Do you think the EL will ever be expanded or new lines added? (Chicago: low crime, houses)

[meatpuff]

Originally Posted by chet everett

I just can't over that people are so goofily IN LUV with rail systems. Transit dollars are better spent on something that is not so capital intensive. The people of various other communities where the weather is MORE agreeable have MOSTLY realized that. If there is some sort of "Star Trek" type breakthough that makes electric power obsolete maybe things will change, but until such a thing happens it makes a LOT more sense to focus on making changes to transit based on trams/buses that might actually result in better ridership, reduced congestion, and a more viable system.

Look chet, you've got a point about the irrational rail LUV, but you're being very black and white on an issue that is all shades of gray. You have to concede that whether rapid transit makes sense depends on the place. There are precious few places in the USA that are dense enough to justify rapid transit, but they definitely exist. Most of the NYC is one, where everyone takes the train. The areas along most of the northside Brown and Red, rapid transit makes sense there. The other old cities of the Northeast, planned before automobiles, are dense enough that the rapid transit in place there makes sense. Parts of the BART make sense.

Transit is all but necessary in some places, but also I think it can sometimes add something that cars can't. There's no question to me that the fixed and unchangeable rail routes that all lead into the Loop have been the main reason that the Loop is still THE PLACE to do business in Chicago. Compare to L.A. where the movers and shakers are spread over hundreds of square miles in various office parks. I think there's a synergy of having all the best lawyers, architects, richest moguls, shrewdest traders all within ten minutes walk of each other in the Loop, and maybe this has helped Chicago maintain its prominence as an important place in the world to do business. This was anything but a sure thing. Compare that Chicago is still relevant even after all of the deindustrialization we have had. Compare its fate to those of other major Midwest industrial towns of the 20th century like Cleveland, Detroit and Pittsburgh.

The way the cities of the Sunbelt have developed reveals nothing more than that car-oriented development has been in fashion the past thirty years. We already knew that. Although if you haven't been paying attention you would astounded at the amount of train lines added in LAX, Dallas and Houston in the past 15 years.

[meatpuff]

Originally Posted by chet everett

Freeways are an option, tollways a better one. I really do not have anything against railways, but the cost per mile is off the charts, and when you factor in the sky high operational and maintenance costs it is clear why buses and trams are preferred by any transit system.

Hey chet...

If you're certain that roadways are always a better investment than heavy rail rapid transit, go on the NYC forum and start a thread arguing how the Second Avenue Subway should be implemented instead as a six-lane tollway. They will explain to you better than I can that rapid transit is both an opportunity and a necessity in a certain few corridors in this country.

If you wind up doing this, make sure you link us to the thread

[chet everett]

First, I did not say it is always a better option, just one option. If you look at the numbers the toll authority put forward on the "HOV Lanes" (and accept that the Governor did not order someone to cook the books...) they actually did make case that the toll premium would be sufficient to retire the bonds, something that neither RTA nor any other traditional heavy rail systems ever say -- they always need subsidy.
I have no desire to dictate that roads are always the answer, but when you look at how much the sunk costs of rail systems are it becomes obvious that better technology has to to be found...

BTW -- Why no pictures of the Amsterdam bike ways in winter? It does snow their, yes? Where are the grey icy mounds of dirty frozen mess?

Oh wait, they do this in the winter:

[icebergsyndrome]

not to sound smart-alecky but in that pic the roads and sidewalks are clear.

[meatpuff]

Originally Posted by chet everett

First, I did not say it is always a better option, just one option.

Oh. I was really responding to your comment that "Transit dollars are better spent on something that is not so capital intensive [as rapid transit]." So that's what I thought you meant. I am glad I misinterpreted you and we can at least agree on that.

Anyway, I wouldn't worry too much. Rapid transit IS extremely capital intensive for the size of the community it serves. So unless the economics concept of "scarcity" goes away sometime in the future, whether it's Democratic or Republican leadership, I think you can rest assured that new rapid transit will be built in Chicago only where it is absolutely needed. Well, actually almost certainly less often than even that.

[chet everett]

Originally Posted by meatpuff

Oh. I was really responding to your comment that "Transit dollars are better spent on something that is not so capital intensive [as rapid transit]." So that's what I thought you meant. I am glad I misinterpreted you and we can at least agree on that.

Anyway, I wouldn't worry too much. Rapid transit IS extremely capital intensive for the size of the community it serves. So unless the economics concept of "scarcity" goes away sometime in the future, whether it's Democratic or Republican leadership, I think you can rest assured that new rapid transit will be built in Chicago only where it is absolutely needed. Well, actually almost certainly less often than even that.

If Scotty can load delithium crystals into the ol' Green & Whites then cost won't matter, but while it does a decent hybrid bus or something similar is a heckuva lot better option then merely reproducing the Orange Line...

[meatpuff]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

That's why I like the Bloomingdale el extension. The right-of-way is already there. All the viaducts are intact. Trains until very recently ran on the viaduct so its in a relatively good state of repair. It serves a high-density neighborhood with decent housing stock and its directly adjacent to one of the fast appreciating city neighborhoods. As transit extensions go, it would be relatively cheap to institute service. Build it, upzone all the surrounding blocks, establish a TIF, and watch the increased property tax revenue flow.

I'm not sold on this. Let's not forget the Humboldt Park branch of the 'L' was already eliminated once because of low ridership. Of course the CTA's way of evaluating rail lines is always questionable and they were facing a financial crisis, but it was one of the worst performing lines in the system.

What about Humboldt Park makes you think they'd ride the 'L' more than they did in the 1950s? Are there enough people there who work in the downtown core or someplace else miles away? Commuters are still the biggest ridership driver for the 'L' I think. Or are they upscale enough that they need the 'L' because they like to party or shop in all corners of the city? Humboldt Park is still mostly working and middle class Puerto Ricans, right? Doesn't sound like the type of people who would meet either of these criteria. The type of people I described live in the gentrified parts in the east part of Humboldt Park, but this part already has good 'L' access.

There's two dozen other "lower rent" neighborhoods next to fast appreciating areas that have excellent 'L' access and excellent housing stock already. I think the money would be better spent fighting the poverty and crime in these areas than on a Humboldt Park branch at this time.

But having that separated right-of-way along Bloomingdale Ave. definitely gives you options for the future and is definitely an asset

[Chicago60614]

Right, cars work very well in certain situations, but you can't deny that trains are far more efficent in moving people in other situations. The suburbs are built around cars and less density. It's VERY hard to go back through non-dense areas and put in mass transit. Transit works because of the mass of users living within as short a distance as possible. Unfortunately while cars work well in suburban areas, once you hit a critical mass of people trying to move around as the suburbs get larger, it's much harder to handle an extra 100,000 cars on the road than 100,000 people riding a transit line around dense areas.


Downtown Chicago has around 600,000 daily workers.

The daily traffic counts Lakeshore are between 120,000 and 150,000. Kennedy is around 260,000, Dan Ryan is around 240,000, Eisenhower is around 200,000 and the Stevenson is around 160,000.

Those main roads through Chicago add up to around 1,130,000 vehicles moving in each direction over 24 hours.

The CTA rail and Metra move around 950,000 people per day around the city (assuming most Metra riders aren't just going from a suburb to a suburb)

They're fairly close. Say the average car has 1.5 people riding. That means around 630,000 vehicle trips around the city are eliminated each day from riding the rails.

Can you imagine if we had 55% more cars on the roads? Traffic in this city is already pure hell, we'd have to have that many more expressways and roads tearing through the city to move people - let alone what the side streets and PARKING would be like.

A majority of people coming into the downtown area for work are not driving in cars, they're riding CTA or Metra, hundreds of thousands of them every day.

There's just no way a city's downtown as dense as Chicago could function without the trains.


How much space does the Red Line take up slicing through the city compared to a 6 lane expressway in the same space? Brown Line? Blue Line? Especially downtown where hundreds of thousands of passengers circle through the Loop above two lane streets.

It's much more efficient for the stability of a neighborhood and the city to slice through with a new transit line than to rip down hundreds of blocks and throw in an 8 lane freeway with everything it brings.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by Chicago60614

And I had to laugh at Chet saying how Chicago is losing population, losing jobs, losing money, and how could any job WANT to transfer to the city.

Chet is a very knowledgable guy and is a resource to this online forum. But I feel like he's just a little out of touch with urban life in the city today. Just a little. I'm not trying to be insulting, but could this be a generational issue? I think Gen X could be re-named "Gentrification X" in terms of the attitudes towards city life, and Gen Y is reaping the benefits in large numbers. But Chet is of the generation that truly idealized the suburban lifestyle, and he's drinking the Kool Aid.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by chet everett

It has worked pretty well for 50+ years of post WWII grrowth...

Is this a joke? Post WWII growth is quite literally a disaster that has torn our society into shreds.