Transit and Visualization

Take a look at this video chronicling a hypothetical traveler's "day out" to the ball park. Only he lives in Chicago, and the game is in Detroit! It certainly messes with the concepts of time, space and travel we have come to accept in this corner of western society.

Visualization tools such as the ones used to produce this video are already having a transformational effect on our lives, by giving us a realistic glimpse of how substantial investments into public infrastructure can positively shape our lives. Even a few years ago the software needed to develop such visualizations was costly and time consuming to learn and operate. Now programs such as Sketchup bring these tools to a much wider pool of users and thus their potential audiences. And they're free!

How has the new batch of visualization tools already affected delivery of significant projects you are involved in or familiar with? Do you see any downside to use or interpretation of these tools? What in your opinion does the future hold for tools that are easier to use and disseminate to stakeholders and the public at large?

Federal Rail Transit Safety Legislation

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood transmitted a formal legislative proposal to Congress on December 7, 2009 to increase safety and security on the nation's public transit systems. The legislation recognizes that, compared to other federal transportation oversight programs (highways, railroads, air), federal regulation of public transit safety is rather ad-hoc.

Currently, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) uses its limited authority in this arena to delegate safety oversight of transit system to individual states, with no uniform safety practices for rail transit systems. In turn, understaffed and underfunded states view the federal safety program as an unfunded mandate. Enforcement is weak at best, and high-risk safety issues may go unidentified and uncorrected.

At this time, there are 27 separate State programs or agencies providing safety regulation for public transit systems (for example, the California Public Utilities Commission) resulting in inefficiency, inconsistent practices and questionable effectiveness. Moreover, increasing transit ridership and utilization, along with reduced local funding and aging infrastructure, present public transportation providers with new and difficult safety challenges that will increase over time.

The legislation would:

1. Require the Secretary of Transportation to establish and enforce minimum Federal safety standards for rail transit systems not regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), with options to establish a safety program for public transportation bus systems.
2. Establish a program whereby a State would be eligible for Federal transit assistance to carry out a Federally-approved public transportation safety program. Apparently this would include entail delegating federal staff (perhaps through FTA) to individual agencies, much like the Project Management Oversight program which oversees transit capital programs supported by federal investment.
3. Ensure "firewalls" are in place between the oversight agency and the transit systems it oversees.

What are your thoughts on this proposed legislation? Will this make a transit agency's safety mandate more or less difficult to support/enforce? What opportunities for increased or redirected investment might this provide, for instance for transit capital spending?

As always, we welcome your thoughts.

2035 Plan Update

Finally, your moderator has updated the CTA 2035 Dream Map. You may notice some of the suggestions posted at the Chicagotransit group are now incorporated, namely:

• Routing of South Chicago LRT through South Works Redevelopment Site.
• Density map is now online via a separate link. It uses 2000 census data. This layer also includes some potential transit-oriented development sites. Be aware that it gets a little busy.
• Central Area detail map is now shown, with some detailed proposals not available on the larger map.

Some other changes:

• Clinton Ave. Subway now extends south, as shown in draft CAAP.
• Straightened out Kimball/Kedzie through the West/SW sides.
• Straightened out the "Pink" line through Pilsen.

Responding to some of the excellent comments on the previous version considered but not addressed:

• Western Ave. subway vs. LRT -- a possibility, but could be done successfully as LRT in my view. The system I had in mind was the Spadina LRT in Toronto (similar roadway width /streetscape). The potential is to upgrade the currently somewhat bland character of Western Ave. With a surface/median-running LRT route, connections with heavy rapid transit could be made underground as is done along Spadina.
• Stony Island for LRT is an interesting possibility. As proposed, transit density on the SE side is pretty high...I can almost see a Stony Island/63rd/MLK spine LRT route, but could the Green Line survive this competition...dream on!
• I didn't tear down the Loop -- don't worry!

As mentioned earlier this proposal is more about increasing and reorienting density than it is about the transit itself. For instance, some nodes now typified by 3- and 4-flats (think Six Corners) would be prime for 6-10 (and more) stories within a block of the station, scaling down to the neighborhood level beyond this. Uses would be more diverse. Aerial photos of Yonge Street in Toronto before and after subway construction are instructive of the types of development patterns that can take hold.

This is decidedly different than the type of pre-war development we had, with density gradients much flatter reflective of the station spacings of 1/4 mile or even less along many elevated lines. The wider spacings proposed give rise to a much "spikier" density gradient. Density effectively drops to zero through creation of post-industrial landscape parks that finger though the neighborhoods.

As to regional/Metra coordination I agree this is an important transportation purpose and one to look at, but admittedly my primary goal is to refocus the city proper and give itself a framework for the massive investment required to transition to a modern, world-class and one-of-a-kind metropolis. Density and linkages are key. I like the fact the CAAP is looking at doing the "little things" that matter, i.e. new pedestrian connections across the river.

Some future projects/embellishments I have in mind:

• A phasing plan (already in the works).
• Rough ridership projections, perhaps using Pushkarev-type modeling based on land use (discredited by many I know).
• Metra/Regional coordination.

As always, your comments are welcomed and appreciated.