Do you think the EL will ever be expanded or new lines added? (Chicago: cost, bus)

[via chicago]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

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.

Thats probably the biggest problem as I see it when you look at Chicago as a whole. Basically what you're trying to do is retrofit past planning mistakes...which is not easy and not necessarily even feasible. And yet we still have no comprehensive plan for how the region is going to address these issues going forward..we still have more exburbs being developed that are doing nothing to address these concerns everyone knows about. Its all compounding the problem.

Even somewhere like Naperville that has a high Metra useage..how many people are actually walking to the station? Very few. Look at the waiting list to get a parking spot at the lot there...so all those people are still relying on cars one way or another. yes, its better than if all those people were driving to the loop, but if all Naperville does is build a 15 story parking garage, thats still ignoring the bigger problem we are facing.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by via chicago

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.

Sukwoo brings up an interesting point. Other than internal combustion engines, what are some ways that street cars are advantageous over buses? I'm not criticizing--just trying to sort the issue out.

It is an interesting chapter in history when GM systematically destroyed the street car systems in several cities to create a stronger market for GM buses. They may have eventually failed on their own, but the action by GM is not quite "free market capitalism", is it?

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

Sukwoo brings up an interesting point. Other than internal combustion engines, what are some ways that street cars are advantageous over buses? I'm not criticizing--just trying to sort the issue out.

It is an interesting chapter in history when GM systematically destroyed the street car systems in several cities to create a stronger market for GM buses. They may have eventually failed on their own, but the action by GM is not quite "free market capitalism", is it?

Despite the oft-cited quaintness of street trolleys, they have drawbacks relative to buses. Since they are restricted to rails but share the same right-of-way with cars (ie, streets), they can be impeded by obstacles (car accident, double-parked car, etc) which can easily be avoided by a track-less bus. Likewise, on a multi-lane road, if the tracks are in the center lane as usual, boarding the trolley requires crossing the outer lane, risking injury by auto traffic.

The advantage of trolleys are their ability to use electric power rather than diesel, but I think modern technology is reducing the reliance on diesel for buses.

Rail is great when it has its own dedicated right-of-way, but I think the disadvantages are too many when it doesn't.

[motob]

The "quaintness" of streetcars should be a consideration. They also neither as noisy or smelly as diesel engine buses, which has an impact if one is interested in trying to build pedestrian and transit friendly communities.

They also accelerate faster than diesel engine buses.

Just a couple of data points.

[via chicago]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

Despite the oft-cited quaintness of street trolleys, they have drawbacks relative to buses. Since they are restricted to rails but share the same right-of-way with cars (ie, streets), they can be impeded by obstacles (car accident, double-parked car, etc) which can easily be avoided by a track-less bus.

I don't understand this arguement...a bus is just as subject to these issues. And ideally, a tram should be given traffic priority.

[via chicago]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

Sukwoo brings up an interesting point. Other than internal combustion engines, what are some ways that street cars are advantageous over buses? I'm not criticizing--just trying to sort the issue out.

Just some thoughts offhand:

-trams should be given priority on roadways, which is something busses dont have
-lower operating costs. of course, theres a large upfront capital/infastructure investment.
-better rider comfort (smoother accel/decel)
-can easily add/subtract cars to meet rider demand
-as you have multiple entry points, loading/offloading is faster than a traditional bus.
-no exhaust
-for whatever reason, trains have a better public image than busses. more people are willing to take it. Also more intangible, but it adds to the "character" of a town in a way busses dont

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by via chicago

I don't understand this arguement...a bus is just as subject to these issues. And ideally, a tram should be given traffic priority.

If there's an accident, the bus can maneuver around the accident. Obviously a track-bound trolley has limited/no maneuverability.

Buses can pull over to the curb to accept passengers. Trolleys generally run in the center lane and cannot pull over to the outer lane to accept passengers.

Boston has both trolleys and electric buses operating with an overhead catenary (so-called "trackless trolleys). Even with the overhead catenary, these trackless trolleys have a limited ability to travel laterally so as to avoid obstructions (double parked cars) as well as the ability to pull up to a curb to accept passengers. This seems like incorporating the best of both worlds. You get the advantages of electrical propulsion with the maneuverability of a bus.

[Lookout Kid]

Another word for "tram" is light rail, and I think these systems are quite a bit better than the streetcars of old. But light rail systems tend to offer more grade separation than the old streetcars. Wouldn't it be great to put a light rail system in the median of Lakshore Drive (or on the side)? On much of the lakefront it is a hike to the Red Line, and it would be great to return the drive to some sort of scenic parkway with less traffic. Right now it's current configuration does too much to cut of the city from the lakefront.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

The advantage of trolleys are their ability to use electric power rather than diesel, but I think modern technology is reducing the reliance on diesel for buses.

And electric power is largely produced from coal, so you're just substituting one form of fossil fuel burning with another. This is why "plug-in Hybrids" are a bad idea.

[Irishtom29]

To go back to old ways---to bring back the inter-urban railways would be more useful than bringing back streetcars. But now the bicycle riders use the old right of ways.

Are all the electric buses in Chicago gone now? Those were pretty good.