4 ms·

This guy is definitely more knowledgeable about railroad operations than I am, but I'll just point out that the Chicago built environment can support a few mill

This guy is definitely more knowledgeable about railroad operations than I am, but I'll just point out that the Chicago built environment can support a few million more people than it currently has. The expansion of an in-city rail yard in an economically depressed area of the city is not a disaster, and could prove to be a catalyst (however small) to improvements, and in 20-30 years that land could be reclaimed fairly easily for urban living once they accomplish the long-term goals that the author envisions.

nocoiner 3y ago
Yeah, I thought that the emphasis on (and assumption of) an inherent tragedy of an expanded yard detracted from what was otherwise a fascinating and pretty great article. I kept waiting to learn why this expansion was going to be so detrimental to the rail network, but I guess the author’s view is that the expansion is bad because it’s a requirement of a suboptimal network. I was going to make the observation that once the yard has been expanded, I doubt it would ever be reclaimed for other uses, but the number of paved-over spurs and customer connections disproves that point. It makes me sad to think about the amount of literally irreplaceable infrastructure that’s been ripped up rather than retained for future freight levels or repurposed for passenger use.
leviathant 3y ago
>The expansion of an in-city rail yard in an economically depressed area of the city is not a disaster, and could prove to be a catalyst (however small) to improvements, and in 20-30 years that land could be reclaimed fairly easily for urban living once they accomplish the long-term goals that the author envisions. Hello from Philadelphia, this take is so completely of touch with reality. The Reading Company, now dealing solely in movie theaters, continues to squat on land and bridges that it has not improved in half a century, yet continues to own. While the Reading Terminal was converted into a convention center and food market, the rail yards on the waterfront are largely parking lots and vacant land. The coal yards they fed in the center city are now home to a fenced in lot full of transformers. Expanding an in-city rail yard is not a catalyst to improvements in the city. Reclaiming former railyards is not relatively easy.
- Kon-Peki 3y ago
  I am sure you are right about Philadelphia, but I don't think the same situation applies in Chicago. I think you are bit salty because they are wasting valuable waterfront land. You are right to be angry about it! 80% of Chicago's waterfront is public parkland; in 30 years don't be surprised if it's 90+%. The neighborhood in question, needs investment and it needs infill. Taking 5-10 square blocks off the table helps concentrate the investment and infill, and will accelerate the improvements. Or at least that's how I see it :)

nocoiner 3y ago

Yeah, I thought that the emphasis on (and assumption of) an inherent tragedy of an expanded yard detracted from what was otherwise a fascinating and pretty great article. I kept waiting to learn why this expansion was going to be so detrimental to the rail network, but I guess the author’s view is that the expansion is bad because it’s a requirement of a suboptimal network. I was going to make the observation that once the yard has been expanded, I doubt it would ever be reclaimed for other uses, but the number of paved-over spurs and customer connections disproves that point. It makes me sad to think about the amount of literally irreplaceable infrastructure that’s been ripped up rather than retained for future freight levels or repurposed for passenger use.

leviathant 3y ago

>The expansion of an in-city rail yard in an economically depressed area of the city is not a disaster, and could prove to be a catalyst (however small) to improvements, and in 20-30 years that land could be reclaimed fairly easily for urban living once they accomplish the long-term goals that the author envisions. Hello from Philadelphia, this take is so completely of touch with reality. The Reading Company, now dealing solely in movie theaters, continues to squat on land and bridges that it has not improved in half a century, yet continues to own. While the Reading Terminal was converted into a convention center and food market, the rail yards on the waterfront are largely parking lots and vacant land. The coal yards they fed in the center city are now home to a fenced in lot full of transformers. Expanding an in-city rail yard is not a catalyst to improvements in the city. Reclaiming former railyards is not relatively easy.

Kon-Peki 3y ago
I am sure you are right about Philadelphia, but I don't think the same situation applies in Chicago. I think you are bit salty because they are wasting valuable waterfront land. You are right to be angry about it! 80% of Chicago's waterfront is public parkland; in 30 years don't be surprised if it's 90+%. The neighborhood in question, needs investment and it needs infill. Taking 5-10 square blocks off the table helps concentrate the investment and infill, and will accelerate the improvements. Or at least that's how I see it :)