Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Please, watch this video
Next Post: Rate McGraw’s new ad
Posted in:
* NBC Chicago in August…
This Labor Day travel holiday could be the last for Chicago’s intercity Greyhound bus station.
The Greyhound bus line has been sold to German operator Flixbus, but much of its real estate has not and could soon be sold to a developer.
The possible closure of the terminal located in the 600 block of West Harrison Street could make Chicago the largest city in the Northern Hemisphere without an intercity bus terminal, according to a new report from the Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development at DePaul University.
“We may be down to the last few weeks with the station. No real plan has been formed to save it,” Chaddick’s director Joe Schwieterman said. “That’s all bad for lower income and disabled communities. We need a fix.”
Although advocates have been sounding the alarm about a possible closure for more than a year, efforts to address the situation have only picked up in the last few months. Chicago’s Chief Operating Officer, John Roberson, said in a statement that the Johnson administration is continuing to work with Greyhound and other stakeholders to “find a viable solution for intercity bus services and its passengers in downtown Chicago.”
* The Sun-Times yesterday…
Greyhound Bus won’t be leaving its West Loop station just yet, its parent company FlixBus announced Tuesday.
The bus operator said it is finalizing a lease extension with the new property owner that will allow it to continue operating buses at 630 W. Harrison St. after Sunday, when its lease was set to end.
“Our team is finalizing a month-to-month lease extension with Twenty Lake [Holdings], and our operations will continue without disruption,” a FlixBus spokesperson said in an emailed statement.
“This is a temporary solution, and we remain actively engaged with the city and other stakeholders to secure a long-term home for intercity bus service in Chicago,” the statement said.
The spokesperson said the lease extension had not yet been signed and could not share more details about the potential arrangement.
* Tribune…
Advocates have been sounding alarm bells about the possible closure of the downtown Chicago bus station for more than a year, saying such a move would have repercussions for the many low-income travelers who rely on Greyhound, residents of communities without easy access to train or airline service, and others who rely on buses to travel between cities, as well as Chicago’s status as a transportation hub. […]
Greyhound stations in other cities have already been relocated, in some cases moved miles outside the city center or shifted to only curbside pickup and drop-off locations, with no indoor waiting areas. For example, in Knoxville, Tennessee, riders have reported waiting hours outside in the heat and cold for sometimes delayed buses, with no access to food, water, restrooms or a station building, according to local reporting.
Joseph Schwieterman, director of DePaul University’s Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development, who has been a proponent of a dedicated bus station, said the lease extension offered a temporary reprieve, but Chicago still needed to resolve what kind of station the city would provide travelers.
“Hopefully, public agencies will feel the need to deepen their involvement to avoid a meltdown that could hurt a critical travel sector,” he said.
* Crain’s…
The city attempted to acquire the site to keep it a transportation hub, but the funds were not available, Ald. Carlos Ramirez-Rosa, 35th, said at a virtual meeting in August. He said it would cost the city around $25 million to buy the station.
If it loses the station, Chicago, would become the largest city in the Northern Hemisphere without an intercity bus terminal, joining Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Nairobi, Kenya, as the only three of the 130 largest global cities to have no intercity terminal, according to a study by DePaul University.
Flix had been eyeing alternatives after failing to reach an agreement for an extension of its lease at the Harrison Street terminal, looking instead to the traffic lane across the street from Union Station. The Jackson Boulevard location was strongly considered, in part, because there is a Greyhound ticket counter nearby.
However, having a pickup and drop-off location there would mean buses could not operate during peak hours and services would be cut. The proposal also received pushback from Amtrak, which owns Union Station and is concerned about congestion and safety.
posted by Isabel Miller
Wednesday, Oct 16, 24 @ 8:35 am
Previous Post: Please, watch this video
Next Post: Rate McGraw’s new ad
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
This is a temporary solution, and we remain actively engaged with the city and other stakeholders to secure a long-term home for intercity bus service in Chicago…”
Not quite sure what this means - is there an expectation for the City to provide a bus station for use? Or are they okay with using a parking lot?
Comment by LastModDemStanding Wednesday, Oct 16, 24 @ 9:14 am
We claim to be a green city and state, but we can hardly keep a terminal for bus transportation, one of the greenest forms of transportation available to us?
If IL & Chicago wants to be a green state and city, much more investment and attention is needed for public transportation. Our stated values don’t line up with what we prioritize and fund.
Comment by Incandenza Wednesday, Oct 16, 24 @ 9:33 am
I can’t get an answer about if the new Springfield Multi-modal station will have Greyhound busses operating from there. I think they should, if the city is serious about tourism.
Comment by Give Us Barabbas Wednesday, Oct 16, 24 @ 9:40 am
So to recap, the bus company tried to play hardball with the city, realized they had no leverage to force the city to build a facility with public funds, and are now going back to the drawing board.
How is this any different from any of the stadium deals the Bears/Sox are trying to negotiate?
Comment by ChrisB Wednesday, Oct 16, 24 @ 9:51 am
This is a little different than Bears / White Sox. Here, 20 Lake holdings owns the land. They want to build another luxury high ride in the area. They really couldnt care less if Greyhound ot other bus companies have a station or not.
I wouldn’t expect the lease to he extended indefinitely. That neighborhood is up and coming. They want to capitalize on it.
Comment by low level Wednesday, Oct 16, 24 @ 10:33 am
== I can’t get an answer about if the new Springfield Multi-modal station will have Greyhound busses operating from there. ==
I have the same question. Even though the actual train station is yet to be built, SMTD does have the bus transfer lot up and running. Why the city hasn’t lured Greyhound back into downtown is a big question mark. Very few people have any idea where the current Greyhound pickup is on N Dirksen.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Oct 16, 24 @ 11:22 am
Give Us Barabbas—Yes the new transportation HUB in Springfield is now being used by Greyhound. It was announced last year and service has started there. I saw a Greyhound bus there last week.
Comment by Mike Murphy Wednesday, Oct 16, 24 @ 11:30 am
== I saw a Greyhound bus there last week. ==
Good to know.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Oct 16, 24 @ 11:32 am
== How is this any different from any of the stadium deals the Bears/Sox are trying to negotiate? ==
You can’t see the difference? In that case, I guess there should be no more public funding for airports in Illinois nor the land and ATC and special road and transit infrastructure it takes to serve them. And while we’re at it, no more federal bailouts for the airlines every time there’s a crisis that makes it unprofitable to provide privately operated commercial aviation service. Because apparently the public benefit from having intercity transportation service is no different than the public benefit from having NFL and MLB venues. Or just maybe, intercity buses are being held to a different standard than we hold other forms of transportation when we expect bus operators to provide their own off-street terminals in major cities or else have no option but to use the curbside. I wonder why.
Comment by sim1 Wednesday, Oct 16, 24 @ 12:34 pm
-sim1-
The majority of money for airports comes from the federal government. Chicago has no money for a bus station from the Feds. Also…bus operators owned the bus stations for decades. They made a decision to sell them for profit and FLIX has said over and over that physical bus stations are not in their model. They prefer curbside service. Why should the City of Chicago spin in circles to subsidize a private companies operation? We can’t even make our existing public transport work properly (or public housing for that matter). Flix can pay rent like everyone else.
Comment by LastModDemStanding Wednesday, Oct 16, 24 @ 12:54 pm
Remember, a Greyhound is vodka with grapefruit juice. If you add salt on the rim, it’s called a Salty Dog. You can substitute gin for vodka, but it should be premium. Don’t use the cheap stuff.
You’re welcome.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Oct 16, 24 @ 1:08 pm
==They made a decision to sell them for profit==
My understanding is they sold the stations to pay operating costs, not for big profits. Bus companies are losing money and doing everything possible to stay in business.
If I am incorrect in anything Ive said, someone please correct me.
Comment by low level Wednesday, Oct 16, 24 @ 1:40 pm
Thanks LastMod.
@sim1, your analogy would be more apt if United sold their terminal rights at O’Hare, then turned around and demanded that the City build them a new airport with taxpayer money. Flix traded short term gains because they thought they could bully a long term solution, and it blew up in their face.
Kinda like how the Bears and Sox thought they could bully the city into building them new stadiums, and nobody is biting.
Comment by ChrisB Wednesday, Oct 16, 24 @ 1:50 pm
== Flix can pay rent like everyone else ==
Sure they can. And, as they’re demonstrating in the articles above, they’re willing to (notwithstanding preferring the cheapest possible course like every private company when left to their own devices). What’s lacking is a party willing and able to own and operate a bus terminal in which bus companies can actually pay rent. It’s not as if highway buses can operate out of any random storefront, especially not in a large city. For commercial aviation, we ensure that there are public airports at which the airlines can safely operate and pay rent (while also receiving direct and indirect public subsidies).
Meanwhile, intercity buses are held to a different standard. I’m beginning to think I may know why. Maybe it’s because the public decision-makers don’t think bus riders (and bus service) really matter. So it doesn’t matter whether bus riders have travel amenities like safe, warm and dry shelter and a place to sit before a journey or a place to use indoor plumbing before or after a journey — those rudimentary things that we all take for granted when we travel by airplane. If you can’t take the plane or train, then drive. And if you can’t, shouldn’t, or don’t want to drive, then you apparently don’t deserve to be able to travel with comfort or dignity, just scrape by with whatever curbside is available. As another commenter noted, these policy decisions represent value judgments.
As for your comment on Greyhound’s previous management having sold off their assets, that’s repeating the history of the private transit operators and passenger railroads a few generations ago. In some cases the public stepped in and bought the old transit assets before it was too late, and service is still being provided. In other cases, the assets were lost forever or had to be rebuilt at great added public cost. We’re apparently at that kind of decision point again.
Comment by sim1 Wednesday, Oct 16, 24 @ 2:03 pm
I took Van Gelder to Madison last year and one of the stops was a new looking spanking clean rest stop. I was impressed. I took Greyhound from Cleveland to Toledo this summer. Cleveland lost their very busy Art Moderne Greyhound bus station to a Scottish hedge fund who, in turn, sold it to a large local arts organization. Toledo’s Greyhound bus station is shared with their Amtrak station. It was mostly younger people who rode the busses. By younger, age 40 & younger. The busses & stations were full.
Comment by Emily Booth Wednesday, Oct 16, 24 @ 4:02 pm
@ ChrisB, your analogy is exactly wrong. It’s precisely because the airport is a public asset that the whole thing works. If United were to reduce or end their service at ORD, it would free up gates that other airlines could (and would) use instead. The analogy would be if United ran a private airport (not really any precedents for that, so it’s a pretty strained analogy) and only allowed other airlines to use it if they had operating agreements with United, then sold the property to a flipper to stabilize their balance sheet, and the flipper in turn wanted to re-sell the property to developers and not run an airport.
And also, Flix didn’t do the selling. They bought Greyhound after Greyhound’s previous management had already sold the property. The question remains, does Illinois believe that safe and at least modestly comfortable and dignified intercity bus transportation is a service that’s of value to the public, just like we believe that air travel and train travel and car travel are. If so, the free market isn’t providing it like it used to, just as the free market doesn’t provide roads or passenger rail or airports. We’re about to lose an existing asset with value to the public if we don’t act, and this asset will be vastly more difficult to replace once it’s gone.
Comment by sim1 Wednesday, Oct 16, 24 @ 5:47 pm