CHICAGO: Transit Developments

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Expect the lakefront flyover bike path to beginning very soon.

It's going to be done in 3 phases and take 4 years.

http://www.cityofchicago.org/content...ON_feb2011.pdf

Hells yeah, good to see this starting soon. It's about time we actually build something instead of having more silly meetings

[nomarandlee]

Yes, great news indeed. But 4 years? Isn't that half the time it took to complete the Big Dig in Boston?

Oh well, its good to know its eventually coming. Given that I became a serious biker again in the last year it couldn't come again too soon.

[wierdaaron]

Does this greenlight and timetable include the Dusable Park buildout as well?

It's going to be a huge improvement having a continuous and sane walking/biking route between museum campus and Navy Pier. That's one of my favorite walking routes to take out of towners on, until I remember about the bridge and the unfriendly path the rest of the way to NP.

It would be great if they could integrate this with the new riverwalk, too. And I hope they work with Divvy to set up some convenient stations. And they could add some of those bicycle repair posts to the flyovers themselves, since I think those weren't really around when this thing was being designed.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

Does this greenlight and timetable include the Dusable Park buildout as well?

It shouldn't... that's a separately planned and (un)funded project. I think Shelbourne was going to chip in some money towards DuSable Park but obviously that never happened and there's no way to access the site right now.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

Yes, great news indeed. But 4 years?

it boggles my mind how it could possibly take 4 freaking years to build a glorified bike ramp! they should probably do another half dozen "studies" to determine if this flyover can really be built in only 4 years. it might take 5 or 6.

fucking ridiculous. the city that works (slowly)!

[CTA Gray Line]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

it boggles my mind how it could possibly take 4 freaking years to build a glorified bike ramp! they should probably do another half dozen "studies" to determine if this flyover can really be built in only 4 years. it might take 5 or 6.

fucking ridiculous. the city that works (slowly)!

POLITICS Dan -- P O L I T I C S .......

And NEVER forget -- WE elect them!

[ardecila]

Not sure but I believe the funds for the flyover are coming from the annual CMAQ grants, so it might take four years' worth of grants to fully fund the project.

IIRC the flyover kept getting passed over (no pun intended) for the grants in favor of other stuff that presumably improves air quality, like right turn lanes at giant suburban intersections or stoplight coordination.

[CTA Gray Line]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,6282303.story

By Richard Wronski, Tribune reporter
8:52 p.m. CDT, March 12, 2014

A task force studying reform of the region's mass transit system is considering two plans that would
drastically overhaul the way the Chicago area's network of buses and trains is overseen and operated........

[the urban politician]

^ Both essentially place CTA/Metra/Pace into one fold, and that is a good thing. I like the idea of a "superagency" not dissimilar to New York's MTA.

It's the only way you can achieve any regional planning without separate agencies, like CTA and Metra, competing with eachother for "customers".

For example, I find it outrageous that Metra controls the busway in Grant Park that takes passengers to McCormick Place and insists that CTA should not be allowed to use it. This is the kind of silly, petty garbage that does nothing to help the city and needs to be done away with.

[CTA Gray Line]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Both essentially place CTA/Metra/Pace into one fold, and that is a good thing. I like the idea of a "superagency" not dissimilar to New York's MTA.

It's the only way you can achieve any regional planning without separate agencies, like CTA and Metra, competing with eachother for "customers".

For example, I find it outrageous that Metra controls the busway in Grant Park that takes passengers to McCormick Place and insists that CTA should not be allowed to use it. This is the kind of silly, petty garbage that does nothing to help the city and needs to be done away with.

You hit it right on the head urban -- S I L L Y and P E T T Y! GET RID of them!

[wierdaaron]

So the second plan would place control of Chicago transit in the hands of Illinois. That seems kind of preposterous on its face, but I don't know a single thing about state government.

From my history as a Michigander, if Michigan decided to take over Detroit transit it would probably be way less corrupt but would probably gutted to barebones by the current governor who hates poor people.

I'm sure there's tons of graft and lined pockets and embezzling within CTA/Metra, maybe sending the reins down to Springfield would help with that? It just seems like they'd completely lose touch with the city and its people.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

From my history as a Michigander, if Michigan decided to take over Detroit transit it would probably be way less corrupt but would probably gutted to barebones by the current governor who hates poor people.

Hates poor people, aka "person who disagrees with my particular political ideas and solutions." I see so much of this on the left. If you don't support their ideas, you're racist or hate poor people. And then they complain about the "political-partisan climate" in the country, which of course, they go on to blame on Republicans only.

[ardecila]

I would hardly place Rick Snyder as an anti-transit wingnut; the guy frequently cites his experience riding Metra as a cause for his support of rail in Michigan.

Giving greater control of transit to the state might lessen corruption but I doubt it would improve planning. For better or worse, the three agencies are pretty responsive to local governments. That means patronage hires and sweetheart deals but it also means new benches and fresh paint at an L station, or much-needed improvements at a forlorn urban Metra stop.

It's worth noting that a series of crises spurred the creation of the MTA in New York, but the governor (at the time, Nelson Rockefeller) gained power over the MTA in the deal and MTA has starved for funds as a result of the largely rural/suburban/Upstate bias of the Governor's office. Internally, my impression is of a much better managed agency, but it still suffers as a regional authority because large parts of the region are surrendered to NJTransit, Port Authority, and ConnDOT.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Hates poor people, aka "person who disagrees with my particular political ideas and solutions." I see so much of this on the left. If you don't support their ideas, you're racist or hate poor people. And then they complain about the "political-partisan climate" in the country, which of course, they go on to blame on Republicans only.

You should learn more about their ideas.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

So the second plan would place control of Chicago transit in the hands of Illinois. That seems kind of preposterous on its face, but I don't know a single thing about state government.

From my history as a Michigander, if Michigan decided to take over Detroit transit it would probably be way less corrupt but would probably gutted to barebones by the current governor who hates poor people.

I'm sure there's tons of graft and lined pockets and embezzling within CTA/Metra, maybe sending the reins down to Springfield would help with that? It just seems like they'd completely lose touch with the city and its people.

Originally Posted by ardecila

I would hardly place Rick Snyder as an anti-transit wingnut; the guy frequently cites his experience riding Metra as a cause for his support of rail in Michigan.

Giving greater control of transit to the state might lessen corruption but I doubt it would improve planning. For better or worse, the three agencies are pretty responsive to local governments. That means patronage hires and sweetheart deals but it also means new benches and fresh paint at an L station, or much-needed improvements at a forlorn urban Metra stop.

It's worth noting that a series of crises spurred the creation of the MTA in New York, but the governor (at the time, Nelson Rockefeller) gained power over the MTA in the deal and MTA has starved for funds as a result of the largely rural/suburban/Upstate bias of the Governor's office. Internally, my impression is of a much better managed agency, but it still suffers as a regional authority because large parts of the region are surrendered to NJTransit, Port Authority, and ConnDOT.

^ My thoughts are that any "loss of power" to the city by ceding control to the State will be outweighed by the benefit of reducing all of the redundancies of having 3 separate agencies with 3 separate budgets and 3 separate agendas. We have to remember that agencies like Metra, CTA, etc are essentially non-for-profits, and non-for-profits are some of the most greedy, slimy organizations in the world. They are salary generating machines for scores of executives, and hence revenue streams are highly important to them; that explains why Metra does as much as possible to not cooporate with CTA, and to prevent CTA from "stealing" their customers. The single greatest achievement of merging these agencies, if nothing else, will be to eliminate the disincentive to work together to solve regional transit needs.

Regarding the politics of handing control over to the State, there is always a chance that any "superagency" board will have members appointed by the Mayor of Chicago. We are still early in the process. I'm hoping that will be the outcome. Either way, I don't think a comparison to Michigan is very accurate for a few reasons: 1) the Detroit region doesn't have the same clout with Michigan that Chicago does with Illinois, 2) Detroit's urban core simply isn't the kind of economic engine that downtown Chicago is, and 3) most of the "power brokers" in Illinois State Govt live in or around Chicago anyhow, and I'm not sure that is the case with Michigan and Detroit.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ My thoughts are that any "loss of power" to the city by ceding control to the State will be outweighed by the benefit of reducing all of the redundancies of having 3 separate agencies with 3 separate budgets and 3 separate agendas. We have to remember that agencies like Metra, CTA, etc are essentially non-for-profits, and non-for-profits are some of the most greedy, slimy organizations in the world. They are salary generating machines for scores of executives, and hence revenue streams are highly important to them; that explains why Metra does as much as possible to not cooporate with CTA, and to prevent CTA from "stealing" their customers. The single greatest achievement of merging these agencies, if nothing else, will be to eliminate the disincentive to work together to solve regional transit needs.

Regarding the politics of handing control over to the State, there is always a chance that any "superagency" board will have members appointed by the Mayor of Chicago. We are still early in the process. I'm hoping that will be the outcome. Either way, I don't think a comparison to Michigan is very accurate for a few reasons: 1) the Detroit region doesn't have the same clout with Michigan that Chicago does with Illinois, 2) Detroit's urban core simply isn't the kind of economic engine that downtown Chicago is, and 3) most of the "power brokers" in Illinois State Govt live in or around Chicago anyhow, and I'm not sure that is the case with Michigan and Detroit.

I agree completely.

[wierdaaron]

Option 1 includes merging CTA/RTA/Metra as well, just keeping it within the city. So it seems like either way the redundancies and conflicting interests would be reduced. Those things being equal, it seems like local control would be logistically easier. Figuring out who to run it and fill the board with would probably be a nightmare, though.

[CTA Gray Line]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

You should learn more about their ideas.

As a 40 hr. per week MINIMUM WAGE worker, tell me briefly what the Republicans might do to benefit me. One of them made me REAL P/O'ed talking about LOWERING the min. wage -- but then he backed off of it.

I felt just like a Pawn on a Chess Board, if I'm WORKING 40 hrs. per week (N O T sitting at home waiting on some F'King "check") -- I shouldn't be made to feel like that.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by CTA Gray Line

As a 40 hr. per week MINIMUM WAGE worker, tell me briefly what the Republicans might do to benefit me. One of them made me REAL P/O'ed talking about LOWERING the min. wage -- but then he backed off of it.

I felt just like a Pawn on a Chess Board, if I'm WORKING 40 hrs. per week (N O T sitting at home waiting on some F'King "check") -- I shouldn't be made to feel like that.

You've misread my tone. I was eluding that the more you learn about their beliefs and "ideas" the more scary they're revealed to be and the less likely anyone would and should be to throw both parties into the "oh they're all the same" camp. When I hear that I can tell that person is a low information voter and probably just nods along to anything. They are not the same. Many might be crooks and doing the work of big business over the working man on both sides, but look, at this point one party wants to progressively govern and the other wants to put Ted Nugent in the Oval Office to arm children, spread Objectivist propaganda, burn books and dismantle the country. So there really should be no confusing the two. Personally speaking I'm more of a small s socialist so I'm right there with you.

[CTA Gray Line]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

You've misread my tone. I was eluding that the more you learn about their beliefs and "ideas" the more scary they're revealed to be and the less likely anyone would and should be to throw both parties into the "oh they're all the same" camp. When I hear that I can tell that person is a low information voter and probably just nods along to anything. They are not the same. Many might be crooks and doing the work of big business over the working man on both sides, but look, at this point one party wants to progressively govern and the other wants to put Ted Nugent in the Oval Office to arm children, spread Objectivist propaganda, burn books and dismantle the country. So there really should be no confusing the two. Personally speaking I'm more of a small s socialist so I'm right there with you.

Then I Truly and Sincerely Apologize, I see that I did misread you Bee -- you are NOT part of the "Ted for Pres." set!! G O O D

You should know I don't "just nod along" for anything.