I'll reiterate how awesome it would be to have a glass helical escalator from the State/Lake platform down to the Red Line.
|
How could that stretch of the brown/purple lines be straightened short of burying them? Maybe reconstructing the station at Halsted or at North would make it more bearable? Stops at Halsted, Sedgwick, and Division are warranted IMO. I basically view the brown line as the "local" and the red as the "express" after Belmont on Loop bound trains.
|
Quote:
|
Well it doesn't have to be a zero sum game. IF the existing lines are at capacity, lets build a whole new subway for these river front areas. From Belmont/Western along the river south to McCormick Place. Long term the old industrial areas that are along the river are going to become prime spots for office space. You can see it is already starting.
|
I thought the area along North there was kept free of development so that curve could be straightened. Just demolish the Presence health center on North and use their lot and the other parking lots across the street. The curves wouldn't be eliminated, but it would be much straighter.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesk...225-story.html
Interesting story in the Trib about increasingly consistent evidence that confirms first hand experience, that ridehailing firms are increasing congestion and sapping traffic from mass transit. |
Quote:
if i need to get somewhere and i check the app and the next bus is coming in 3 minutes, i'll simply wait for the bus and save some cash, but if the next bus isn't due for another 12 minutes (not at all uncommon for the CTA), then it's a quick "fuck that" with an automatic uber. |
it's only going to get far worse in 5-10 years with more fully automated traffic
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The only exception to the sidewalk entrance stairs for Chicago's Initial System of Subways was the North & Clybourn headhouse. |
Quote:
I'd bet it's underneath the Divy station they have on the east side of Dayton. |
Quote:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8916...7i13312!8i6656 |
Quote:
That building got a bonus for providing an arcade. This allowed the city to widen Grand, but the couldn't move the stairs. |
I don’t think that’s quite right. Grand doesn’t appear to have been widened. It looks like the Hilton Garden Inn building was constructed first with the arcade in 1999 (entirely on private property), then the station renovation began in 2007 and the CTA/CDOT took the opportunity to move the stair off-street. The CTA work was supposed to start in the late 90s but delayed for several years after design was completed, so there may have been some coordination in 1997-98 when the Hilton Garden Inn was being designed.
It’s possible the idea started with the developer, not city planners. Developers sometimes want to move subway entrances off-street, both to remove sidewalk obstructions and to provide a wider, more dignified CTA access for visitors. The “Kenect” development at Milwaukee/Grand includes a large niche in the facade that is reserved for a future CTA stair or escalator. Currently, it just provides a sheltered spot to wait for westbound buses... and obviously Marshall Fields provided a direct subway connection into their basement level back in the 1940s. |
Quote:
However, my terminology was wrong. They didn't widen the street, so much as narrow the sidewalk. Although the developer may have wanted that for their own circulation. The developers granted the city an easement to the arcade (as well as one for a CTA elevator). In any event, no one moved the stairs. Edit: Forgive me, I was looking at the stairs across the street. These indeed are anomalous. More info: the staircase was turned during the renovation. Per Chicago-l.org, On the northeast corner, the stairway was moved from its original location next to the curbline along Grand Avenue to underneath the eave of the highrise building on the corner, requiring the corridor in the mezzanine leading to that stair to be extended northeast by several feet. This freed up space on the sidewalk, but also made the stair less visible. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
People have been talking about this on here non-stop for at least the last 2 years. |
Quote:
Not only that but you don't sell less nice leather couches by making the cheap plaid upholstered couch even cheaper. It has nothing to do with fares. |
Quote:
In a store, when products fail to sell, what do they do? They put them on sale at a discount rate. In our cities, when transit numbers fall and revenue falls with it, what do they do? They do rate hikes. If you are trying to get *more* people to ride, lower prices. Of course with our current situation, this could hurt the agency at first but could work out long term. Or hell, fund them better from the beginning. |
Show me the evidence that dropping the fare a quarter dollar would make a dent in transit ridership.
|
Quote:
Private cars which probably cost city commuters $15 and suburban commuters $30 a day to to get to work and back? Uber pool? Despite all the press, the CTA is probably happy as a clam about Uber pool. Right now it takes congestion pressure, that they can ill afford to address, off of their backs. And they know that it won't last long. They're heavily subsidized by private investment while transit is subsidized by the taxpayer. People don't avoid transit because it is too expensive. |
Yes, the efficiency of Uber Pool is terrible. You're paying a driver to cart around only 2-3 people at a time (instead of 80) on meandering, ever-changing routes across the city.
It can work, but not at transit-like prices. Uber is betting it can crush Lyft somehow, and then eventually raise fares using its newfound monopoly and loyal customer base. The thing is, we don't know what percentage of Uber Pool rides are diverted from driving personal vehicles vs taking transit. People that have a car tend to use it unless they're headed to somewhere parking is very difficult or expensive (basically downtown, Wicker, Lakeview). People that take transit might be looking for an alternative that gets them there quicker and more comfortably. My guess is that the answer is a little more complex... I imagine lots of folks feel comfortable NOT owning a car precisely because Uber/Lyft is an option. On the other hand, there's also lots of people that purchased cars to become Uber/Lyft drivers, so it's hard to say. |
Quote:
Would it cost money? Absolutely. But public transport is worth it, IMO. Also, once, and if this happens, ridership raises a lot you can start raising fares incrementally from the new, lower base fare while still keeping riders as the monthly pass is still a bargain. I am going back to school this summer. Our city does this incredible deal where my fare for a monthly pass is pretty much 80-85% off regular fare. I could still buy a parking pass for school(for when the weather sucks) and still save cash on gas by taking the train/bus ever so often. It literally is making it a hard choice for me *not* to take public transport. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
By and large their normal product competes with taxis. Their pool products, I don't see as competition with transit, but the reinstatement of a mode of transportation that has crashed with the Millennials, car pooling. Although we managed it back when you had to stick your finger in a hole and twirl. It seems to me, with smartphones in everybody's hands you could figure out a way to do it without corporate sponsorship. If the Uber pools pan out and they carry at least 3 people per trip it should create a net decline in VMT. In any event, no one is taking them because the CTA is too expensive. |
Quote:
People opt out of transit for three reasons. Convenience, comfort and time. Those reasons haven't changed since the horse and buggy days. |
Quote:
My point is it is hard to compete against the car. If you own one, it is quite hard to convince that person to take public transport. Rarely will public transport be more comfortable than your own car. Also rare is convenience and time savings. So my point isn't that public transport is *too* expensive, rather if we made it even cheaper its appeal would be widen by a large margin. |
Quote:
Even if you're driving a beater, with only minimum insurance, changing your own oil, and getting free parking, the cost of a monthly pass is still a wash. You can make Brussels sprouts as cheap as you want, but your not gonna sell any more of 'em. |
Quote:
Clean, safe, reliable and really cheap would get me to take public transit while I still own a car. |
Quote:
People don't want to spend more on transit bc we have the worst efficacy per dollar spent in the whole world. See for example the recent NYT article on MTA having 7x the highest construction costs in the world, WMATA constantly cutting service and raising fares, BART is a hot mess etc |
Quote:
The CTA's problem isn't low demand. The CTA's problem is that the riders aren't paying the cost of their ride. This cost isn't because of trade unions or outdated equipment, This is because the fare is is artificially kept low and because they have to give discounts to seniors and students and mostly because they sell you a transfer for 25 cents. But your notion is that they should charge even less. In the hope of encouraging even more people to pay an even smaller percentage of the cost of transporting them. When you sell things below their actual cost, you can't make it up with volume. They'll drive you across town for $3.00. How cheap does it have to get. |
Quote:
Or if traffic is so bad that the train is invariably faster, even if it’s less comfortable. That’s why transit ridership is so high in places like NYC or London... I could take the tube to work for £2.40 ($3.36) or an Uber for £8 ($11.20), but it’s not the cost that dissuades me from the latter, it’s the fact that it takes twice as long during rush hour. Chicago doesn’t really have that constraint, at least not to the same extent. When I go back to Chicago, however, I always think they need to raise fares and plow that money into the system. At least train fares - bus fares are probably too high, and too close to the price of the train when they should be meaningfully cheaper. “Clean, safe, reliable and really cheap” isn’t possible. The cheaper you make it, the less clean, safe and reliable it becomes. Also, what they seem to do a good job of here but not in America is keeping the homeless and mentally ill off of public transit. Occasionally one will see buskers or people asking for money on the tube, but I’ve never seen a homeless person pissing themself like I have in Chicago. That keeps a LOT of potential paying customers off of transit. |
Quote:
So, yeah, there are large swaths of Chicago where driving, even at rush hour, is faster than transit, but there are key trips where both origin and destination are near 'L' stations where the train is both cheaper and faster than cars. If/when Chicago builds additional lines, there would hopefully be additional new trips where that could be true - and, really, carefully planning should have as a priority that it *should* be true. Quote:
|
Quote:
By law CTA is mandated to cover 50% of its expenses through farebox revenue and other revenue sources like advertising, rental income from retailers, etc. They can't just cut fares and count on a higher subsidy to fill the gap. Dropping fares means cutting service, period. Even if lower fares caused higher ridership so there was no net effect on revenue, CTA would have to squeeze more people into the same number of buses and trains since the cost of a driver-hour, and thus CTA's operating cost, remains unchanged. This would lead to poorer comfort, longer boarding times and ultimately less reliable service. And, as PKDickman keeps pointing out, cost isn't a factor here because CTA is already the cheapest option for virtually every trip you could make in Chicago (except walking/biking). Your thesis that a temporary discount would lead to higher ridership has basically already been tested. Thousands of commuters switch to transit when gas prices rise periodically (which is effectively the same as a transit discount). Usually most of these commuters switch back once gas prices decline. Promotions are good to goose sales numbers or to introduce people to a new or drastically improved product, but CTA service doesn't fit the bill. It is effectively the same as it's always been, even despite new features like Ventra, Tracker, and renovated stations. We have not added a new rail line in 25 years and the bus system is the same 100-year-old streetcar grid. |
Quote:
I say this not because I think im some economist or transport expert, far from it. But this is my current situation in my city and the incredibly cheap transport has nudged me to take public transport which is slower and will get me out in the elements much longer than if I just drove to my destination. I am not getting rid of my car, but with public transport so cheap, it has kept me from adding mileage to my car and filling up the tank. |
Quote:
You are viewing all costs other than gas as sunk costs. This isn't true. Every mile you drive wears your tires, increases depreciation, increases rate of oil changes, etc. Your argument, basically, is that if McDonald's wants to win the breakfast wars, they need to charge less than it costs you to buy an egg. Any business man will tell you, that's not competing, that's surfing the event horizon of a black hole. The current standard mileage deduction is 54 1/2 cents a mile. This is not arrived at willy nilly. It is a conservative estimate of costs. So, to break even with your $2.50 fare your commute has to be more than 4.6 miles. Add in even $1 for parking, and it's 3.5 miles. Pick up a nail in your tire, have a fender bender, get a parking ticket and all bets are off. Even from the standpoint of thermodynamics, the idea the they should be able to compete solely on their energy efficiency is unsustainable. In a perfect world, transit would still cost riders a nickel. But it costs more than that to do it. If you are not going to charge the riders, there is no option except to payfor it through taxation. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Even a cheap used car that's reasonably reliable has costs. About 10 years ago a friend of mine bought a used Infinity sedan (I30). He paid $6,000, so taxes were about $420. IIRC registration was $101. So that's $521 lost. If he sold it himself today he could probably get around $2,000, so $4,000 in depreciation over 10 years. He doesn't drive it that much, maybe 6,000 miles per year. His insurance is about $1,000 per year. Costs over 10 years: Depreciation: $4,000 Registration: 10 * $101 = $1,010 Sales tax: $420 Insurance: 10 * $1,000 = $1,000 Fuel (30mpg mixed @ 6,000 miles per year): ((6,000 * 10) / 30) * $3.00/gal = $6,000 Oil changes (annual, synthetic oil): 10 * $50 = $500 Repairs: It's been a very reliable car for him, but I think he's spent about $1,200 in repairs Tires: $300 Street parking around town: about $20 per month Misc maintenance: $20 month Total cost of ownership over 10 years: $19,230, or $160.25 per month averaged over 10 years. Which is actually not that bad, but is still well above the cost of a monthly CTA pass. I think that is reasonably about the cheapest ownership costs anyone could expect for basic car ownership. Start driving more, having a newer vehicle, financing the vehicle and requiring more than the legal minimum insurance and the prices go up quickly from there. A lot of people spend up to $20,000 on a car, do trade-ins, and finance most of the cost. Say you got a 3-year-old Camry for $17,000 and keep it five years and finance $12,000 of it for five years, use it for commuting a total of 30 miles a day (15 miles each way), and about the same amount of other driving for 1200 per month. Depreciation (price paid - ending trade-in-value): $17,000 - $4,500 = $12,500 Registration: $101 * 5 = $505 Sales tax: $1,190 Insurance: $100/month * 12 * 5 = $6,000 Fuel (30mpg, $3/gal): about $100 per month = 12 * 5 * $3/gal = $6,000 Oil changes (every 6k miles): 6 * $50 = $300 Repairs: $1,200 Tires: $300 Parking: about $50 / month = $3,000 Misc maintenance: $20 / month = $1,200 Interest on payments, financing $12,000 over 5 years @ 4%: $1,260 That comes to almost $560/month. Not all of that is cashflow, but includes $221 in payments, $100 in insurance, $120 in gas, $50 in parking, so "normal" monthly fixed expenses if they pay insurance monthly are about $491 in cash outlays, monthly. Probably a lot of people have to budget that much, plus save for repairs and oil changes and the difference between the trade-in value and the downpayment they'll need when they get a new-to-them car at the end of the cycle. And if you want a nicer car, costs just go up from there. And if you want a *new* car, all bets are off. New Audi A4, mid-range options, keep it for 8 years: $42,000 to buy otherwise same as above except has to garage it at home in the city @ $120/month in addition to non-home parking, takes very good care of it and has a $6,500 trade-in value at the end. Finances 80%. Depreciation: $35,500 Interest: $3,528 Registration: $808 Sales tax: $2,940 Insurance: $12,600 ($150 per month while financed, $100 per month after) Fuel (25mpg, $3/gal): $13,824 Oil changes (free first 3 years, every 6k miles): $600 Repairs: (for last 5 years) $4,500 Tires (replace twice @$200 per tire): $1,600 Parking: $50 + $120 monthly = $16,320 Misc maintenance ($50/month in last 5 years): $3,000 So, a total cost over 8 years of $95,220, or just under $1,000 per month, on average. And in the first five years, monthly cash outlay itself will be about $1,100 per month. Later in the ownership period, monthly cash outlay will drop dramatically, but maintenance will be higher. This is the kind of car I'd want if I had a car. But the numbers are why I won't do it, lol. |
Yep. Owning a car is a cash siphon. My car was paid off some time ago but I spend about $950/year to insure it + I just had my starter fizzle out all of a sudden and needed a tune-up and oil change and that cost be about $475 + registration sticker of $110 or so + a new tire every year or so at let's say $50-75 (I get mine second hand) + maybe another $100 if I'm unfortunate enough to get parking tickets/speeding ticket/seatbelt violation + the cost of a years worth of gasoline.
Before you know it you're talking real money;) I'm also also reminded how unfortunate it is that many (but less than used to be) American teenagers waste their money on cars when they could be travelling and gaining experiential knowledge like our counterparts in Europe and Asia. |
Quote:
I am talking about someone who has a car. A car they will not sale. A car they will keep. But....they will consider public transport to say to get work. |
Where I live in the City driving takes the same/longer than the train. And the cost of parking downtown is a complete waste of money. $105/month unlimited CTA pass is a no brainer. Relax, sip coffee and read.
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.