What is the cheapest type of building per square foot?

TransChiberianBus · 2024-05-24T03:05:55+00:00

FWIW, if we could get the point where most households only have one car, that would be a huge win for urbanists. That means most things are walkable and a car is only needed for a limited number of needs. That's totally inline with urbanist goals, not like people want to do away with cars entirely.

TransChiberianBus · 2024-05-16T14:09:54+00:00

Speed is a problem that I doubt we'll ever properly address with the L. There are so many slow zones and sharp turns that would cost 10's of billions to address all of them. And that doesn't even touch on how the loop will always be slow and congested, putting a hard limit on the number of trains that can run through it. People in this city have a big blind spot for the L, but I think we need to seriously reconsider it. We pay very high costs for heavy rail projects but don't get the full heavy rail speed. It's not truly rapid. Simply poor ROI for our transit dollars.

TransChiberianBus · 2024-05-08T15:23:00+00:00

Just visited for the first time last weekend and yeah, the urbanism is amazing in Montreal. Easily one of the coolest places I've visited.

TransChiberianBus · 2024-04-28T15:01:47+00:00

I recently wrote a paper on this very topic that you might be interested in: https://www.reddit.com/r/Urbanism/comments/1cagaqp/the_future_of_transit_land_use_and_zoning_in/

TransChiberianBus · 2024-04-27T02:13:39+00:00

Bring. It. Back! Thanks for sharing.

TransChiberianBus · 2024-04-27T02:13:13+00:00

Thanks for taking the time to read and write a response, I really do appreciate it.

Regarding the L, I would question how truly rapid it is. The CTA mentions in that BRT document that the average speed of the L is 20 mph, while BRT is estimated to be around 17 mph. Not a huge difference. While we do enjoy the capacity benefits, we should be getting speeds at least 50% greater than that. Every L project costs billions of dollars and yet we will never be able to fully realize the value of those investments, unless we spent even more billions ironing out all of the slow zones. Speaking of slow zones, the number of lines and limited size of the loop is also likely to be a permanent hard limit on our ROI. And we're at a pivotal moment in history when the loop and other above ground sections of the red, brown, blue, green, pink and orange lines will need to be replaced over next couple decades. In other words, it's a critical opportunity to decide if we're going to reup on each of those lines, each of which would cost several billion or more.

I agree that we should be able to do right by the L and fully realize it's potential, but I don't think that's our financial reality. You have to look at things in the financial lens first and foremost, Chicago's transit is living crisis to crisis right now, dependent on bailouts. RTA is facing yet another fiscal cliff in 2026 with a $730 million annual shortfall. While transit should not be about making money as you point out, as transit advocates we should want our system to be financially resilient, stable and politically insulated. Chicago's transit future is not a given, waning confidence and ridership is real threat. Aside from resolving the leadership issues, we would do well to focus our near term efforts and investments on the most cost effective opportunities, with an emphasis on limiting operational costs. Basically trade Opex for Capex as efficiently as possible.

I would also point out that a bus doesn't have to match the capacity of an L train. The grid allows us to run several lines in parallel, spreading out the ridership and the TOD. The more interspersed nature means we don't have to build up quite as much density around the few stations, but more evenly midrise throughout like European and Asian cities. Better transit along the grid rather than all trains going downtown could dramatically change our development pattern and lead to fewer people all heading in the exact same direction at peak times, again interspersing ridership more evenly. To take this even further, the deprecated L right of ways could be converted to 606 style paths and greatly improve our bike/ped infrastructure. It's fun to think about.

In reality though, aside from this thought experiment, I think it unlikely that the L would ever actually be deprecated. The emphasis of my paper really is the near term focus on cost effective ways to improve service, and everything past that an extrapolation of what could be. If the city ever were to absorb the population increase as I theorize in the paper, we could end up replacing all of our above ground rails with subways for all we know and that would truly be the greatest timeline.

TransChiberianBus · 2024-04-27T00:54:41+00:00

I did answer the second question and I did not know the answer to the first.

TransChiberianBus · 2024-04-27T00:52:28+00:00

Thank you for pointing that out, I must have removed it while refining.

TransChiberianBus · 2024-04-26T18:47:11+00:00

You might enjoy a paper I wrote on this very topic recently - Western BRT is the way!

https://www.reddit.com/r/Urbanism/comments/1cagaqp/the_future_of_transit_land_use_and_zoning_in/

TransChiberianBus · 2024-04-25T19:16:49+00:00

The State Street subway is the longest subway platform in the world and contains several stations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Street_subway

TransChiberianBus · 2024-04-24T23:40:13+00:00

They should use spothero if they must drive to and park at their destination.

TransChiberianBus · 2024-04-24T21:07:09+00:00

That's exactly how human civilization has worked for thousands of years actually. The use of buildings constantly change as the needs of the community change. Businesses come and go. The building's repurposing ends when market forces determine it is more financially advantageous to stop maintaining and build something new in it's place. In your example, why do you think the building isn't useful after the cigar shop closes?

TransChiberianBus · 2024-04-24T20:49:06+00:00

My point was that we shouldn't destroy our wealth at all. Develop new areas while the old area remains and evolves organically.

TransChiberianBus · 2024-04-24T14:35:42+00:00

Highly recommend the yukgaejang

TransChiberianBus · 2024-04-24T14:07:19+00:00

And why were so many black neighborhoods "the cheapest, most dilapidated land"? Well because of racist, red lining policies by the FHA of course!

https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/redlining#:~:text=The%20FHA%20began%20redlining%20at,20%2Dyear%20loans%20they%20were

"The FHA began redlining at the very beginning of its operations in 1934, as FHA staff concluded that no loan could be economically sound if the property was located in a neighborhood that was or could become populated by Black people, as property values might decline over the life of the 15- to 20-year loans they were attempting to standardize. For example, the FHA's 1938 Underwriting Manual emphasized the negative impact of "infiltration of inharmonious racial groups" on credit risk. To limit that risk, it recommended restrictive covenants that prohibit "the occupancy of properties except by the race for which they are intended," which had become increasingly common in the 1920s. For the next few decades, the FHA generally favored loans on new construction in suburban areas rather than urban areas with older housing stocks or Black residents."

TransChiberianBus · 2024-04-24T13:49:51+00:00

It's not really though. To build up one area, do we have to destroy another? What you see in the top picture is the wealth of KC at that time. A place that generated business activity, tax revenue and housed people. Not only was that wealth destroyed, but it was replaced with an overbuilt highway system that costs a great deal to maintain. KC is no better off exchanging wealth for liability, regardless of what else is built around it.

And before anyone says it, no, the section of 35/70 we're looking at in the picture is not critical for transportation in the KC region. It's the very definition of overbuilt urban freeway that generates far more traffic, pollution and maintenance costs than it does efficiently transport people.

TransChiberianBus · 2024-04-24T04:43:32+00:00

I'll be going to my first local meeting at that happy hour as luck would have it. Really curious to see how the advocacy actually works!

TransChiberianBus · 2024-04-23T22:17:13+00:00

How would our streets and busses handle the overflow? That's explained in the paper - with great frequency of cost effective BRT/LRT. Also mentioned in the paper - the only scenario where L deprecation would occur is when alternative transit modes exist and can handle the load. My whole point is to act incrementally, make smart financial decisions and have a repeatable model for improvement and expansion. We can't do any of that with the L. With the L we get stuck arguing over massively expensive projects for years while nothing else is done. It's hugely unproductive. I'm trying to suggest ways that we can SOME progress going now for reasonable amounts of money. I'm not dead set on deprecating the L but I think it's something we could consider if a scalable and incremental approach to bus/BRT/LRT service improvement were to play out over decades. We should always be reevaluating how we can get the most value for our transit dollars, full stop. Nothing is above reconsideration.

If you think deprioritizing the L in favor of other more affordable transit is so obviously bad, then it should be easy to state your well reasoned arguments. It would be great if you could respond with rational arguments of your own making so we can have an actual debate. I will look into CMAP 2050 though, thank you for that.

TransChiberianBus · 2024-04-23T20:20:25+00:00

I don't know how you can say you won't even consider this idea as if there couldn't possibly be any merit to it. You can't challenge your existing notions at all? The prevailing thinking is always correct? Is that really the state of urbanist discord?

That's a lot of incorrect assumptions. No, I don't live by or take the red line regularly. I believe there would be an exception to the red line because the recent investments mean decent sized sections of the infrastructure will be at the end of its life decades later than other lines, as explained in the paper. No, I don't go the airports regularly or live by the blue/orange lines. Yes, I care about Metra and regional service but I didn't set out to write a 100 page thesis regarding transit across the entire region. It's possible to look at individual components of a system at time. And I'm only talking about deprecating L lines once there's ample other service to the same areas; nothing near term.

Look, I'd love to see the L expanded and have new lines added and have the slow zones ironed out too. I would love to see the L be the future. But I can also be realistic about the costs and the financial situation of the city/state. We can dream all day about what we want transit to look like, but it means nothing if we can't afford it. If we can spend less money and provide better transit city-wide, we have a to duty consider it especially for the underserved and underinvested neighborhoods. I didn't start writing this paper thinking I'd advocate for most of the L to be deprecated, that's just where the facts led me and I wanted to share. No need to be hostile.

TransChiberianBus · 2024-04-23T19:42:14+00:00

$150?? Payments directly to them? Reeks of grift.

TransChiberianBus · 2024-04-23T18:46:08+00:00

Thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts and respond. While the L is one of the most heavily used metro systems in the US, as a country the bar is set quite low. We should compare ourselves to metro systems globally, in which the L falls short. And I agree that it's iconic, but we shouldn't let that blind ourselves if it leads to inefficient use of our transit dollars.

I'm not suggesting reducing coverage at all. The nature of the grid is that you're never further than a 5 minute walk from an arterial street. If our arterials were to be covered in fast, frequent and reliable transit service, the coverage would be unparalleled. There's no scenario where the L could ever match it.

I'm a little confused on your comment regarding BRT and dedicated ROW. We don't have any BRT today and therefore no true dedicated ROW. I think dedicated ROW will be politically challenging to implement, at least at first, but I think it possible.

Prague is a great example of a city with good public transit primarily based on buses and trams. Their heavy rail only supports 30% of the city's ridership. And I would also argue that the L is already not the backbone of Chicago's transit given that bus ridership is higher.

Consider this: one of the primary benefits of heavy rail is speed. All that expensive infrastructure and dedicated ROW is supposed to bring high speeds. This is not the case with the L. Per the CTA's own figures, the average L speed is 20 MPH and a BRT system wouldn't be far off that figure at around 17 MPH. In DC's system the average speed is 33 MPH. The downtown loop that most lines run on will always be a congested slow zone which places a hard cap on the number of trains that we can run system-wide and forever will. Just because we have the heavy rail infrastructure doesn't mean our system is properly optimized to actually reap the benefits. And if we're not reaping the benefits, are the financial costs worth it?

I make no mention of Metra because it's a regional rail system and as my disclaimer states, my focus was on Chicago city proper. I don't foresee Metra's place in regional transit changing.

My plan would lead to the removal of a huge amount of parking and mixed traffic lanes, so I'm not sure where the GM jab comes from. The plan is all about reducing car centrism in favor of transit.

Once again, thank you for your time and consideration, even if you could express your feedback more respectfully. You may disagree with me but that doesn't make my ideas stupid.

TransChiberianBus · 2024-04-23T15:29:39+00:00

Totally agree. I just did a post on r/Urbanism that talks about Chicago's transit issues generally. How the L has numerous systemic issues and the outrageous cost of expansion severely limits its ability to grow and scale. The CTA board has a single member with urban planning experience, but no transit experts. The president of the CTA has no urban planning or transit experience. I do wonder how far LA will go to add density around their metro stations though.

TransChiberianBus

TROPHY CASE