CHICAGO: Transit Developments

[VivaLFuego]

^To some extent yes, but the lakefront nonetheless gets notably denser between the 1960 and 1980 censuses. Even including some parkland those tracts, particularly Gold Coast, East Lakeview, and Hollywood Beach are the densest in the city, roughly on par with Little Village.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

...
Declines in ridership were thus attributable to a very large degree to the population near the transit line declining.
...

Of course I think most of us probably intuitively thought this was the case, but your study illustrates this so well that local groups that are pro-transit, but anti-density and/or anti-development really should be sat down and shown the numbers. As should certain aldermen and maybe even a certain mayor.

Hell, maybe the CTA should summarize the info and put it on some of their self-promoting ads they put on the buses and trains ...

[VivaLFuego]

^ Stuff like minimizing curb cuts, continuous streetwalls, etc. are nice and all, but it's only fiddling with transit's desirability and competitiveness at the margins. The fundamental driver is population density, or more specifically, worker density. More specifically still, that density needs to heavily concentrated in near walking distance to the station, ideally less than 1/2 mile. It's a corollary to transit ridership being fundamentally driven by people making trips to and from work. The pedestrian friendly stuff is useful for encouraging transit ridership for leisure/shopping on weekends and such, but this can never form a large enough constituency to support rail transit service alone.

Being VivaLFuego, this is why I'm usually able to go along with dreadful architecture and even mediocre site planning for a project if the unit density is high enough (e.g. K-Station) and why, if the architecture and unit density suck (e.g.Elysian, Lincoln Park 2520) then I can't get excited over building height alone, since tall represents little in terms of what it actually does for the city. Even in a towers-in-the-park development, those people still gotta get to work, and if they work downtown, that means getting to the train, end of story. The design aspect may not lead to proper "vibrancy" on a Saturday afternoon on ye olde quainte Maine Streete lined with artisanal cheese shops and dog treat bakeries, but the density supports transit.

It all does suggest that there could be a conceivable "middle-ground" that actually involves downzoning areas far from transit as part of building support for concentrated density near transit (via upzoning, PD, or otherwise). Of course, that would require something resembling citywide comprehensive planning, a laughable concept in a city wherein "comprehensive planning" is basically conducted seperately within each of 50 independent fiefdoms. In an ideal world, one could conceive of a citywide plan, since only about 30 wards actually have an L station in them - most of the other 20 aldermen could be bought off to go along with the plan, meaning only a third of the aldermen with stations in their ward would need to be convinced of the merits to pass a citywide plan. Of course, this would depend on the nonexistence of sacrosant Aldermanic perogative for land use decisions...

It's within the realm of comprehension, were a power-brokering mayor actually interested in stuff like this so as to do the legwork and favor-trading to make it happen. Private underground museums in public parks and random handouts reducing tax revenue in a year with record deficits are more important, though.

[MayorOfChicago]

State to get far less money than expected for high-speed rail


Illinois stands to receive far less money than it had expected from the Obama administration on Thursday to begin developing high-speed passenger trains and transform rail service as the preferred transportation option.

State officials were hoping that the state would be awarded grants totaling at least $2 billion to operate 110 mph trains between Chicago and other Midwestern cities, starting with St. Louis, Detroit, Milwaukee and the Twin Cities.

But congressional sources who were briefed on the White House's plan said funding to the state will fall short.

Several reasons came into play. First, the administration decided to spread around the $8 billion in stimulus money far broader than to only several major projects. In addition, there was concern that awarding a jackpot to Illinois would appear that the President is playing favorites with his home state, the sources said.

Chicago would serve as the hub under the plan for high-speed rail corridors serving Illinois. Passengers riding on comfortable train coaches with large picture windows would see their travel times reduced, making rail advantageous over flying for trips up to 500 miles.

The long-term goal includes ratcheting up speeds to 220 mph over much of an eight-state high-speed rail network in the nation's heartland that connects with other fast-train corridors across the U.S.

The competition for funding is fierce. The Federal Railroad Administration said it received applications from 24 states seeking $50 billion for projects---more than six times the money designated in the stimulus plan.

The Illinois application was submitted in concert with applications from surrounding states, as part of a proposed eight-state rail network to bring faster passenger trains to the Midwest.

Illinois' high-speed rail priorities include getting the Amtrak Chicago-to-St. Louis corridor running at 110 mph; working with Michigan for 110 mph service between Chicago and Detroit; Chicago to Milwaukee 110 mph service on much of existing Amtrak Hiawatha and building new high-speed track up to Madison and eventually the Twin Cities.

Later rounds of federal and state funding would go toward building 110 mph corridors along the planned eight-state Midwest network. That will take years, and perhaps decades to replace 110 mph service eventually with 220 mph trains.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2...peed-rail.html

Well that royally sucks. So instead of rationally investing in 2-3 major projects in large urban areas, they're apparently going to spread thin the money over a much broader selection of projects.

I guess that's probably a more sure-fire way of seeing that none of these projects will proceed on any significant level granted federal funding most likely needed to be a major source for all projects.

Too bad they didn't just put it towards the major players so they might get off the ground. Now we're just going to see baby steps and wasted time until the projects either stall out or someone finally steps up. I'm starting to fear this stimulus is just going to be a quick way to bankrupt the government with peanuts to show for it. Why couldn't we have invested in INFRASTRUCTURE?? Almost the entire thing went to non-tangible things like tax credits which are fine for the short term - but give you nothing lasting.

[the urban politician]

^ Yeah, I'm disappointed in the Obama administration on this one.

Well, not to get off topic, but I think his administration has been weak on pretty much everything, watering it all down so that his efforts are about as fruitless as his opponents claim they are.

Back to HSR--the one thing that catches my eye, though, is that the article focuses on Illinois. Even with a focus on major regional projects, I'd be surprised of 1/4 of the nation's HSR investment went to a single State.

In other words, I think we should consider how much will go to Wisconsin, Indiana, Minneapolis, and Michigan (all part of the midwest hub network) before determining whether we really got the shaft or not.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by emathias

It was dumb, but it happened due to the local community (or at least one very outspoken component of the local community) basically demanding that it be torn down.

I think the past 20 years have shown its removal to be a bad idea and those who opposed it would grudgingly accept it being returned, especially if it was accompanied by targeted TOD around the new stations. Perhaps it could be tacked onto the list of extensions the CTA is seeking funding for, along with the Red, Orange and Yellow Line extensions. It wouldn't surprise me if the foundations were still in place from the old line, so maybe it wouldn't even cost that much to re-install.

In a dream world, they'd turn back north along the west side Metra Electric tracks (after all, a stop at 63rd and Dorchester would only be a 5 minute walk to Stony Island) and terminate a mile north at 55th and Lake Park, but I think that's just wishful thinking even if it would better tie Hyde Park into the "L" system.

Don't be shy. It was the fucking TWO (The Woodlawn Organization) consisting of Bishop Arthur Brazier, Leon Finney and others like my former idiot and now indicted former alderwoman Arenda Troutman. The felt that the EL was a blight and was halting redevelopment along 63rd. Well guess what, it's been rearly 20 fucking years and that majority of 63 is still empry, the bishops church went on a land buying spree and of course that property is tax exempt.

I could go on and on... you get the idea.

[pip]

Anyone concerned about the upcoming service cuts Feb 7?

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

In other words, I think we should consider how much will go to Wisconsin, Indiana, Minneapolis, and Michigan (all part of the midwest hub network) before determining whether we really got the shaft or not.

Yea, I'm betting that Indiana, Wisconsin, and Michigan will get a fair bit of money. But "spreading the money thin" is a terrible strategy, because it won't fund any new lines to completion. We need to do this one line at a time, not by making only partial improvements to lines. States cannot fund the difference right now - so many of them are already running huge budget deficits, and states can't issue new currency to cover their debts.

My god, if we don't get any new lines out of this, it'll kill any sort of support for rail improvements at all. Amtrak riders won't notice any significant improvement to their trips.

Hopefully CREATE will get some money out of this - I'm sure the railroads would have lobbied for it. But voters won't notice any major changes, which makes them less likely to support rail spending in the future.

[ChicagoChicago]

Tampa and Orlando got $2.6B in HSR. Give me a fucking break.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by ChicagoChicago

Tampa and Orlando got $2.6B in HSR. Give me a fucking break.

Between them in Nebraska, it just goes to show that it's best to be known as teetering on the brink of support of any public policy, thus ensuring maximum efforts to purchase your vote.

Originally Posted by pip

Anyone concerned about the upcoming service cuts Feb 7?

Hasn't been discussed much on this board, but it's good to bring up. Bus service is getting hit very, very hard with these cuts. If you ride the bus at all, particularly at night, it is highly recommend to realize when and where cuts are being made. Also, it's a good time to get familiarized with Bustracker.

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by ChicagoChicago

Tampa and Orlando got $2.6B in HSR. Give me a fucking break.

Where are you getting this figure from?

Crain's is reporting that Illinois will get $1.2 billion.

There's also this bit in there:

Chicago also stands to benefit from $800 million slated for Wisconsin if it’s used to upgrade track and bridges connecting Milwaukee to the city, but details were not available. Several Midwest states have requested grants to improve train service to Chicago.

[ChicagoChicago]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Where are you getting this figure from?

Crain's is reporting that Illinois will get $1.2 billion.

There's also this bit in there:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-82825242.html

[the urban politician]

1.2 billion out of the entire national pie of 8 billion, just for one state, is a windfall, people.

Come on, did Illinois really think it was going to get 4.5 billion?

I am very pleased about this nugget from the article:

The state also will receive $1.25 million to complete an environmental impact study for a second track along the same route, which would reduce conflicts with slow-moving freight trains, and $133 million — the full amount requested — to build the so-called Englewood Flyover on the South Side, a series of elevated commuter tracks over freight lines to prevent significant delays.
The Englewood Flyover is a key component of the Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency project, known as Create.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by ChicagoChicago

Tampa and Orlando got $2.6B in HSR. Give me a fucking break.

^ Obama will need to win Florida again in 2012.

That's the deal..

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I have to give them credit though, apparently they are ready to break ground on the line between Orlando and Tampa almost immediately. But that's just what I heard.

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by ChicagoChicago

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-82825242.html

Hmm...I guess we'll know for sure tomorrow.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...F?OpenDocument

Obama will invest billions in high-speed rail projects
By Michael Doyle

...California is one of the big winners, receiving $2.25 billion to help build a high-speed rail system, as well as additional money for other rail projects.

The grants include $1.1 billion for a Chicago-to-St. Louis corridor, $1.25 billion for a Tampa-to-Orlando, Fla., corridor, $244 million for a Chicago-to-Detroit corridor and $810 million for work between Madison, Wis., and Milwaukee. In Ohio, $400 million will pay for work between Cleveland and Cincinnati.

[the urban politician]

800 million for Madison-Milwaukee?



I hate to so obviously have a pro-Chicago stance here, but why in God's name is every HSR dollar allocated in the midwest not being spent on connecting a city to Chicago? I can understand if the country were spending $150 billion, but we're talking about $8 billion--I'd spend that money a wee bit more wisely.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

800 million for Madison-Milwaukee?



I hate to so obviously have a pro-Chicago stance here, but why in God's name is every HSR dollar allocated in the midwest not being spent on connecting a city to Chicago? I can understand if the country were spending $150 billion, but we're talking about $8 billion--I'd spend that money a wee bit more wisely.

Come on, any reasonable person knows that tying Minneapolis to Chicago is more important than tying St Louis to Chicago, and that St Louis->Chicago is only getting more focus now because it's all within one state and thus easier to plan.

But, because Chicago->Minneapolis is even more important, and would be routed through Milwaukee and Madison, upgrading the Milwaukee->Madison corridor is a politically expedient way to funnel dollars into the Midwest that will benefit Chicago without it looking too overt about sending a bunch of money to the President's home state. I'm willing to bet that a second round of funding would include Minneapolis-Madison and Milwaukee to Chicago funds. Then that Milwaukee->Madison bit will show its full value.

All that said, I'm still REALLY annoyed that the Midwest is focused on 110 mph while Florida and California are focused on 150+ mph systems. At least in certain corridors it seems like Chicago should be more overtly driving for laying the groundwork toward 200mph lines.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

...
It's within the realm of comprehension, were a power-brokering mayor actually interested in stuff like this so as to do the legwork and favor-trading to make it happen. Private underground museums in public parks and random handouts reducing tax revenue in a year with record deficits are more important, though.

I've always thought Daley understood how to run a city in a way that will leave a legacy, but he doesn't quite grasp how to make the political investment required to become a true legend. For that, he will always be in the shadow of his father.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by emathias

Come on, any reasonable person knows that tying Minneapolis to Chicago is more important than tying St Louis to Chicago, and that St Louis->Chicago is only getting more focus now because it's all within one state and thus easier to plan.

But, because Chicago->Minneapolis is even more important, and would be routed through Milwaukee and Madison, upgrading the Milwaukee->Madison corridor is a politically expedient way to funnel dollars into the Midwest that will benefit Chicago without it looking too overt about sending a bunch of money to the President's home state. I'm willing to bet that a second round of funding would include Minneapolis-Madison and Milwaukee to Chicago funds. Then that Milwaukee->Madison bit will show its full value.

All that said, I'm still REALLY annoyed that the Midwest is focused on 110 mph while Florida and California are focused on 150+ mph systems. At least in certain corridors it seems like Chicago should be more overtly driving for laying the groundwork toward 200mph lines.

I guess I see your point, but Milwaukee-Chicago would provide a more immediate benefit than incrementally building out a Minneapolis system. And considering the fact that you never know where the political winds will blow during the next election cycle, we may never see the Minneapolis-Chicago system pan out.