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.
idk where in Chicago you were where nobody takes the L, being on the Brown Line is the most desirable thing in the city. If people Uber and Lyft, it is because the L can only get you up and down major thoroughfares
Well said. Its admittedly anecdotal but I recently spent a weekend in Chicago. My observation of the young folks I was around was that Uber and Lyft were the two most popular modes of transportation. Cabs were a distant third while buses and the "L" were not much on anyone's radar screen that I witnessed. Those young folks I witnessed were all college grads with fairly good paying jobs. My stepdaughter who lives in Chicago (grew up in Grosse Pointe Woods, graduated from MSU) used to take the bus to work when she struggled to make ends meet. Now that she flirts with a 6 figure income you'd have to put a gun to her head to take the bus.
One of the major reasons for young professionals to move to Chicago is participate in the vibrant, pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods; they didn’t move to Chicago to drive everywhere, they could have stayed in suburban Detroit if they wanted that lifestyle. And there are PLENTY of college graduates from Michigan that fled to Chicago because Chicago has plentiful jobs, but also because they wanted to live in a safer, dynamic city that isn’t oriented around the car. They are certainly not moving there for the weather or scenery.
I scoured the first 4 pages of the Chicago Forum for posts from young professional looking to move to Chicago. 7 of the 17 opening posters mentioned transit as a priority either directly or indirectly. 6 are below:
1. Rent under $1000 per month, cheaper if possible.
2. Accepts one 60 pound dog.
3. Within walking distance of a dog park. 4. Within walking distance of a CTA rail station.
5. North/Northwest of the Loop.
If I worked in the loop (east side), what would be some good recommendations of areas to look at? I don't care so much about it being super young, but wouldn't like a family feel either. Definitely walking/quick L ride to the loop strongly preferred.
Lincoln Square: I zeroed in on the area from Lawrence to Montrose, Western to Ashland (which runs into Ravenswood) and like it so much it's my first choice. The apartments are a bit more affordable than Lakeview. It's conveniently located near the Brown line and I do like how peaceful the neighborhood is (away from the Lincoln Square restaurants and commercial strip) North Center is also fairly similar and a neighborhood I'd consider.
This forum seems perfect for my needs, currently I'm looking at renting a place in Pilsen or Bridgeport neighborhoods. I am interested in getting a 2 BR apt within $1.5k budget, public transit and safety are the top priorities for me. I will be taking bus or L to loop and wife will take bus or L to UIC campus, based on this daily commute I've thought either Pilsen or Bridgeport might be a good fit for me, if there are other neighborhoods I should consider looking into, let me know.
I work in River North, late 20s, not interested in bars, partying, or staying out late. I like more quiet places, but I also like trying new restaurants, biking, walking, hiking, visiting cafes, playing board games, etc. In a relationship, no kids, and no car. Don't have a preference to be around certain races and have no problem with gays/lesbians. Just prefer to be around overall nice and good people. Will look for studios under $850. I have lived/experienced other areas in Chicago but not the north side. I want to try to live in the area before I settle in the burbs.
Lastly, I don’t see how using Uber and Lyft and cabs are a financially sustainable way to get around town. For instance, are these young professionals getting to work via Uber everyday, especially if they work in the Loop? I don’t know about that.
What immediately comes to mind is a line that I heard quite a bit my first year living down south, "You're not from here, are you?"
This is the Motor City. We like driving cars, especially the ones we make. Period. This is not old or antiquated. There are thousands of people here whose livelihood, directly or indirectly, come from the auto industry. There are thousands more retired from it. There are thousands more like me one generation from it and quite loyal to it. Yes, more industries are setting up camp here (thank God), but we are still the Motor City and will be for quite some time. Bottom line, there's not much motivation for public transportation. You would be naive to compare Detroit to other cities when it comes to transportation.
1) There was an Ann Arbor to downtown Detroit commuter rail from 1932 to 1984, and a Pontiac to downtown Detroit commuter rail from 1931 to 1983. According to you, since we are the Motor City, those rail services should never have existed. Were we the Motor City back in 1950 and 1960 and 1970? Then why did we have commuter rail back then?
2) You are right, we are the Motor City but we had a golden opportunity to build a rapid transit system when in 1976, President Gerald Ford offered the Detroit area $600 Million to build a system. The reason why a system was not built was not because “We are the Motor City”, but because the City and suburbs refused to work with each other to develop a plan they both agreed on. See below excerpt from this article:
Quote:
… The main piece of the project, a Woodward Avenue subway line, would’ve run from the Renaissance Center to McNichols Road, where it would surface and follow the corridor’s median. Then, Wagner says, the service would continue northbound into Royal Oak, where it would shift toward Main Street or Washington Avenue (“We were still negotiating with Royal Oak”), and eventually link up with an existing commuter rail service between Pontiac and Detroit.
It didn’t end there. Rail lines were intended to run along Gratiot Avenue as far northeast as the I-94 freeway, according to a story from the Ann Arbor Sun. An additional commuter line between Port Huron and Detroit would’ve been constructed. A flush light rail system would’ve extended into the suburbs. And, yes, downtown’s People Mover was in the pipeline as a way to link these systems up where they converged.
THIS IS WHY WE DON’T HAVE RAPID TRANSIT (City & suburbs fighting):
Quote:
Again, like clockwork, the plan would fall apart due to disagreements between the city and the suburbs. Mayor Young was opposed to SEMTA’s plan for a light-rail system along Woodward. He wanted the high-capacity heavy rail system as a condition of the merger, according to the UDM report. Young and [suburban] county leaders began a public back-and-forth over the Woodward proposal.
The price tag for Young’s heavy rail technology brought the regional transit project to nearly $1.5 billion, Nelles writes, diminishing lawmakers’ interest.
Wagner says the price shouldn’t have been an issue, pointing to the significance of the $600 million federal commitment. “We could’ve gotten the [Woodward] subway for that kind of money,” he says. “That would’ve been one hell of a start.”
The $600 million offer was withdrawn by President Ronald Reagan in 1981.
Lastly, as a result of 1928 Transportation Plan, beyond the city limits, the arterial roads that radiate from Downtown were all widened to 8 lanes of traffic with a wide median in the middle. The road widening was to accommodate more car traffic, but also to accommodate a surface running rail line within the median. The long-term plan was for an subway underneath those arterials in the city, and a surface rail line in the median in the suburban section of the roads. The rail lines were never built, nevertheless Metro Detroit was developed with rapid transit in mind.
Last edited by usroute10; 08-04-2017 at 12:59 AM..
1) There was an Ann Arbor to downtown Detroit commuter rail from 1932 to 1984, and a Pontiac to downtown Detroit commuter rail from 1931 to 1983. According to you, since we are the Motor City, those rail services should never have existed. Were we the Motor City back in 1950 and 1960 and 1970? Then why did we have commuter rail back then?
2) You are right, we are the Motor City but we had a golden opportunity to build a rapid transit system when in 1976, President Gerald Ford offered the Detroit area $600 Million to build a system. The reason why a system was not built was not because “We are the Motor City”, but because the City and suburbs refused to work with each other to develop a plan they both agreed on. See below excerpt from this article:
THIS IS WHY WE DON’T HAVE RAPID TRANSIT (City & suburbs fighting):
The $600 million offer was withdrawn by President Ronald Reagan in 1981.
Lastly, as a result of 1928 Transportation Plan, beyond the city limits, the arterial roads that radiate from Downtown were all widened to 8 lanes of traffic with a wide median in the middle. The road widening was to accommodate more car traffic, but also to accommodate a surface running rail line within the median. The long-term plan was for an subway underneath those arterials in the city, and a surface rail line in the median in the suburban section of the roads. The rail lines were never built, nevertheless Metro Detroit was developed with rapid transit in mind.
Hahaha Lmao!!! I mean... you just have to laugh to keep from crying after reading that article. I mean could you imagine, let's say even half of the people way back then who fled MI for Chicago, NYC, SF, ect (most big cities were still pretty fu*ked up back then anyway) decided to just move to Detroit because it now has big city transportation options and more development around the rail lines. Fast forward to today, by now there would have been generation of yuppies moving to Detroit, the city would have easily still had over 1,000,000 people and a wealthier tax base to go with it. And by now probably one of the best transportation systems in the US. Well that's one hell of a butterfly effect.
What the hell couldn't the city and suburbs agree on?
I did not equate poor with public transportation. You inserted that.
In fact, I take public transportation occasionally at work when I need to run across town.
Madam/Sir, this is what you wrote in Post #76
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoBlueA2
That's the way it works! Immigrants generally take over the vacated cities and burbs. Why people want to live where the air is clean, crime is low (no public transport!), houses are new and have desired amenities...gee...not hard to figure out. We live in a free country and people can live where they want to. Remember, the city and suburbs you speak of were once "nature, pastures, forests, orchards and farms."
You equated public transportation with crime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoBlueA2
[b]I highly recommend that you respect the experience and views of suburbanites just as you would like your perspective respected. We have listened to nothing but bad news about Detroit for decades, and people live quite happily in the burbs, or in my case, rural area. There is nothing wrong with that. If you and your generation want to help revive Detroit, more power to you! I don't want to pay what Detroiters do for car insurance, that's reason enough not to move there. If you want to turn people on to the city, invite them down. I was there last weekend for a Fisher building tour, and impressed with the variety of new restaurants. You attract more flies with honey, ya know. ;-).
What has happened to Detroit – the 1.1 million person decline from 1950 to 2010, the corresponding 94% decline of its white population during that time, the continued high crime, blight, poverty, and poor public schools – is not alright. THERE IS SOMETHING VERY, VERY “wrong with that”
It has had a significant negative impact on the southeastern Michigan region and the state of Michigan as a whole, and has contributed to the lack of population growth in the metro area the past 50 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoBlueA2
[b]You seem to have a socialist view about assigning people to live in certain areas. That is not what this country is about...quite the opposite, actually.
I never said to force people to live in the city and inner suburbs. I said that IF the population wasn’t so NEEDLESSLY sprawled out, we could afford to improve our atrocious road, sewer, and public transit infrastructure.
I am not a socialist. I have voted for Republicans the last 3 presidential elections, and I am BLACK (Yes, I voted for Trump!) I don’t believe in “dependence on the government to fulfill my needs” mindset that is prevalent in FAR too many people in the city. I wish we had a more business-friendly environment and I believe that we need lower the property tax and eliminate the city income tax to attract more residents and businesses.
However, IMHO Efficient and Effective Public transit should be an integral component and service of a 5 million people region, just like roads, police, parks, and libraries. A vibrant, dynamic world class metropolitan area should provide transportation options and should be able to accommodate all types of lifestyles - the semi-rural, suburban, and the increasingly popular urban lifestyles.
idk where in Chicago you were where nobody takes the L, being on the Brown Line is the most desirable thing in the city. If people Uber and Lyft, it is because the L can only get you up and down major thoroughfares
I didn't say nobody takes the "L". I don't mind if you cherry pick a quote to dispute but I do mind if you make up a quote I never said, attribute it to me and then dispute what you made up.
One of the major reasons for young professionals to move to Chicago is participate in the vibrant, pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods; they didn’t move to Chicago to drive everywhere, they could have stayed in suburban Detroit if they wanted that lifestyle.
And yet I witnessed young people ordering up Uber and Lyfts constantly. A lot of those young proffessionals don't live within walking distance of their jobs AND they don't always want to go to the neighborhood bar they can walk to so they ride in a car.
Quote:
Originally Posted by usroute10
Lastly, I don’t see how using Uber and Lyft and cabs are a financially sustainable way to get around town. For instance, are these young professionals getting to work via Uber everyday, especially if they work in the Loop? I don’t know about that.
In the case of my step daughter she works in the NBC Tower and lives in Old Town. She uses Uber so much she gets preferred customer discounts from time to time. When discounts are not in place its about a $7 ride. Sometimes she walks home after work but even if she never did $14 a day times 5 days a week times 50 weeks a year is $3500. Thats about $290 a month. That is certainly more expensive than the bus but its a lot cheaper than owning a car. So its very "financially sustainable" in that regard.
And I am NOT SAYING nobody takes public transportation in Chicago. What I am suggesting is a LOT of people will take a car (Uber/Lyft) if they can afford it and buses or the "L" is a second (the affordable) choice.
Absolutely, but I did not say "poor." Post #76 is someone else's, quoting a previous post of mine. I just looked again. I did not say poor.
As for crime, yes! I was challenged on that, and addressed it in a previous post. Research has been done on it with mixed results. In some the crime increased with public transportation, in some it did not. So, yes, increased crime can and does happen with expansion of public transportation.
I'm not anti-public transportation entirely, I just don't want it running by my house. If I didn't have to get a ride to the airport or pay for parking, I'd be one happy camper. A regional terminal within 10 miles of my house would be fine. What I am saying is that you can not expect everyone to be on board with public transport in an area that boomed because of auto manufacturing. You also can't expect people to want to pay higher taxes to subsidize it. Good heavens, our taxes are high enough as it is.
Hmm, sometimes it increases, sometimes it decreases, sometimes nothing happens. In fact one could even say there is no consistency measurable relationship whatsoever!
Yeah - a public transportation system needs to be more than BRT lines. BRT just has zero appeal to me whatsoever, and I assume this isn't an uncommon perspective. Rail connecting Detroit to Pontiac, Ann Arbor and maybe Mt. Clemens would be great. Feed the "hubs" with existing bus lines. But that would cost somewhere in the range of $10 billion, and we're just so far away from that at this point it's not even worth discussing.
From the 1920's until 1950's Detroit had an extensive light rail system throughout the city known as the DSR (Department of Street Railways). In the 50's the DSR was abandoned to make way for General Motors newly produced large city busses in order to free up traffic congestion and prevent costly rail line maintenance.
In 2017, people are championing light rail like it's a new concept to Detroit. And they highly favor light rail over busses.
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.
