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)

the urban politician Sep 10, 2014 4:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTA Gray Line (Post 6723719)
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!!

^ To be honest, I actually think that converting the Metra Electric to a CTA-type rapid transit service is a good idea. I"m not against it.

My argument is against your reasoning, that's all. I don't believe that this new L line will do anything for these communities. It won't eliminate poverty, it won't eliminate gangs or poverty (besides moving them elsewhere). I just don't see any reason to believe that.

What I do hope is to see the lakefront hoods from the S. Loop to Hyde Park gentrify further, and rapid transit stops may help make these areas more appealing to gentrifiers as well as (?perhaps) immigrants. That's all I'm interested in.

CTA Gray Line Sep 10, 2014 5:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 6724075)
^ To be honest, I actually think that converting the Metra Electric to a CTA-type rapid transit service is a good idea. I"m not against it.

My argument is against your reasoning, that's all. I don't believe that this new L line will do anything for these communities. It won't eliminate poverty, it won't eliminate gangs or poverty (besides moving them elsewhere). I just don't see any reason to believe that.

What I do hope is to see the lakefront hoods from the S. Loop to Hyde Park gentrify further, and rapid transit stops may help make these areas more appealing to gentrifiers as well as (?perhaps) immigrants. That's all I'm interested in.

Question -- Did you ever live anywhere on the South Side for any length of time? I did for over 50 yrs., that is why I think I know what's lacking there.

I have only a vague abstract idea of what things Barrington or Palos Heights might need.

clark wellington Sep 11, 2014 4:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oshkeoto (Post 6723676)
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.

Thanks for that.

I'm sort of confused by these numbers. According to that CTA document, the Red Line Extension on the UPRR alignment is projected to have an annual ridership of 12.7 million. Dividing that by 365 gives ~35k per day. For the four stations on the proposed extension, that's an average of ~8,700 riders per station per day.

That's well above the boardings per weekday last year for stations like Howard (6,387), Wilson (6,328), Sheridan (5,483), Cermak (4,428 in 2012), and Sox-35th (5,218 in 2012). Even 95th street (where most of these riders presumably transfer to the Red Line today) only had ~4 million boardings in all of 2012. And that's not even accounting for the fact that weekday ridership should be much higher for the extension, which would push it up from this simple average.

Am I being stupid here and missing something? If not, this seems like a crazy high ridership projection...

CTA Gray Line Sep 11, 2014 4:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 6723984)
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?

Wherever the job figures came from, can you explain why CNT and CTAQC published this statement (pages 16 thru 20) in 2009, Mr. "He's Fascinated by Mike's Rectum" dude (for enough money you can have a peek, but NO touching): https://app.box.com/CTA-Gray-Line

"The Chicagoland Transportation and Air Quality Commission, affiliated with the Center for Neighborhood Technology, ranked the Gray Line as the most sensible and worthy transit idea out of all transportation projects being proposed for Chicagoland"....

Did I generously bribe them from my Minimum Wage Paycheck? Also how did I manage to accquire a CMAP RTP Major Capital Project ID Number (#01-02-9003) Expensive Bribery again?

Tom Servo Sep 11, 2014 8:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTA Gray Line (Post 6724218)
Question -- Did you ever live anywhere on the South Side for any length of time? I did for over 50 yrs., that is why I think I know what's lacking there.

I have only a vague abstract idea of what things Barrington or Palos Heights might need.

This.

Well said.

brian_b Sep 11, 2014 12:29 PM

Speaking of south side transit, has there ever been a proposal to send a train (or even BRT) down Garfield? I would think that something that connects the MSI, 55/56/57 Metra/South Shore, U of C (somewhere between Woodlawn and Cottage Grove), Garfield Green, Garfield Red, Halsted, Ashland, Garfield/Western, and then ends at the Western Orange Line stop would be a huge step forward.

ardecila Sep 11, 2014 12:51 PM

I definitely think a 55th/Garfield BRT is in order. Maybe a better place to start than Ashland. It should go to Midway, though and give a direct connection from the airport to U of C.

Mr Downtown Sep 11, 2014 1:54 PM

Well, X55 ridership was pretty anemic: 3000 per day. It's not like Garfield Blvd. experiences a lot of traffic delays.

the urban politician Sep 11, 2014 2:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTA Gray Line (Post 6724218)
Question -- Did you ever live anywhere on the South Side for any length of time? I did for over 50 yrs., that is why I think I know what's lacking there.

I have only a vague abstract idea of what things Barrington or Palos Heights might need.

^ What do personal anecdotes have to do with this topic? The only time I ever lived in Chicago, I lived on the south side, in Hyde Park.

I could care less if you spent 20, 40, 60, or 100 years on the south side. It doesn't make for a sound argument. Give me one example in the United States, going back 50 years, when introducing a transit stop to an impoverished area led to drastic job growth, income growth, and investment absent gentrification and displacement of existing residents?

Again, I think a few of these areas will eventually gentrify, that's all. What you think will happen, however, is a myth.

Tom Servo Sep 11, 2014 2:21 PM

You're missing his point. I've been following your posts for years and have always thought you're painfully out of touch with our city's needs. Your perspective seems solely based on real-estate demands of the wealthy, upper-middle class.


Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 6724075)
What I do hope is to see the lakefront hoods from the S. Loop to Hyde Park gentrify further, and rapid transit stops may help make these areas more appealing to gentrifiers as well as (?perhaps) immigrants. That's all I'm interested in.

And posts like this make you sound all the more racist and out of touch with anything and all things beyond the socioeconomic scope of your wealthy, northern Illinois suburb.

wierdaaron Sep 11, 2014 2:28 PM

More pie-in-the-sky theorizing about how awesome Union Station could be if any of the several thousand ideas already outlined for improving it were actually implemented rather than just discussed. http://www.suntimes.com/29801451-418...l#.VBGxEmRdW0u

Mr Downtown Sep 11, 2014 2:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTA Gray Line (Post 6725064)
can you explain why. . .the Chicagoland Transportation and Air Quality Commission, affiliated with the Center for Neighborhood Technology, ranked the Gray Line as the most sensible and worthy transit idea out of all transportation projects being proposed for Chicagoland"....?

Because CNT is a grant-driven advocacy group, not a planning or transportation agency. They hadn’t done any real in-depth analysis of the idea. When the RTA's 2012 South Lakefront Corridor Study did some actual analysis, the idea was found unimpressive. The cost per new rider would be extremely high, it would turn lots of current one-seat rides into three-seat rides for no good reason, and there's very little likelihood of spurring any spinoff development given the existing density of South Shore.

I once got an award for doing 85wpm in high school typing class. I try not to confuse that with receiving the Nobel Prize for Literature.

Justin_Chicago Sep 11, 2014 5:25 PM

Is anyone aware of any future residential developments near the 51st and Garfield green line stations? I recently visited the Hyde Park campus of U of Chicago and I was surprised that the area around these transit stops have many open lots, despite the proximity to Washington park and the retail/dining scene on 53rd street.

ChickeNES Sep 11, 2014 6:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin_Chicago (Post 6725790)
Is anyone aware of any future residential developments near the 51st and Garfield green line stations? I recently visited the Hyde Park campus of U of Chicago and I was surprised that the area around these transit stops have many open lots, despite the proximity to Washington park and the retail/dining scene on 53rd street.

The plots around Garfield Green I believe are all owned by UofC and at the moment are being held as a possible location for the Obama library.

ardecila Sep 11, 2014 6:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 6725315)
Well, X55 ridership was pretty anemic: 3000 per day. It's not like Garfield Blvd. experiences a lot of traffic delays.

Fair enough. If we're being realistic, the goal is to better-connect Hyde Park with Midway and the Red/Green Lines with a frequent transit service that attracts choice riders (i.e. wealthy people). BRT stations induce a greater feeling of security and provide shelter from the elements, the higher speeds and fewer stops would attract riders, etc.

On paper, it seems like a pretty strong candidate: two major job centers at either end, ample road space along half the route and a narrow congested section on the other half. Most other east-west arterials don't have that anchor on the west end, so ridership is pretty directional and CTA wastes money on "wrong-way" service.

oshkeoto Sep 12, 2014 6:57 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the X55's frequency and span was never meant to serve as the main service along that road, right? The 3,000 number seems less like a comment on the demand for services along Garfield and more like a comment on the relative convenience of the X55 and the regular 55. If BRT were built with a frequency and span that made it the more convenient choice, you'd see a lot more riders. Current weekday ridership on the 55 is about 11,000 - if you got the same boost on Garfield that the CTA modeled on Ashland, it would jump to ~16,000 with BRT. That's quite respectable for an investment of probably well under $100 million.

MayorOfChicago Sep 12, 2014 2:21 PM

Random question, but does anyone know why the Midway Orange Line was put to the southeast of the train/yard area? If it had come in west a bit and had the station more north they could have easily moved the yard around and then the station would be probably less than half the distance to the terminal. Just a straight walk west. I noticed that when I was there last week, all the walking....

Ok - just looked and I assume it's because of the alignment heading south out of the station for any future extension. Still looks like they could have fairly easily moved it to the north west and then just had the extension snake back over to the southeast to get that vacant strip heading south.

Mr Downtown Sep 12, 2014 5:51 PM

They expected to extend the line to Ford City relatively soon. In fact, some rapid transit cars were delivered with "Ford City" destination signs.

Because we mostly experience that station only when we're en route to MDW, it seems like a shortsighted penny-wise pound-foolish decision. But if you look at the bigger picture of southwest side bus transfers and operations complexity when or if extended, it's a more understandable call.

Busy Bee Sep 12, 2014 6:04 PM

The walk to the terminal wouldn't be that bad if was a straight shot on moving walkways instead of that jogged all over nonsense through the deck.

Mr Downtown Sep 13, 2014 1:02 AM

Frequent travelers sometimes ignore the signage and walk straight west out of the station, across the recirculation drive, and then cut through the ground floor of the parking garage into baggage claim level.


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:04 PM.

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