Do you think the EL will ever be expanded or new lines added? (Chicago: real estate, apartment)

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by Avengerfire

I still say the crosstown train along the right of way just east of Cicero is more important to the city and should be built before any Bloomingdale line.

I like the mid-city transitway too, but its a much bigger project than the Bloomingdale el. The Bloomingdale line could be started within a year (if I was king), while the mid-city transit way wouldn't be open for service for several years into my reign.

Oh, another thing I would do would be to drastically upzone all the land within a two to three block radius of every el station. Any NIMBYs opposition would be sent to a prison built on one of the Lake Michigan water intake cribs.

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

I like the mid-city transitway too, but its a much bigger project than the Bloomingdale el. The Bloomingdale line could be started within a year (if I was king), while the mid-city transit way wouldn't be open for service for several years into my reign.

The crosstown train would reduce the time to get to and from the west side and southwest side greatly to O'Hare,the Northwest burbs, and other areas as well as the other way around. It also would allow the CTA to scale back on a large scale on the amount of buses on Cicero, Pulaski,Central and Kedzie. Those bus routes eat up a lot of money. There also more or less would be a very effective direct connection between the O'Hare and Midway airports. Also, people could get to O'Hare and Midway much easier and quicker from more places in the city (and near burbs) without having to go all the way downtown first.

The Bloomingdale Line only would reduce North Ave and Fullerton buses for the most part and affect a far lesser area than the crosstown train.

[Chicagoland60426]

Originally Posted by chet everett

Lookout:

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...

690 people/sq mile? Last time I check the density is higher than that. I don't know about you but I only count the original 6 counties and maybe two Northwest Indiana counties as part of Chicagoland; the rest is too much sprawl and rural. Cook County density is 5600 people/sq mile, Dupage 2700/sq mile, Lake County 1400/sq mile, Will County 836.94/sq mile, 520/sq mile, Mchenry 603/sq mile. All that equals an average of almost 2000 people/sq mile. Remember these stats are from year 2000, so most of these counties population increase. As for the El expanding, I think it needs to expand. The redline on the southside don't stretch through the whole southside, it stops at 95th St.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

That comment doesn't make sense. We sprawl because we picked the car.

I think we sprawl because we have the room. Chicago and most American cities west of the Appalachians tended to sprawl long before the car. Just look at the difference in lot sizes and building placement between older towns like Philly and Chicago. I think when Philly was built people were still thinking Old World and didn't really realize how much roon they had in the New World. By the time Chicago was built people realized they could spread out.

I think the car allowed Americans to better live in a way they were already inclined towards. Most Americans prefer sprawl and jumping in their car. Maybe we discussing this here don't but more people do.

[Irishtom29]

Old Mayor Daley wanted a crosstown expressway along the belt-line but for reasons I don't remember it wasn't built, presumably it would've had room for an el train like the Ryan and Congress expressways. Too bad it was never built, a crosstown highway and el would be very useful.

[via chicago]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

Most Americans prefer sprawl and jumping in their car.

Do they? Or is it because there is no alternative? I think if there was comprehensive mass transit in the suburbs, I truly believe people would use it in a heartbeat.

But again, it goes back to poor planning which has made this unfeasible.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

I think we sprawl because we have the room. Chicago and most American cities west of the Appalachians tended to sprawl long before the car. Just look at the difference in lot sizes and building placement between older towns like Philly and Chicago. I think when Philly was built people were still thinking Old World and didn't really realize how much roon they had in the New World. By the time Chicago was built people realized they could spread out.

I think the car allowed Americans to better live in a way they were already inclined towards. Most Americans prefer sprawl and jumping in their car. Maybe we discussing this here don't but more people do.

The difference between development patterns in old Philly or Boston verses Chicago was the street car. Most of Chicago's older neighborhoods started out as "streetcar suburbs", and were planned around this form of transportation. You can have all of the room in the world, but the transportation system that was developed is what allowed us to sprawl.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

The difference between development patterns in old Philly or Boston verses Chicago was the street car. Most of Chicago's older neighborhoods started out as "streetcar suburbs", and were planned around this form of transportation. You can have all of the room in the world, but the transportation system that was developed is what allowed us to sprawl.

I'd argue the car allowed us to do what we were inclined to do anyway. Hell Kid, look at all the people who live in the city and drive even though they've easy access to buses and els. People like their cars and prefer traveling that way. Does it make sense? I suppose not but what are ya gonna do?

If a Comanche went from his teepee to the next one over he hopped on his horse to do it. We're kind'a like Comanches.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

I'd argue the car allowed us to do what we were inclined to do anyway. Hell Kid, look at all the people who live in the city and drive even though they've easy access to buses and els. People like their cars and prefer traveling that way. Does it make sense? I suppose not but what are ya gonna do?

If a Comanche went from his teepee to the next one over he hopped on his horse to do it. We're kind'a like Comanches.

You're exactly right. People will always use what's more convenient for them, and "convenience" can take more forms than just commute times. Even though the private automobile can sometimes be stuck in traffic for hours, many like the freedom, isolation from others, radio/iPod, etc. that go with automobile commutes.

I live about five miles from my office, and after years of exclusive public transportation usage I now drive in with my wife every day because (1) she has a free parking space downtown in her building, and (2) it's a lot easier to pick up/drop off our young daughter at daycare. I then take the "L" or bus back home in the evening. In addition to being convenient, this arrangement allows us to spend probably an extra hour with our daughter every day. Totally worth it! And while the environmental effects aren't great, driving ten miles in a Honda Civic every day has a minimal impact.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by via chicago

Do they? Or is it because there is no alternative? I think if there was comprehensive mass transit in the suburbs, I truly believe people would use it in a heartbeat.

If suburban people wanted to use mass transit they would, there is some there and at one time there was more than there is now but it failed. (I used to take the West Town bus from Madison and Austin out to Bellwood to visit a girl). You gotta figure that many people are in the burbs for the very reason that they prefer cars to buses, that they prefer having the ability to come and go as they please. There's a freedom to that and many value it.

I drove up to Chicago last weekend for my granddaughter's birthday party. It would've been faster to fly and not much more expensive. But I drove because I want to come and go as I please. Actually when I got to Chicago once I parked my car I didn't use it again until I left town. The decisions we make don't always make the most sense but we make them nonetheless.

Don't get me wrong, I think it would be great if they ran the els out to the burbs, say along I-55 out to Plainfield and Joliet for instance. But I don't think the political will is there for it.

Regards