Maybe because it's nighttime and no Dept. of Revenue aides are on duty in that area?

Okay I've wasted enough time on this, considering it was only for my own amusement. But after falling in love with New York's subways, I wanted to see what a dream subway system for Chicago would look like, one that could get you anywhere in the city in two transfers or less and allow for car free living.
Yes this is probably impossible to build, yes I ripped out the Brown line and the Loop, but efficient transfer stations have to be underground. Anyway, if I was going to run up massive debt stimulating the economy and rebuild the CTA, this is my plan.
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r...oSubwayMap.jpg

^^^ You see the problem I have with that is that this is not New York, the city proper here has 1/3 the population. There is absolutely no need for much more than what we have right now. And you can get most places around here with only one transfer if you know how to use the buses.

Not a Chicago native here, but - I see no reason why the city's population shouldn't increase by 50% or more over the next 100 years. A population increase like that probably would justify a vast transit network like that.

But that doesn't mean that it WILL increase so much. That would require a huge change in land use and zoning policies and it's questionable that, even given 100 years, the city would change so much.

Well, yeah, but convenient, comprehensive mass transit systems help grow cities...

There are numerous "dead spots" in this city that are are not realistically accessable and the areas are dilapidated because of it.

The phrase "if you build it, they will come" rings true. That said...they ain't gonna build it.

its not a bad plan but as people have said, those E-W, N-S which don't hit the center of the city would be a poor use of resources due to population distributin... make those BRT and well....

The figures I have show daily ridership on the Underground at about 3 million, while daily bus ridership is about 5.4 million. I'm sure there are large numbers of commuter rail passengers commuting to London, but are there 2.4 million daily? My numbers are from a secondary source (the book "The Global City"). Your modal breakdown is interesting, but how does it account for multi-modal trips? London's train stations are spread out and getting to the end place of employment or other journey probably involves another mode trip (bus, tube, taxi). Also, if you count commuter trips only, that probably skews the numbers. My hypothesis is that commuting skews more heavily to rail than off peak service.

Just a few thoughts.

Mr. Downtown, doesn't DC carry more on rail than bus? I don't have all the figures, but it would be interesting to run the numbers.

Like it or not, busses have a bad stigma attached to them. They are slow, they get stuck in traffic, etc. And for a more novice mass transit user, it requires an understanding of bus routes, (which for the majority of the public / tourist,) is more complicated than looking at a single train map and knowing where to transfer from one color to another color.

Trust me, more people would ride the train in Chicago if the system featured more connectivity between the lines, and if it was easier to just pay your $2.25 and go anywhere. Right now, you have to pay that for a bus, then pay that again for a train. Eventually, if your paying 5 bucks for a bus and train, you might as well take a cab for a few dollars more and save the time, especially if you are in a group.

Clearly New York, (being three times as large and twice as dense,) is going to have a much higher ridership and higher demand for further expansion, but that doesn't mean that Chicago can't expand and build upon its current system. Look at DC, which is smaller and less dense than Chicago. I believe its daily ridership is now over 1,000,000, and growing, because it is so easy to move from one line to another. Hence, the reason why more people use rail there than bus. There is no reason why Chicago, with a larger and denser population, and the CTA rail system, already the second most extensive system, can't have a daily rail ridership of over 1,000,000. Unfortunately, it would require a substantial amount of money to make the necessary improvements.

That's incorrect. As it stands, buses are currently $2 to ride, with a 25c transfer to trains. If going the other way, trains are $2.25, with a 25c transfer to the bus.

My mistake, for some reason I thought they did away with the transfers, with all the budget cuts.

Yes, just look how dilapidated Streeterville, Hyde Park, Belmont Harbor, or Bucktown are, especially when compared to the bustling areas next to stations along the Green Line.

Yes. Weekday ridership is about 760,000 on rail, about 460,000 on buses.

Can't buy a transfer on the bus, but that's really the only major change to them, and that went into effect last year.

I used the term commuter rail because it is a familiar american term, and a lot of commuters do use the system. But most of the rail lines in London have multiple routes running along the same lines. All services in London are have a half hour service pattern throughout the day. Many stations are serviced by several different routes and so have 4 to 8 trains an hour off peak. While that is not the 18 to 32 trains an hour of the tube network it is good enough to attract a lot of off peak riders. The fastest growth in passengers for all public transport use has been in the off peak hours. I'm astonished that New York's or Chicago's commuter system does not provide frequent service outside the rush hours.

If you follow the link provided and go to the report page for Transport for London and read the latest 2007 report, it has a wealth of data for the nerdiest transport geek. Information of different transport use patterns of different races, ages, sex, occupation. Modal shares between inner and outer districts, maps showing where jobs are concentrated, where most walk or cycle to work.


Another way of looking at the transport for London is to look at journey stages across the city. Many peoples journeys are made up of different modes of travel. The previous figures quoted were just for the main mode people used. When looking at all modes used, the figures break down as this:

23.8 million journeys stages per day.

39% car and truck

20% Walk

20% Bus and Tram

11% Underground and DLR

8% Rail

2% Bike

^^^ That's not true, Most of Chicago's trains run almost all night (except between like 2am and 4am on weeknights) and the Main Lines (Red and Blue) have at least 4 trains an hour even in the dead of night and service stations that are shared with another line (red and brown) or near/within walking distance of another line and capable of serving it (Blue and Green to the west or how the subways still serve the loop and river north when the elveated trains are not running at night.)

And there's equally plenty more that are bustling because of mass transit. I was moreso speaking to the areas very close to downtown on the north side that are not in close proximity to trains, specifically the Elston and Clyborn corridors.

And FYI, Bucktown is served by the Blue Line.

I've put way too much though and time into this too. I've noticed you fixed the tragedy of the blue line moving off Milwaukee. And dammit, every time I take the metra electric, I wish it could just push across the river to Claire st (might be possible with the Canadian national railway abandoning 2 of their tracks after the EJ&E acquisition). BTW, as a someone without a car who has lived in both NY and Chicago, east-west line would by no means be underutilized or underappretiated. Buses are less frequent, less reliable, get delayed through traffic, and don't run from many night spots after-hours.

Changes I would suggest:

Where your orange line begins to turn southwest at Cermack, I would like to see the red line cross over to the metra tracks running along the 400W block. I think communities west of the highway would use it more if they didn't have to stand atop of 94. (the tracks running between the Dan Ryan could then be used for other things like POV lanes or, dare i say it, a dedicated high speed rail corridor.)

Much of the North ave track west of 94 can be run along an abandoned rail line two blocks to the north.

If Chicago persuade the residents Lincolnwood, I'd like to see your Lincoln ave Line to the yellow line. I'd also like to see it connect the other way to North and Clark (BTW, I think that line's stretch from Lawrence to downtown would become the new busiest subway in chicago)

Finally, and many might disagree, but I'd like to see a line run along Cicero if the city could expand or secure rights to the tracks that run along the 4600 block.

You're talking about rapid transit or metro, and Chicago was historically second only to New York in having late-night or 24-hour service. In London, Washington, etc., late-night revelers must keep track of the last train.

Rational Plan3 was talking about commuter trains or suburban rail, which in Chicago run very infrequently (every two hours, or worse) in midday and after the PM rush. Service is better during off-peak hours in cities that run their systems as regional rail rather than commuter trains, but I'm not aware of any city where those run all night. Tokyo's capsule hotels are for salarymen who've missed the last train.

I think the 79th bus is the busiest bus route in the city. I would think a rail line down 79th to the Red Line would be pretty busy, and actually the Mid-City corridor (the one that would use the tracks east of Cicero) would turn east around Ford City and run on the tracks near 75th, then southeast to the 79th Red Line stop. Maybe in your dream scenario it could continue east from there--four miles east it would hit the north end of the South Works site that supposedly will some day be developed. That would be a pretty serious east-west line.

79th is always, by far, the busiest single route in the city, occasionally surpassing 1 million riders per month. A rail line down 79th, plus linking to Ford City and Midway *cough* mid-city transitway's south leg*cough* would be huge with ridership. The next busiest route is often the #9 Ashland, which of course has additional riders on the X9, that are not tallied onto the local route's high count.

Thinking about something like the Paris RER system, perhaps? Ah, to dream.

Chicago's final Olympic bid announced yesterday lacks any transit redevelopment plans. The Olympic financial costs and guarantees were pushed through because of the promised transit improvements that were to go along with the bid. Now, Chicago essentially gave the Olympic Committee a "take it or leave it" stance on its transit. A clear case of bait and switch. For the money the city is promising to spend on the Olympics and the inevitable cost overruns, I'd rather take a functioning transit network and pass on the 2 week global pep rally known as the Olympics. Frankly, it's shocking that more people on this board aren't outraged.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2...ympic-bid.html

^ Most of the Olympics-transportation discussion has been going on in the Chicago 2016 Olympic Bid thread under City Discussions. Maybe you should check that out first before you judge people's reactions.

^ That thread has devolves to arguments about whether the Tribune is anti Daley or not. And I thought this thread would be more appropriate for a transit discussion, since it is entitled "Transit Developments".

Yes, well why not. Chicago is a great city, and should have a great rail system. But the problem seems to be that the politicians don't seem to care that much about public transport. Or am I misreading the situation?

Chicago has a strong city centre with, for america, a good commuter rail system. The Metro has its strengths and weaknesses. The lines built in the favoured Northern neigbourhoods are seriously overcrowded, while the some of the Southern and Western lines, now serve relatively depopulated neighbourhoods and have poor loadings.

Recent trends in Chicagos development, has seen a massive rise in city centre living, but crucially this has not been followed by a massive rise city centre employment, (In comparison to the growth of suburban employment).

What is the solution towards a more sustainable future?

If people want Chicago to go down this route, then the city centre has to become more important in the region. Employers need to have a reason to stay in the centre and there needs to be a good reason for suburban jobs to relocate there as well. Employers will locate where there the best advantage to them.

In the UK the trend in recent years has been for employers to locate in areas that staff want to work. This has meant that locations with good public transport and decent retail and restaurants have seen the highest growth. The largest out of business parks have tried to respond by providing retail on their sites but these are hard to sustain with just a few office buildings, so sites with sufficient land banks have diverisfied their development plans and now often propose a thousand housing units or two to proved the base for some shops and a school. But trends in office locations are favouring truely urban environments whether that is in existing town centres or in new Urban Office parks built next to existing rail stations (i.e. Chiswick Park in London).

Smaller employers draw on a smaller commuter hinterland, but the bigger the employer or the more specialised his workforce the bigger the commuter hinterland needed to provide a recruitable skills base. Chicago's extensive freeway system has allowed large office complexs to disperse next to major interchanges to provide a good catchment area, but what is going to happen to these supposed locational advantages when traffic becomes unbearable.

For the city to stay competitive it needs more transport infrastructure. What transport it provides will the shape the future. Since the 70's the USA has not spent very much on infrastructure and it shows. No one has been willing to spend the money. But things have come to pass, that the political landscape is changing, people want their roads and rail lines fixed, and the money may now come. If a massive increase in spending occurs on rail infrastructure then locational advantges will shift towards the centre.

You guys know Chicago better than I, where should that money be spent? Sure the existing maintenence shortfalls need to be made good, but where should new capacity go? Towards high transit dependent neighbourhoods (i.e. the poor) or towards areas where the highly skilled and paid actually live. Bus, Metro or Metra? For the city centre to grow in importance, it needs to maximise the skill base it grows on.

My preference would be for a sustained investment in the Metra system. Starting with good off peak services, but eventually providing a near Metro frequency on most lines, to at least a ten to fifteen mile radius. This would require more four tracking and grade seperation of lines and eventually new tunnels near the city centre.

The eventual aim would provide frequent local stopping trains between the centre and all stations in at least Cook and Du Page counties, 4 trains an hour off peak and 6 to 8 per hour peak. Alongside this the outer stations would have semi express service bypassing the inner sections of track, shortening commute time from the outer suburbs, thereby boosting patronage. These lines should, were possible run at half hourly service through out the day, with longer trains in peak.

With such intensive service, not only would it attract more office occupiers, but retail and leisure would grow as more people travelled to the centre for entertainment or shopping.

Some would argue that by developing around the Southside lines better use would be made of existing infra-structure. And while it would boost the the usage of these lines it would not widen the cities catchment area that much.

To get there from here is the difficult part. New signalling is needed to boost train frequency and as more lines are rehabilitated longer trains can be run.

To really boost numbers on the system integrated ticketing between the Bus, Metro and Metra system needs to be introduced. It was the introduction of the Travel Card in the London area in the 1980's that caused massive growth in public transport usage. The ability to buy this a one day, weekly, monthly or annual card meant it was so much easier to pop into London by train and if you needed to go to several different places, then no big deal. It made shopping and leisure trips more likely as it was ease to nip between different districts for a museum or lunch or a particular shop.

^ Recent years have seen plenty of companies moving offices downtown.

The problems seems not to be lack of infrastructure (sorry, but when it comes to commuting to Chicago's central area, I think it's incredibly well served by transit--arguably as well as any city out there), but lack of utilization.

Those major lines running through half-abandoned neighborhoods, yet still costing tons of money to maintain and keep active, are a leech on the system. Chicago could perhaps add a million people to its population and not overburden its transit system (IMO) much by simply attracting more development to its south and west sides.

Amen. The new slums will probably be the first-ring suburbs like Dolton, Harvey, etc. (I don't know much about this though).

It's hard to do a direct comparison. As finding the percentage of employment in of the Urban area has proved impossible for me to find for Chicago, and was quite difficult for me to find for London. London's city area has 7.6 million people (8.6 built up area and 13.2 in Metro) and 4.6 million jobs in the city. One third of which are based in Central London. I don't know, but I don't think that a third of Cooks counties jobs are in central Chicago.

This chicken and egg problem, it's difficult enough to fund maintenance of the existing system, never mind expand. To increase funding you need to increase political support, if there is nothing for the suburbs, why will they care.

Investment in the Metra system is scalable, expansion in capacity does not have to run too far ahead of demand. If the system was constantly investing in trains, extra track and grade separation schemes, before you knew it, you would have a regional metro system. The easier and quicker it is for people to commute from the ever further flung suburbs the more companies will locate in the centre.

That's not to say that the Western and Southern neighbourhoods can't be revived. But what is actually being done about it? Inner London lost over half of its population between the end of the War and the 1970's. It was official government policy. 2 million people were resettled in New Towns in this era. During this time it was government policy to force employers out of London. While this worked for the London's industrial base, it luckily did not work for its office sector.

This meant that when government woke up to the problems it had created in the inner city, there was still a strong employment base in the centre to attract people back, trading their commute for city life. It did not matter for many that a lot of inner London schools as are atrocious. For the upper middle class in inner London the cost of Private education is the price of living in the city. To get a million people to move back to Chicago, what is going to drag them back? To me, it is employment growth at the centre that will do it.

A dozen different strategies are probably needed. Your policy response will have to suit Chicago's current situation. If these areas are still losing population, it can't because of their existing transport. The problem is that the people their are not employable in the city centre. Blue collar jobs have moved to the suburbs and they are following them. Unless the schools in these areas can equip for employment in what future is there for them?

To get more jobs in the centre does not just mean improving transport from the suburbs.

Business taxes need to fall, and residential will taxes will need to rise. I know in New York and Philadelphia, their city governments have raised taxes on employers much faster than residential rates. After all businesses don't vote, oops except they can move. Are there enough upper middle class jobs able to pay for private education? Public schools need to improve in the city, you won't attract the middles classes back from the suburbs if the schools are not good. I know there is a charter movement in Chicago. Do surburbanites think they are good enough?

^ A very complicated discussion that is beyond my scale. I do not have a Masters in Urban Studies ;)

Having said that, I think it is simply unfair to compare a European city to an American one. I do know this:

Chicago's downtown has a very healthy chunk of the region's office space and professional employment (if not total employment--but then how many car mechanics, gas station attendants, car salesmen, factory workers, etc can you employ downtown?) especially for an American city.

Chicago's infrastructure for getting people downtown from the tri-state metropolitan area is far beyond adequate. If you take a look at the CTA, Metra, and South Shore Commuter Line maps as well as its dozens of bus routes you simply cannot ask for much more.

But getting back to my original point, the kinds of top-down Government-mandated policy-making that is the way of life in Europe just doesn't work in America. You've got cities pitted against suburbs, suburbs pitted against suburbs, metros versus rural areas, State Govts against metros, and a Federal Govt that is completely out of touch with urban issues. One size fits all is the way our Govt deals with issues such as transportation and development (lets build more beltways!). As long as American political leaders prioritize highway over rail spending, there is no chance in hell that Chicago can improve at more than a snail's pace.

You talk about the British Govt "making" employers move from A to B, etc but it just doesn't work that way in the US. Cities have advantages and disadvantages in this arena, and they are pitted against their suburban hinterlands to attract jobs; there is really only so much the Government can do about it. Right now, if a corporation in downtown Chicago wants to decamp to the suburbs and build a huge, sprawling office park in the midst of a cornfield, the Govt simply will not stand in its way.

In the same fashion, a city can't simply make people move into its south and west sides, nor can it simply make employers move to these areas so as to attract more residents. Is that something that can be done in Europe?

Taking all that in, and when comparing Chicago to other American cities, I think it has been remarkably successful. In fact, I believe its central area is the most balanced & successful one in the US outside of New York. Special mention goes to Washington, DC but in fairness, DC will never have to deal with the Federal Govt decamping to the suburbs; that is a luxury Chicago will never have--and it shows in Chicago's aggressive, top-heavy leadership.

Dolton and Harvey are going to be the "new" slums? Ha!

Not really, the west edge of it is, but for the most part you would have to walk 5 or more blocks to reach it. That's like Saying Portage Park is served by the Blue Line when it only touches the Eastern Edge. I lived right in the middle of there this summer, and there was no way in hell I was going to hike over to the blue line to catch a train when I could shoot downtown on the Kennedy (as long as its not in the middle of rush hour) in 10 minutes.


The reason it has devolved into a "is the Tribune pro or anti Daley" debate is because that article you presented was basically a lie. The Tribune is misleading Chicagoans because they didn't do their research. Cities in the United States never get Federal Transit Improvement dollars allocated until after they win the bid. That is what happened in Salt Lake City and in Atlanta. The bid says this and gives it as a reason as to why there are no specific plans. So please stop spreading false rumors like that shoddy rag Tribune (OT, but seriously, has anyone noticed how crappy the Tribune has gotten over the past 6-12 months?).

I was simplifying about making employers move. In the interventionist eras of the 1940's to 1970's government believed in the power of the plan. London dominates England and it sucks in power money and resources from hundreds of miles around. The problem was seen as that the South Ease region and London grew too fast while the industrial North languished. It was often seen the interest rates were often raised to cool of an over heating economy in the South before the North had felt the benefit. Development policy had generous tax breaks in the North, but restrictions on growth in London. Any factory or office building above a certain size had to get permission from a central government department and it had to show it could not do its business just as well from outside central London. The effects of this policy can be seen in the rash of 60's and 70's office blocks in quite suburban locations around London. In the Eighties this was all swept away in the wave of deregulation and coincidentally enough this coincided with regrowth of London's population and employment numbers.

Also the UK's local councils have often been reorganised by central government to reflect changing population levels and the perceived correct size for efficiency. Central government shares revenues from rich areas to poor areas.

Effectively none of this exists for greater Chicago. But rationalisation could occur if there was a political will for it. The creation of the Greater London Authority and the Mayors office and the London assembly arose after years of campaigning for better London government. There were packed lecture theatres all other the city held by various groups, the city's newspaper and eventually televised debates.

Discounting the possibility of Cook and Du Page counties merging into a new Metropolitan council. What is the way forward. Illinois State surely must want it's most important city to prosper.

What was successful in the UK in kickstarting development in derelict industrial areas in the UK was the creation of Urban development corporations, these entities had access to government funds but most importantly companies locating here faced zero capital investment taxes and zero commercial property taxes for 10 years, but also local planning control was taken from the local city council and few controls were placed on what could be built. Canary Wharf would never of happened without it. To say these were controversial was putting it mildly, local democracy was pretty much upsurped and the nimbies crushed.

Could a deregulated and tax free zone on the South side work?

The politics of regenerating these areas revolves around gentrification. I can see it soon getting mired in the politics of race and class. The people who will travel to the centre are predominately college educated and white. While new condo towers around existing stations could attract the young and elderley, people with kids are not going to go to the existing schools. One way to attract them would be brand new schools that are not only well funded but have high academic standards. The down side of that is that it would be seen as elitist, discriminating, because other inner city schools are not getting the same funding and racist because it was effectively designed to get suburbanites to come back to the city. The best hope is to continue with the charter movement that uplifts the standards in the city's schools.

I would think that transport is your best bet at the moment as there is a metropolitan agency that covers it, and at least their is a method of communication. The city and the suburbs need to find common ground to fight for funds from the State to make any progress. Metro wide rapid transit could become a clarion for the city. But the both sides of the political spectrum will need to reach a consensus for it to happen.

Well, maybe this Hilkevitch piece will redeem the Trib a bit: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,5090334.story

The Trib has been diluted over the past year or so. The "breaking news" that appears all over the Trib's front page online has a lot to do with it, IMO. It is basically a red eye light. Terrible.

Ok. Let's continue to fantasize about transit expansion plans. Draw lines across maps and dream about new transit lines slicing through the region. And when anyone bothers to question Daley's priorities, we'll just brush it off as pro-suburban tripe. We'll ignore the Kreusi appointment, the prioritization of the pink line and the dysfunctional airport express idea over timely slow zone reductions, and the fact that the only thing this administration has ever done for transit is use the parking fee stick to force people to the train (of course only out of revenue necessity). And of course when we do win the bid, we'll get that much needed red line expansion to 130th street where the population density is lower than that of Waukegan or Elgin. It worked really well for Atlanta. Their trains are wizzing by as we speak. I just can't wait.

Oh wait. Almost forgot. We are planning for the future - 20 years from now when people will want to live off the green line stop at 43rd street. Nevermind that exurban Kendall county has gained exponentially more people over the past 8 years than Chicago. We'll just continue to dream until Chicago once again reached 4 million people.

Not so simplify your post down to one line, but the UK never had the crime and school issues that are present in the much of the far South Side. Rational planning just can't work when construction workers need police escort to and from site. And some would argue that pockets of the South Side are overserved by transit already compared to the more undersrerved and denser North and Northwest sides. For example, the CTA is considering expanding the red line to 130th street while Streeterville continues to go unserved by any rail line.

The South Side is mostly served by Metra, an agency that is based around serving suburban commuters and catering to their desires. If that means running Metra trains non-stop through dense, impoverished black or Hispanic neighborhoods, so be it.

The Red Line extension to 130th is a response to this stupid infighting. If CTA provides the service to the Far South Side instead of Metra, then stops can be placed frequently and there will be no denial of service.

TUP, firms (and people) respond to incentives. This is one of the fundamental tenets of economics. If incentives are provided in sufficient quantity to overcome the disadvantages of a South or West Side location, then businesses will respond. This is the whole notion of the city's Planned Manufacturing Districts, which have preserved industry within the city. One advantage of a South or West Side location is that, since commuters hate to make transfers, the employees would start to live either downtown or in the South or West suburbs to have a one-seat ride to their jobs. One of my favorite ideas is the creation of a business cluster around the United Center.

New York, IIRC, has attempted to do similar things in Long Island City and in the downtown of Jersey City. Both places now have gleaming office buildings (and converted warehouses) that rely on the transit accessibility that already existed in those places. These buildings largely house "back-office" functions that in Chicago are scattered along the Tri-State and out in Downers Grove/Schaumburg/Naperville.

What? Have you heard of Brixton? The south side isn't unique in being a high-crime area that needs work, and the UK's got plenty of crime-ridden areas, especially in the North.

Besides, 25 years ago, you could have said the same thing about Lincoln Park.

Hello, while we are dreaming, I put together my thoughts on a Midwest high speed rail system.

http://theurbanophile.blogspot.com/2...d-part-1b.html

This is the single best example I can think of of absolutely ridiculous transit planning on the city's part. I still don't understand how anybody ever thought for a second that the airport express as envisioned by Daley's people was ever going to happen, or that it would be net beneficial if it did.

I completely disagree with you about the Red Line extension though. The 95th Red Line stop is the busiest el station in the city, something most North Siders (not necessarily you) refuse to believe. If you take income (transit reliance), population density, and distance to the nearest train station into account, the Red Line extension area is exactly where the greatest unmet transit need is. If you live in Streeterville, you can walk six blocks to your home from the Red Line or from any of the constant stream of buses on Michigan, and you are directly adjacent to the Loop. If you live on 130th, you have to take a slow, infrequent bus five or six miles just to get to the last stop on the line.

^^^ I agree, I still don't see why people continue to claim that Streeterville needs a subway line. I have to go to Streeterville very often for various things and never once has it occurred to me that it would be easier to get there if there was a train line... There is no traffic in streeterville, so why do we need a train? The Michigan Ave. buses are way better than any train and its at most a 3 or 4 block from those buses. If you had a train going through streeterville you'd probably have to transfer to get on it and you could out walk the train in the 5-10 min it'd take to wait for it. Not to mention its almost entirely residential so its not like there are going to be a ton of commuters coming in and out of there, most people that live there are either retired or live within walking distance of their jobs (I know several people who live there and either work on Michigan or in Illinois Center and just walk to work).

I'm not sure if you are responding to me or not, this seems to be about something completely different than what I was talking about? I was just saying the people need to shut up about the supposed lack of transit in the Olympic bid because they are simply wrong, there is no lack of transit, we just don't plan for things that haven't been allocated yet, but if history serves as an example we will be allocated money if we win...

95th street is the busiest station because it is a hub for all those buses coming from all directions...that being said the Redline Dan Ryan only has half the usage as the Redline northside.....and the southside is longer.

Rather than building the Redline out too low density areas we should just make CTA/Metra passes usable on both transit systems and increase the Metra trips and add stations on existing lines.

Mass-transit 'doomsday' looms yet again
 

RTA projects huge tax-revenue shortfalls for CTA, Metra and Pace
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...5244322.column (Complete Article found with link)

Jon Hilkevitch | Getting Around
February 16, 2009

The sinking economy is driving Chicago-area mass-transit agencies into the ground, according to new data marking a quick return to budget crises.

The new numbers are so bleak that the "doomsday" service cuts and fare increases threatened more than a year ago appear mild in comparison to the sweeping measures that would be needed to fill gaping budget holes the Chicago Transit Authority, Metra and Pace are facing.

That's the grim scenario, even though riders may be under the impression that recent fare increases at all three transit agencies have erased funding worries.

Tax revenues the CTA receives for its operating budget are estimated to fall below projections by $58 million for 2008 when the final figures for December are received and $155 million less than targeted for 2009 out of a $1.3 billion budget, according to Regional Transportation Authority documents obtained by the Tribune.

Jon Hilkevitch Jon Hilkevitch Bio | E-mail | Recent columns

The RTA is also eyeing big funding reductions in the Metra and Pace budgets based on shrinking tax receipts: a $27 million reduction in funding in 2008 and $45 million in 2009 for Metra and $9 million in 2008 and $16 million in 2009 for Pace.

The 2009 numbers represent 7 percent of Metra's $642 million operating budget and nearly 8 percent of Pace's $204 million operating budget.

The dwindling tax revenue also means the $107 million budgeted for Pace to provide paratransit services to people covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act in 2009 would be cut by $5 million.....

OK, I'm getting pretty sick of every budget shortfall facing the RTA being described as a doomsday by the local media. Its like they are trying to stoke the fires between the RTA and its customers.

Chicken little syndrome...

Taft

^^^So you don't think there is a real issue with the projected tax revenues dropping because of the economic crises? That take on the situtations seems a little clueless. The issue on how the media reports it is a different topic matter...how about the actual article? It has far worse ramifications to countless tens of thousands of people than a bi-line in the newspaper.

None of us like the idea of another funding crises with Mass Transit in Chicago....but seems like this will be the first of many large governmental budget problems in the near future....because of the economy..which I personally am sick of.

Transit is heavily funded by sales and real estate transfer taxes - highly variable revenue sources in a down economy.

UP the parking tax! Daley was about to institute that about a month ago but it fizzled away.

I do think there are serious problems which I am likely just as sick of as you. The city, state, RTA and--to a lesser extent--the feds need to sit down and figure this out ASAP.

I am just reacting to the sensationalism with which this is billed and general poor reporting. The word "doomsday" gets trotted out and all of a sudden you have several million downstaters yapping about the dysfunction of CTA and grumbling about their perpetual "doomsdays." The media sells these problems to the public as problems that can be fixed only by huge influxes of cash. No one really details the long term funding changes that need to be made to make public transit in Illinois tenable. And so, as we go round again on the funding-go-round, the public is perpetually surprised about the next "doomsday" which pops up and asks, "didn't we just fix this?"

Sigh.

I think the headline was more sensationalist than the body of the story, which at least makes clear in the first sentence that the economy is the culprit here. Let's hope that federal assistance will plug the gap.

To some extent, increased Federal dollars for the capital budget will allow RTA to divert local capital dollars to the operating budget to avert/mitigate a subsequent doomsday. The stimulus may indeed help tremendously.

The idea that capital spending from a “stimulus” package could be diverted just to pay the bills makes me want to vomit.

The state needs to secure a permanent, recession proof way to fund transit. Come on Pat, it’s been a week. Whatcha got?