Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I dont know what you mean by "3rd world", but it sounds more like a crituque of the architecture than the principle.
I think he means "third world" like New York City, London, and Paris--all of which offer higher density than Chicago organized around transit corridors. THE HORROR!!!!!!
As someone else stated on another board, Metra is nothing more than a modern day mine train, hauling a bunch of well heeled suburbanites into a stinking pit of commerce and vice for a few hours before dragging their butts back to the magic world of big lawns. Its fine for what it is, but does nothing to address the evolving transportation needs of our region as a whole.
It does plenty. It takes thousands of cars off the highways ever day, reduces pollution, and allows for transit-oriented development in the suburbs (at least in the ones that embrace it). I think that commentary has more to do with attitudes about working than anything else. I do think that Metra is a great regional solution, and I'd like to see it expanded.
I think you know that the density of Chicago region is pretty low at about 690 people/sq mile, compared to say NYC at 2800 people/sq mi Paris France at about 2200 people/sq mi and the horrors of Mexico City or Manila 56,669 /sq mi or a mind numbing 111,575/sq mi so yeah, I really meant the region would have to to crazy dense.
I know that transit systems in places like Chicago don't have to stand on their own financially for them to contribute to regional vitality, but if you had even the LIGHTEST of light rail wizzing around out on the S.E. side or Pullman with the ridiculously low ridership, what good would it do??? For the money you could give everybody who lives down there a Seqway for good weather use AND somthing like a SmartCar for inclimate days and STILL be money ahead...
The Tollway has a MUCH better profile even for their goofy high-occupancy vehicle lanes than ANY projections for rapid transit. It makes me a iittle crazy too, as I rather enjoy my rail based commute vs being behind the wheel of a 2.5 ton car by myself or with some hitchhikers, but the numbers just are not here AND never will be...
If you want to make argument about the topography of the Chicago metro region being better suited to transit expansion than some areas, I suppose I could go along, but the climate here will never be overcome. Cold, wet, wind are not pleasant. And when you talk Chicago and weather related death toll, you have to factor in those 100+ degree days too. Sure, a subway would address a lot of that concern, but have you seen what it costs to fix a pothole, let alone actually building a whole new underground system? Remember when the river started leaking? Did you notice what happened when snow started melting in the rain storm a week or two back? These are practical problems that will always exist. Beyond the engineering hurdles (which would be overcome with HUGE piles of cash) there is the bigger issue of WHY? Like I said, who is really going to want to circle around some of these areas? Honestly somebody WANTS rely on public transit there are PLENTY of places to live in the well served neighborhoods. You go out to the bungalow belts and every house has garage. Just makes so much more sense to use limited funds to encourage folks to leave those garages filled with the most efficient vehicles they can, rely on existing transit as much as possible, spread out the places they go to off peak hours.
Even da Mare knows that no matter how much he like stuff like shared bicycles and such you just cannot change people because you WANT to, little incremental things (like encouraging showers at work) will draw a few people in, but mandating stuff will DRIVE masses OUT...
I know that transit systems in places like Chicago don't have to stand on their own financially for them to contribute to regional vitality, but if you had even the LIGHTEST of light rail wizzing around out on the S.E. side or Pullman with the ridiculously low ridership, what good would it do???
This is exactly why we don't have better transit. It's a bit of a "chicken and egg" scenario. Many planners agree that development patterns occur based on the trasportation system in place--and any historic study of the region shows that this is true. However, it's very difficult to impose a new transportation system over development that has already occurred based on another system. And it's also difficult to run empty trains for several years while development (or even worse, re-development) catches up.
Here are some examples:
1. The Interstate Highway system had a great impact on the development patterns of the new suburbs that popped up based on the positions of freeway interchanges, but were less successful where they were imposed on existing city grids. While the highways did cut off or eliminate certain neighborhoods and helped to empty out the city, much of the city's block structure remains unchanged since before the Edens/Kennedy/Ike/Dan Ryan, etc were imposed. And the existing system of urban roads on the tight grid feeds poorly into the high-speed expressway system. Running the "L" out to Oak Brook would probably be even more awkward (even though it would still be used, it would be less than ideal). Parking lots would be required at "L" stops in places like Oak Brook, and that sort of defeats the purpose.
2. The Washington D.C. Metro, even though it has high ridership, has taken decades to change the development patterns of the city it was imposed on. Many Metro stops still lack the commercial activity and density you would see in a city that sprouted up organically around transit stops. Transit-oriented development in that region has only begun to catch on in the last decade or so.
The only way we are going to see a great shift from the private automobile/public roads combo to mass transit is if (1) the private automobile becomes prohibitively expensive to own and operate, or (2) we have a politically powerful oligarch cram the new system down our throats like Baron von Hausmann in Paris or Robert Moses in New York. Currently the public preference is so far in favor of the automobile that any shift away from it would be jarring and unpopular. But in a city like Chicago, we do have a strong culture of public transportation use that we can build on better than most other American cities!
Last edited by Lookout Kid; 01-04-2009 at 11:30 PM..
I think you know that the density of Chicago region is pretty low at about 690 people/sq mile, compared to say NYC at 2800 people/sq mi Paris France at about 2200 people/sq mi and the horrors of Mexico City or Manila 56,669 /sq mi or a mind numbing 111,575/sq mi so yeah, I really meant the region would have to to crazy dense.
...
I know that transit systems in places like Chicago don't have to stand on their own financially for them to contribute to regional vitality, but if you had even the LIGHTEST of light rail wizzing around out on the S.E. side or Pullman with the ridiculously low ridership, what good would it do???
...
If you want to make argument about the topography of the Chicago metro region being better suited to transit expansion than some areas, I suppose I could go along, but the climate here will never be overcome. Cold, wet, wind are not pleasant. And when you talk Chicago and weather related death toll, you have to factor in those 100+ degree days too. Sure, a subway would address a lot of that concern, but have you seen what it costs to fix a pothole, let alone actually building a whole new underground system? Remember when the river started leaking?
...
Honestly somebody WANTS rely on public transit there are PLENTY of places to live in the well served neighborhoods. You go out to the bungalow belts and every house has garage.
Chet,
If I may, it looks as though you are seeing the choice as between no changes to the CTA system, and a city remade with an elevated or subway service down every main thoroughfare out to borders of the city. No policymaker is talking about that.
All that most people are talking about doing anytime soon is an incremental change here or there. Mile or two expansion to the orange, red and/or yellow line. One or two extra stops tacked onto the end of a successful line with well-understood ridership patterns.
All that anyone is talking about *seriously* as far as brand new lines is the Circle Line (CTA floats Circle Line plan, for example). This is NOT a line that would increase service to Pullman or some other bungalow belt that wouldn't use it. We're talking about increased service for stops in North Center, Near North, Loop, Near South, Bridgeport and McKinley Park areas. And brand new stops in Chinatown, Pilsen, Near West, Ukranian Village and Wicker Park. These are all neighborhoods that are either already dense or ones that are rapidly "arriving", particularly with some of the younger types that embrace the density and don't drive much.
I think you already know that comparing the density of the Chicagoland region, which includes places like Antioch, with NYC is misleading. The city of Chicago itself had density of 12,400/sqmi in 2000, but even that is misleading because counting the Near North (48,500/sqmi) together with Pullman (4,800/sqmi) obfuscates more than it reveals. The Circle Line would serve neighborhoods that do have around NYC-level density. And I think it's worth noting that even where the CTA has succeeded marvelously, like around the north side red line, those high-density neighborhoods still don't have the kind of rapid transit service that most areas of, say, Brooklyn do. So I don't we're close to accidentally overbuilding yet.
This is getting long, but furthermore I don't think I agree that there are PLENTY of SAFE places to live that are well-served by public transportation. And in fact I think this is why you are seeing pretty much all of the impressive amount of gentrification that is happeneing in areas along 'L' lines; for example crawling up the O'Hare blue line. But your larger point stands, as there are PLENTY more places well-served by the CTA that can be gentrified.
Bottom line, you can't just rail against rapid transit expansion in general in Chicago. I think you have to look at an individual proposed line and dig up the reasons for and against. And to me, the Circle Line is a winner.
Oh, and people still ride the NYC subways even though flooding shuts some lines down briefly on a regular basis. Roads are not immune to this either. Remember when a stretch of I-57 was shut down for like a week in summer 2008 after the far south suburbs tornado?
The best way to expand the CTA would not be to tack on a mile at the end of each line, but to build in ways to increase the connectivity between the lines. This is what the circle line does, even if you don't like the particulars of the plan it's the right sort of idea IMO.
An aside, there are also plenty of dense non-gentrified neighborhoods that could use transit as well. Brighton Park, Chicago Lawn and Back of the Yards have very high bus ridership.
It does plenty. It takes thousands of cars off the highways ever day, reduces pollution, and allows for transit-oriented development in the suburbs (at least in the ones that embrace it). I think that commentary has more to do with attitudes about working than anything else. I do think that Metra is a great regional solution, and I'd like to see it expanded.
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said. I think the original critique was directed at the lack of Metra thinking "outside the box" in terms of catering to someone other than a 9-5 office worker.
On another point, I think the greatest tragedy was the systematic removal of streetcar lines (initiated in large part by lobbying from the auto industry). Think about what an asset those would be to suburbs in todays day and age.
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said. I think the original critique was directed at the lack of Metra thinking "outside the box" in terms of catering to someone other than a 9-5 office worker.
On another point, I think the greatest tragedy was the systematic removal of streetcar lines (initiated in large part by lobbying from the auto industry). Think about what an asset those would be to suburbs in todays day and age.
But weren't most/all of the street car lines replaced by buses?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
