Urban Spaces: Transit Station Edition

 In addition to pedestrianized spaces (or I guess technically as a subset of them, since you usually can't drive cars into these either) another kind of urban space I enjoy is the transit station. Let me tell you why!

1. Vaulting Architecture

While I suppose one could go to a big box store or a warehouse to experience wide open spaces that are also indoors, transit stations (specifically, usually, train stations) manage this with a completely different, far superior vibe.

Let's start with Chicago Union Station: these skylights make the room feel more open, more expansive, and more impressive all at once. The typical vaulted/arched ceiling gives the place a feel of lightness and airiness despite being absolutely clear that we are indoors thank you very much.

Amsterdam Centraal gives us an arched feeling too, though here we are out by the tracks, so the space is deliberately ambiguous about being indoors or out--it connects to both the clearly-inside market halls and the clearly-outside train line north. Here the sense of enclosure matters as much as the sense of openness; it straddles the line in a way that makes my heart happy to see it.

Haarlem Centraal does something similar, but note that which part of the station is actually open has changed: the archway is not open, but the side gratings are. It's appropriate to a station that is more open than Amsterdam Centraal was but still wants to give that overarching sense of space.

2. Public Monuments

A really good station (as opposed to just a stop) gives an opportunity for more public art and public interest than just a pretty roof. 

Public art outside a train station (here in Paris, I believe at Gare du Nord) gives a sense of significance and willing occupation of space. This station is not apologizing for its street presence, like some metro stations do, but boldly claiming that it is a meaningful spot in the city, and that you ought to look at it.

Even smaller stations, like Aquarium T station in Boston, can have a sense of street presence. The tilted glass box here isn't as flashy or noticeable as the big flying bear in Paris, but it still says that this is an interesting, different spot from all the plain office buildings around--or the Aquarium itself.

And it's not station-specific, but it would be an utter failure not to mention Chicago's Loop, the champion of not apologizing for its impact on the streetscene (and since the Loop has so many stations on it, you could almost call it a single giant station with internal transit).

A good station is a public monument, a space that draws attention not only for use reasons but because the city wants you to know it is there, and it matters.

3. Somewhere To Sit

A good station isn't just pretty; it's also functional. And that means that a good transit station has seating, as well as food, bathrooms, and other amenities.

Sadly. this is less photogenic, so I tend to photograph it less, but you can see that in addition to large areas for people to pass seated customers (which is also important!) Haarlem Centraal has seats.

I didn't take pictures of seating in Amsterdam Centraal, but you can see the whole concourse here of amenities: things to do while you wait for a train or after you arrive on one.

And while it's not the focus of this shot of the TGV in Gare du Nord, you can see the seating on the empty platform as well.

My struggle to find pictures of this is really a function of the fact that I use it--so unless I take more selfies, I don't tend to have pictures of the seating, even though it's really important!

So to sum up: a good transit station has a sense of openness and wonder; a clear artistic sensibility that is willing to take up public space; and practical elements that make it pleasant to exist in it.

I think this WMATA station in DC does a great job of all three, so that's probably a good point to end on. Look at that architecture! I'm glad the Metro comes frequently, but I could still appreciate spending time in such a space.

The Trains, Again

 Look, we've talked about this before.

I would love for there to be train transit between the Quad Cities and Chicago. I think it would be a massive boost to the region, and frankly a personal benefit as well. 

So I'm chuffed to see announcements around state funding in Illinois for it. 

But remain a bit skeptical about this actually happening, unfortunately, for the following reasons:

1. Iowa Interstate Hasn't Said Anything

Even the article I've linked to only mentions that there is "more leverage" to convince or coerce Iowa Interstate (which owns key parts of the link between the two areas) to participate in the project, and mentions that they've "really struggled" to get them onboard. Now, it's obviously a good thing if the ask of the railroad doesn't include (as much) money, but it's still a dead letter unless they get involved voluntarily or the state/federal government (good luck...) actually starts getting into eminent domain territory.

If this was met by Iowa Interstate with a statement about their excitement to get working, I'd have a different reaction, but right now...nothing, so I have no expectations.

2. Where Will The Funding Really Go?

The Metra and the CTA are also due funding under this bill, and the money that is commonly being associated with the Quad Cities rail initiative apparently only refers to funding to help bring rail to new destinations. At the same time, Metra is being tasked to bring its rail to, you guessed it, new destinations.

So if Iowa Interstate doesn't play ball, this money doesn't have to stay around to convince them--it can (it seems) go to bring some iconic flat-fronted trains to the rest of the state.

Or, you know, maybe some more updated trains. But the point stands--this money doesn't have to go to this part of the state if we can't actually get moving on our trains.

3. I Hate Getting My Hopes Up

I just...don't like hoping for things that don't happen. 

Maybe like the new I-74 Bridge, it'll actually come. 

Or maybe, like doing something actually useful with the old I-74 Bridge instead of just tearing it down, it won't.

Unfortunately, I know where I'd put my money.

I really hope it happens, and I'd love to see Amtrak service to Chicago from here, but...this isn't quite it yet, and it's making me sad that it's reported like it is.

The Blessing and Curse of Rail

We are visiting Toronto and I very carefully picked our hotel to be right next to a streetcar line--which is currently not running because of water main work.

Phooey.

But it made me think about the way that rail's visibility is both a blessing and a curse. 

1. Predictability 

My favorite thing about trains is that you can see the tracks. 

See those tracks? They're very present.

It means that you know or at least have easy access at immediate street level to three key pieces of information without needing to be told:

1) where the train will come (these tracks)

2) where it might go (do the tracks turn or split?)

3) where it will stop (the visible station/stop) 

This is vital information and making it very obvious reduces friction in using transit. So does an even more important point I'll label 

0) that there is a train line at all.

For a bus, all of these but #3 are difficult to communicate, and in some cities (including most of the Quad Cities) even that one is not well communicated because there are small or nonexistent bus stop signs. 

For a train they're not necessarily 100% obvious but they're at least partly visible. And that leaves just the frequency and connectivity as key elements in transit use you're not able to instantly see; big elements but much better situated than a bus. 

2. Lies

Unfortunately, a visible rail line is a real problem if it's not actually served by rail. This can happen when rail service is discontinued entirely as in much of the US. It can happen as it has in Toronto right now for the 509 streetcar just temporarily. But it leaves you with a very visible marker of everything above that is lying to the potential rider. 

This happens on the big scale (no trains!) and the smaller scale (the rail replacement bus doesn't run exactly where the train did because roads and tracks aren't interchangeable). 

It ranges from a minor inconvenience (oh, there's the replacement sign, just on the corner!) to a major one (shoot I have no idea where to go) to a huge one (I am put off from using any transit now!). 

3. Opportunities

But overall I'd still say track is an advantage, because you can always rebuild, replace, return to service. I'm mildly inconvenienced right now (the kids probably think more than mildly since we have a lot more walking now). But the line will return and the high rise buildings serving transit demand will keep going up. Even where there isn't transit or is bad transit right now, a rail line can always become an advertisement for its own services. And that's a good reason to build rail and to keep it in service.

Metra is Fun, but Mediocre

 Visiting Chicago, I took the opportunity to do something I'd only done a few times in my entire life, despite living in Hyde Park for five years: taking the Metra north to downtown Chicago.

Now, I've actually done that a lot of times now that I live outside of Chicago (though not on the same line--the closest one to the Quad Cities is in Joliet, not the South Side of Chicago). But I did it very rarely when I lived in Chicago. And today I want to talk a bit about why.

Now, some of why is that I didn't take advantage of opportunities when I lived in Chicago. But while some of this can be placed on my shoulders, a lot of it is systemic, and not personal. And that is what I want to talk about today.

1. Lack of Fare Integration

The Metra Electric is, in theory, one of the best ways to get up to downtown Chicago from Hyde Park. It's relatively fast, because it's grade-separated, unlike the #6 bus that runs a similar route. It stops a lot less. And it's direct, basically just zipping up the lakeshore and dropping you off downtown (via McCormick Place, which is the rare place better served by Metra than other services).

But you can't use Ventra on it, even though Ventra is supposed to be the Chicago single card like London's Oyster or Seattle's ORCA. 

Well, you sort of can. You can buy Metra tickets in the Ventra app. But if you have a Ventra card, or a contactless card, you can't just tap your way into or onto the train. If you don't have a smartphone app, the two are fundamentally distinct. And that means CTA and Pace, the two regional systems that do use Ventra, are distinct from Metra. They are anyway, in terms of fares: the Metra fares are not part of any fare capping with either CTA or Pace, and so for anyone (like me when I lived in Hyde Park) using Ventra to use the CTA, the Metra is both an added expense and an added difficulty. 

It's fast and convenient, but not cost effective, and financially awkward.

2. Timing is Not Great

I said there that it's convenient, but that's partly a lie. It's convenient if you're going at certain times, on certain days. If there's a train, it's great.

But...there often isn't a train.

The reason I took the train this time from Hyde Park was that I couldn't actually manage to do the trip I wanted without driving all the way into Hyde Park from the Quad Cities. I couldn't stop in Joliet because if I did, then the train I wanted to take would actually not get me back in anything like a timely fashion--because it runs every two hours on the weekend. Well, on Saturday. Good luck on Sundays.

The Metra Electric was also running a reduced schedule, but not as much, so it was actually usable.

But the Metra as a whole is very much set up as a commuter set of lines, not an actual network. And because of the lack of fare integration (and its friend, schedule integration), it's not really made up for by the rest of Chicago's network of buses and subways. So I didn't use Metra because it wasn't actually as useful as it could be, because of when and how the trains run.

3. Stations Suck

The Metra also suffers from poor station design and management. They got rid of the ticket sellers in the stations (the human staff) and replaced them with additional ticket vending machines, but even so there is, for example, only a ticket vending machine at one end of the two end 51st/53rd St station. If you happen to enter at the busier end (53rd St) you have to walk the whole station to actually buy a ticket.

The stations themselves haven't had the best cleaning or maintenance over the years and are frequently dank, dark, and wet. 

And there isn't much cover (though there are some covered waiting areas) or many heaters (for cold Chicago winters) on the exposed, windy platforms.

I'm very much a believer that transit can work with minimal stations, but these are very much the absolute minimum. In terms of ticketing, they might be less than that. And in terms of accessibility for those who don't love stairs and long walks, even less.

The Metra is a great idea, and a great resource. But if Chicagoland wanted to get actually serious about using it as real public transportation, it would take a real overhaul--and some actual funding--to get it there.

Traveling With Transit: Quad Cities to Chicago (and beyond!)

 So with all due respect to the Quad Cities International Airport (MLI), which is, as so many things in the Quad Cities are, a perfectly good if very small version of what it is--in this case, an airport--it has relatively few connections and most of them are through Chicago.

Chicago is less than 200 miles away, and although we have not yet received our long-discussed actual passenger service there, it is still often more efficient and much cheaper to fly out of the Chicago airports, ORD and MDW, rather than connecting from MLI.

However, this is very difficult if you don't have a car. The Metrolink route 20 on the Illinois side of the Quad Cities will run to MLI, so you can get to that without a car, but it's much more difficult to get to the Chicago airports that way--at least until that train shows up (someday...).

But difficult doesn't mean impossible. Here is my account of doing just that: a no-car trip from my home in Davenport to Chicago O'Hare.

Getting Around: London

When I visited London this summer, I made an effort to take as many different types of public transit there as I could in the time I was there. I ended up missing out on one that I know of--the Uber Boats--but otherwise I hit up everything I intended to take. And today, I want to take a brief look at each of these types of public transit in London to think about what was good, what was bad, and what I wish I could see more of in the United States. Warning: this is a bit longer of a post, so I'm sticking everything after the Tube under a jump.

1. The Underground

The Tube, the Underground, for Americans the subway: this is probably the most iconic of London transportation. I took a couple of Underground lines while I was in London and I've taken many, many more when I've been there before, and frankly it always manages to simultaneously please me and disappoint me. 

On the one hand, it is crowded, often noisy, and increasingly warming up. Depending on the line, you may have some rather old rolling stock, and in some places it's not necessarily faster than walking. It's the part of London's transit mix that feels like it's changed the least since I first visited the city almost two decades ago, and that can all add up to, well, a little disappointment.

Pretty sure this exact train was here then

On the other, there's a reason RM Transit calls it the "quintessential rapid transit system," and it's not just that it dates from 1863. It's a pretty comprehensive network for a metro (especially when integrated with everything else London has to offer, as detailed below) and while in the absolute center of the city it can be slow, it's much faster than anything that would be on the surface--not to mention, it does a really good job of cutting across parts of the city that can be confusing or difficult to traverse on foot. There's a reason the Tube map isn't actually a map but a network diagram: it doesn't parallel the street network, it substitutes for it.

It has its flaws, but I miss the Tube when I'm not in London--I even miss it when I'm on the south bank of London, but that's a point for later here.

How could I stay mad at this?

Also, there are parts that are getting actual platform screen doors and other innovations, so that's nice to see finally making its way into the old system.