CHICAGO | General Discussions

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Handro

People will drive always drive in Chicago--while we want to offer as many alternatives as possible, we'll never have the transit coverage of NYC.

Certainly not with this attitude.

You understand induced demand but don't care because you want to drive at everyone else's expense.

[BrinChi]

Originally Posted by k1052

This seems a little too close maybe. One thing that constantly irritates me about Morgan is that the secondary exits don't span to the next block east or have high barrier gate entries so you have to make an extra crossing and walk the full block.

This irks me too. And they did the same thing with the new Washington/Wabash station too. When approaching from the south you have to walk all the way to the north part of the station. Why don't they use more turn-style entry points?

[rgarri4]

I would hate for cities to be designed in a way to accommodate car drivers who don't even live in the city. Part of why I love living here is because I haven't needed a car in 10 years. Improve public transit, design the city for people not cars!

[Handro]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

That's fine, let them drive. Also let them pay the costs of their choices themselves. There is no reason to foist the costs of the negative externalities of individual choices onto developers or the end users or tenants of their projects.

If you drive to the West Loop, then prepare to pay for it and still have to walk several blocks. That's no one's problem but those who choose to drive.

end users and tenants will deal with traffic too.

Originally Posted by k1052

Certainly not with this attitude.

You understand induced demand but don't care because you want to drive at everyone else's expense.

"You" as in me? I only drive if I need to go to the suburbs for something.

The appeal of acting so sanctimonious isn't lost on me, lord knows I'm guilty of it myself sometimes. But I know that you know it's a complete fantasy to rid the city of cars or the need for cars. Offer as many alternatives as possible for daily commuters or neighborhood visitors, but understand that people will drive and offering traffic alleviating measures and ways to get the cars off the street when they get to their destination makes the city move more efficiently.

I'm not asking for the complete demolition of the El and 50 story parking garages to pock mark the west loop. City planning is a balance and fanatical adherence to New Urbanism isn't realistic or helpful.

PS. you know what would move much faster and serve more people if traffic was better managed? Buses.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Handro

"You" as in me? I only drive if I need to go to the suburbs for something.

The appeal of acting so sanctimonious isn't lost on me, lord knows I'm guilty of it myself sometimes. But I know that you know it's a complete fantasy to rid the city of cars or the need for cars. Offer as many alternatives as possible for daily commuters or neighborhood visitors, but understand that people will drive and offering traffic alleviating measures and ways to get the cars off the street when they get to their destination makes the city move more efficiently.

I'm not asking for the complete demolition of the El and 50 story parking garages to pock mark the west loop. City planning is a balance and fanatical adherence to New Urbanism isn't realistic or helpful.

PS. you know what would move much faster and serve more people if traffic was better managed? Buses.

Requiring buildings put in more parking creates demand for more driving which creates congestion and calls for more parking. It's a circle. This isn't really complicated and in a pocket of the city with pretty good transit access it's inexcusable. The city is already extremely accommodating to cars up to and including crippling its bus services to their benefit.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by k1052

Requiring buildings put in more parking creates demand for more driving which creates congestion and calls for more parking. It's a circle. This isn't really complicated and in a pocket of the city with pretty good transit access it's inexcusable. The city is already extremely accommodating to cars up to and including crippling its bus services to their benefit.

whatever. I never argued buildings need to be required to build more parking, so ok. Also great you admit this is a city overly dependent on cars... whats your plan to get rid of them all? I'd like my bus ride to work to go a lot faster so I'm eager to hear how you will magically make traffic disappear on halsted between north avenue and van buren when the thousands of people being added in the west loop in the next five years move in. Personally, I think studying the individual impact each building and their proposed parking and dropoffs will have on the neighborhood is a good idea, and perhaps coming up with some traffic alleviating measures to get cars off the street faster when they arrive near their destination is probably a good one. But I'd like to hear yours?

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Handro

whatever. I never argued buildings need to be required to build more parking, so ok.

Then what are you arguing for here?

Originally Posted by Handro

I understand induced demand, but parking is SO limited in an area swelling with new residents, visitors, and workers that a sizable portion of the traffic there is probably people circling looking for a space.

Also great you admit this is a city overly dependent on cars... whats your plan to get rid of them all? I'd like my bus ride to work to go a lot faster so I'm eager to hear how you will magically make traffic disappear on halsted between north avenue and van buren when the thousands of people being added in the west loop in the next five years move in. Personally, I think studying the individual impact each building and their proposed parking and dropoffs will have on the neighborhood is a good idea, and perhaps coming up with some traffic alleviating measures to get cars off the street faster when they arrive near their destination is probably a good one. But I'd like to hear yours?

1) Congestion pricing.

2) Bus only lanes, camera enforced. Transit signal priority. All door boarding. Off board fare payment. Stop consolidation. Use the time savings to increase service frequency.

3) More L stations in the west loop. Lengthen Pink/Green Line trains. More off peak service.

4) Improve pedestrian conditions throughout. Eliminate service drives on Randolph to widen sidewalks. Close Fulton blocks to traffic Fri-Sun Hasted to Morgan. Entirely signalize Lake St. Ogden to Halsted. Restrict most curbside space to loading/valet/drop off/pickup north of Washington. Implement permit parking south of Washington to mollify residents.

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by Handro

But feel free to have guests of hotels in the West Loop that they just need to wait in the January cold for a bus that will take them 30 minutes to go less than a mile to the blue line.

I'm always amazed when I hear this kind of talk. Like the rest of the world doesn't even exist. There are thousands and thousands of small cities in the Western world, in New Zealand and Australia and France, Argentina and Canada, where there isn't transit half as good as what we have in Chicago and where nobody expects an urban hotel to have a big parking garage. It's like arguing with someone about how many sides a triangle has. If we want good development outcomes, we should take as examples all of the places that already have good development. What we don't need are extra lanes and parking lots. If someone needs that they can go stay in Northbrook instead of a city made for people.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Handro

But feel free to have guests of hotels in the West Loop that they just need to wait in the January cold for a bus that will take them 30 minutes to go less than a mile to the blue line.

They can take an Uber.

What moron comes to Chicago as a tourist and rents a car?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by 10023

They can take an Uber.

What moron comes to Chicago as a tourist and rents a car?

Exactly.

[Mr Downtown]

A huge market for Chicago hotels is Midwestern tourists who drive the family to the big city for the weekend, or come in with buddies for a game. Just observe the Friday afternoon unloading on Monroe by the Palmer House sometime.

Hotels don't need one space per key, but they do need some kind of car storage in the vicinity, at somewhere around .2 spaces per key.

[BonoboZill4]

Originally Posted by 10023

They can take an Uber.

What moron comes to Chicago as a tourist and rents a car?

People drive to Chicago. A novel concept, I know

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Handro

end users and tenants will deal with traffic too.

Not if they don't drive they won't. Also not if you don't create places for the cars to drive to. More parking = more congestion, that's the simple fact of the matter.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by 10023

They can take an Uber.

What moron comes to Chicago as a tourist and rents a car?

'tis true.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Not if they don't drive they won't. Also not if you don't create places for the cars to drive to. More parking = more congestion, that's the simple fact of the matter.

Yes, they still will. Buses, uber/lyfts and taxis will all deal with that very same traffic.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Yes, they still will. Buses, uber/lyfts and taxis will all deal with that very same traffic.

Aaron (Glowrock)

Again though, if there is nowhere to drive to, there won't be crippling traffic. It's been shown time and time again that you can't build your way out of congestion and that providing free or subsidized parking creates more automobile trips to an area.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Hotels don't need one space per key, but they do need some kind of car storage in the vicinity, at somewhere around .2 spaces per key.

Yeah, I think this sounds reasonable.

[marothisu]

My parents drove to Chicago and stayed at a hotel downtown. My brother, sister, 2 nieces, and a nephew all came too. Even though they drove a car that could have carried all of them in it, they just ended up ubering many places (or walking).

Some spaces are needed in the least for people driving in. It's also presumptuous to say "who comes to Chicago and rents a car?" Yeah sure, you might not need it downtown, but what's not to say that they aren't driving to other places in the metro on some days that aren't accessible easily by any public transit?

[marothisu]

Top changes in the Chicago MSA for foreign born population from 2017 to 2018


Top increases Chicago MSA from 2017 to 2018
1. India: +12,300 people
2. China: +4145 people
3. Philippines: +4087 people
4. UK: +2834 people
5. Haiti: +2692 people
6. Asia N.E.C (not defined): +2542 people
7. Cameroon: +2114 people
8. Turkey: +2010 people
9. Albania: +1840 people
10. Nigeria: +1726 people
11. Serbia: +1713 people
12. Canada: +1627 people
13. Macedonia: +1382 people
14. Barbados: +1317 people
15. Iraq: +1293 people
16. Japan: +1290 people
17. Morocco: +1280 people
18. Bolivia: +1249 people
19. Other Eastern Asia: +1161 people
20. Cambodia: +1080 people
21. Korea: +964 people
22. Vietnam: +947 people
23. Czech Republic: +895 people
24. Malaysia: +864 people
25. Thailand: +846 people

Top decreases Chicago MSA from 2017 to 2018
1. Mexico: -20,258 people
2. Poland: -7701 people
3. Honduras: -5151 people
4. Other Eastern Europe: -4403 people
5. Guatemala: -4234 people
6. El Salvador: -3399 people
7. Egypt: -3196 people
8. Ukraine: -2345 people
9. Pakistan: -2217 people
10. Saudi Arabia: -2040 people
11. Jamaica: -1977 people
12. Other Northern Africa: -1942 people
13. Laos: -1817 people
14. Other South Central Asia: -1796 people
15. Cuba: -1390 people
16. Eritrea: -1380 people
17. Other Western Africa: -1376 people
18. Italy: -1342 people
19T. Austria: -1318 people
19T. Nepal: -1318 people
21. Other South America: -1309 people
22. Europe n.e.c (not defined): -1305 people
23. Bulgaria: -1201 people
24. Ireland: -1200 people
25. Bosnia and Herzegovina: -1142 people

[marothisu]

Changes from 2017 to 2018 for the Chicago MSA in foreign born population, by region of the world:

1. Eastern Asia: +7569 people
2. South Central Asia: +7052 people
3. South Eastern Asia: +6288 people
4. Middle Africa: +2194 people
5. Northern Europe: +2154 people
6. Western Africa: +219 people
7. Australia/New Zealand: -470 people
8. Southern Africa: -692 people
9. Caribbean: -1249 people
10. Western Asia: -1312 people
11. Eastern Africa: -1559 people
12. Southern Europe: -2049 people
13. Western Europe: -2195 people
14. Northern Africa: -4842 people
15. Eastern Europe: -14,835 people

By continents:
1. Asia: +22,139 people
2. Northern America: +1516 people
3. Oceania: -954 people
4. South America: -2776 people
5. Africa: -5124 people
6. Europe: -18,230 people
7. Central America: -35,127 people (I know not a continent but still)


So basically, the gains from Asia and Northern America are offset by the losses of Europe and Africa. Big difference here comes from Central America and the big loss of especially people born in Mexico.