy truck traffic was one of the main rationales for the expansion, and drayage contributes to that, I imagine, especially on the Tri-State which directly connects 5 or 6 major rail yards. Also, possibly, the I-55 expansion in Will County.

At one time, Cottage Grove had one of the best transit systems, when the streetcars were still around. Yes, incorporating it into both, Lake Meadows and the Michael Reese site along with going to McCormick Place and through Central Station and its possible eastern extension would be quite beneficial to all.

At the December 2009 plan commission approved a plan to increase density and build TFD (Transit Friendly Developments) along its routes. There is also that plan (which I don't know much about) to do alot of redeveloping along 63rd Street from Cottage Grove on west.

Screw the #4. Got I hate buses. If anything, they need to eliminate some stops on these routes to speed things up. Seriously! Every block doesn't need a stop.

Better yet, why not just build a subway under Cottage? Yes it would be hella expensive, but the potential is endless.

Probably should have done that instead of renovating the South Side L in the 90's, just sayin.

Well, we all know that the southside usually gets the shaft right? That part of the El did need to be renovated, but back in the early 1990's when the project was executed, they shut down the line during construction while subsequent lines have remained open during their rebuilding. The ridership never recovered. It was also a dumb ass idea to tear the line down back to Cottage Grove. Up til 1982 the line went east all the way to Stony Island.

I've heard this countless times, that the ridership never recovered, but I've never understood why? Did the businesses and those living around the el move? Did they all buy cars or discover the bus?

Ridership never recovered on the south side, but it had already been declining. The area around the South Elevated and both of the branches (Englewood and Jackson Park) had been depopulating consistently for 50 years, following desegregation when African-Americans were finally allowed to disperse from the south side ghettos that were incidentally concetrated along the south side elevated.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4009/...ec6fca96_o.jpg
(density within 1/2 mile of L)

Ridership on the south elevated was strong-ish (about 3 times current levels) as recently as 1990. Since that time, the mainline (north of 59th junction) has recovered a decent chunk of its ridership and is still on a modest upward trajectory, currently at 60% of its 1990 ridership level. However, the 63rd branches have simply seen their ridership evaporate, which was a process that started in 1991 and continued through the line reconstruction. Ridership on each of the branches has stabilized since 1998... but at only 30% of their previous ridership.

Ridership recovered after closure on the Lake Street branch by about Year 2000. Interestingly, Lake Street depopulated too - but Lake Street ridership has been growing steadily since the reopening in 1996. Either way, the success on Lake surely implies that the reason for south side issues is much deeper than an 18-month line closure.

EDIT: it's worth noting, in the above chart, that I didn't "control" for the growth of the Milwaukee/O'Hare branch over the time period. Of course between 1960 and 1970 the line was extended from Logan Square to Jefferson Park, and then between 1980 and 1990 the line was extended to O'Hare, so to a large extent the decrease in density on this branch was only because the line was being extended into lower-density neighborhoods rather than depopulation of existing neighborhoods, as occurred around all the other branches except those on the North Side, which have actually been getting denser.

It was dumb, but it happened due to the local community (or at least one very outspoken component of the local community) basically demanding that it be torn down.

I think the past 20 years have shown its removal to be a bad idea and those who opposed it would grudgingly accept it being returned, especially if it was accompanied by targeted TOD around the new stations. Perhaps it could be tacked onto the list of extensions the CTA is seeking funding for, along with the Red, Orange and Yellow Line extensions. It wouldn't surprise me if the foundations were still in place from the old line, so maybe it wouldn't even cost that much to re-install.

In a dream world, they'd turn back north along the west side Metra Electric tracks (after all, a stop at 63rd and Dorchester would only be a 5 minute walk to Stony Island) and terminate a mile north at 55th and Lake Park, but I think that's just wishful thinking even if it would better tie Hyde Park into the "L" system.

Sweet. It's nice that downtown Skokie will soon be accessible by rail!

That chart is some very impressive research, Viva. Would you mind telling a little about how you produced it? Would I be correct to guess that you brought in the NHGIS data sets for census tracts and used a buffer in ArcMap to count those within a half-mile?

Precisely correct on the data source and technique (though I think I used a spatial join rather than a buffer/intersect, though the result is the same). I exported the spatial join layer (essentially census tract data associated with one or more L branches) to an MS Access database to produce the density figures by branch via a query.

That bit of research (combined with some historical ridership data) yielded some interesting results - as I recall, with the exception of the Ravenswood branch, the propensity of a resident near the branch to use transit (i.e. annual rides per area resident) stayed remarkably constant over the 50 year time period. Not constant throughout the city, but along a certain branch. Declines in ridership were thus attributable to a very large degree to the population near the transit line declining.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4072/...4e995bc93b.jpg
Population density in 1950 by quintiles, i.e. darkest is densest 20% of all census tracts.

Correlation of high density to transit service is striking (check out the density of Logan Square and Woodlawn and even in South Shore where the IC South Chicaog branch ran, and the relative lack of density on the lakefront).

^ A pleasure of the Chicago forums is that we have some resourceful, creative and intelligent contributors...who use facts to make their points..

I think that is largely caused by the presence of parkspace in the lakefront tracts, which in many cases halves the density, or worse in the case of the tract that includes Montrose Point.

Excellent research and presentation, though.

^To some extent yes, but the lakefront nonetheless gets notably denser between the 1960 and 1980 censuses. Even including some parkland those tracts, particularly Gold Coast, East Lakeview, and Hollywood Beach are the densest in the city, roughly on par with Little Village.

Of course I think most of us probably intuitively thought this was the case, but your study illustrates this so well that local groups that are pro-transit, but anti-density and/or anti-development really should be sat down and shown the numbers. As should certain aldermen and maybe even a certain mayor.

Hell, maybe the CTA should summarize the info and put it on some of their self-promoting ads they put on the buses and trains ...

^ Stuff like minimizing curb cuts, continuous streetwalls, etc. are nice and all, but it's only fiddling with transit's desirability and competitiveness at the margins. The fundamental driver is population density, or more specifically, worker density. More specifically still, that density needs to heavily concentrated in near walking distance to the station, ideally less than 1/2 mile. It's a corollary to transit ridership being fundamentally driven by people making trips to and from work. The pedestrian friendly stuff is useful for encouraging transit ridership for leisure/shopping on weekends and such, but this can never form a large enough constituency to support rail transit service alone.

Being VivaLFuego, this is why I'm usually able to go along with dreadful architecture and even mediocre site planning for a project if the unit density is high enough (e.g. K-Station) and why, if the architecture and unit density suck (e.g.Elysian, Lincoln Park 2520) then I can't get excited over building height alone, since tall represents little in terms of what it actually does for the city. Even in a towers-in-the-park development, those people still gotta get to work, and if they work downtown, that means getting to the train, end of story. The design aspect may not lead to proper "vibrancy" on a Saturday afternoon on ye olde quainte Maine Streete lined with artisanal cheese shops and dog treat bakeries, but the density supports transit.

It all does suggest that there could be a conceivable "middle-ground" that actually involves downzoning areas far from transit as part of building support for concentrated density near transit (via upzoning, PD, or otherwise). Of course, that would require something resembling citywide comprehensive planning, a laughable concept in a city wherein "comprehensive planning" is basically conducted seperately within each of 50 independent fiefdoms. In an ideal world, one could conceive of a citywide plan, since only about 30 wards actually have an L station in them - most of the other 20 aldermen could be bought off to go along with the plan, meaning only a third of the aldermen with stations in their ward would need to be convinced of the merits to pass a citywide plan. Of course, this would depend on the nonexistence of sacrosant Aldermanic perogative for land use decisions...

It's within the realm of comprehension, were a power-brokering mayor actually interested in stuff like this so as to do the legwork and favor-trading to make it happen. Private underground museums in public parks and random handouts reducing tax revenue in a year with record deficits are more important, though.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2...peed-rail.html

Well that royally sucks. So instead of rationally investing in 2-3 major projects in large urban areas, they're apparently going to spread thin the money over a much broader selection of projects.

I guess that's probably a more sure-fire way of seeing that none of these projects will proceed on any significant level granted federal funding most likely needed to be a major source for all projects.

Too bad they didn't just put it towards the major players so they might get off the ground. Now we're just going to see baby steps and wasted time until the projects either stall out or someone finally steps up. I'm starting to fear this stimulus is just going to be a quick way to bankrupt the government with peanuts to show for it. Why couldn't we have invested in INFRASTRUCTURE?? Almost the entire thing went to non-tangible things like tax credits which are fine for the short term - but give you nothing lasting.

^ Yeah, I'm disappointed in the Obama administration on this one.

Well, not to get off topic, but I think his administration has been weak on pretty much everything, watering it all down so that his efforts are about as fruitless as his opponents claim they are.

Back to HSR--the one thing that catches my eye, though, is that the article focuses on Illinois. Even with a focus on major regional projects, I'd be surprised of 1/4 of the nation's HSR investment went to a single State.

In other words, I think we should consider how much will go to Wisconsin, Indiana, Minneapolis, and Michigan (all part of the midwest hub network) before determining whether we really got the shaft or not.

Don't be shy. It was the fucking TWO (The Woodlawn Organization) consisting of Bishop Arthur Brazier, Leon Finney and others like my former idiot and now indicted former alderwoman Arenda Troutman. The felt that the EL was a blight and was halting redevelopment along 63rd. Well guess what, it's been rearly 20 fucking years and that majority of 63 is still empry, the bishops church went on a land buying spree and of course that property is tax exempt.

I could go on and on... you get the idea.

Anyone concerned about the upcoming service cuts Feb 7?

Yea, I'm betting that Indiana, Wisconsin, and Michigan will get a fair bit of money. But "spreading the money thin" is a terrible strategy, because it won't fund any new lines to completion. We need to do this one line at a time, not by making only partial improvements to lines. States cannot fund the difference right now - so many of them are already running huge budget deficits, and states can't issue new currency to cover their debts.

My god, if we don't get any new lines out of this, it'll kill any sort of support for rail improvements at all. Amtrak riders won't notice any significant improvement to their trips.

Hopefully CREATE will get some money out of this - I'm sure the railroads would have lobbied for it. But voters won't notice any major changes, which makes them less likely to support rail spending in the future.

Tampa and Orlando got $2.6B in HSR. Give me a fucking break.

Between them in Nebraska, it just goes to show that it's best to be known as teetering on the brink of support of any public policy, thus ensuring maximum efforts to purchase your vote.

Hasn't been discussed much on this board, but it's good to bring up. Bus service is getting hit very, very hard with these cuts. If you ride the bus at all, particularly at night, it is highly recommend to realize when and where cuts are being made. Also, it's a good time to get familiarized with Bustracker.

Where are you getting this figure from?

Crain's is reporting that Illinois will get $1.2 billion.

There's also this bit in there:

1.2 billion out of the entire national pie of 8 billion, just for one state, is a windfall, people.

Come on, did Illinois really think it was going to get 4.5 billion?

I am very pleased about this nugget from the article:

The state also will receive $1.25 million to complete an environmental impact study for a second track along the same route, which would reduce conflicts with slow-moving freight trains, and $133 million — the full amount requested — to build the so-called Englewood Flyover on the South Side, a series of elevated commuter tracks over freight lines to prevent significant delays.
The Englewood Flyover is a key component of the Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency project, known as Create.

^ Obama will need to win Florida again in 2012.

That's the deal..

^^^ I have to give them credit though, apparently they are ready to break ground on the line between Orlando and Tampa almost immediately. But that's just what I heard.

Hmm...I guess we'll know for sure tomorrow.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...F?OpenDocument

Obama will invest billions in high-speed rail projects
By Michael Doyle

...California is one of the big winners, receiving $2.25 billion to help build a high-speed rail system, as well as additional money for other rail projects.

The grants include $1.1 billion for a Chicago-to-St. Louis corridor, $1.25 billion for a Tampa-to-Orlando, Fla., corridor, $244 million for a Chicago-to-Detroit corridor and $810 million for work between Madison, Wis., and Milwaukee. In Ohio, $400 million will pay for work between Cleveland and Cincinnati.

800 million for Madison-Milwaukee?

:shrug:

I hate to so obviously have a pro-Chicago stance here, but why in God's name is every HSR dollar allocated in the midwest not being spent on connecting a city to Chicago? I can understand if the country were spending $150 billion, but we're talking about $8 billion--I'd spend that money a wee bit more wisely.

Come on, any reasonable person knows that tying Minneapolis to Chicago is more important than tying St Louis to Chicago, and that St Louis->Chicago is only getting more focus now because it's all within one state and thus easier to plan.

But, because Chicago->Minneapolis is even more important, and would be routed through Milwaukee and Madison, upgrading the Milwaukee->Madison corridor is a politically expedient way to funnel dollars into the Midwest that will benefit Chicago without it looking too overt about sending a bunch of money to the President's home state. I'm willing to bet that a second round of funding would include Minneapolis-Madison and Milwaukee to Chicago funds. Then that Milwaukee->Madison bit will show its full value.

All that said, I'm still REALLY annoyed that the Midwest is focused on 110 mph while Florida and California are focused on 150+ mph systems. At least in certain corridors it seems like Chicago should be more overtly driving for laying the groundwork toward 200mph lines.

I've always thought Daley understood how to run a city in a way that will leave a legacy, but he doesn't quite grasp how to make the political investment required to become a true legend. For that, he will always be in the shadow of his father.

I guess I see your point, but Milwaukee-Chicago would provide a more immediate benefit than incrementally building out a Minneapolis system. And considering the fact that you never know where the political winds will blow during the next election cycle, we may never see the Minneapolis-Chicago system pan out.