Ashland Ave BRT

This is about the CTA’s Bus Rapid Transit plan. An idea to run busses like trains up and down existing streets.

If you are unfamiliar with it, you can read about it here:

http://www.transitchicago.com/westernashlandbrt/#infographic

http://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/brt/PR_CDMSmith_AM_October_Boards_FINALlowres_20101015.pdf

If you are not from around here you should probably just skip over this one. It is pretty dry and full of technical gibberish and location references that are pretty specific.

I have been shooting my mouth off and now it is time to put my predictions down in writing.

The Phase one of the BRT plan, in its current incarnation, involves Ashland Ave between Cortland and 31^st St., but in the future, the plan is for it to run all the way from Irving Park to 95^th .

At the start, there were eight possible systems, four different configurations on two different streets. Ashland and Western. The one they have settled on is this:

They will turn the two inside lanes of Ashland Ave (a four lane street) into Bus only lanes, using the median like an El platform.

They will reduce the number of stops to two per mile (because they realize that it is not the traffic that slows down busses, it’s the passengers) and eliminate virtually all the left turns. This will cost $10,000,000 per mile ($161 mil total) not including the new fleet of busses with their doors on the left side.

The city’s presentations have all been sweetness and light, and pretty much devoid of any actual facts that haven’t already been spun tighter than a violin string.

Owing to this, my first analysis was based on the only real facts I had, existing traffic volume and road capacity.

Yes, roads have a capacity and a pretty well defined one. According to IDOT (the people who control the purse strings) a 2-way urban arterial road has a capacity of 1250 vehicles per hour for a two lane (one in each direction), 1250-2050 for a four lane, and 2050-2900 for a six lane. Roads are supposed to be built so that their capacity should meet or exceed their Design Hourly Volume (DHV). DHV represents a fairly bad rush hour, but not the worst ever.

The most recent traffic count I found was from IDOT in 2010. It said that the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on most of Ashland in Phase one was 27,200 vehicles a day.

CDOT has more in depth counts from 2006. Not only are they older, but 2006 was the year of the Dan Ryan reconstruction (on the south) and the North Ave bridge removal (on the north). In my opinion these numbers were too skewed to be of any value. They were also much, much higher than the state’s numbers.

To obtain a DHV from the traffic counts, you can multiply the ADT times something called the K factor. This is nothing more than an approximation of the ratio between the ADT and the hourly count for the thirtieth highest traffic hour of the year. Typically, urban arterials have a K factor of around 9% but on a street like Ashland, that still has a lot of traffic after midnight, you can make a sound argument for a K factor in the 7% range.

So, we take 27200 x .07 = 1900 DHV existing. If you want to switch this four lane into a two lane, you have to get rid of 650 cars during rush hour or about 10,000 vehicles a day.

Where are they gonna go?

Figure half of them will take the biggest alternate (Western) and another quarter of them will take the nearest alternate (Damen) and the rest will scatter around. 325 cars at rush hour will put Western near or above the 2050 capacity for a four lane. That’s OK, you can put in a rush hour parking ban.

Damen, up here in the Wickerbuckukie Parktown Village, could probably escape this fate, but south of Grand Ave. the count is high enough that a similar ban would probably be needed.

Realize that a parking ban will also get rid of the bike lanes. The difference between the minimum width of an auxiliary lane and the minimum width of a parking lane is the width of a bike lane.

At first glance, it’s doable with rush hour bans on Western and parts of Damen.

Next, I wanted to cross check using few scraps of actual data the CTA let out, mostly Traffic Mode Share.      

This is not the same as ridership. It is the ratio between the number of people on busses to the total number of people traveling the road. As a ratio it has two variables. To increase the TMS you can either, double the number of bus riders and let the car traffic stay the same, or you can maintain the same number of riders and get rid of 15,000 cars.

The reality is somewhere in between, and that is what I wanted to find out.

The CTA said that their current transit share might be as high as 15%. Working backwards from their different Ashland configuration comparison pages, they said that 17%TMS represented a 21% increase, 19%TMS for a 36% increase 23% for a 64% increase and 26% for a 46% increase. I think that last one (the current proposal) is actually a typo. Otherwise they all represent a current mode share of 14%. The Cta repeats this number on this infographic.

http://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/brt/BRT_Infographics_final.pdf

If transit share is 14% then auto share is 86%, and  27,200/.86 = total of 31,628 with of a daily average transit passenger load of 4428. This would represent all the bus passengers passing through any single point on Ashland Ave. on an average day and is analogous to ADT.

An earlier report from the metropolitan planning council said that you could expect an increase in ridership of 14.3% from BRT schemes. So, I tried that first.

4428x1.143 = 5061 passenger load with BRT. The current plan for Ashland says that it will capture a 26% Transit Mode Share. 5061/.26 = 19,466 total travelers minus 5061 on busses leaving 14,405 in cars or a loss of about 13,000 cars a day (only 600 of which could be accounted for by mode switchers). This seemed a little ambitious, so I increased the new passengers to 30% and ran the numbers again.

They gave me a passenger load of 5756, total travelers of 22140 and an ADT of 16390, or a loss of about 10,000 cars a day. This is the same as my road capacity calculations.

At our most recent presentation from the city, they put up a graphic that projected an increase in ridership of 29%. I am pretty sure that I nailed down the assumptions they were dealing with.

CDOT has been doing new traffic counts and they have spent 7000 hours collecting and modeling the counts. Myself, I performed a few seat of the pants AM rush counts and they indicated that my assumptions about either the ADT or the K factor were way too low. I suspect this is correct. Why would they need 7000 hours to model the traffic if it wasn’t?

The city’s traffic analysis is due out next month, so now I’ll make my predictions.

Prediction #1

The rush hour traffic count will come out higher than expected, and the parts of the plan the CTA won’t want to talk about will include rush hour bans on all of Western and Damen (with loss of bicycle lanes) and probably parts California, Kedzie and Halsted.

Prediction #2

If phase one gets built as planned, the route of Elston to Ogden to California will turn into an unintended bypass. This will piss off the people on Fry St. to no end, because everyone will be using their street to dodge the traffic snafu in the Elston-Milwaukee-Ogden interchange.

Prediction #3

If phase one ever gets built, phase two will be the southern portion. Traffic on Ashland and Western are 10% lower down there and shouldn’t present a problem.

Prediction #4

Phase three, will be from Clybourn to Irving Park and it will never be built. Traffic on Ashland is 25% higher up there and all the alternates are near capacity.

Barring thermonuclear war in the Middle East, they will not be allowed to reduce that stretch to two traffic lanes. To build it as a four lane could not be done without fulltime loss of the medians and all street parking, or widening of the roadbed. That would involve moving storm drains, streetlights, signs and stoplights and would substantially increase the per mile cost.

Understand, I am pretty much a pro transit kind of guy. I admit to owning a car, but it is thirteen years old and only has 37,000 miles on it. That is because I take CTA as much as possible.

I think BRT is a great idea! I would have piped up sooner, but one of their proposals for a curbside BRT on Western would, travel just as fast as this plan, carry just as many new riders as this plan, cause negligible traffic impacts, and cost 55 million dollars less.

Frankly, it never crossed my mind that anyone would be crazy enough to not choose that one.

Dining Al’fumo

This is about sidewalk cafés.

Specifically, it is about the fact that the city gives away chunks of the public way for chump change.

These aren’t some trash filled lot or a mothballed school building, these are our sidewalks, paid for and maintained by our motor fuel taxes and city sticker fees.

I first looked into this when the restaurants on Division Street, on the border between Wicker Park and the East Village, wanted to remove the tree pits in the sidewalks in order to expand their café seating.

Let me set this up a bit. In Chicago, the size of a sidewalk café is pretty much limited by the width of the sidewalk. You have to keep a 6 ft path for pedestrians and dodge around the street furniture, but anything else that’s paved is fair game.

Division Street has really big sidewalks. From Milwaukee to Humboldt Park, Division was intended to become one of Chicago’s tree lined boulevards. They laid it out with a large (100 ft) right of way. The boulevard thing fell through. As a result, the sidewalks on division are 25 feet wide.

So, these restaurants, who are probably paying $24000 a year for a single 1200 sqft storefront, can lease a 19 ft wide(300 to 475 sqft) stretch of sidewalk for $600 for the entire 9 month season. This area is ¼ to 1/3 of their entire interior floor area and they felt that they weren’t getting their money’s worth because the trees took up too much space.

It gets even worse.
That $600 is actually the minimum charge for a café. Goddess and Grocer up on Damen, where the sidewalks are much narrower, pays the same $600 for their 58 sq ft café. That is about the size of the tree pits on Division.

It gets even worse.
The base rate the city uses for most* of the city’s sidewalks is $1.10 per sq foot. The price to lease the sidewalk for 9 months is $600 or $1.10 per square foot net, whichever is larger.

Tocco Pizza e Arte on Milwaukee Ave has a sidewalk café on Mautene Court. Mautene Court was a tiny stub of a street that was vacated back in the 1980’s for a public open space. Unencumbered by an actual roadbed, the city leases ¼ of the space to Tocco. 1280 sq ft, larger than most actual restaurants and bars in the area and for this lease the city receives the princely sum of $1408 per season.

This is ridiculous. With retail leases running $15-$25 psf triple net, why are we leasing our sidewalks for a $1.10.

In retrospect the parking meter deal makes a lot more sense. Daley leased the parking space for $2.60 psf a year. He must have thought he made out like a bandit. Now LAZ sublets it back to us for $46.00 psf.


Other cities have sidewalk cafes. What do they charge?

San Francisco $5-6 psf plus $112

Miami $20 psf

Boston is mum on what their sq ft rate is, but they say the average café run $500-$1200 per month

New York is about $26 psf. That isn’t for midtown Manhattan, that is the rate for coffee shops in Canarsie. That is also just for the consent fees. Licensing and permitting costs are more than our minimum charge.

Heck, Seattle charges more than we do.


Why are we on this race to the bottom? I don’t see any of Boston’s beaneries flocking to Chicago because of our liberal sidewalk café policy.


I am not a greedy man, and to me, some of these cities sound a little expensive. My personal belief is that commerce should not be a zero sum game. Everybody has to make a little money or the whole thing falls apart and no one makes anything. So, lets find out how much these seats are worth.

In 2010 the National Restaurant Association published the results of a survey of restaurant operators. The report is a wealth of information.

In full service restaurants with an average check of $15-$25 per person each seat brought in:

$10866 total sales (food and beverage)

$7437 gross profit

and $346 net profit before taxes.


Ok, that net profit doesn’t seem like much, but it also reflects $495 in restaurant occupancy costs (lease, taxes, fire insurance). The occupancy cost for the sidewalk seat is $16.50 ($1.10 x 15 sqft).

Median restaurant seat profit plus occupancy cost equals $841 a year.

The sidewalk seats are only used for nine months and the weather probably puts the kibosh on a third of those.

Pro rated for season and weather, every sidewalk seat is worth $420.50 free and clear.
The city charges $16.50.


Put into perspective, Tocco’s use of Mautene Ct. puts $32232 in his pocket and the city’s gets $1408.

That is way too cheap.



Here is my idea.

First, eliminate the $600 minimum charge. This is extremely regressive and charges the most to the ones who get the least.


Second, we create two separate classes of restaurant each with its own base rate.

The first class is for small local businesses that do not have a liquor license.

Their base rate should be $6 psf (about $90 per seat). At this rate the small coffee shops and hotdog stands that have got a little 100 sqft café will still be paying about the same as they are now.

The Second class is for restaurant chains and any restaurant with a liquor license.

Their base rate should be $10 psf (about $150 per seat). They have higher profit margins and can afford to pay a higher rate.

These two rates should cover most of the city, but they should be doubled in the loop and halved in the enterprise zones.


City hall has been leaving a lot of money on the table and this should bring in millions from the 1000+ cafes and still encourage small businesses. The restaurants will all cry poor, but they will still be making more money each month from each their sidewalk seats than they do from the ones indoors.


As usual, I offer these suggestions for the good of my city, but if they want to reward me, they could wave my property taxes for the next 50 years. I estimate that would equal about 10% of one year’s increased revenue.





Paul K. Dickman



* The city’s rates go up incrementally in the central business district. I have found rates of $1.50, $2.30 to peak of $4.50 for Michigan Ave. facing the park

The Axles of Evil

The City of Chicago has waged a long war against the “Axles of Evil”, also known as the pickup truck. Who knows what their beef is. I am sure that it must be part of Daniel Burnham’s plan to keep the hillbillies at bay.

Their main tool is this parking ordinance,
9-64-170 Parking restrictions – Special types of vehicles.
(a) It shall be unlawful to park any truck, tractor, semi-trailer, trailer, recreational vehicle more than 22 feet in length, self contained motor home, bus, taxicab or livery vehicle on any residential street for a longer period than is necessary for the reasonably expeditious loading or unloading of such vehicle, except that a driver of bus may park the bus in a designated bus stand as authorized elsewhere in the traffic code.

Parking is allowed in certain wards, as long as the owner obtains a sticker from the city.

Back in 2000, I was flush with money and decided to buy myself a new vehicle. At the time a small pickup made sense so I wound up with a brand new Ranger.
Like most folks, I found out about the residential parking restrictions on pickups via an orange envelope on my windshield.
Luckily, I was in a ward that allowed it, so I applied for my sticker.
Back then it was a complicated process. You filled out a form, gave it to the alderman with a $30 check and waited. They would check to see if you had any outstanding tickets, and then it went down to the city council where they would vote to give you special dispensation.
On the third year of this, my alderman called and said my application was denied because of outstanding tickets. When I checked it, I had several tickets for residential truck parking, despite the fact that I had the sticker in my windshield.
I went down to the Addison office to straighten it out. The hearing went well, but while leaving the office, I got t-boned by an undercover officer with the US dept of Transportation. He was leaving the McDonalds with his lunch and crossed a lane of traffic to hit me. That is an entire story in itself.
The experience was so bad that I said “never again”.

I read the ordinance and realized that if I was an RV of less than 22 feet in length, I would not need the sticker.

As soon as I got my truck back from the shop, I bought a used camper shell on ebay and had it registered as an RV.
That was good for seven years.
Then something changed and I started getting tickets. Back when the cops wrote the tickets, they knew better, but now tickets are being issued by wandering revenuers who pass them out willy nilly.
I contested the first one by mail and I was found guilty. I contested the next two in person and pleaded my case successfully. On the strength of those determinations, I have successfully contested the next seven by mail.

That’s my story, and why this is important to me. However, in reviewing the municipal code I noticed something that is the reason I am writing.

The city has its own definition for recreational vehicles

The Illinois Vehicle code says;
(625 ILCS 5/1‑169) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1‑169) Sec. 1‑169. Recreational vehicle. Every camping trailer, motor home, mini motor home, travel trailer, truck camper or van camper used primarily for recreational purposes and not used commercially nor owned by a commercial business. (Source: P.A. 84‑986.)

The Municipal code defines recreational vehicles as;
9-4-010 Definitions.
“Recreational vehicle” means every camping trailer, motor home, mini-motor home, travel trailer, truck or van camper used primarily for recreational purposes and not used commercially nor owned and used by a commercial business.

It is almost the same, word for word, as the state’s definition, with one important change. Where the State says “truck camper” the city just says “truck”.

In fact, it says “every truck”. Nowhere does the municipal code define truck, or mention the type of plates. So what it says is that every truck used primarily for recreational purposes and not used commercially nor owned and used by a commercial business is by city definition a recreational vehicle.

Try to follow my Perry Mason logic here.

The city has created its own definition.
So, for all things municipal, that definition reigns supreme.
They have chosen a definition less restrictive than the state’s.
So, although RV plates are proof that the vehicle is an RV, the state’s definition is a subset of the city’s.
How big is the city’s set?
Every truck used primarily for recreational purposes and not used commercially nor owned and used by a commercial business.

Recreational purposes are never defined, so the enjoyment of driving should qualify.

That means every noncommercial pickup, box, garbage or fire truck qualifies as a “recreational vehicle” in the eyes of the City of Chicago.

This brings us to pickup trucks.

The city’s ban, with respect to RVs, only applies to RVs longer than 22 ft.

As far as I can ascertain, nearly all stock pickup trucks are shorter than this. To get one longer than this, you have to move up to Ford F450 and Dodge Ram 4500 series and above. These behemoths are actually chassis cab vehicles with a pickup bed screwed on. They are closer to a dump truck with a broken lift than they are to a pickup. Even these are shorter than 22 ft until you get to various long bed/crew cab combinations.

So, there it is.
Every noncommercial truck is by definition an RV.
Virtually every pickup truck is less than 22 ft long.

Therefore it is perfectly legal to park virtually every noncommercial pickup truck anywhere it is legal to park a passenger car.

No special stickers, no special wards, no special plates, no special dispensation from the city council.

This will need to be tested by the Dept of Administrative Hearings. Someone will need to stand up and test it. I have my RV plates and my exemption and don’t have the energy for another fight. I urge someone, everyone to contest these tickets in person.
If for no other reason than that it will cost the city more to hear each case, than they could possibly get from the $25 ticket.

Paul K. Dickman

Crossing the Street

One blogger wrote, “If you’ve ever ventured out into one of Chicago’s famous six-corner intersections, you know the streets don’t always feel safe.”

Blair Kamin called Belmont, Lincoln and Ashland “one of the ugliest and most anti-pedestrian intersections in all of Chicago”

Someone taking exception with plans for the Lincoln Park Hospital site wrote, “Six corner streets are very dangerous under the best of conditions”

A photographer wrote, “To many visitors of Chicago unacquainted with the workings of a six-way intersection, these spots can be a confusing and dangerous experience, particularly if driving a car or simply trying to walk across the street.”*


I have lived near the Milwaukee, North and Damen intersection since the mid 80’s, and I never noticed how dangerous it was. I have walked across the intersection at least once a day for the last 25 years, and I have never felt any more imperilled than when crossing any other intersection.
Have I been lucky?

I started looking into it and a few years ago CDOT commissioned a study about pedestrian safety and here are the results.
The study was prepared for the city of Chicago by the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, June 2007.
Worst intersections for pedestrians:
Number of pedestrian collisions: Location
 13: M L King & 79th
 11: ASHLAND & 79TH
 10: CALIFORNIA & NORTH
 9: CICERO & MADISON
 8: Pulaski & Irving Park
 8: KEDZIE & NORTH
 8: HALSTED & 95TH
 8: MICHIGAN & MONROE
 7: CLARK & WASHINGTON
 7: DEARBORN & RANDOLPH
 6: CENTRAL & BELMONT
 6: PULASKI & LAKE
 6: PULASKI & ROOSEVELT
 6: CALIFORNIA & 63RD
 6: WESTERN & ADDISON
 6: WESTERN & 63RD
 6: WESTERN & 71ST
 6: Paulina & 79th
 6: ASHLAND & 69TH
 6: Wacker & Madison
 6: CLARK & DIVISION
 6: DEARBORN & WASHINGTON
 6: WABASH & JACKSON
 6: STATE & 79TH
 5: AUSTIN & BELMONT
 5: AUSTIN & CHICAGO
 5: LARAMIE & CHICAGO
 5: PULASKI & 26TH
 5: KIMBALL & BELMONT
 5: Kimball & 16th
 5: CALIFORNIA & 55TH
 5: CALIFORNIA & 71ST
 5: WESTERN & DEVON
 5: WESTERN & NORTH
 5: SOUTHPORT & ADDISON
 5: SHEFFIELD & WEBSTER
 5: Halsted & Clark
 5: HALSTED & 69TH
 5: WELLS & MONROE
 5: CLARK & MADISON
 5: DEARBORN & MADISON
 5: Dearborn & Jackson
 5: STATE & MONROE
 5: STATE & ADAMS
 5: MICHIGAN & CHICAGO
 5: MICHIGAN & DELAWARE
 5: COTTAGE GROVE & 81ST
 5: JEFFERY & 79TH

You will notice that not a single one of these dangerous intersections is a six corner intersection.

Only one came close, Halsted & Clark. It is a five corner intersection. If you have been there, you know that it is not really an intersection at all, but an unholy maelstrom of surface parking and curb cuts.
Even then, it was at the bottom of the list.

Clearly, they aren’t any more dangerous than a four corner intersection.
So why are they getting such a bad rap?

Because we have confused the concept of not being “pedestrian friendly” with being dangerous.
We have to cross more streets than we would on a four corner. To perform the simple task of traveling on the same street in the same direction, we have to cross twice as many streets and traffic in twice as many directions.

We have to travel farther and check the traffic twice as often and percieve this as dangerous.
In reality it is much more dangerous crossing at a corner with a gas station or a parking lot on it.

Paul K. Dickman

The full study can be read at:
http://www.walkinginfo.org/training/collateral/resources/ChicagoPedestrian_final.pdf


*I owe this guy an apology for taking his statement out of context.
“To many visitors of Chicago unacquainted with the workings of a six-way intersection, these spots can be a confusing and dangerous experience, particularly if driving a car or simply trying to walk across the street.”
The rest of the paragraph is this:
“But to us locals, six-ways are where we want to be.”
It is part of the introduction to an enjoyable photo essay on six corner intersections and can be found here:
http://www.gabrielbiller.com/sixways/index.html

The Death of a Thousand Cuts

When a building or a district gets landmarked, it is not about restricting development or creating some historic theme park. It is simply the recognition that pieces of our culture, the stories of our common heritage were carved in our buildings. This is something that belongs to all of us and needs our protection. That heritage is no less significant for a workers cottage than it is for a mansion or skyscraper.
For the most part Chicago’s landmark ordinance, realizing that a building needs some flexibility to thrive, limits itself to a building’s exteriors. It puts most of its energy into the portions of a building that is visible from the street.
The ordinance can’t make you restore your building or put back elements that were lost before it was landmarked. Instead, it directs the Landmarks Commission and their staff (who oversee the ordinance) to identify those portions of a building that are still original or significant and gives them the power to protect them.
Sure they protect them from demolition, but that is rare. The grueling day to day work of these people is not protecting them from the wrecking ball, it is saving our heritage from the death of a thousand cuts.
Every new owner, every new tenant, every new manager looks up at the front of their building and says, “This would be better with….”.
The cuts all seem small: It needs a bigger cornice, I want French doors or a picture window.
The reasons all seem good: It’ll look more historic, no one is ever going to use that door again, I can’t sell a condo without a balcony and the latest buzzwords “adaptive reuse”.
But historic preservation is not about what your building could be. It is about saving what remains of what remains of what they once were.
Each little cut takes a piece of that away.
Enough cuts, and there is nothing left.

Paul K. Dickman

Bibliography for A Cautionary Tale of Crime, Corruption and Construction

I have recieved a few requests for the bibliography from "Crime, Corruption and Construction"
Frankly, it left me flabbergasted. I didn't think anybody read this stuff.
I had left it off because it was three pages long.
Here it is.

Paul K. Dickman

Newspaper Articles
Sandy Smith, “ACCARDO ASKS MOB TO PARTY” Chicago Daily Tribune 4/20/1961 pg. 1
Sandy Smith, “ACCARDO GIVES WEDDING BLAST” Chicago Daily Tribune 4/28/1961 pg. 1
“BUILDER ARGUES AGAINST DEMANDS” Addison Register 5/11/1961 pg.1
“Rent All 204 Apartments of New Complex in Addison.” Chicago Daily Tribune 2/2/1963 pg.W_A3
“$6.5 MILLION APARTMENT PROJECT TO BE DISCUSSED.” Palatine Enterprise 2/21/1963 pg.1
Joan Lorenson, “APARTMENT PROJECT STIRS BATTLE CRY.” Palatine Enterprise 3/7/1963 pg.1
Joan Lorenson, “Newspaper Ad Raises Ire Of Apartment Opponents.” Palatine Enterprise 3/21/1963 pg.1
Joan Lorenson, “Reject Apartment Complex.” Palatine Enterprise 3/28/1963 pg.1
“100 SUBURBS, TOWNSHIPS TO BALLOT TODAY.” Chicago Tribune 4/16/1963 pg.24
“VOTING MIXED IN SUBURBAN OFFICE RACES.” Chicago Tribune 4/17/1963 pg.4
Thomas Powers, “JUDGE TO HEAR GIANCANA TELL WOES WITH FBI” Chicago Tribune 7/13/1963 pg. A1
“CITY DETECTIVE IS POLICE CHIEF IN NORTHLAKE.” Chicago Tribune 7/29/1963 pg.8
Thomas Powers, “Giancana Slipping? 9 'Nominees' Line Up” Chicago Tribune 8/18/1963 pg.A8
Jean Weston, “6 School Districts Fight ‘Dream City’ Trailer Court” I1/9/1964 pg.1
Jean Weston, “'Dream City' Developer Has Obstacles to Hurdle.” I1/16/1964 pg.1
“Disclose Tax Bureau Probe in Northlake.” Chicago Tribune 3/12/1964 pg. E1
“U. S. SUBPENAS IN NORTHLAKE QUIZ REPORTED.” Chicago Tribune 3/13/1964 pg.4
Thomas Powers, “TOP COP QUITS IN NORTHLAKE FIRING PROTEST.” Chicago Tribune 3/14/1964 pg.8
“EX-FBI AGENT TO HEAR CASES IN NORTHLAKE.” Chicago Tribune 3/18/1964 pg. B1
“NORTHLAKE HOPES FOR NEW IMAGE.” Chicago Tribune 8/2/1964 pg. W1
Robert Wiedrich, “Link Giancana to Extortions.” Chicago Tribune 6/17/1965 pg.17
Robert Wiedrich, “5 IN NORTHLAKE INDICTED” Chicago Tribune 8/4/1965 pg.1
Fred Farrar, “Northlake Has Corrupt Image, But Residents Are Hopeful.” Chicago Tribune 8/9/1965 pg.B14
“4 DENY GUILT IN EXTORTIONS AT NORTHLAKE” Chicago Tribune 8/11/1965 pg.B8
“Hope for Ailing Project” Chicago Tribune 10/16/1965 pg.A5
William Jones, “Term Housing Shells Hazards” Chicago Tribune 1/6/1966 pg.IND1
“Bribery Trial Told of $16,000 Payment” Chicago Tribune 3/2/1966 pg.B3
“$20,000 BRIBE DEMAND TOLD BY WITNESS” Chicago Tribune 3/3/1966 pg.3
“Northlake Extortion Details Told in Court” Chicago Tribune 3/4/1966 pg.1
John O'Brien, “MAYOR FREED IN NORTHLAKE BRIBERY TRIAL” Chicago Tribune 3/5/1966 pg.3
“DEFENSE ENDS IN NORTHLAKE BRIBERY TRIAL” Chicago Tribune 3/8/1966 pg.A8
John O'Brien, “Convict 3 in Extort Plot” Chicago Tribune 3/10/1966 pg.1
“Savings and Loan Pays for Pumping” Chicago Tribune 3/27/1966 pg.IND_A4
Robert Wiedrich, “Secret Midnight Meetings of Top Mobsters Revealed” Chicago Tribune 10/1/1966 pg.B11
Robert Wiedrich, “Mob Underling Rises in Power” Chicago Tribune 11/2/1966 pg.1
Robert Wiedrich, “GRAND JURY PROBES MOB SHAKEDOWNS” Chicago Tribune 12/5/1966 pg.1
“Drops S. & L. Project Deadline” Chicago Tribune 12/11/1966 pg.S9
“Lawn Officials Pledge King Arthur Progress” Chicago Tribune 2/16/1967 pg.IND1
Robert Wiedrich, “INDICT 2 HOODLUM CHIEFS” Chicago Tribune 2/17/1967 pg.1
Robert Wiedrich, “TELL OF PLAN BY AMABILE TO FLEE CITY” Chicago Tribune 2/19/1967 pg.1
Robert Enstad, “Innocent, Say Battaglia, 4 Pals” Chicago Tribune 2/24/1967 pg.10
“Tells of Crime Link to Building Firm” Chicago Tribune 4/20/1967 pg.D3
“Witness Testifies How Hood Tried to Cheat Sam Battaglia” Chicago Tribune 4/21/1967 pg.19
Robert Enstad, “WITNESS GIVES INSIDE LOOK AT MOB BUSINESS” Chicago Tribune 4/22/1967 pg.19
Robert Enstad, “MOB MUSCLE DESCRIBED BY ITS FRONT MAN” Chicago Tribune 4/25/1967 pg.A6
Robert Enstad, “NAME CHANGE OF BATTAGLIA WITNESS HIT” Chicago Tribune 4/26/1967 pg.17
Robert Enstad, “Builder Tells Jury How Battaglia Stepped In, Ran His Firm” Chicago Tribune 4/27/1967 pg.4
Robert Enstad, “Ends Story in Battaglia Trial” Chicago Tribune 4/28/1967 pg.12
Robert Enstad, “Defense of Battaglia Opened” Chicago Tribune 4/29/1967 pg.F6
“FORCED TO AID HOODLUM IN DEAL: WITNESS” Chicago Tribune 5/2/1967 pg.B8
“COURT DENIES ACQUITTAL FOR BATTAGLIA, 2” Chicago Tribune 5/3/1967 pg.B10
Robert Enstad, “BUILDER LIED ON LAND COST COURT IS TOLD” Chicago Tribune 5/4/1967 pg.G11
Robert Enstad, “U. S. WITNESS WILL TESTIFY FOR BATTAGLIA” Chicago Tribune 5/5/1967 pg.D21
Robert Enstad, “2 SIDES REST IN BATTAGLIA HEARING HERE” Chicago Tribune 5/6/1967 pg.E11
Robert Enstad, “DELIBERATIONS BEGIN IN TRIAL OF BATTAGLIA” Chicago Tribune 5/9/1967 pg.12
Robert Enstad, “GANG CHIEF GUILTY JAILED” Chicago Tribune 5/10/1967 pg.1
Robert Enstad, “BATTAGLIA IS SENTENCED TO 15-YEAR TERM” Chicago Tribune 5/30/1967 pg.1
“Firm Bids for Lansing Project” Chicago Tribune 7/30/1967 pg.IND6
Robert Enstad, “TRIAL IS SET TOMORROW FOR SUBURB MAYOR” Chicago Tribune 9/10/1967 pg.24
Robert Enstad, “WITNESS BARES DETAILS OF 'FIX' IN NORTHLAKE” Chicago Tribune 9/15/1967 pg.A11
Robert Enstad, “Witness Tells of Neri 'Deal' for Payoffs” Chicago Tribune 9/20/1967 pg.A1
“DENIES MOVE FOR MISTRIAL IN NERI CASE” Chicago Tribune 9/21/1967 pg.A6
“LAWYER TELLS OF NERI DEAL FOR PERMITS” Chicago Tribune 9/23/1967 pg.W_A27
“NERI BRIBERY JURY HEARS ONE U. S. WITNESS” Chicago Tribune 9/26/1967 pg.7
“JURORS GIVEN TOWN RECORDS IN NERI TRIAL” Chicago Tribune 9/27/1967 pg.C13
Robert Enstad, “Neri Jury Hears of $70,000 'Work Permit'” Chicago Tribune 9/28/1967 pg.16
Robert Enstad, “RILEY TELLS 3 PAYMENTS FOR BUILDING O.K.” Chicago Tribune 9/29/1967 pg.25
“AID TO BUILDER TELLS OF BRIBE IN NORTHLAKE” Chicago Tribune 10/11/1967 pg.C9
“Witness Gives His Version of $1400 Payoff” Chicago Tribune 10/13/1967 pg.1
“JURY HEARS PALERMO ALIBI” Chicago Tribune 10/17/1967 pg.4
“Taking Payoff in Northlake Denied by Neri” Chicago Tribune 10/18/1967 pg.B22
“Neri Tells of Low Salary, High Life” Chicago Tribune 10/19/1967 pg.D2
“ALD. SHABABY DENIES PART IN EXTORTION” Chicago Tribune 10/20/1967 pg.17
“Defense Rests in Neri Case; Two Balk at Testifying” Chicago Tribune 10/24/1967 pg.C1
“Witness Tells of Hood's Threat to Northlake Mayor” Chicago Tribune 10/25/1967 pg.A8
Robert Enstad, “Mayor Neri 4 Others Guilty of Extortion” Chicago Tribune 10/28/1967 pg.1
Robert Enstad, “Neri Sentenced to 12 Years” Chicago Tribune 11/14/1967 pg.1
Pat Hensel, “JURY SUBPOENAS VILLAGE RECORDS” Addison Register 1/24/1968 pg.1
Rudolph Unger, “NERI ALLOWED TO POST BOND; NOT PALERMO” Chicago Tribune 4/5/1969 pg.N_A6
“Henry Neri Indicted in 1963 Tax Evasion” Chicago Tribune 4/15/1969 pg.A2
Alvin Nagelberg, “FSLIC Is Pushing Hard for 4 S. & L. Liquidations” Chicago Tribune 4/27/1969 pg.B11
Rudolph Unger, “Kerner Accused by Skolnick of Accepting Stock in Bank” Chicago Tribune 12/3/1969 pg.1
“Judicial Impropriety? .Kerner Silent On Charge.” Southeast Missourian 12/3/1969 pg.7
Rudolph Unger, “Stock Deal Is Denied by Kerner” Chicago Tribune 12/10/1969 pg.1
Alex P. Dobish; Thomas G. Lubenow, “The Mafia in Illinois; Illinois Mob Able to Murder with impunity for 50 Years in Northlake.” Milwaukee Journal 12/28/1969 Accent section pgs.1,2
Alex P. Dobish; Thomas G. Lubenow, “The Mafia in Illinois; Mobsters Smelled Cash in Northlake.” Milwaukee Journal 12/29/1969 pg.1
“Neri and 2 Plead Guilty to Extortion” Chicago Tribune 3/24/1971 pg.A17
Robert Wiedrich, “Developer Tells How Mob Took Over His Empire” Chicago Tribune 3/28/1971 pg.1
“Neri Income Tax Charges Are Dismissed” Chicago Tribune 4/1/1971 pg.A18
George Bliss; John R Thomson, “After testimony” Chicago Tribune 5/28/1973 pg.3
George Bliss; John R Thomson, “Surveillance is part of IRS Job” Chicago Tribune 5/29/1973 pg.1
Robert Wiedrich, “The old, gray Mob” Chicago Tribune 4/21/1974 pg.G24
“Accardo pal will talk” Chicago Tribune 2/10/1979 pg.S4


United States 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Reports

GIANCANA v. JOHNSON, 335 F.2d 366 (7th Cir. 1964)
http://www.loislaw.com/livepublish8923/doclink.htp?alias=F7CASE&cite=335+F.2d+366

UNITED STATES v. PRANNO, 385 F.2d 387 (7th Cir. 1967)
http://www.loislaw.com/livepublish8923/doclink.htp?alias=F7CASE&cite=385+F.2d+387

UNITED STATES v. BATTAGLIA, 394 F.2d 304 (7th Cir. 1968)
http://www.loislaw.com/livepublish8923/doclink.htp?alias=F7CASE&cite=394+F.2d+304

UNITED STATES v. PALERMO, 410 F.2d 468 (7th Cir. 1969)
http://www.loislaw.com/livepublish8923/doclink.htp?alias=F7CASE&cite=394+F.2d+304

UNITED STATES v. BATTAGLIA, 432 F.2d 1115 (7th Cir. 1970)
http://www.loislaw.com/livepublish8923/doclink.htp?alias=F7CASE&cite=432+F.2d+1115


Internal Revenue Service, “Joseph (Joe Shine) Amabile Racketeer”; 75 Years of IRS Criminal Investigation History”; Document 7233 (Rev. 2-96) 1996, pg 124
www.famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Govt/IRS/irs_75_years.rtf

Attic rooms

In the early days of zoning, a building’s size was controlled mostly by height and setback restrictions. Later, we added control of the building’s volume, called “Cubical Content” but in the 1950’s Chicago started to use “Floor Area Ratio” instead.

The F.A.R. is a ratio of the usable floor area of the building to the size of the lot it sits on. An F.A.R. of .9 meant that you could build a one story ranch house that covered 90% of your lot, or a 2 story that covered 45%.

At some point, while defining what part of the floor area is usable, the zoning department turned to attics.

Every municipality seems to have developed its own standard. Some said that unfinished attics don’t count, but finished ones do. Some said that the floor space of a finished attic with a ceiling height of 5 feet or more count. Chicago’s ordinance said “those portions of an attic having head-room of 6 feet 9 inches or more” were usable floor area.

This has always been understood to mean finished or unfinished. If you wanted to drywall your attic, zoning did not care. Unless you increased the amount of usable floor area by adding dormers, it was not a zoning concern.

The 2004 ordinance says almost precisely the same thing. However, they added the definition of an attic. Section 17-17-0213 says that an attic is “Unfinished floor space located immediately below a gabled roof or other form of sloped roof”.

The zoning department has interpreted this to mean any portion of a finished attic constitutes usable floor space. Now, if your rebellious teenager needs more privacy or you want someplace to put your desk, think twice about using your attic.

You may need a zoning change just to hang a few sheets of drywall.

Paul K. Dickman