The Ashland BRT and the Performance Culture of Opposition

There is a very defined and well understood culture of opposition. If you look at the recent community presentation for submitting comments to the Ashland BRT, and the stark dis-settlement of the opposition to the BRT by the format of that meeting then you can see what I mean. (See this Chi.StreetsBlog.org article )They came to the meeting prepared to "raise a ruckus." That I can even describe their tactic with that colloquialism illustrates what I mean by culture of opposition. When instead of a traditional town hall format they expected, they were presented with a tables and placards open ended presentation of the plan with presenters ready to answer questions, they were dumb-founded.

Suddenly they were floundering. There was no platform for them to perform upon. There were no microphones attached to a sound amplification system at the ready for their performance. And especially vexing effect of this loss was that even were there television cameras at the ready, their performance depended upon the missing amplified stage.

In ones imagination it is easy to walk through the way they imagined it would play out. They would arrive at the event with at least five or six of them ready to play a set-piece role. When their turn to speak came, with their first speaker, an electric buzz of expectation would grip the room as their forces would draw the focus to the moment with shushes of those around each of the six, with shushed whispers of "listen to this" to those around, and a reverent payment of attention to the first of their speakers.

Their speaker would then begin, and like a preacher in a church would rouse their forces to righteous anger. An anger that would elicit confirming responses from the rest of them. Anger over a list of offensives that would rain on the entire community should the proposed changes come to pass. And when the first speaker was done the other five would await their turn to repeat the same performance over again. Each of them would be competing against the others of their group for the grand prize to be awarded to the winner; the prize of appearing on the evening news.

This is a performance much more difficult for the people supporting the changes to mount. Especially if the supporting side is organized solely by a government entity which by definition is not allowed righteous anger. And without righteous anger media are left bereft of attention grabbing drama for their audiences. Indeed the media are dependent upon the calm rational proponents to provide the unemotional background that will so highlight the righteous anger foregrounded by the opposition.

And you know quite well that the CTA knew very well what it was they were doing when they denied the opposition this opportunity of media attention. That fact, that the CTA knew what it was doing and knew to do it, was what first began to tell me that the fix was in. In this case a good fix of a dense urban environment that needs a denser transit in the form in this case of BRT. But a fix too in the sense that the mayor, not someone I particularly support, was likely going to stand behind this project to the end. A mayor who knows that he runs the aldermanic show and can allow individual alderman their luxury of appearing to be independent of the mayor and oppose the BRT. A mayor who knows that he may very well gain as many CTA rider votes as he loses from Ashland car drivers and business owners. Votes that he can well afford to lose anyway.

Add to that the fact that, as I have only learned in the last few months, that his hand picked head for the CDOT (Chicago Dept. of Trans.), Gabe Klein (recently having moved on) was picked because of his success in setting up bicycle sharing in DC. It begins to suggest that Rahm has bought into the urbanist ideological agenda of mass transit over individual transit in the densest parts of the city.

All this strongly suggests to me that the Ashland BRT is most definitely going to happen.

My Comments to Ashland BRT Environmental Assessments

Heres my comment to the Ashland BRT assessment team. The numbers in parentheses refer to the location on the Appendex G location numbers. Some of it is pure wish list, but what the hey?

Ashland BRT Assessment Team,

Please consider the following comments:

1) The station placement for stations at or near el stops should allow for as direct a connection as possible.

• (911+00 Location number on AppendexG) For example for the Roscoe Street stop should be north of Roscoe. That would save crossing of Roscoe Street for BRT users transferring to the Paulina/Lincoln Brown Line Station. In the future a stop-lighted crosswalk under the el tracks and a direct paved and roofed path to the station could be built with a new set of stairs at the eastern end of the platform installed to further reduce the walking connection to the brown line.
• (765+00) At the Blue Line at Milwaukee-Division a station with direct stairs down to the subway station would be the Gold Standard.
• (697+00)  At the Green/Pink Line connection at Randolf? it would behoove us to have a direct stairway connection from the BRT station directly into the station with no street crossing required.
• (662+00)  At the Blue line Eisenhower place the BRT station on the bridge over the highway with long covered walks to one or both of  the stations in either direction?
• (529+00) At the Orange line you seem to have that one covered.
• (310+00) At the 63rd Green line the BRT aligns exactly with the station. Again direct stairs would be the Gold Standard.
• ·    The experience should be as close to an el to el connection as is possible. But perhaps we are trying to save money in the beginning stages and are saving these kinds of treatments for later. Fine as long as we do not step on ourselves later.

2). To accommodate left turners, should that become absolutely necessary, I would recommend a solution where both left and right turns are done from the same current right turn lane. Lefts allowed only on a left arrow. I realize that it is several compromises of normal practice.

3) I have seen concerns about costs of a “failed” project where we might have to tear out stations. Perhaps prefabricated stations that are built in functional units to be combined in various combinations that are towed to the site for quick installation on simple concrete pads could be considered. Then when the BRT is a great success the pre-fab stations could be replaced with concrete and then towed to the next BRT “trial” at Western Avenue.

4) It would be best if the BRT were to extend to a point where it could connect directly to the north Red Line, either at Howard or Loyola and Devon.

5) For sure the Western BRT should extend to Howard Red line either via Howard or special pavement along the Yellow line.

(EDIT 12/22/2013: And here as an FYI is their reply email (standard, canned, but expected and works for me.)

Thank you for your interest in the Ashland Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project.  November 19, 2013 to December 20, 2013 is the official 30-day comment period to collect formal comments on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project.  This comment period is part of a process established by the federal government.  As such, any comments in your email will become part of the formal record for the EA and the project.

At the end of the comment period, responses to comments will be issued as an appendix to the final EA.  These responses will be available through CTA’s website.  You will receive an email when they are posted, as well as any other email updates that are sent regarding the Ashland BRT project.

Comments will inform the next phase of design.  Comments received before or after the formal comment period will also be taken into account and help inform the next phase of design, but may not be included in the official record for the Environmental Assessment.

Ashland BRT Left Turn Accomodation

Currently there is some controversy about the potential elimination of left turns in the Ashland BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) proposal by the CTA (Chicago Transit Authority.) Let me say at the outset that I support the Ashland BRT no matter the specific design. I would, of course, prefer the design that meets all the current gold standards of BRT design. The primary ones are: 1) an exclusive dedicated bus lane, 2) fare collection before boarding, 3) bus driver control of stop light signals. It is worth getting it right on Ashland as Ashland paves the way for other BRTs such as Western Avenue.

However, I do feel that it is important that as many stake-holders as possible sign on to all critical design elements. Therefore, in order to appease demands of left turner lobby, I would support such outside-the-box approaches as the one I present here:

It is not to scale. Everything is eye-balled. When push comes to shove there may well be some element that simply will not fit.

The out-of-the-box element that makes this design work is the combination of both left and right turns from a single lane (orange in the diagram.)  Left turns would be allowed only during signals. Right turns would be allowed anytime but would be constrained by the presence of left turners. I get that combining the turning lanes into one would be less than ideal. But transit riders have lived with less than ideal design for a long time. My argument is that for 50 years automobiles have been catered and deferred to with street design, even where they don't deserve it in urban settings. I say it is now time to defer to transit needs over car needs in those settings.

The major drawback with this design is that it costs more because two BRT loading stations are required instead of one. That means all feature elements for transit use, fare collection, turnstiles, roofing, signage and the like must be duplicated. However, a major additional feature with this placement of the two stations is that it can be shared by the local bus allowing for easy off / easy on transfers from a local bus to a BRT bus going the same direction.

Since the local bus would pull into the car lane for loading and unloading, the BRT bus could pull ahead. Indeed such a design would make it practical to place the BRT stations at one mile separations as users could easily change buses.

It is my contention that the extra costs of additional stations should come from the streets and highways budgets because cars are the ones benefiting from the ability to turn left. If it were up to me as a very irregular south-of-Irving Ashland driver I'd say can the left turns as I can live without them.

UPDATE 12/16/13: Interestingly the international standard for BRT's have a score that is highest for BRT's that allow no left turns. Another reason to ban them -> http://www.itdp.org/microsites/the-brt-standard-2013/brt-basics/intersection-treatments/

A New Edgewater Library and Parking Lot

How many meetings have you been to in order to have your concerns about the new Edgewater Library heard? None I bet. Do you even care? Do you know that a 98 year old building will be torn down for a parking lot and that the curb will be cut for a driveway across the Broadway sidewalk?

Lets face it most of us rarely use the library. So if the library is taken off line for a year or so we won't really notice nor be inconvenienced. But we actually do care. Water, Police, Fire, Roads, Schools, Parks and then Libraries. It may be at the bottom of many lists of most important government services, but at the same time it represents a very important marker of the quality of our social culture.

It represents something about us and our society, that if lost, would represent a loss of progress, a regression, a reversion backwards towards a darker age. So we really do care.

So the library is important. But how about the building? Again what do we care? We're getting a new building, hoorah! That's great. New is better, right? Yes, often.

But I get it. Few of us really care about the mundane details of library design nor the urban impacts of a new building on our streets and community.

Yet on the other hand there are some who care greatly. Indeed they actually care about every little detail. Sometimes every detail about everything that goes on in their community. You meet them at a party and when you've heard enough you move on. Maybe at the next party you arrange your movements to minimize the length of your conversation with them. Sure you're glad they care, and sure you're especially glad that they seem to have the energy and interest to try to get their opinions heard by the powers that be that actually make all the detail decisions that go into something like a new library.

So how many meetings would a person super interested in every and all community details have attended about the library by now?

None? Really none?

We know our government is not representing us when they can't take the time and effort to listen to us. The problem for our governments is that listening is hard. Or maybe it's hearing that's hard. Whatever. It's like a constant party where there is one person after another waiting to talk to you about their interests.

But then that is their job. They are paid to listen.

So without any formal meetings with the community, ground has already been "broken" with a golden shovel for the new Edgewater Library. The plans are drawn and a 98 year old building is about to be torn down and the curb cut for cars to cross the sidewalk to another parking lot on a stretch of Broadway already loaded with too many parking lots. A stretch of Broadway that is served by a bus line and two el stops within a half mile.

Let me say simply that neither action is good urban design. Let me say simply further that not involving the community in the design process is not good government process. Above is a picture of one more bit of a historic neighborhood never to be recovered. You can't build new hundred year old buildings.

CTA Frequency Map - Wait Time Comparisons

Jarrett Walker has expressed interest in what I am doing. He may want to link to my work. I will need to choose to suggest that he link either at PrairieStateBlue or my little used personal blog Edgewater Observer. If you have thoughts about my choice please comment. Here is my latest work. It is a comparison of different possible wait times. It has a built in legend so it should be self explanatory.

Update 2018/12/17: PrairieStateBlue no longer an active political blog.

Here: Google hosted map:

CTA Frequency Map Version 9 - Ten Minute Service Circles

(Update: Oops. I am supposed to say something like: Images derived from Data Provided by The Chicago Transit Authority.)

Here are some images of version 09. In this version I have overlaid an earlier version where line widths represent the number 0f trips a week, fatter being more trips, with the ten minute or better circles from version 08.

The 79th street bus still shows that it is the major southside east west corridor. To my lay mind it still screams BRT! I'm going to have to take a trip soon and eyeball that street fr0m end to end.

The whole system map is not as large nor clear an image as I'd like. The other images show the northside and the loop area. The loop would take special treatment for a professional version, imho.
Click the images for larger version.

CTA Frequency Map V8

(Update: Oops. I am supposed to say something like: Images derived from Data Provided by The Chicago Transit Authority.)

I'm using this space as a bit of a shared workspace. So forgive the lack of relevance to the normal postings to this blog.

Click to enlarge.

This is a work in porgress. This particular version is more a proof of concept. Here is what Mr. Walker had to say about my previous version:

Jeff. Thanks! I object, though, to using trips/day as a proxy for frequency, because lines with really intense peak service can have lots of trips/day even with little or no all-day service. . If the point of a frequency map is to show people the network they can travel on without waiting long, it needs to be based on actual midday headway. Cheers, Jarrett

So I asked for some help in coming up with "actual midday headway" thusly:

So if I am to do a midday headway map, I suppose counting the number of trips that leave between 11:30am and 12:30pm would not do because they might send out a bunch of drivers at 11:35 all together and then no more until 12:50 when another bunch might be sent out? So is actual midday headway the time between the first trip nearest noon and the one after that? Forgive my ignorance, this is not an area of expertise, but what is a good mechanism for measuring "midday headway?" What would be a good method of calculation?

To which he replied:

Jeff. You're right, it's tricky!

You have to return to the spirit of Frequent service, and the wholereason that we're mapping it. We want people to see where they can travel ALL DAY without waiting very long.

So the real question is: "What is the longest scheduled gap between consecutive buses anytime during the midday?" The point of frequent service is that it's a guarantee, not an average., That means we are mapping the worst case, not the average case.

Jarrett

While working with the previous version I learned that "Shapes" provided by the CTA were not properties of "Routes" but rather "Trips." In producing this map I further came to realize that "frequencies," or goal here, is also not a property of Routes nor Trips, but rather a property of "Stops".

So using the largest table provided by the CTA, the "Stop Times" table of over two milion separate records, I created a new table that not only provided the time of arrival at each stop but also the time of the previous arrival at that stop. I then calculated the greatest time difference between arrivals between seven AM and seven PM for each stop. I then drew a circle for each stop with larger circles meaning more frequency, or less maximum times between stops. The variance in circle sizes above represent a range of maximum scheduled wait time from seven or eight minutes to thirty or more minutes. Remember that's worse case scenario. I used the same color scheme from the previous map, red and orange buses, green for el/subway and blue for express bus service.

There is a ton of possible tweaking. This is a work in progress. Be patient. I'm trying to be frequent in my updates.

Parisifiing Chicago - Peterson Ave. BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)

Chicago has a very good rail rapid transit system. But not great. Great is Paris and London for example. Here's Paris' Metro in black with Chicago's CTA overlaid in red at the same scale. These are all subway and el lines for both cities. Since I am (just) a simple northsider I centered Paris on the north and west sides. Those are the parts of the city I know best (but I am actually familiar with parts of the south side other than Comiskey and Hyde Park.

Paris is pretty compact, at least the central part absent the suburbs, isn't it. It's also very dense population wise. The streets are narrow and the there are rarely front yards and many buildings are 4 to 7 stories high.

The thing is Edgewater has similar density. Yet all we have is a single CTA line. Which is probably about right as practically everywhere in Edgewater is within three quarters of a mile of an el stop. And much if it is within a half mile. Unfortunately there are only two ways to go, north or south. Granted that's two out of three possibilities. But the next connection to any other direction is miles away, to Ravenswood at Belmont and to Skokie at Howard.

There is a serious flaw in both Chicago's future transit planning and indeed the nation's. The flaw is that extensions and new lines are planned into areas that have no rail rapid transit service rather than in the areas that have it. Why is that a flaw? Because the greatest users of transit are those where the transit exists and where the urban densities exist to support rapid transit.

Well, of course, you reply if there is no transit then how can you use it at all? And that's a valid question absent the second caveat of where urban densities exist to support it. And yes there is some validity to build it and they will come, but that does not refute the point that we in Chicago where urban densities are appropriate still need more and better rapid transit.

Let me pose a question to Edgewaterites. Have you ever taken public transit from O'Hare to Edgewater? Wasn't pretty was it? Your choices are to go all the way downtown and then all the way back to Edgewater or transfer to a Lawrence or Foster bus at Jefferson Park and then back again onto the el.

We, and much of the lakefront, need west traveling rapid transit. The operative word here is rapid. Rapid means two things: one, faster than car traffic and two, frequent arrivals.

Car traffic brings up another important issue that Edgewater faces; namely too much car traffic. We live in the middle of a major car traffic flow and bottleneck from/to the north and west and all headed to or from the loop. It used to be loop rush hour determined but during the last twenty years it has been changing into a more equalized flow in each direction. It was so extreme before that lane reversals on Sheridan and Ridge would dedicate three lanes one way and one the other depending on whether the flow was in or out.

One of the major changes by the Aldermen of Edgewater was the elimination of those lane dedications. I wasn't involved in the decision making process but I bet the divisions and arguments for and against were similar to those going on now as concerns the return of non-rush hour parking onto Ridge between Clark and Broadway. Those opposed are concerned that traffic backups within the Edgewater neighborhood will cause sufficient frustration that drivers will begin short cutting through the residential streets. It is not a paranoid fear. It could happen even with the speed humped nature of many of our residential streets.

Actually, a rapid transit line running out Peterson Street west from the Bryn Mawr Redline station would likely soak up enough car traffic to obviate making the bottleneck any worse than it is now and therefore prevent attempts of residential shortcutting. If the line were to connect with the Jefferson Park Tansit Hub it would also create a connection to the Airport from Edgewater and even Evanston. Again the key word is "rapid": rapid in speed and rapid in arrival.

The current fad in urban rapid transit is light rail. Light rail used to be called street cars or trollies. Indeed the street car system of 1947 delivered a similar density that the Paris Metro does today. In the above map for the north half of Chicago, red are streetcar lines while blue are electric trolley buses. The other colors are diesel buses.

Streetcars gave way to buses as car congestion grew to the point that they were no more rapid, and indeed often less rapid than cars. The other issue with light rail and even street cars today is expense. They cost way too much to build, especially for a system that turns out to not be rapid.

There is a way to make streetcars faster and even faster than cars. The major way is dedicated rights of way where cars are not allowed while the minor way is to give them control over stop lights. Usually the right of way is in the center of the street with dedicated "stations" for riders in the middle of the street as well. Think of the Illinois Central line on the south side where it crosses Stony Island. So with widely separated stations and dedicated rights of way and control of stop lights street cars can go faster than cars and thus approach if not actually succeed at becoming rapid.

But here's the thing. If you do those things for buses, then they can become rapid as well. And not only cost less but be more flexible as well. You can have regular bus lines that can serve neighborhoods locally and then run express as they merge into the Bus Rapid Transit right of way.

And that is exactly what I would propose for Peterson Ave. Only I would take it a step farther and have it get onto LSD for express runs downtown. That's what many northwest siders are doing anyway and it is those people we want off of Ridge. Only now not for parking but for dedicated BRT lanes (in the middle not the edges of the street.)

Between Broadway and Sheridan the BRT might have to share the road with cars but that is a short distance and easily managed especially with the buses having control of the stoplights.

Another candidate for a BRT, I would argue, is Western Ave. For a while (maybe still) Western had express buses that only stopped at the major streets. I road one of those once during rush hour and it was pathetic. I rode from about Montrose to the Blue line at Milwaukee and Armitage. I think we may have beaten the local bus but it was just barely. One beauty of a Western BRT is that it can link up so many of the northwest and western el lines. Probably the same could be done with Cicero. I have already sent the Peterson Ave BRT down Cicero to get to the Jefferson Park Transit Hub, might as well go whole hog. And as long as we are going whole hog we throw Irving Park into the mix too. Petty soon we are approaching a rapid transit density comparable to Paris.

Let me end this post by recommending this remarkable blog whose primary focus is Bus Rapid Transit. It's http://www.humantransit.org/ After I was referred to it I found myself reading post after post in a single setting. Needless to say I highly recommend it.

Historic Preservation Battle Now In Progress in Edgewater, Chicago

Historic buildings are the urban equivalent of wilderness. There is only so much and once it's gone it's gone forever.

I have become aware of two recent issues of conflict surrounding Edgewater historic preservation. A minor one on the south-west corner of Broadway and Hollywood and a major fight between the Edgewater Historic Society (EHS) and well what appear to be ideological opponents to preservation. After a meta-discussion I will give my take on these two specific fights.

I'm all for progress. Indeed I call myself a progressive.

Some buildings are ugly and boring. At least that's the subjective judgment of the moment.

And we haven't even gotten to American Hot Button issue of "private property". I do not believe in absolute private property. I believe in limits to private property. Indeed when the U.S. banned the ownership of human beings, we set the most important constitutional limit on private property. Personally I am willing to extend that limit much much further.

I believe in imminent domain. It is the rule of law that mediates disputes between community and individual claim to property. Some people today have extreme ideological beliefs as well as strong emotional attachments to a notions of private property that border on the absolute. My own extreme ideological beliefs and strong emotions tend in the opposite direction. I got over those, however, in my youth. Yes I still believe that Gates and Shell oil claim obscene and improper amounts of "private property", but I doubt that the richest person in Edgewater would raise my ire. And I would not be surprised if there is someone worth hundreds of millions of dollars in Edgewater.

But I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. As the first step in preserving buildings I am willing, with a community vote, to waive either all or any percentage of property taxes for designated buildings.

But would I be willing to donate from my own after-tax personal funds to an entity of community ownership to save such buildings? No. That's what we have governments for. That's why we have courts to decide a reasonable compensation that balances the common good and the individual good. That's why elect representatives and urge them to make the hard decisions that split community sentiment.

Remember there are three sides here: the community who lives here, who loves the historic and diverse nature of Edgewater; the current owner ready to cash out their home or business in a neighborhood where they loved experiencing, day to day, the historic and diverse nature of Edgewater; and the future profiteer (they will make a profit, no?) who will tout the very things that they will be destroying, the historical and diverse nature of Edgewater.

So our job is simple. Support preservation and let our democratic republican councils and courts make the hard decisions of what is fair. That's what you do when both sides have conflicting "rights".

I'm saving for the next post the collected emails on the subject.

Prairie State Blue

We've changed the name of SoapBlox/Chicago. It's now PrairieStateBlue. Still the same great bunch of progressive political activists scattered around Illinois and N. Indiana.

I don't know why you've come here, but for the moment I recommend that you get on over to PrairieStateBlue.

5440 or Fight

I'm sure someone has used the title already, but I haven't seen it yet myself.

That's 5440 Sheridan and it should really be 5440 and fight.

At the moment I would abstain on voting on this. I don't know enough and I support the notion of local say on projects like this. I know we in the northwest quadrant of the ward have suffered votes by folks in the rest of the ward that voted against us when they should have abstained.

So let me point you to this blog where the blogger does a great job telling you who's for it and who's against it, but doesn't quite explain the cons as well as they should, since they appear to be against it.

The blog is Edgewater Chicago Surreal.

Vote YES for B1-2 for Broadway - At least the west side.

Edgewater has a history of making mistakes that end up costing us.

The first was letting Lake Shore Drive end up here and after it ended here not doing everything in our power to see that it got extended past Edgewater.

The next was allowing the insanely high high-rises along the lake, and then when we got them not insisting that each and everyone provide a public beach.

The next were the four-plus ones along the Kenmore-Winthrop corridor.

You get the picture right. So the latest mistake being proposed by some is allowing 6 stories on Broadway's west side.

Enough already. Vote yes in the March 21 primary for the 4 story limit referendum.

I can understand that developers can make more money with denser taller buildings. But what we really need and want is diversity. Edgewater Glen and Lakewood Balmoral neighborhoods are unique urban environments and they need the protections that a 4 story buffer zone would provide.

Consider it Environmental Protection.

See me over at SoapBlox/Chicago

I'll try to be posting Edgewater stuff here. But for the moment my efforts are over at SoapBlox/Chicago.

New vendor for voting technology selected.

See Dan Johnson-Weinberger's DJWInfo here

It's Sequoia. See Here their announcement.

Dan says it's good in that it allows Irish-Style ranked balloting for the top two spots. I see if it does more. Stay tuned

Meta-Blogging

Meta-Blogging is blogging about blogging.

99.99% of bloggers are at the mercy of their host when it comes to the design of their blog. Living in that 0.01% is pacified over at jScoop. He (odds are but one often doesn't know when it comes to blogging. He's mentioned a girfriend [could be a Lesbian, of course] and I've seen references to Paul in some of his coding or somewhere).

Lets start that sentence over. He is literally creating his own blog software. Why, you may ask. Ahah, you have just entered the Meta-blog zone.

My biggest grip about Blogger.com, the host of this blog, is that one cannot comment on comments. Nested commenting. If a commenter makes an outrageous statement and is followed by 5 more commenters who are quite sane, you have to make a reference to that offending comment in your comment. But worse so may everybody else in addition who may want to comment on your comment to the comment.

You get the idea.

There is one more major issue in the blog world. It won't happen here at my blog because nobody cares, but it's trolls. Trolls are commenters who are extremely uncivil. The more popular your blog the more they are attracted. Eventually they can drive away the civil commenters who made your blog popular in the first place.

Scoop the software of the so-popular DailyKos (That's my diary page over there) has resolved both of those issues. Comments can have nested comments and comments can be rated. Good ratings can generate "Trusted User" which further give one the power to tag Trolls. If enough Trusted users tag a troll comment it disappears. Trolls hate it when they can't get the attention they crave.

Could jScoop be in my future. We'll see. There are more Meta-Blog issues that come into play. We'll save that discussion for another installment of Meta-Blogging.

Empty storefronts owned by the CTA

At several CTA stops in the Edgewater Neighborhood we have empty storefronts. Often these storefronts have been empty for years. Recently at a Edgewater Glen Association meeting it was suggested that it is red-tape that is holding up our having a better neighborhood and more income for the CTA.

I have just left a comment on Carole Brown's blog to that effect. Carol Brown is a CTA official who has started here own blog.

Carole Brown's Blog is here.

Anyone care to comment?

Rogers Park Montessori Begins New School Construction

Well, it's real when they move heavy equiptment and start pounding stakes with ribbons on them into the ground. This is real groundbreaking as opposed to the official "Ground Breaking" ceremonies.

Wouldn't it be nice if the RPMSschool website would keep it's community updated with pictures. Even cooler would be if they added the architect's plans. And most cool would be a blog-like comments area. As we say in the blog-world: IMHO.

I was going to upload a picture here but I think I would have to pay Blogger to do that. So here's a link to a picture. The happy woman in the picture is RPMS's senior pre-school teacher with 30+ years.

Picture of Rogers Park Montessori School new site at 1800 W Balmoral

Why is LSD 45mph on the Southside but 40mph on the Northside?

It's just bureaucratic indolence but still. For a number of years now we Northsiders have been putting up with the swing speed limits: 40mph Nov through March; 45 April through October.

Do you remember why? Because the salt would be bad for the new planting in the new spiffy medium. Well, lookie now. The southside LSD has a new spiffy medium, with new spiffy plantings. But did it get the 40mph treatment? Appears not.

We have a legitimate complaint here folks.

Voting Machinery Alert

Deadly Earnst has some new information about new voting machinery in the works for Chicago.

What do we want?

1. Paper trails (duh!)
2. Accuracy
3. Capable of Condorcet compliant Instant Runoff Voting.
4. Open source code owned by the city.

The last will likely be the hardest to get. (BTW what does David Orr have to say about the topic. Anyone, anyone, Ferris?)

Time to extend the Lakefront Bike Path is Now.

Sometimes change comes all at once in a big project. Other times it's small steps. The big project answer to Edgewater's traffic problems is the extension of LakeShore drive north. But there are small step improvements that could be done in the short term at anytime.

I will discuss those traffic solutuions at a later date but for the moment let me say that one of those solutions involves pedestrian underpasses along Sheridan road between Hollywood and Devon. The most natural points for those underpasses are at Berger Park at Granville and Thorndale Beach and Parks at Thorndale.

It's especially a natural now that Thorndale has a park on both sides of Sheridan. Which brings me to my real topic of discussion, bike path extension and not the big project, the in the lake version.

Now while the lake is down and the connection between Thorndale beach and Ardmore beach (sorry, I don't go for naming beaches after people) is wide is the time to move some rocks a build a paved extension of the Bike path to Thorndale.

There's another reason. Remember when they had Sheridan torn up for sewer work. Well they changed Thorndale to be both directions between Broadway and Sheridan and they eliminated parking east of Winthrop. That is now the point where the bike path should be leaving the lake to move to Kenmore and Winthrop, not narrow one way Ardmore.

Add the underpass with room for bikes and viola' we have make a significant, even if not the big project, improvement, for both bikers and pedestrians.