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)

Nowhereman1280 Feb 15, 2009 5:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChicagoChicago (Post 4086656)
And FYI, Bucktown is served by the Blue Line.

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.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcu (Post 4087453)
Chicago's final Olympic bid announced yesterday lacks any transit redevelopment plans.

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?).

Rational Plan3 Feb 15, 2009 5:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 4088950)
^ 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.

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.

Taft Feb 15, 2009 5:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 (Post 4089058)
...
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?).

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.

Marcu Feb 15, 2009 6:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 (Post 4089058)
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?).

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.

Marcu Feb 15, 2009 7:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rational Plan3 (Post 4089079)


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

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.

ardecila Feb 15, 2009 9:35 PM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician
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?

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.

sammyg Feb 15, 2009 9:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcu (Post 4089318)
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.

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.

arenn Feb 16, 2009 2:49 AM

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

Abner Feb 16, 2009 3:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcu (Post 4089215)
the dysfunctional airport express idea

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.

Nowhereman1280 Feb 16, 2009 5:02 AM

^^^ 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).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcu (Post 4089215)
Ok. Let's continue to fantasize about transit expansion plans.

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...

Chicago3rd Feb 16, 2009 2:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abner (Post 4090136)
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.

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.

Chicago3rd Feb 16, 2009 2:31 PM

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.....

Taft Feb 16, 2009 4:28 PM

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



Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago3rd (Post 4090811)
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.
...


Chicago3rd Feb 16, 2009 4:32 PM

^^^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.

arenn Feb 16, 2009 4:41 PM

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

the urban politician Feb 16, 2009 4:47 PM

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

Taft Feb 16, 2009 5:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago3rd (Post 4090956)
^^^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.

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.

Abner Feb 16, 2009 5:27 PM

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.

VivaLFuego Feb 16, 2009 5:51 PM

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.

ChicagoChicago Feb 16, 2009 6:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego (Post 4091120)
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?


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:13 AM.

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