5 ms·

I hate this so much. First, nobody who's lived in Chicago for more than about thirty minutes can possibly believe that this will end up being free to the city.

by nat 8y ago

I hate this so much. First, nobody who's lived in Chicago for more than about thirty minutes can possibly believe that this will end up being free to the city. At some point, somehow, we're going to pay. Second, we already have a perfectly fine train to O'Hare! This is an incredibly marginal improvement, and only benefiting a group that already has plenty of options. The existing train systems are focused entirely on an outdated model of exclusively bringing people to and from downtown. And huge swathes of the city don't even get that.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
New trains are difficult because of right-of-way - everything's built up by now, no room on the surface. Boring a tunnel can be a way out. Why all the resistance? If this one works out, Chicago may get their 'huge swathes' on a workable underground transit system.
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  I'm sure there are civil engineering issues I haven't thought of, but it seems like there would be a lot less tunnel to bore if they take the existing line that already goes from downtown to O'Hare and just convert it from being partially underground to being completely underground.
  - MisterTea 8y ago
    how do you do that without service interruptions?
    - bunderbunder 8y ago
      You don't. Don't worry, blue line people are used to it.
lakechfoma 8y ago
A little OT but what is it called when a rail system is setup purely to ferry people to and from the heart of the city? Philadelphia is the same way. New York on the other hand is more of a spaghetti mess. I wonder if that interconnection does things for the city too, like encourage growth in more areas.
- nat 8y ago
  There's probably a more jargony, urbanist term, but I would generally just say "hub and spoke".
- Brakenshire 8y ago
  Radial? London is a bit like this as well, most of the trains that come in from Outer London are commuter trains that go to a ring of termini around the centre, then you have to change onto the Underground. They're trying to tackle it at the moment by setting up new lines that go through the centre, but start and end far out regionally, so to go north to south you don't have to interchange from one terminus to another. Thameslink and Crossrail are both part of this concept. The model comes from Paris, which has the RER network, separate from the subway.
- dionidium 8y ago
  > New York on the other hand is more of a spaghetti mess. Not really. Look at the map again. Everything flows through Manhattan. The entire system is setup to take you to Manhattan. If you want to go from the Bronx to Queens or Brooklyn, you go through Manhattan. There's really only one line for which this isn't true: the G from Queens to Brooklyn. Lines like the M [0] that could fairly easily have been designed as a full circle, are actually U-shaped, because it's really about funneling people in and out of Manhattan. [0] https://i.imgur.com/yK4JtoG.png https://i.imgur.com/yK4JtoG.png
  - lakechfoma 8y ago
    Ah that's true. I haven't really ventured farther out from Manhattan than the G. Lots more city out there.
- 8y ago
thinkcontext 8y ago
Why would anyone expect it to be free? Of course they'll charge fares. It important to remember that CTA fares don't cover the full cost of services, it also gets money from taxpayers. And building a new line would most likely involve an appropriation or maybe issuing bonds that get paid back over decades. For this, the city won't have to put out any money of its own, nor take any risk. I am curious how they'll deal with the new line siphoning off revenue from the existing service. I assume that they'll negotiate this (maybe a share of revenue?), what the price will be, routing, etc.
- nat 8y ago
  Yeah, of course there will be fares for riders. I meant tax revenue that the city could be spending on other things. I see that they're claiming there's no risk for the city, and that is a very nice claim. It's also a naïve one.
ben010783 8y ago
>Second, we already have a perfectly fine train to O'Hare! I wouldn't say that it's perfectly fine. The Blue Line to O'Hare has become notorious for it's overcrowding. I think the goal is to reduce some of that congestion to O'Hare and get people to stay at hotels in the city. I'm not convinced that it's worth it though.
- spamizbad 8y ago
  Crowding exists on the blue line because there's not enough power to run more cars to support the increase in rush-hour ridership in the neighborhoods of Logan Square, Bucktown, Wicker Park and Nobel Square. Outside of rush hour, it's not that bad. If the Blue Line could run 5mph faster, and run an extra car or two, that'd make a huge dent in that congestion.
  - moorhosj 8y ago
    Yes, and there is a project to increase power in progress. With the upcoming O'Hare expansion and increased TOD development along the Blue Line this is could very well help mitigate future overcrowding at minimal cost to the city.
- thoughtpalette 8y ago
  I'd argue that for the red line as well. Especially for rush hour. Anecdotal but I've always gotten a seat while traveling to O'Hare (Mon & Thurs 8am-ish).
  - cozzyd 8y ago
    That's because most people are going in the other direction at that time :). Fortunately, most flights aren't at like 7 pm though.
- mkirklions 8y ago
  Elon taking advantage of the government? Say it aint so! I dont think he can stay around without exploiting crony capitalism, his businesses have failed. EDIT: Was forced out of paypal, spaceX is reliant on taxes, Tesla isnt profitable, SolarCity wasnt profitable and was bought by tesla(which outrages anyone who knows anything about corruption and stock ownership) and Boring is reliant on taxes.
dominotw 8y ago
> Second, we already have a perfectly fine train to O'Hare! No way man. I used to commute from cumberland stop to downtown, I would be physically exhausted by the time I got to my stop 1 hr later. 1 hr on CTA is very different from 1 hr on metra, the seats are so cramped, you cannot open your laptop, constant pee smell, so many stop-starts take a toll on your body. Current CTA cars don't allow for people travelling to ohare with even one suitcase, there is no place to put your suitcase. If the commute was 12 minutes, I can imagine so many people with families will move out of the city to enjoy more space out northwest. I would definitely consider moving out near ohare if commute was 12 minutes to downtown. I can only imagine this will bring down rents/ housing prices in the city. I will go downtown to enjoy an evening if the commute was only 12 mins. This is a game changer in my book not ' marginal improvement'.
- cozzyd 8y ago
  Well hopefully no more than 2000 people do that during commuting hours because there's not enough capacity here. Not to mention that they'd have to get to O'Hare.
  - dominotw 8y ago
    Yes you are right. But thats a differnt argument than what I was responding to 'we have CTA that works, don't increase my tax'
    - nat 8y ago
      > 'we have CTA that works, don't increase my tax' I'm sorry if that's how I came across, it's definitely not my feeling. I think the CTA works in that it's a system we should be investing much more in. And taxes should probably go up. I just don't want that money going to private enterprise, especially one run by someone who by all accounts does not believe in society.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
princekolt 8y ago
> we already have a perfectly fine train to O'Hare I wouldn't call that perfect. It takes at least an hour from the loop to O'Hare on a good day. In comparison, the Stockholm Arlanda airport is 5 miles further from Stockholm Central than O'Hare is to the Loop, and it takes the Arlanda Express high speed train 20 minutes to get there.
- jzwinck 8y ago
  The Shanghai Pudong maglev is a couple miles longer than the train to O'Hare, and it takes just over 8 minutes. Well, except during rush hour, when it takes 7.5 minutes!
  - princekolt 8y ago
    That is fantastic. I am always amazed by the devotion many East Asian countries have placed in high-speed public transport, and it saddens me that the "developed" western countries are being left behind very quickly both in speed and quality of public transport, especially rail (and its variations).
    - jpetso 8y ago
      The key is putting tax money where your mouth is, prioritizing projects with high impact over projects that cater to the voter base that you need to get reelected, and using eminent domain to get the best route against the interest of some individual people. It's a two-way street. People like to look at it and be amazed, while most wouldn't be prepared to follow through on it given the drawbacks and their own principles of how governments should work.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ForrestN 8y ago
The blue line is slow, crowded, loud, frequently requires delay-inducing maintenance, and is often very dirty and smelly. The article says “40 minutes,” but that’s the absolute best you could hope for. You have to plan at least 1:15 minutes for the blue line from the loop if you want to be confident you won’t be late. A 20 minute direct trip on a modern train would radically improve every aspect of getting between the airport and the city, and would be a welcome support as the city’s ancient trains continue to deteriorate.
- jonhendry18 8y ago
  I don't really see the point of an express train to the airport. Who's in a rush to get to the airport where you already have to get there very early anyway and do a lot of waiting?
  - nbar1 8y ago
    People who don't go early and wait around.
  - gascan 8y ago
    In some parts of the world, a short flight is supposedly just as convenient as hopping on the bus or train. Hop over to the next city, the next state. At least where I live, a two hour flight becomes a six to seven hour ordeal, with ninety minutes for security etc, ninety for travel to and from each airport, ultimately turning what is really not that long a flight into a full day of traveling. I understand the dream of getting to & from the airport in a speedy timeframe.
- peckrob 8y ago
  > The blue line is slow, crowded, loud, frequently requires delay-inducing maintenance, and is often very dirty and smelly. The times I've traveled to Chicago, I don't mind taking the train. Most of these things either don't bother me or are roughly comparable to most other mass transit systems of the same size and distance. But holy cow the sound. Loud is an understatement - it is likely the loudest train I've ever ridden. Once you hit those tunnels the wheel squealing is positively ear splitting, to the point I've started bringing earplugs with me when I know I'm going to be riding that line into town. I can't imagine the kind of hearing damage being done to people who ride that line frequently or people who work on it. It would be nice if they could find a way to reduce the volume.
dionidium 8y ago
> Second, we already have a perfectly fine train to O'Hare! People who don't like or use transit love to talk about trains to the airport. It reveals a lot about how they view transit. To wit: it's a novelty, for special situations, for when you couldn't otherwise use your car to get where you're going. It's not real transportation, in other words. It's a shuttle for the exceptions in your life.
- peatmoss 8y ago
  You’re not the only one to note this phenomenon. Airports in general aren’t the biggest generators of trips. I’ve watched the process unfold in Seattle; the light rail opened first with service connecting the airport to downtown. During this period actual ridership was fairly small. Then they opened the second phase which connects downtown through a major neighborhood to University of Washington. Over night, ridership jumped massively. I’m not opposed to airport rail per se, but there are generally much, much better places to build rail to and from. Caveats about Seattle’s airport link: Building to the airport first did in some sense prioritize service to poorer neighborhoods in the Rainier Valley. That’s good-ish, but was made less good by making it a surface train, and cutting local bus service which often better served the local needs of those communities.
  - donarb 8y ago
    But that jump in ridership is also lots of people heading to/from the airport. I live in Ballard and twice in the past year I have ridden cross town to the UW station and then rode the light rail to the airport. Lots cheaper than an Uber. I noticed that a lot of people also had the same idea, quite a few people ride the train to the airport from the north.
    - peatmoss 8y ago
      Certainly connecting light rail to other destinations has also yielded improvements to airport ridership. But that doesn't change that downtown to airport, by itself, was a relative ghost town. We already had a major destination (downtown) connecting to the airport. That tells me that thing on the other end (the airport) just wasn't a very major destination. Bellevue, West Seattle, and Ballard links can't happen soon enough. I suspect each of those will also generate far more ridership than the downtown-to-airport link as well.
nwah1 8y ago
Sounds like the transportation model being considered could have entrypoints along the way, while still being nonstop for each individual pod.

by nat 8y ago

JoeAltmaier 8y ago

New trains are difficult because of right-of-way - everything's built up by now, no room on the surface. Boring a tunnel can be a way out. Why all the resistance? If this one works out, Chicago may get their 'huge swathes' on a workable underground transit system.

bunderbunder 8y ago
I'm sure there are civil engineering issues I haven't thought of, but it seems like there would be a lot less tunnel to bore if they take the existing line that already goes from downtown to O'Hare and just convert it from being partially underground to being completely underground.
- MisterTea 8y ago
  how do you do that without service interruptions?
  - bunderbunder 8y ago
    You don't. Don't worry, blue line people are used to it.

lakechfoma 8y ago

A little OT but what is it called when a rail system is setup purely to ferry people to and from the heart of the city? Philadelphia is the same way. New York on the other hand is more of a spaghetti mess. I wonder if that interconnection does things for the city too, like encourage growth in more areas.

nat 8y ago
There's probably a more jargony, urbanist term, but I would generally just say "hub and spoke".
Brakenshire 8y ago
Radial? London is a bit like this as well, most of the trains that come in from Outer London are commuter trains that go to a ring of termini around the centre, then you have to change onto the Underground. They're trying to tackle it at the moment by setting up new lines that go through the centre, but start and end far out regionally, so to go north to south you don't have to interchange from one terminus to another. Thameslink and Crossrail are both part of this concept. The model comes from Paris, which has the RER network, separate from the subway.
dionidium 8y ago
> New York on the other hand is more of a spaghetti mess. Not really. Look at the map again. Everything flows through Manhattan. The entire system is setup to take you to Manhattan. If you want to go from the Bronx to Queens or Brooklyn, you go through Manhattan. There's really only one line for which this isn't true: the G from Queens to Brooklyn. Lines like the M [0] that could fairly easily have been designed as a full circle, are actually U-shaped, because it's really about funneling people in and out of Manhattan. [0] https://i.imgur.com/yK4JtoG.png https://i.imgur.com/yK4JtoG.png
- lakechfoma 8y ago
  Ah that's true. I haven't really ventured farther out from Manhattan than the G. Lots more city out there.
8y ago

thinkcontext 8y ago

Why would anyone expect it to be free? Of course they'll charge fares. It important to remember that CTA fares don't cover the full cost of services, it also gets money from taxpayers. And building a new line would most likely involve an appropriation or maybe issuing bonds that get paid back over decades. For this, the city won't have to put out any money of its own, nor take any risk. I am curious how they'll deal with the new line siphoning off revenue from the existing service. I assume that they'll negotiate this (maybe a share of revenue?), what the price will be, routing, etc.

nat 8y ago
Yeah, of course there will be fares for riders. I meant tax revenue that the city could be spending on other things. I see that they're claiming there's no risk for the city, and that is a very nice claim. It's also a naïve one.

ben010783 8y ago

>Second, we already have a perfectly fine train to O'Hare! I wouldn't say that it's perfectly fine. The Blue Line to O'Hare has become notorious for it's overcrowding. I think the goal is to reduce some of that congestion to O'Hare and get people to stay at hotels in the city. I'm not convinced that it's worth it though.

spamizbad 8y ago
Crowding exists on the blue line because there's not enough power to run more cars to support the increase in rush-hour ridership in the neighborhoods of Logan Square, Bucktown, Wicker Park and Nobel Square. Outside of rush hour, it's not that bad. If the Blue Line could run 5mph faster, and run an extra car or two, that'd make a huge dent in that congestion.
- moorhosj 8y ago
  Yes, and there is a project to increase power in progress. With the upcoming O'Hare expansion and increased TOD development along the Blue Line this is could very well help mitigate future overcrowding at minimal cost to the city.
thoughtpalette 8y ago
I'd argue that for the red line as well. Especially for rush hour. Anecdotal but I've always gotten a seat while traveling to O'Hare (Mon & Thurs 8am-ish).
- cozzyd 8y ago
  That's because most people are going in the other direction at that time :). Fortunately, most flights aren't at like 7 pm though.
mkirklions 8y ago
Elon taking advantage of the government? Say it aint so! I dont think he can stay around without exploiting crony capitalism, his businesses have failed. EDIT: Was forced out of paypal, spaceX is reliant on taxes, Tesla isnt profitable, SolarCity wasnt profitable and was bought by tesla(which outrages anyone who knows anything about corruption and stock ownership) and Boring is reliant on taxes.

dominotw 8y ago

> Second, we already have a perfectly fine train to O'Hare! No way man. I used to commute from cumberland stop to downtown, I would be physically exhausted by the time I got to my stop 1 hr later. 1 hr on CTA is very different from 1 hr on metra, the seats are so cramped, you cannot open your laptop, constant pee smell, so many stop-starts take a toll on your body. Current CTA cars don't allow for people travelling to ohare with even one suitcase, there is no place to put your suitcase. If the commute was 12 minutes, I can imagine so many people with families will move out of the city to enjoy more space out northwest. I would definitely consider moving out near ohare if commute was 12 minutes to downtown. I can only imagine this will bring down rents/ housing prices in the city. I will go downtown to enjoy an evening if the commute was only 12 mins. This is a game changer in my book not ' marginal improvement'.

cozzyd 8y ago
Well hopefully no more than 2000 people do that during commuting hours because there's not enough capacity here. Not to mention that they'd have to get to O'Hare.
- dominotw 8y ago
  Yes you are right. But thats a differnt argument than what I was responding to 'we have CTA that works, don't increase my tax'
  - nat 8y ago
    > 'we have CTA that works, don't increase my tax' I'm sorry if that's how I came across, it's definitely not my feeling. I think the CTA works in that it's a system we should be investing much more in. And taxes should probably go up. I just don't want that money going to private enterprise, especially one run by someone who by all accounts does not believe in society.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

princekolt 8y ago

> we already have a perfectly fine train to O'Hare I wouldn't call that perfect. It takes at least an hour from the loop to O'Hare on a good day. In comparison, the Stockholm Arlanda airport is 5 miles further from Stockholm Central than O'Hare is to the Loop, and it takes the Arlanda Express high speed train 20 minutes to get there.

jzwinck 8y ago
The Shanghai Pudong maglev is a couple miles longer than the train to O'Hare, and it takes just over 8 minutes. Well, except during rush hour, when it takes 7.5 minutes!
- princekolt 8y ago
  That is fantastic. I am always amazed by the devotion many East Asian countries have placed in high-speed public transport, and it saddens me that the "developed" western countries are being left behind very quickly both in speed and quality of public transport, especially rail (and its variations).
  - jpetso 8y ago
    The key is putting tax money where your mouth is, prioritizing projects with high impact over projects that cater to the voter base that you need to get reelected, and using eminent domain to get the best route against the interest of some individual people. It's a two-way street. People like to look at it and be amazed, while most wouldn't be prepared to follow through on it given the drawbacks and their own principles of how governments should work.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ForrestN 8y ago

The blue line is slow, crowded, loud, frequently requires delay-inducing maintenance, and is often very dirty and smelly. The article says “40 minutes,” but that’s the absolute best you could hope for. You have to plan at least 1:15 minutes for the blue line from the loop if you want to be confident you won’t be late. A 20 minute direct trip on a modern train would radically improve every aspect of getting between the airport and the city, and would be a welcome support as the city’s ancient trains continue to deteriorate.

jonhendry18 8y ago
I don't really see the point of an express train to the airport. Who's in a rush to get to the airport where you already have to get there very early anyway and do a lot of waiting?
- nbar1 8y ago
  People who don't go early and wait around.
- gascan 8y ago
  In some parts of the world, a short flight is supposedly just as convenient as hopping on the bus or train. Hop over to the next city, the next state. At least where I live, a two hour flight becomes a six to seven hour ordeal, with ninety minutes for security etc, ninety for travel to and from each airport, ultimately turning what is really not that long a flight into a full day of traveling. I understand the dream of getting to & from the airport in a speedy timeframe.
peckrob 8y ago
> The blue line is slow, crowded, loud, frequently requires delay-inducing maintenance, and is often very dirty and smelly. The times I've traveled to Chicago, I don't mind taking the train. Most of these things either don't bother me or are roughly comparable to most other mass transit systems of the same size and distance. But holy cow the sound. Loud is an understatement - it is likely the loudest train I've ever ridden. Once you hit those tunnels the wheel squealing is positively ear splitting, to the point I've started bringing earplugs with me when I know I'm going to be riding that line into town. I can't imagine the kind of hearing damage being done to people who ride that line frequently or people who work on it. It would be nice if they could find a way to reduce the volume.

dionidium 8y ago

> Second, we already have a perfectly fine train to O'Hare! People who don't like or use transit love to talk about trains to the airport. It reveals a lot about how they view transit. To wit: it's a novelty, for special situations, for when you couldn't otherwise use your car to get where you're going. It's not real transportation, in other words. It's a shuttle for the exceptions in your life.

peatmoss 8y ago
You’re not the only one to note this phenomenon. Airports in general aren’t the biggest generators of trips. I’ve watched the process unfold in Seattle; the light rail opened first with service connecting the airport to downtown. During this period actual ridership was fairly small. Then they opened the second phase which connects downtown through a major neighborhood to University of Washington. Over night, ridership jumped massively. I’m not opposed to airport rail per se, but there are generally much, much better places to build rail to and from. Caveats about Seattle’s airport link: Building to the airport first did in some sense prioritize service to poorer neighborhoods in the Rainier Valley. That’s good-ish, but was made less good by making it a surface train, and cutting local bus service which often better served the local needs of those communities.
- donarb 8y ago
  But that jump in ridership is also lots of people heading to/from the airport. I live in Ballard and twice in the past year I have ridden cross town to the UW station and then rode the light rail to the airport. Lots cheaper than an Uber. I noticed that a lot of people also had the same idea, quite a few people ride the train to the airport from the north.
  - peatmoss 8y ago
    Certainly connecting light rail to other destinations has also yielded improvements to airport ridership. But that doesn't change that downtown to airport, by itself, was a relative ghost town. We already had a major destination (downtown) connecting to the airport. That tells me that thing on the other end (the airport) just wasn't a very major destination. Bellevue, West Seattle, and Ballard links can't happen soon enough. I suspect each of those will also generate far more ridership than the downtown-to-airport link as well.

nwah1 8y ago

Sounds like the transportation model being considered could have entrypoints along the way, while still being nonstop for each individual pod.