Red-Purple Bypass Project

[Busjack]

...

First of all, it would not be economically efficient for the public transport system to be funded by fare collection alone, it would lead to underinvestment and the sacrifice of millions of dollars in benefits to the community. You mention that it is the passengers who benefit financially, but that is just one group; there are some academic studies that indicate that increases in property values are an even bigger generation of value from public transport. Finally, providing efficient public transport that allows poorer people to get around the city to and from jobs at a low cost is a very financially efficient form of welfare.

...

You are just trying to avoid the issues. Belief is not fact.

Public transportation does not add to property values when CTA decides to condemn property in probably the most valuable part of town, and even if they eventually pay full value, there is the present condemnation blight (read above for the definition of that) plus degrading the properties across the street in a manner that is not compensable in eminent domain.

Note that the threatened condemnation is not just for a couple of more properties on Wilton, but most of Clark for 2 blocks further north, and also condemnation threatened for most of Broadway at Argyle and Bryn Mawr.

Your entire argument up to now has been that the value of passenger time is the benefit of this. Now you try to pin on me that I mention passengers' benefit? Should the neighbors pay for the passengers' benefit?

And if anyone believes that the function of public transportation is "an efficient way to provide welfare," there is not any efficient way to provide welfare. I'm sure that those who use CTA as a rolling hotel don't care whether they get through Clark Junction any quicker. The only way to deal with them in an efficient manner is to improve the private business climate so they can get jobs. Maybe transit will help them get to those jobs, but, again, I don't think that the 84 second delay at Clark Jct. is going to make any difference, especially, as Art points out, they still will have to wait 2 minutes for the meet at Belmont.

And if you think the feds should pay for this, what are you going to do about the Democratic congressmen in gerrymandered districts--especially Jan Schakowsky and Mike Quigley, who represent districts through which the Red Line runs, and have done absolutely nothing to secure that funding?

The rabbi in my neighborhood believed in stuff too, but somehow he wasn't able to write himself into the Book of Life at age 59, so your belief system doesn't impress me, either.

[Busjack]

The problem is that the feds have had to raise the debt ceiling twice within the past year to avoid "defaulting" on the national deficit which keeps going up and up and away. How do you trust a government to fund a system when it can't fund itself? I won't go into an economic dissertation but don't be surprised when the feds go bellyup.

Then the feds have this goofy thing they do in requiring the money it gives out to be spent in a certain amount of time. So most recipients know that if they don't spend, they may not receive anymore and that which they've been given will be taken away. Thus it is smarter to spend foolishly than not to spend at all. For example, there is grant money for BRT. Though it would be smarter (and more cost effective) to just reinstate the eliminated X routes, the money Chicago is getting for BRT has to be spent on BRT (foolishly).

On point one, the Federal Reserve can print money, but the current Congress doesn't want to run up the debt, so the effect is the same.

On the second point, I pointed out that the feds didn't fund a BRT, they funded consultants to study a BRT. Again, while Emanuel might think that suddenly Chicago is going to get a $4 billion earmark for every project they think the Core Capacity proposal might cover, the money to build the BRT has not been appropriated, and given how it was exposed that CTA was going to submit a fraudulent environmental impact statement, probably won't be.

But you are correct that the way things are done now is not efficient, and people like tuna or no better than those on the "optional improvements" thread, except most on that thread admit that theirs are imaginary, while tuna seems to believe in the dogma of inefficiency.

[Busjack]

On the "efficient welfare" point, it appears that Hilkevitch has statistics showing that Blago's transit welfare schemes were not so efficient.

[tuna]

You are just trying to avoid the issues. Belief is not fact.

Public transportation does not add to property values when CTA decides to condemn property in probably the most valuable part of town, and even if they eventually pay full value, there is the present condemnation blight (read above for the definition of that) plus degrading the properties across the street in a manner that is not compensable in eminent domain.

The idea, as supported by the body of peer-reviewed academic studies, is that both residential and commercial real estate values are positively impacted by nearby access to public transport. It's obvious- people value living close to better public transport, in general. You might be willing to pay an extra $100 or $200 per month in rent if it meant that you could have no car vs having a car, or have 1 car vs having 2 cars, or if the cost of commuting to work by car that could be avoided includes $200+/month in parking alone (such as in the Chicago Loop).

I'm not going to argue with you on this point its as useless as arguing with climate change deniers if you are going to oppose the scientific consensus. Sure 16 buildings would be razed and a small area around there might be negatively impacted (its a very high-value and resilient area, I doubt they will have trouble finding developers to make good use of the leftover land), but the land near every brown, red, and purple line station will increase because all those stations will now have more trains and faster travel times, and hopefully it will increase even more in the future as subsequent improvements are able the leverage of the removal of the bottleneck where brown crosses red and purple.

http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/uploads/nm/impacts_of_rail_transif_on_property_values.pdf

http://publictransport.about.com/od/Transit_Projects/a/Rail-Transit-And-Property-Values.htm

http://www.uctc.net/papers/769.pdf

Your entire argument up to now has been that the value of passenger time is the benefit of this. Now you try to pin on me that I mention passengers' benefit? Should the neighbors pay for the passengers' benefit?

Technically, yes, I do believe that people who live near public transport should pay for the benefit. Although it is not the passenger's benefit I believe that they should be paying for, but their own benefit in terms of the value that public transport brings to the property that they own. Economists have done many studies about how public transport systems can pay for capital projects by using "value capture taxes" or "land value taxes" in the areas around the new infrastructure where property values and rents will be significantly heightened by the installation of public transport. Hong Kong has used this technique extensively and their public transport is privately owned and highly profitable.

It is a matter of fact that public transport systems increase nearby property values. Landlords are able to charge higher rents in apartments near L stops and people pay more for houses near L stops.

And if anyone believes that the function of public transportation is "an efficient way to provide welfare," there is not any efficient way to provide welfare. I'm sure that those who use CTA as a rolling hotel don't care whether they get through Clark Junction any quicker. The only way to deal with them in an efficient manner is to improve the private business climate so they can get jobs. Maybe transit will help them get to those jobs, but, again, I don't think that the 84 second delay at Clark Jct. is going to make any difference, especially, as Art points out, they still will have to wait 2 minutes for the meet at Belmont.

This is an example of you just being silly. Unless you believe that we should just let everyone starve and not have any welfare at all, then you would realize that the question is "what are the most efficient ways of providing welfare", not a question of setting some arbitrary number where welfare is efficient. Economists believe that public transport systems can be an efficient way of providing welfare because it empowers people to find and keep jobs that may be a significant distance away from their house. They can live in the community of their choice which may have low rents and social services and supports that they can take advantage of while having an affordable and reliable way of getting to work.

And if you think the feds should pay for this, what are you going to do about the Democratic congressmen in gerrymandered districts--especially Jan Schakowsky and Mike Quigley, who represent districts through which the Red Line runs, and have done absolutely nothing to secure that funding?

Yeah they blow. The amount of bacon they bring back to their constituents should be a primary factor in evaluating politicians and in that regard, Illinois' collective class of politicians has failed miserably.

The rabbi in my neighborhood believed in stuff too, but somehow he wasn't able to write himself into the Book of Life at age 59, so your belief system doesn't impress me, either.

Hey if you have some religious hangups don't pin that on me.

[Busjack]

Essentially, though, tuna, all of your esoterica is irrelevant to this topic, which is the BROWN LINE FLYOVER.

This community has access to a brand new station at Belmont. It is not transit deprived.

This project has nothing to do with improving property values on Wilton Ave. or Clark St.

Finally, it has nothing to do with transit welfare. Now, doing away with transit cards that could be given out by social services agencies hurt transit as welfare, but this is not relevant to this topic.

Relevant to this topic is the incrumbent Congresspeople from these districts, but I don't see you doing anything to unseat them and replace them with people who can bring home the bacon.

The cost of the 84 second or 5 minute delay was relevant to this topic. But unless you can advance the topic with something relevant to it, I'm through with you.

[tuna]

I already showed that even if the average rider only saves 30 seconds each way (a conservative estimate), and even if the average rider's time is only worth $20/hr (again a conservative estimate), and even if ridership doesn't increase even as the north and northwest sides continue to grow (overall population trends for the city include depopulation on the west and south sides that at-times outweigh the growth in the north), and even assuming the projected $320M construction cost which I am sure would be less in countries with better institutions for building public infrastructure like the european and asian countries, and even if you count as zero the value of this flyover project towards future improvements to the north side brown line (even though it is an undeniable prerequisite to any attempts at making significant improvements to north side L service) and even if you only count as value the amount of time that commuters save when I have also demonstrated that property value increases account for as much or more value, that the project still pays for itself in time saved.

Then it was you that brought up funding issues, arbitrarily decreeing that it was either this project or the ravenswood project that should get funding and that the ravenswood project was the more worthwhile.

[Busjack]

... the project still pays for itself in time saved.

Then if it pays for itself in time saved, the only way it pays for itself is if the passengers pay for it. Yet you ignore this point completely although I clearly made it; Instead you are o.k.with the adjoining property owners and the taxpayers paying for it. This can't even be financed as a TIF, since it does not enhance the value of adjoining property.

For instance, the Tollway pays for itself only to the extent drivers are willing to have their I-Pass scanned or throw coins into the basket, because it may be faster than driving on Mannheim Road. Apparently, the Ill. 53 extension can't pay for itself in this manner, and hasn't been built.

...

Then it was you that brought up funding issues, arbitrarily decreeing that it was either this project or the ravenswood project that should get funding and that the ravenswood project was the more worthwhile.

When did I every say anything like that? Link to the exact place. The only reference I made to the Brown Line (Ravenswood) Expansion project was that someone paid a half billion for half assed and defective work.

Maybe you are confused with the Englewood project, which art brought up, and I mentioned only in the context that priorities must be made on a regional planning basis. However, if that's what you meant, you don't know the fundamental law of economics that there are limited resources.

[brownliner]

 

Then if it pays for itself in time saved, the only way it pays for itself is if the passengers pay for it.

It's a government project. Spending money that increases the value of the economy more than the expenditure is generally considered a good return on the money.

Americans have this belief that mass transit should be paid for directly by the users, but tolerate (and generally pretend they don't exist) massive government subsidies of every other form of transportation. If it were a road project with the same numbers, there'd be less grumbling about it.

[Busjack]

It's a government project. Spending money that increases the value of the economy more than the expenditure is generally considered a good return on the money.

Americans have this belief that mass transit should be paid for directly by the users, but tolerate (and generally pretend they don't exist) massive government subsidies of every other form of transportation. If it were a road project with the same numbers, there'd be less grumbling about it.

• That was only in response to tuna saying that this project "pays for itself." In fact it does no such thing. Even if one assumes some sort of societal benefit, that seems outweighed by the high cost and damage to the neighborhood.* In any event, tuna never provided numbers showing that the benefit of spending $320 million plus the depreciation of property values here was a wise priority, considering that transit is reportedly $20 billion short of being in good repair, and that includes Metra.**
• Drivers pay gas tax, license plate stickers, and the like, and while not sufficient, transit riders pay nothing or a minuscule amount for transit capital. And if you really believe that highway construction doesn't cause this kind of controversy, how do you explain the lack of a Crosstown Expressway, or the current debate over the Illinois 53 tollway extension and Illiana Tollway?

______________

* Other than keeping consultants on the payroll, there seems to be a point to the federal requirement of Alternatives Analyses, including a no build option, at least when it gets down to whether the feds will actually fund something.

**I don't have much use for Streetsblog, but this article seems to summarize the problem.

[strictures]

I noticed today that 3330-32 Clark has been torn down.

Does anyone know if the CTA bought it?

Or do we have some property owner that plans to put up a new building & then try to get even more from the eminent domain purchase?

[joechicago]

I noticed today that 3330-32 Clark has been torn down.

Does anyone know if the CTA bought it?

Or do we have some property owner that plans to put up a new building & then try to get even more from the eminent domain purchase?

Didn't that burn down months ago?

[Busjack]

Didn't that burn down months ago?

Yes, that address is in the Tribune article. That was the building immediately north of the Ravenswood structure.

[Guest ctafan630]

Didn't that burn down months ago?

That burned down in October of last year.

[BusHunter]

Wow did you see these new videos CTA put out for the bypass. It's like TS2050!! Now they have rendered videos. How did they do that, it looks so good. To me it sells the project and probably will help it get federal money. How can you say no to this? I'm trying to figure out why they still have a wb brown line track, when they have the super elevated passover track? I forgot also that they intend to redo the Red line structure all the way almost to Addison. It looks good but there's going to be alot of demolition. I'm still trying to figure out this relocated building that I've heard about twice in 3 days. well here is the videos

 

 

OK, now Briman when you get done with your train simulator project, hopefully it will look this good. (no pressure)

[strictures]

Wow did you see these new videos CTA put out for the bypass. It's like TS2050!! Now they have rendered videos. How did they do that, it looks so good. To me it sells the project and probably will help it get federal money. How can you say no to this? I'm trying to figure out why they still have a wb brown line track, when they have the super elevated passover track? I forgot also that they intend to redo the Red line structure all the way almost to Addison. It looks good but there's going to be alot of demolition. I'm still trying to figure out this relocated building that I've heard about twice in 3 days. well here is the videos

 

 

OK, now Briman when you get done with your train simulator project, hopefully it will look this good. (no pressure)

​  The proposed relocated building is the Vautravers Building, which for some bizarre reason, a few people consider to be historic.

I call it an obstacle to be demolished.

[Juniorz]

Wow did you see these new videos CTA put out for the bypass. It's like TS2050!! Now they have rendered videos. How did they do that, it looks so good. To me it sells the project and probably will help it get federal money. How can you say no to this? I'm trying to figure out why they still have a wb brown line track, when they have the super elevated passover track? I forgot also that they intend to redo the Red line structure all the way almost to Addison. It looks good but there's going to be alot of demolition. I'm still trying to figure out this relocated building that I've heard about twice in 3 days. well here is the videos

 

 

OK, now Briman when you get done with your train simulator project, hopefully it will look this good. (no pressure)

​I agree, whoever opposed this project, the agency will sell you a new flyover in June with a visual that will make you wish that flyover was there yesterday

[briman94]

Wow did you see these new videos CTA put out for the bypass. It's like TS2050!! Now they have rendered videos. How did they do that, it looks so good. To me it sells the project and probably will help it get federal money. How can you say no to this? I'm trying to figure out why they still have a wb brown line track, when they have the super elevated passover track? I forgot also that they intend to redo the Red line structure all the way almost to Addison. It looks good but there's going to be alot of demolition. I'm still trying to figure out this relocated building that I've heard about twice in 3 days. well here is the videos

 

 

OK, now Briman when you get done with your train simulator project, hopefully it will look this good. (no pressure)

​I can't make any promises, but I'll give it all I've got! Also, 5070 on the brown line? 5000s-on-brown-line confirmed? 

[Busjack]

I'm not repeating the inserts, but anyway:

• I'm sure the engineers have adequate CAD CAM programs.
• Maybe more surprising than the 5000 (which I don't think implies anything, sort of like the 4400s in the Loyola station platform renderings) is that these renderings don't show the sound absorption tube in the original ones.
• I agree with BusHunter that I don't see the point of an apparent Y junction when the flyover joins the current Brown Line.

[ArcherRider]

My opinion after seeing the video I could say no to build  this new flyover at the cost of $570 millions but  I will still support it 100%.

Edited May 21, 2015 by ArcherRider

[BusHunter]

Maybe CTA went into an overkill scenario, because this project has opposition, but wouldn't this be so cool if they could do a rendered video of Wilson or the Bryn Mawr segment? These videos are like a time machine. Even an Addison Blue line video which I'm curious how it will look (probably like the Ryan stations only Blue) would be helpful.

This is really going to make the Red line look modern, just look at all that new structure. But man are they going to have problems constructing it. What are they going to have 3 track or 2 track at clark junction? If it's not in the way I would leave the wb brown line 1900 era track as a possible turnback track, but maybe it would make more sense to construct the bypass, get those wb brown lines out of the way and then rebuild the junction. In fact maybe the plan is to vacate track 4, move over the purple line to track 3 and reconstruct track 4 and work there way west. I could see that working.

As far as the Vautravers building what is that a historic landmark? I can't help but think they are going to have to move that with wheels under the building after they raise it. Add a couple more million to the price tag.

BTW, I like the Novas on Clark.

Edited May 21, 2015 by BusHunter

[Busjack]

...

This is really going to make the Red line look modern, just look at all that new structure. But man are they going to have problems constructing it. What are they going to have 3 track or 2 track at clark junction? If it's not in the way I would leave the wb brown line 1900 era track as a possible turnback track, but maybe it would make more sense to construct the bypass, get those wb brown lines out of the way and then rebuild the junction. In fact maybe the plan is to vacate track 4, move over the purple line to track 3 and reconstruct track 4 and work there way west. I could see that working.

As far as the Vautravers building what is that a historic landmark? I can't help but think they are going to have to move that with wheels under the building after they raise it. Add a couple more million to the price tag.

....

​I looked at the video again, deleted my last comment and add this.

I think the 3 track to which you are referring is that while the train is on the flyover, it looks like there are still two tracks on the curve running under it (at about 1:24).  Maybe it doesn't pay to yank out the current Brown Line northbound track, but then it still appears that that unnecessarily complicates Clark Jct.

I'm not familiar with the Vautravers building, but web pictures just indicate that it is a creepy looking but otherwise conventional apartment building in that area.

[jtrosario]

Maybe CTA went into an overkill scenario, because this project has opposition, but wouldn't this be so cool if they could do a rendered video of Wilson or the Bryn Mawr segment? These videos are like a time machine. Even an Addison Blue line video which I'm curious how it will look (probably like the Ryan stations only Blue) would be helpful.

This is really going to make the Red line look modern, just look at all that new structure. But man are they going to have problems constructing it. What are they going to have 3 track or 2 track at clark junction? If it's not in the way I would leave the wb brown line 1900 era track as a possible turnback track, but maybe it would make more sense to construct the bypass, get those wb brown lines out of the way and then rebuild the junction. In fact maybe the plan is to vacate track 4, move over the purple line to track 3 and reconstruct track 4 and work there way west. I could see that working.

As far as the Vautravers building what is that a historic landmark? I can't help but think they are going to have to move that with wheels under the building after they raise it. Add a couple more million to the price tag.

BTW, I like the Novas on Clark.

You're right, it's going to be difficult constructing this project. Here's a related quote from the Red-Purple Bypass project summary at:

http://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/rpmproject/5-20-15_CTA_RPB_Project_Summary_WEB_PAGES.pdf

​• Temporary service disruptions to the Red, Purple and Brown lines would be scheduled to occur during weekends and off-peak periods when possible to limit impacts on passengers.

• Bus bridges (shuttles) would be used for Brown Line riders between Belmont and Southport stations during a limited number of weekends while the new bypass is tied into the Brown Line tracks. A Red Line bus bridge between Belmont and Addison stations would be used during a limited number of weekends while tying in tracks or installing special trackwork.

[Busjack]

You're right, it's going to be difficult constructing this project. Here's a related quote from the Red-Purple Bypass project summary at:

http://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/rpmproject/5-20-15_CTA_RPB_Project_Summary_WEB_PAGES.pdf

​• Temporary service disruptions to the Red, Purple and Brown lines would be scheduled to occur during weekends and off-peak periods when possible to limit impacts on passengers.

• Bus bridges (shuttles) would be used for Brown Line riders between Belmont and Southport stations during a limited number of weekends while the new bypass is tied into the Brown Line tracks. A Red Line bus bridge between Belmont and Addison stations would be used during a limited number of weekends while tying in tracks or installing special trackwork.

​Unless something else is contemplated, the Purple Line doesn't run during the hours of "temporary service disruptions." The concern I had noted elsewhere is that, starting with the 3 track around Wilson, for which CTA just couldn't install a switch to get the Purple Line back on the outer track south of Montrose, there would be track disruptions for the Lawrence-Ardmore project and now this project (not to mention if they rebuild between Ardmore and Rogers). Maybe the Purple Line gets back to running express about 2025.

[sw4400]

I don't see a purpose for the Brown Line Flyover(or Ravenswood Rollercoaster, if you will).... I don't know who decided "Hey!!! Let's have the Brown Line go over the Red and Purple Lines so they don't have to wait thirty agonizing seconds for the "Kimball" bound train to leave the North Side Main Line. I could see if trains got held up over ten minutes, fine.... but thirty seconds is nothing.

 

How about doing something around Merchandise Mart if a Bridge Lift holds up service for ten or more minutes? That might make more sense than this. Maybe a mini one stop Subway where the Brown Line trains go underground on another set of tracks past Chicago and between the now defunct station areas that were at Grand and Kinzie, the trains can be switched to a portal below and go below the Chicago River to pick up passengers at the Merchandise Mart. Maybe to make the work and money worthwhile, have one or two out of every few trains go under the river and drop off/pick up passengers. I don't know how the CTA will specially mark the trains on the tracker.... maybe Loop(via Subway)?

But it would make more sense to me to spend $570 million to prevent stoppage of service for 10+ minutes here than thirty seconds of waiting at the Clark St. Jct.

[BusHunter]

​Unless something else is contemplated, the Purple Line doesn't run during the hours of "temporary service disruptions." The concern I had noted elsewhere is that, starting with the 3 track around Wilson, for which CTA just couldn't install a switch to get the Purple Line back on the outer track south of Montrose, there would be track disruptions for the Lawrence-Ardmore project and now this project (not to mention if they rebuild between Ardmore and Rogers). Maybe the Purple Line gets back to running express about 2025.

​Probably not even then as they have to work on the north end of the N-S main. Probably 2030.

@JTRosario: The one thing that's missing in those documents is a junction configuration. I'd be very interested to see the proposed track layout up to Clark Jun. They are still going to have to lay crossovers and if they make tracks 3 and 4 straight tracks through the junction in order to use the wb brown line track they would have to access it through a crossover crossing 3 to 4 tracks like what they do at Howard. So maybe it would be a mini Clark Jun. only serving tracks 1 and 2.

It seems sort of weird, they have the new structure at Addison and after this project they will have 150 feet of Iron "L" structure and go back to concrete. Really they should just do the 150 feet and it would be concrete through Addison. Probably the whole structure up to Howard will be this way eventually, but they are going to really have a headache at Sheridan.