The CTA Cuts -- An Alternate View

posted by richard gill

In response to the current iteration of the CTA financial crisis, a deal came out of Springfield that prohibited a fare increase and continued to let seniors ride for free, but paved the way for reducing bus and “L” services in order to preserve operating cash. The service reduction took effect on February 7, 2010.

The CTA says that, overall, the reductions are 18 percent of bus service and 9 percent of ‘L’ service. The way the media have treated this, one would believe the changes could dislocate everyone’s life and bring the city to a halt. True, the service reductions may create some inconvenience and hardship, but it appears that the CTA has implemented the cuts in a way that minimizes negative impacts. While the changes are regrettable, I don’t think they are as awful as they’ve been made out to be.

First, nobody is being left without service. The nine eliminated routes were all prefixed with “X,” such as X55, indicating a so-called express route. Those routes weren’t really “routes;” they were overlays on primary “regular” routes, on the same streets. All of those regular routes remain. Further, the “X” expresses weren’t really expresses. Rather they were limited-stop services that stopped at intervals of about a half-mile. Generally, they ran only during weekday rush periods.

The “X” service was nice, but did not save a whole lot of time. For instance, between the Museum of Science and Industry and Midway Airport, the X55 was nine minutes faster than the 55 local. The “X” routes were subject to the same traffic, speed limits, rates of acceleration/deceleration, and red-light delays as the local routes. They tended to have longer dwell times at bus stops, because their boardings and alightings were more concentrated.

Citywide, CTA’s route-by-route specifics indicate that where intervals between buses were lengthened, they were relatively small and incremental. On some routes where “X” buses were taken off, the local service actually increased somewhat to compensate.

It is also worth noting that the “X” services had initially been regarded as experimental, implemented only in the relatively recent past, and were not part of the historical operating pattern.

As for the “L,” all of the routes are intact, with slightly later morning start times and slightly earlier finish times, and minor headway lengthening. As with the bus routes, lines that had all-night “Owl” service continue to have it.

For the long run, at least, there may be some positive aspects to all of this. I can think of three.



1. Everyone now knows the precipice is not a mirage. Because of all the previous false alarms and last minute reprieves, there was widespread feeling that it was all posturing, and service reduction just wasn’t going to happen. Well, this time it did happen.

As for the CTA’s operating unions, they could have forestalled a good portion of the service and job reductions by making some concessions, including postponement of a wage increase. However, the prospect of an 18 percent reduction in bus service meant the large majority of bus drivers—those with enough seniority—could keep their jobs without making concessions. Union members voted to reject the concessions. Thus the service cuts were made and jobs were lost. It would be interesting to know if the vote went more or less according to seniority.

2. The cuts enabled the CTA to mothball their oldest buses. These were pretty well beaten up, having run on Chicago streets for 15 years. They have less effective emission controls than newer vehicles, and do not have the low floors now required for accessibility.

By reducing the number of buses on the street, CTA can close its 103-year-old Archer Garage. The Archer Garage began life as a streetcar barn, before there even were buses. It never was a very good bus building. One problem has been the garage’s narrow doors. Streetcars could go in and out with very small clearances on each side. The track kept them centered. Buses had a tendency to lose outside mirrors at the doors.

I would imagine the CTA will sell the Archer Garage and property, and let others fight over the building. Look for a battle between preservationists and developers. Maybe Save the Point people & co. will forget the Point and take up the cause of the old streetcar barn. Thus, positive aspect No. 3: Archer Garage is not in Hyde Park.

Un-Fortressing Hyde Park

posted by Richard Gill

In March 2008, a public proposal was made, to open 57th Street to westbound traffic at Stony Island Avenue. The proposal went nowhere. For reasons that had nothing to do with the merits of the proposal, it didn’t get pushed. The time is past due to revive the proposal.

At Stony Island, the westbound side of 57th Street is blocked by a barrier that prevents cars from entering. (Photo above.) This has the effect of making 57th one-way eastbound between Lake Park and Stony Island. The barrier is decked out with signs displaying DO NOT ENTER, and directional signs to re-enforce that order.

Welcome to Hyde Park. You and your car may be permitted to come into our neighborhood, but only if you can negotiate our obstacle course.

The barrier has been there for so long, nobody (including CDOT traffic engineers) seems to know exactly when or why it was put there. Looking for clues, I found that it dates to the paranoid days of “the urban renewal,” nearly 50 years ago. According to the Hyde Park Herald edition of February 1, 1961, 57th Street was closed to westbound traffic at Stony Island in September 1960. The change at that time provoked the ire of many, such as residents at 58th & Dorchester who said the one-way designation required them to drive an extra four blocks, just to get home (It still does).

Since 56th Street is also one-way eastbound, this made it extremely difficult to get into Hyde Park, but really easy to get out. Mission accomplished: Build a moat, create an island, keep “outsiders” out. Even if there was any sound basis for insulating the neighborhood in 1960, there isn’t any now, and there hasn’t been for a long time.

Two public meetings were held (March 5 & 12, 2008), to discuss the proposed reopening of 57th Street. Those who objected to opening 57th Street hammered away with unsubstantiated predictions that the sky would fall. They said 57th Street would be choked with traffic, making life intolerable for both motorists and pedestrians. They offered no basis for that prediction, and professional city traffic engineers who had done an analysis debunked it.

It became clear that the objectors are residents along or near 57th Street who now have a semi-private street and want to keep it that way. Since that was their real position, and it wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny, they resorted to the tactic of bullying and disruption (remember the Point meetings). One of them pushed to the front and seized the floor. That was a sign that they really had nothing to back up their position. This antic wasn’t close to the level of disruption at the Point meetings, but the intent was the same.

So, there we had a handful of people who acted like living along the street meant they owned the street. Does this remind anyone of a recent hotel proposal whose defeat was engineered by a relative handful of people who, when the smoke cleared, simply wished to maintain their position of privilege and to hell with everybody else?

It is time to re-start the street-opening proposal.

Some of the benefits are: more exposure for local businesses; enhanced overall neighborhood traffic flow; easier access to Hyde Park; less circuitousness (with the potential for cleaner air); enhanced safety in front of Bret Harte elementary school with some traffic diverted away from 56th Street: and opportunity for weather-protected direct access for campus buses at the 57th Street Metra station.

Looking east on 57th St. at Lake Park. Signs direct eastbound traffic under the Metra viaduct. The westbound side of 57th is unused and wasted.

The city traffic engineers at the March 2008 meetings said that the proposal is feasible, would result in traffic compatible with residential/commercial streets like 57th, would not compromise traffic safety, and could be implemented with relatively minor and inexpensive signing, marking and channelization. They suggested the change could even be made on a trial basis.

This proposal, which has had local residents’ and merchants’ support (with those exceptions noted above), will also require support by the University of Chicago and Alderman Hairston.

Let’s at least try this idea. Yes, there would be some more people around --visiting, shopping, dining, sightseeing -- but that’s the idea. Hyde Park has begun to emerge from its past as a dull, unwelcoming, and lifeless urban island. Removing the barrier at 57th Street will help that process along, and will make life easier. It isn’t 1960 anymore.

It is time to stop small groups of people from preventing positive and beneficial changes. That would be real Hyde Park Progress.

Missing the Towers

posted by Richard Gill

Lever bank of 67th Street Metra Control Tower
[Photo by Mark Llanuza]

On May 18, Metra Electric shut down the 67th Street control tower and transferred its function to the Central Control Facility downtown. The 67th Street tower, technically known as an interlocking, was the last of its breed on Metra Electric, and probably the last on all lines of the former Illinois Central Railroad. The electro-mechanical operation embodied in the 83 year old tower has been long surpassed by generations of electronics and communications technology.

I suppose this was an insignificant event, as events go. However, because this last remaining old workhorse happened to be in our neighborhood, its passing may carry with it a bit of a local historical edge. Ok, I worked there in the 1960s, so its passing also carries a bit of a personal edge.

Facilities like the 67th Street interlocking were responsible for controlling and routing train traffic through railroad crossings and junctions like the track complex at 67th Street. Through a tangle of manual levers, steel blocks, rods, mechanical relays, and small electric motors, operators would move switch points and set signals to keep the railroad fluid. The “interlocking” feature prevented the operator from clearing conflicting train movements and from moving switch points under a train.

51st Street Metra Control Tower
[Photo by Mark Llanuza]

The 67th Street tower is a nondescript two-story brick building on the west edge of the right-of-way near 67th Street. Its companion building, closed 46 years ago, sits on the west side of the tracks at 51st Street. The 51st Street building now serves as a store room, and 67th is expected to do the same. You’ve probably seen and barely noticed one or both of these structures. Unremarkable though they may appear, they have been immensely important to the mobility of people and goods through the years.

Towers, I miss ye.

Regional Rails: Pols Partially Pay for Planned Projects

posted by Richard Gill

The Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (aka South Shore Line) went into the bond market to acquire 14 new Highliner commuter coaches. They should begin running between South Bend and Chicago sometime this spring.

Illinois is to receive $230 million in earmarked funding under the recently approved federal appropriations act. Now, 230 million ain’t hay, but don’t look for the rail transportation portion to actually build much very soon. Much of the funding can be regarded as seed money for proposed projects, or just enough to keep them alive. It may not even pay for the engineering costs. In some cases, the money will simply back-pay for work already completed. Insofar as Hyde Park is concerned, one earmark will help pay for a disappearing act.

Here's a look at the portion of the money that is earmarked for transit and railroad works around Chicago.

CTA CIRCLE LINE: The bill designated about $8 million for a project estimated to run the $1 billion range. Combining both new and existing routes, this line, as presently conceived, would create a CTA rail loop about 15 miles long, running roughly along State Street on the east, Archer Avenue on the South, Ashland Avenue on the west, and North Avenue on the north. It would intersect almost all transit and commuter rail lines entering downtown Chicago, facilitating travel in an outer zone without requiring backtracking through the central business district. In concept, the Circle Line is not a bad idea, even if it was hatched during the tumultuous reign of former CTA president Frank Kruesi. A number of foreign cities -- London, Madrid and Seoul among them -- have similar lines. Olympics transit needs or not, good luck finding money to implement this controversial project amongst the pressing requirements just to maintain and repair the existing system.

CTA BROWN LINE: The funding provides $30 million for capacity enhancement on the Brown (Ravenswood) Line. This is not "found" money. It's money that was guaranteed years ago, when the project started. The full project cost is around $530 million. By extending station platforms, the project allows CTA to operate eight-car Brown Line trains instead of six cars. This expands capacity by a third, without the cost and congestion of additional trains. Completion is expected at the end of 2009.

CTA RED AND YELLOW LINES: A five-mile Red Line extension with four new stations ($285,000) and a two-mile Yellow Line extension with two new stations ($237,000). Place-holding dollars that won't even begin to cover the engineering.

FOUR METRA EXPANSION PROJECTS: A total of $24 million is allocated for four "New Start" projects. That amount of money will cover a small fraction of the cost of any one of them.

1. The Suburban Transit Access Route (STAR line) would run along the Elgin Joliet & Eastern Railway (acquired by Canadian National Railway in January 2009) from either Chicago Heights or Joliet, in a broad arc to Hoffman Estates, and then down I-290 to (or at least toward) O'Hare. This (questionable, in my opinion) project resulted from Metra winning a funding tussle over CTA (No, they can't always just get along.) Ridership is iffy (self-propelled single diesel railcars would be used), and CN doesn't want it on their tracks.
2. The Southeast Line would run between downtown Chicago and Crete, Illinois, primarily on Union Pacific rails. I won't bet on this one happening. It's on one of the busiest freight lines in the area and it is laced with at-grade crossings of other railroads. A dispatcher's worst nightmare, this will also be a really costly project. Maybe it was proposed as a political balm.
3. Union Pacific Northwest Line: This is not a "new start", but the money comes from a federal New Starts account. It's a capacity enhancement of an existing line between Chicago and Harvard, Illinois -- signaling, crossovers, relocation of yards. Worthwhile, I believe.
4. Union Pacific West Line: This is also a capacity enhancement. The existing line runs between Chicago and Elburn, Illinois. Included are signaling, crossovers, and construction of a third main track around a major freight yard to relieve train interference. An essential project, in my opinion; the line as presently configured is pretty much at capacity. Some of the money may be partial payment by the feds pursuant to a commitment to fund this project.
   

Admit it–-all your life, you've wanted to know what's inside the control cab of a commuter rail car. Here's the cab of a new South Shore Line Highliner.

GRADE CROSSING SAFETY: The bill provides $475,000 to the Illinois Commerce Commission for public education on safety, and for enforcement initiatives. Probably money well spent since there is no way to eliminate or grade-separate all of the rail-highway crossings in this state.

NEW AMTRAK CONNECTION AT GRAND CROSSING: This is the disappearing act, for it would reroute Amtrak trains off the Canadian National lakefront line through Hyde Park and onto Norfolk Southern at about 75th Street (assuming Norfolk Southern is agreeable). But the $1,900,000 allocation won't do it. The bridge work alone will cost several million, and there are some operating issues that will have to be resolved with Norfolk Southern and Metra's Rock Island District. If this goes through and Canadian National ceases operation on its lakefront line, the CN tracks would probably be removed. (For more on the CN tracks in Hyde Park, click here).

Note that the Metra and Amtrak projects involve mostly freight railroads. Metra must negotiate both operating access and service agreements with the freight lines that own the track. On the other hand, Metra owns and operates the Electric Line that serves Hyde Park and environs, and the line is free of freight. For those who live and work in the neighborhood, this is fortunate indeed.

The Parking Meter Deal: Right Idea, Wrong Reasons

posted by chicago pop

Parking is the gender-bender of urban policy issues. It has the capacity to make free-market Republicans slam their fist on the table in defense of subsidized parking anywhere and anytime, while making social democratic types of a green coloration passionate at the prospect of allowing market-clearing prices for curb parking.

But, like Chicago's notorious Blue Bag recylcing program, the higher rates for curb parking that will accompany the privatization of the city's 36,000 street meters give only the appearance of taking the lead of the civilized world, while in fact doing nothing of the sort, and disappointing both of the above constituencies in the process.

To take a few examples: London has implemented congestion pricing of roadways by zone; Paris has reduced the total number of parking spaces in the city, and has actually increased sidewalk space and built separated bike lanes by removing lanes from major boulevards.

New York City recently debated congestion pricing on the London model. The RAND Corporation has determined that the only realistic policies for congestion reduction in Los Angeles are road pricing and higher parking fees. San Francisco is pioneering a high-tech pilot program that will let parking meters charge a true market rate, based on hourly variations in demand (from $0.25 to $6) at individual meters in a given neighborhood.

If a parking system actually did that -- let the true market cost of public curbside parking vary with demand -- then, as parking researcher and guru Donald Shoup argues, you would considerably reduce congestion, as well as the frustration of circling for a parking spot at ungodly hours in ungodly conditions. You could then channel the revenue, through neighborhood parking benefit districts, to projects in the district area, or to related public goods such as a modernized transportation system in Chicago.

The latter prospect, however, is entirely lost in the Morgan Stanley privatization deal. What could be a long-term revenue generator for a city in budgetary crisis and with an enormous backlog of deferred public transportation maintenance has been traded for a one-time fix in operating revenue.

And it leaves one of the most powerful of transportation planning tools -- parking policy -- in the hands of a privately held company that specializes in parking garages. Is anyone at LAZ Parking, in which Morgan Stanley has an equity stake, thinking about Shoup's parking benefit districts? Will they be monitoring San Francisco's experiment with a spot market in street parking?

It's not clear, but there could be some positives. The fact that Chicago's meters will be owned in part by Morgan Stanley, the former investment bank that has since become a "financial services company", leads one to speculate that LAZ Parking may, at some point in the future, be taken public.

There would be every reason, prior to any IPO, for fully modernizing Chicago's street metering. This could go far beyond the contracted promise of non-cash metering by 2011, to include the San Francisco model of a block-by-block spot market in parking.

For Chicago, the benefits would be real but unintended, and the cash benefits more diffuse. Congestion currently costs Chicago commuters approximately $3,000/year, so any congestion reduction resulting from the reform would have the effect of a tax repeal. But the direct revenue benefits from the higher rates themselves would be foregone.

In the City's press release, not a single word mentions transportation, public transit, or any of the innovations in parking charges that are being tested in other areas to deal with these problems.

With long-term higher gas prices likely, and flat property values in suburban regions, people will still need to come and to stay in Chicago. Devising a system of metered parking that adequately prices that demand would be a great boon to the city, in terms of revenue; in terms of freeing up the supply of parking; and in terms of mitigating congestion and the CO2 emissions given off by cars circling for a parking spot.

If the new deal for parking should make anything clear, it is that street parking is not free. It has been massively subsidized for over half a century (Shoup estimates that in 2002 "the subsidy for off-street parking alone was between $127 billion and $374 billion") such that several generations of Americans have grown to maturity believing that street parking is like air or water -- free and plentiful. But, as our economist friends will tell you, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

And in an age of climate change, unstable oil prices and the foreign wars they generate, the unintended consequences of cheap parking are becoming less and less palatable.

There is thus some solace to be taken in the fact that, despite the bad deal that Chicago signed with Morgan Stanley, cheap parking is obviously going the way of cheap oil and cheap credit -- and largely for the better.

But as always, the devil is in the details. Raising parking meter rates is much easier than raising property taxes. If the City had the will to do this itself, instead of outsourcing the dirty work to a "bank holding company", it might have kept the revenues and used them to make Chicago the sort of world city worthy of hosting the Olympic Games.

[This post also appears on Huffington Post Chicago]

Notes from an (Ex-)UnderGrad: Which Way Out of Here?

posted by Jason Finkes

Or, Exploring Transportation Options in Hyde Park

One of an occasional series at Hyde Park Progress exploring things from an undergraduate (or recently graduated) perspective.

While it now occurred a long time ago (February-March 2008), the controversy over 4 private parking spots being weighed against a key bus stop got me thinking: perhaps we should look over the transportation issue that undergraduates face. The first time I visited the University was also the first time that I knew transportation was going to be an issue.

Having trouble navigating through a narrow pass into the neighborhood that could be defended by 300 Spartans (thanks for vocalizing the frustration with the 57th and Stony "Do Not Enter", Elizabeth), the impossible task of finding parking, the late nights waiting for the 55 at the Garfield Red Line station, the impossible task of finding not only the commercial zones to furnish my dorm room and, later, apartment ... for all these reasons my parents won't visit me anymore. It's mainly because of transportation (and, alas, the choice of ... hotels ).

First, an overview of the options:

1) Walk/Bike
2) Private Car
3) CTA
4) Metra
5) cab
6) I-Go or Zip Car
7) Motorscooter

While walking and biking are the most ideal, we all agree that Hyde Park is lacking in commercial density (where would you bike or walk to?) and warmth in the winter months (you're joking if you think biking downtown during a blustery winter's day is an option) that makes it that viable an option.

Also, let's quickly dissect #2. Ideally, one wouldn't need a car in the city, and realistically speaking, undergrads don't have cars. Parking anywhere - downtown or Hyde Park - is frustratingly unfun or prohibitively expensive (to put it in mildest terms). If anything, the simple fact that undergrads don't have cars is a real problem, and I don't mean a personal one at that.

I'm speaking of the Co-Op. Many Hyde Park residents did exactly what one would expect when the only local option is terrible: vote with your feet.

But because there wasn't a decent alternative within walking distance, it was vote with your wheels, which is fine for everyone who has a car (a bit of a hassle, but we've already determined it was a better option than the Co-Op), but an impossible action for us carless students. One reason the Co-Op was probably able to stay longer than it should was its relative monopoly on non-produce groceries for all the students living in the student ghetto.

Another option then should be CTA. It offers a wide range, it's a bit slow and it is cheap. But you aren't going to be buying perishables or bulky items when you're taking public transit...it's just a silly idea. It's also really the only option for late-night sojourns, given its hours of operation and breadth of service.


Metra, CTA's better run cousin, is a faster option that is comparable in cost, but what it makes up for in speed, it lacks in frequency of runs and the (predictably) linear nature of its lines. Granted, weekend passes are probably the best buy out there ($5 for a free pass on Saturday and Sunday).

These can be shored up by Cabs, but even sharing costs, it's an expensive proposition. While of course there will never be a replacement for a wide variety of transportation options servicing the neighborhood (or for commercial development so more amenities are more available), I must say that the two great options I've found - getting far more appealing as gas prices go up and fewer want to own and operate SUVs - are Car Sharing programs and motorscooters.

My own experience with Zip Car was amazing. Blocking out 1 hour of car time cost a surprisingly small amount and my girlfriend and I were able to pick up a used piece of furniture and drop it off at her place with plenty of time to spare. For those in love with hybrids or luxury cars, one might be in luck and even score a Prius (which I've seen around) or a BMW (which one of my friends was lucky enough to borrow along the east-coast recently). At a relatively great and affordable rate, all you have to do now is find a buyer for that SUV you no longer want or need.

For smaller trips, I've fallen in love with my motorscooter. I'd be the first to admit that I'm verging on a full-blown crush on Europe, but damned if they don't have city living down to an art. You could easily fit 6 motor scooters into a parking space for a single car, gas mileage is amazing (around 90 mpg). For small trips to the grocery store, or picking up a few small things that would fit in seat-storage and a backpack, it is ideal during the 9 months of the year that it is not winter.

At only $2,000 purchase price from Craigslist, I honestly doubt that I could have made a better purchase for city living mobility.

The best part of both is the ever present parking issue. Recently, street cleaning occured on 4 consecutive weekdays (with each sign signaling which streets would be cleaned delightfully put up the day *after* I had already moved the car I was babysitting for a friend while she was out of town). Receiving kindly calls from a neighbor or two telling me I was about to get ticketed, I had to hop in still wearing pajamas and frantically search for a parking space, which during the day...Surprise! There are none.

Mind you, this is the middle of the summer, when all of the privileged young folk with mal-informed notions of car ownership in the city have a vehicle to park. More people carless = More parking for people to come into Hyde Park = Outsiders to catalyze economic development? A distinct possibility (if more pipe-dream than anything).

Granted neither car sharing or motorscooters are an option for actually going into the city to do something, which still leaves us with cabs, Metra and CTA (and the necessity of developing Hyde Park). But for anything else, let it be known that there *are* options, and more and more people are taking them. There are quite a few shared cars on campus and more and more frequently, I see motorscooters taking up their tiny amount of curb space.

[Jason Finke's previous posts on HPP: Where Fun Comes to Die; and Hooked on Hookahs]

Inside the Mind of A Chicago Alderman

posted by chicago pop

Skulls of Notable Aldermen
(Chicago History Museum Collection)

For folks who were wondering what in the world 5th Ward Alderman Leslie Hairston could have been thinking when she decided to remove a heavily used bus stop near the University of Chicago, there was apparently no need for psychoanalysis. It was all about Chicago-style ward politics. You, big University, do things without asking, I take away your bus stop.

So the 171 bus stop at University and 57th is back. And so is the Editor's Blog. And thanks to the Maroon, we have a more nuanced sense of just what this bizarre little episode was all about.

Here at the vast underground complex of caves that is HPP headquarters, the emerging consensus seems to be that 5th Ward Alderman Leslie Hairston, who had initially made the broadly unpopular and sudden decision to remove the stop, with some shifting of rationale along the way, was engaged in a little tit-for-tat with the University for not following due-process in its transportation planning.

When the elephants fight, so the saying goes, the grass gets trampled; the grass in this case came close to being the riders of the 171 route, which might have made a point, but would have been asinine public policy.

Thanks in part to solid Maroon coverage letting us know what was going on, that didn't happen. So perhaps Hairston, as HPP analyst Elizabeth Fama has suggested, was "flexing her muscle," in anticipation of what the U of C's transportation guy Brian Shaw suggests might have been a wake-up call for the University as its South Campus projects come on line adjacent to Woodlawn.

Gunboat diplomacy, neighborhood style. Lessons learned all around, I suppose.

Bus Stop #171 Meeting -- WAS YESTERDAY

posted by Elizabeth Fama

The four parking spaces Ald. Hairston is restoring are neatly pictured at the bottom of this February, 1982 photo of the west side of the Quadrangle Club. (Archival Photofiles [apf2-06083], Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.)

Yesterday, Wednesday April 9th*, Alderman Leslie Hairston held a public meeting to talk about her removal of bus stop #171 from the corner of 57th and University. The meeting will be in Hutch Commons at 6:30 PM (5706 S. University Ave.).

*I'm so sorry I got the day wrong when I posted yesterday. Don't go to Hutch Commons tonight!

Opening Up About 57th Street

posted by Richard Gill

Following are reports of both the Wednesday, March 12 meeting, and the March 5 meeting on the opening up of 57th Street to westbound traffic from Stony Island and points east.

Sigmund Freud Experiences Repression Trying to Drive West on 57th From Stony Island

A second working-group meeting meeting was held at 8AM, March 12, at Ray School, regarding the proposed opening of westbound 57th Street at Stony Island. Compared to the March 5 meeting, this one was civilized. There were no outbursts or insults hurled from the audience and most people there seemed favorably inclined toward the traffic change. With one or two exceptions, the people who behaved badly at the March 5 meeting were not present on March 12.

Irene Sherr moderated the meeting. Also in attendance were Susan Campbell, Duel Richardson, and Brian Shaw (Transportation Coordinator) of the U of C; Sue Purrington, of Alderman Hairston's office: and a Herald reporter. There were 12-to-15 other people there, including representatives of 57th St. businesses Powell's Books, Noodles Etc., and Medici.

The CDOT traffic engineers reiterated their findings that were presented at the March 5 meeting. In particular, they said that, from a traffic and safety standpoint, the proposed change is quite workable, and there is no apparent reason why it could not be done. They also mentioned that the total 24-hour traffic volume on 57th St. - about 4,000 vehicles - is low for a street of that nature; more typical would be about 8,000. Even with the change implemented, neither the total volume, nor the peak-hour volume, would warrant traffic signals; stop signs and a flashing caution light would be sufficient. They said that, behaviorally, motorists tend to associate traffic signals with main (higher speed) roads, and stop signs with local (lower speed) streets.

The analysis took into account the Solstice building and a possible hotel.

The engineers repeated that, on a local street like 57th that has heavy pedestrian traffic and a mix of uses, congestion is actually an enhancer of safety. Traffic moves slower, drivers are more alert, and the street activity slows traffic down - things such as cars parking, delivery trucks stopping. Notably, they said that when traffic calming measures are installed, the intent is to mimic the effects of congestion. They said 57th Street already has some congestion; some additional congestion would make the street more pedestrian-friendly.

Additionally, the engineers said that speeding and accidents involving pedestrians are more prevalent on uncongested streets and one-way streets. Their other remarks included:

- Truck traffic is not an issue, because of the low clearance at the railroad bridge.

- 57th Street is slow and is not a route of choice to/from the Dan Ryan

- With the change, there would be less traffic in front of Bret Harte elementary school, and significantly less traffic there at peak times

- First responders, who need to drive fast, already prefer not to use 57th Street, because of the exiting congestion, and would continue to prefer other routes

- With the change, there would be less traffic queuing on southbound Lake Park at 57th Street.

Someone in the audience mentioned a traffic problem at 57th & Ellis and said opening 57th at Stony would make it worse. The problem with that argument is that anyone having to go that far west at 57th is going to find their way there via 55th or some other street.

Again, there was general agreement that the DO NOT ENTER sign at 57th & Stony is a significant hindrance to community access and navigability.

Parking, of course, was brought up, and, while it's acknowledged as an issue, I think most people agreed it's something to be addressed separately, not as part of this proposal. Irene Sherr mentioned that, during evenings and weekends, when museum visitors might drive westbound into 57th Street, commuters are not using street parking, and U of C parking is open to the public.

The three merchants liked the idea of opening the street, although the person from Noddles did complain about parking.

Speeding and disobedience of stop signs was judged to be a citywide issue, not something particular to Hyde Park, and a subject for enforcement by police.

Finally, there was some discussion about making the change on a trial basis. The engineers said that it would be possible. They would allow two-to-three months to let traffic adjust to the change and then evaluate it.

At that point, someone asked what a measure of "success" might be. My suggestion was that, by definition, the change would provide the benefit of more travel flexibility and options; therefore if no new serious issues developed during the trial period, the change should be judged successful.

The meeting ended around 9:30am. We adjourned to coffee and donut holes that had been brought in.

ADDED BONUS!

Reprise of the previous, March 5 meeting continues below!

posted by Richard Gill

"Why are you really so scared of opening up?"

I was there. The meeting was moderated by the U of C, which officially has no position on the proposed change.

I guess about 25 to 30 people attended. Based on the sign-in sheet, it appeared about 70-75 percent of the people were from an area bounded by 56th, Harper, Kimbark and 58th Street. Most, but not all of these (surprise!) spoke against opening up westbound 57th at Stony Island. Then there were other people (like me) from elsewhere in the neighborhood, some of whom (like me) think it sounds like a good idea.

CDOT had two traffic engineers there, who made a presentation on expected traffic impacts of the change. They said that based on their findings, the change is quite workable. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the weaker speaker of the two did most of the talking and allowed himself to be constantly interrupted by those who had already made up their minds that the proposal is a bad BAD idea.

According to CDOT, the additional westbound traffic on 57th, west of Lake Park, would be 60 to 90 vehicles in the peak hour. Presently, between 135 and 160 vehicles turn right onto westbound 57th from southbound Lake Park at the peak of each rush hour. Total 24-hour traffic on 57th Street, including both directions, would increase about 500 from about 4000 vehicles at present. CDOT says this is right in the normal range for streets like 57th.

The (unsubstantiated) objections were - congestion, parking, safety, pollution, quality of life, etc. Arguments about the need to make Hyde Park more accessible and navigable fell on deaf ears of the "against" people. It became clear that they don't want Hyde Park to be more accessible and navigable. At least they don't want it to be accessible; maybe once you've found your way in, it's OK to be able to find your way around.

The owner of Powell's Books spoke in favor of the change. He thought it would be good for more people (particularly museum visitors) to be able to easily enter the neighborhood and patronize local businesses. Then there arose a criticism from the gallery that this whole thing is only about helping business (BAD). It seems that some residents don't want to see local business improve, if the additional customers come from Council Bluffs, Bolingbrook, or Winnipeg. Maybe they object to me, coming all the way from East Hyde Park.

A few others, myself included, spoke in favor. My points were (1) that the additional cars on 57th would not be a net increase in the neighborhood and that some streets would have reduced traffic; (2) that, as stated by CDOT, traffic in front of Bret Harte School would be reduced; and (3) that connections between campus buses and Metra would be more convenient and safer because buses would be able to pull up to the north curb at the 57th Street station with the bus doors right at the station entrance.

As the meeting ended, some guy more or less commandeered the floor and got away with taking a straw poll, pro and con. Watch next week's Herald to see if they do anything with it.

Yes, as Elizabeth says, come to the March 12 meeting, listen to the presentation (even if you have to listen over the outbursts), and make yourself heard, whatever your opinion is. It is early enough in the process to make a difference. I think a decision has a way to go yet.

Finally, it was asked when and why the barrier at 57th & Stony was installed. Nobody, including CDOT, knew the when, other than it was presumably some time after the Big Bang. The guesses as to why were all over the place.

Is Alderman Hairston A Parking Junkie?

posted by chicago pop

Alderman Hairston Does the NIMBY Hustle
(Illustration by Tom Tian of the Chicago Maroon)

If you read the Maroon or the Editors Blog, this is old news. Thanks to Alec Brandon for tipping us off this past Sunday, and to the Maroon, from which the most very comical illustration by Tom Tian above was taken.

The scoop? Hairston's office wants to, and sounds like it will, remove the northbound 171 bus stop at University and 57th Street, to add room for (free) street parking.

Here's Brandon's take, which is pithy enough to be quoted here:

This is just insane. The utility people get from four parking spots can't outweigh the inconvenience to hundreds of students. I have no idea why Hairston is trying to do this, but it just seems insane.

I agree. It is insane. This is like selling your pancreas for another hit of whatever. It makes absolutely no sense. 550 people use that bus stop every day. You trade that for 4 cars, which could sit there for days. It's a quick fix -- not even a fix, really -- for a much more complicated problem.

Hairston's office is keeping quiet on just what set this decision in motion. So what comes of it? A decision to reroute a bus from a strategic stop at the heart of campus, causing all sorts of complications -- like getting north- and southbound CTA buses to pass each other on Ellis -- in order to add 4 more spots to the curbside inventory.

Four more spots.

Here's what Hairston had to say, quoted from the Maroon:

“As you are well aware, [there is a] lack of parking in Hyde Park and a balance must be kept between bus service and parking for residents,” Hairston said on Friday in an e-mail to Ronald Weslow, a member of the CTA’s traffic and engineering crew.

According to Director of Campus Transportation and Parking Services Brian Shaw, over 550 people use the endangered stop on an average day, making it the second-busiest bus stop on campus.

Note that there are no metered parking spaces there. Nor is this a primarily residential block. Conceivably, I could park my uncle's VW bus there while he spends a week or two in Thailand and no one would notice. If you did the same thing for your uncle, that's 2 spots out of circulation for a few weeks. Perhaps the logic here is that, by adding these 4 new spots on University, it will become easier to park over on Dorchester. Hmm.

Even if these spots turned over much more regularly, adding inventory at the expense of a well-routed and heavily used bus route is just backward.

The northbound 171 makes 2 key stops: the first, right across the corner from the Reynolds Club, at University and 57th; the second, right across from Pierce at University and 55th. I see mobs of students at both stops day and night.

We've heard from a lot of students about how difficult it is to get out of Hyde Park using public transportation; the last thing anyone needs is for it to be more difficult to get around within Hyde Park.

And it doesn't solve the problem! Adding parking is like adding lanes to a freeway -- no sooner do you build them, but they are congested again!

This isn't the first time, apparently, that parking spots for a few vehicles have been given preference over room for public transportation. Hairston has blocked other, proposed bus stops nearby.

[Director of Campus Transportation and Parking Services Brian] Shaw ... has been trying to get a bus stop for the #174 El shuttle between Cottage Grove and Ellis Avenues since the route was introduced a year-and-a-half ago, but the alderman’s concerns about parking halted his efforts.

Here, too, we're talking a handful of spots for a bus stop that could improve mobility for all sorts of people coming and going to the science and hospital complexes.

There's a lot Hairston could be doing to reduce congestion and free up parking in Hyde Park. Like putting meters on the Midway. But that would be a bold initiative, rather than stealing from Peter to pay Paul.