CHICAGO: Transit Developments

[ardecila]

A) none of the existing commuter stations have real parking facilities

B) the Red Line offers greater accessibility to North Side and South Side destinations than Metra or South Shore (i.e. Mag Mile, Wrigley, the Cell, Uptown, numerous universities, etc)

C) the Red Line operates frequently 24/7, unlike Metra or South Shore

You're right that park-and-rides elsewhere in the CTA system (most notably at Cumberland) fail to attract many riders due to competition from Metra; Metra stations are usually more convenient and offer a better travel time than driving to Cumberland and making a 45-minute trip into downtown with frequent stops. But the Dan Ryan branch offers much better travel times into downtown (~35 min from 130th) and the Bishop Ford doesn't clog up like the Tri-State/Addams tollways do feeding people into Cumberland.

[Beta_Magellan]

My main concerns weren’t with the park & ride per se, but more with the capital and operating costs of extending beyond 115th. When the Red Line extension was in the previous phase of the AA, I remember reading that the project would jump a category or so upwards in the FTA’s cost-effectiveness ratings if it were curtailed at 115th Street (I think that was before they started considering factors like community development, though). IIRC, it’s something like a $300 million (2009) dollar difference—you could another capital project in there. It just strikes me as a lot of infrastructure to build to get to one station, and one with minimal redevelopment or reverse commute potential at that.

Anyway, there’s also a good chance that the 130th Street station won’t actually be all that close to Altgeld Gardens—they’re looking at two options, one on the north side of 130th Street right across from it, and another closer to the 130th/Bishops Ford Interchange, which would be very easy to access by car and kind of forbidding by foot.

[ardecila]

^^ The specific design of the 130th Street station obviously needs to provide wide, well-lit pedestrian walkways into Altgeld Gardens and Carver Academy, but that's a site planning issue, not an alignment issue. The whole environment is really not an optimal one for pedestrians, but it is possible to design a station that's equally welcoming to pedestrians, bus transfers, and park-and-ride customers. The Orange Line was fairly successful in this regard (look at the Pulaski station).

IIRC, South Shore is also looking into an infill station at 130th.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Because O'Hare is a big, fat money machine. It's all about economics and $$$.

The south side is (largely) a bottomless, economic drain. O'Hare, on the other hand, is a cash cow.

Connecting O'Hare to downtown by HSR only helps cement the connection between downtown and the cash cow.

I'm not condoning it, but I'm just giving an explanation.

Investing in the south side wouldn't make it a bottomless economic drain now would it. One reason why it is the way it is now is because of attitudes like that. Well lets not waste money on that side of town because it isn't worth it. Well, don't you think that it's time to make it worth it?

Maybe not for HSR, but certainly for other transportation needs.

[Mr Downtown]

^Fifteen years ago we completely rebuilt an underused and redundant L line through the most promising part of the South Side. When does that start paying any dividends? Hell, when does that even begin to pay the salaries of the station agents?

How can anyone with a straight face argue that the South Side lacks transit infrastructure? It lacks transit ridership.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

How can anyone with a straight face argue that the South Side lacks transit infrastructure? It lacks transit ridership.

^ What the south side lacks is people.

In a way, God bless those NIMBY's on the north lakefront, because perhaps some day, who knows when, people will realize that there is a whole part of the city with great access to downtown and the lake that is ripe for development, relatively cheap, and ready for new residents.

Until then, lets keep fighting 3 year long battles (see Webster Square) just to build one condo project in a neighborhood where it's not wanted.

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^Fifteen years ago we completely rebuilt an underused and redundant L line through the most promising part of the South Side. When does that start paying any dividends? Hell, when does that even begin to pay the salaries of the station agents?

How can anyone with a straight face argue that the South Side lacks transit infrastructure? It lacks transit ridership.

No Kidding there are parts of the Southside that have much better transit access than all but the north lakefront in comparison to other area of the city..Thinking northwest side....etc...West Ridge, North pArk, Forest Glen etc



I mean in terms of potential the green line could be an awesome transit asset as could the orange; its just that the Green line traverse some of the worst urban blight in the known universe.

Hopefully this will change.

Interesting to note that some of the largest population losses occurred along near green line corridors.

Perhaps laying the groundwork for priming the areas for redevelopment as they have been a wreck since the 1960's

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by lawfin

I mean in terms of potential the green line could be an awesome transit asset as could the orange; its just that the Green line traverse some of the worst urban blight in the known universe.

Hopefully this will change.

Interesting to note that some of the largest population losses occurred along near green line corridors.

Perhaps laying the groundwork for priming the areas for redevelopment as they have been a wreck since the 1960's

^ Well, thank God The Metropolis project is going to swoop in and save the day!

Exactly a great way to make use of the Green Line--by building a suburban style shopping center with oceans of surface parking right next door--basically telling the Green Line station to go fuck off...

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^Fifteen years ago we completely rebuilt an underused and redundant L line through the most promising part of the South Side. When does that start paying any dividends? Hell, when does that even begin to pay the salaries of the station agents?

How can anyone with a straight face argue that the South Side lacks transit infrastructure? It lacks transit ridership.

Are there any plans to add more stations between Roosevelt and 35th....if I am not mistake that is the longest run on any line between stations.

It would seem that with the development of the south loop and the nascent recovery and redevelopment of areas like oakland and douglass may in time jusitify that green line investment.....though progress is slow

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by lawfin

It would seem that with the development of the south loop and the nascent recovery and redevelopment of areas like oakland and douglass may in time jusitify that green line investment.....though progress is slow

^ Except that by the time the areas around the Green Line densify enough to justify that investment, the Green Line will probably be due for another round of maintenance.

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Well, thank God The Metropolis project is going to swoop in and save the day!

Exactly a great way to make use of the Green Line--by building a suburban style shopping center with oceans of surface parking right next door--basically telling the Green Line station to go fuck off...

HAs Metropolis even started? Yeah that revision of the original was dissappointing. And I agree that Chicago should really encourage leveraging its transit assets to a better degree; but in reality those parts of the south side are really emerging from essentially a fourth world level of social and economic isolation.

Perhaps the current iteration of that single development is disappointing; perhaps the level of investment in those areas of the south side is not ideal; but considering where it came from I am not convinced it is as good as reasonably could be expected.

Would you rather have it that the green line been knocked down. At least as it stands there is the potential for leveraging the transit assets; something that is lacking in probably 99% or the US urban environment

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by lawfin

Would you rather have it that the green line been knocked down. At least as it stands there is the potential for leveraging the transit assets; something that is lacking in probably 99% or the US urban environment

^ I actually think the Green Line should be relocated.

It should be partially dismantled, moved, and reassembled on a new ROW that is much closer, perhaps within 1/4 mile, of the lakefront.

Like the North Side, on the South side it is only the lakefront and perhaps a few blocks inward that have any chance of some serious density. I think the Green Line, as it currently runs, is much too far inland.

How about that idea?

[lawfin]

I think that would inordinately expensive....esp considering the somewhat whimsical but nonetheless interesting possibility of utilizing the ME as a rapid transit line.

If I recall back to metropolis...it wwas proposed late 2006-2007....at the inflection point of our economic shitstorm........it is not surprising that such a ambitious project was scaled back given the economic realities during the past 36-48 months.


It would seem just to me to realize that those parts of the southside served by the green line where once extremely urban and vibrant; and over the last 50-60 years of disinvestment will not turn over night.

The bones are there; and with appropriate patience and policy choices I think areas near green line really could be ripe of substantial if not explosive investment.

I am curious what do you consider serious density. Some of those former green line neighborhoods once had densities of 30-50K /sqmile.They will not see that again; however densities in the 20-25K . sqmile I don't think is out of the question if policy choices encourage investment and transit appropriate development.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I actually think the Green Line should be relocated.

It should be partially dismantled, moved, and reassembled on a new ROW that is much closer, perhaps within 1/4 mile, of the lakefront.

Like the North Side, on the South side it is only the lakefront and perhaps a few blocks inward that have any chance of some serious density. I think the Green Line, as it currently runs, is much too far inland.

How about that idea?

Speaking of moving lines, if/when the Clinton Street subway is built, rather than sending it back to the Dan Ryan just ahead of Chinatown, it really ought to stay a subway, jog west to Halsted after Roosevelt and travel to Pershing, then head east as an elevated line, passing next to and continuing past the Indiana Green Line stop to Drexel, then south to Hyde Park (possibly as a subway again, possibly moving to Woodlawn in Hyde Park). Eventually, you could create a lakefront line starting from Drexel and going north under Cottage Grove. It would take a lot of new residents on the Lakefront there to support that line, but getting rail into Bridgeport would probably really help that area maintain strong growth and reuse some of the great, dense buildigns they have.

If we did stations at 1/2 mile increments, with a few gaps for industrial areas, we might need 13 stations. Maybe 8 of those would be in places averaging about 10k within 1/2 mile walk of the station (not 1/2 mile radius, but 1/2 mile walking), the other 5 might be closer to 5k people. Getting just that walker ridership base up to something long-term acceptable (17.5k within 1/2 mile walk) would then take 122,500 new residents to move into the relevant area. As much as I'd love to see that built, that seems more than a little challenging. Especially since we probably already need at least that many to move near Pink and Orange Line stations, too. But heck, if we could get a quarter million people to move within 1/2 mile walk of both new and existing CTA stations, I think we'd probably come close to doubling rail ridersip on the CTA, and if most of them were near the Orange, Pink and Green lines, it wouldn't even strain capacity (assuming the CTA could afford some new cars and operators for increased frequency on those lower-frequency lines).

[VivaLFuego]

The area around the South Side L used to be incredibly dense, and still has high density zoning (mostly R5, generally allowing 3-4 units per 25' city lot depending how deep the lot is) if there were either (1) any demand to justify or (2) a coordinated effort by the City and CHA to target subsidized housing construction around transit stations.

The area in 1938: http://www.historicaerials.com/aeria...0302&year=1938

Basically corner-to-corner 3 and 4 story buildings. In theory, the zoning would allow for something at least approaching that level of housing unit density (albeit with more off-street parking now, of course, due to minimum requirements that didn't exist before 1957). Aside from right along the L, the residential streets are actually generally mostly intact but for periodic empty lots, but the commercial streets have been decimated, taking a lot of housing units with them.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Well, thank God The Metropolis project is going to swoop in and save the day!

Exactly a great way to make use of the Green Line--by building a suburban style shopping center with oceans of surface parking right next door--basically telling the Green Line station to go fuck off...

The Indiana Green Line station is several blocks away - not right next to Metropolis. Also, Metropolis ISN'T going forward, while the redevelopment of the Taylor Homes is. That project is exactly the type of dense infill you're looking for.

[Beta_Magellan]

Any chance we’ll be able to lure back some of the residents we exiled to the likes of Harvey and Danville?

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

The area around the South Side L used to be incredibly dense, and still has high density zoning (mostly R5, generally allowing 3-4 units per 25' city lot depending how deep the lot is) if there were either (1) any demand to justify or (2) a coordinated effort by the City and CHA to target subsidized housing construction around transit stations.

The area in 1938: http://www.historicaerials.com/aeria...0302&year=1938

Basically corner-to-corner 3 and 4 story buildings. In theory, the zoning would allow for something at least approaching that level of housing unit density (albeit with more off-street parking now, of course, due to minimum requirements that didn't exist before 1957). Aside from right along the L, the residential streets are actually generally mostly intact but for periodic empty lots, but the commercial streets have been decimated, taking a lot of housing units with them.

Yep.

Here is an example at 62nd and Langley a couple blocks from 63rd st Green line
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...12,329.06,,0,0

[CTA Gray Line]

http://www.redeyechicago.com/news/ct...,5389613.story


CDOT seeks input on South Side transit improvements

By Tracy Swartz RedEye

11:55 a.m. CDT, March 29, 2011


The Chicago Department of Transportation is seeking input from South Side residents on how to improve public transit in the South Lakefront Corridor--the area spanning from 22nd Street to 95th Street east of the Dan Ryan Expressway.

CDOT is holding a public meeting about the South Lakefront Corridor Transit Study on April 13 from 4 to 8 p.m. in the Atrium of University Technology Park at the Illinois Institute of Technology, 3440 South Dearborn Street.

The City of Chicago Department of Transportation and Department of Housing and Economic Development initiated the study recently to identify and evaluate alternatives for improving public transportation within Douglas, Grand Boulevard, Oakland, Kenwood, Hyde Park, Woodlawn, South Shore, South Chicago, Washington Park, Avalon Park, Calumet Heights, Greater Grand Crossing, and Burnside.

This public meeting is the first of several meetings planned over the course of the study. At this meeting, the project team will review early findings on the travel market and existing conditions and seek comments from the public on potential improvement options.

Funding for this study is provided by a subregional grant from the Regional Transportation Authority.

[lawfin]

^^^Does your Grey Line Proposal include any additional stops? Versus those already present on ME?

Also does it include the "split" line of the metra...the one that hits Chicago East side as well as the one that tracks closer to the redline terminus