On Tuesday more than 100 transit people participated in an online discussion of efforts to prevent the Chicago Greyhound Terminal from closing next month before another intercity bus station can replace it. One of the panelists, DePaul Chaddick Institute Director Joe Schwieterman discussed the institute's new report that if this happened, Chicago would be the largest northern hemisphere city with no intercity bus terminal.
Transit experts and advocates at the talk noted that losing the station would that disproportionately impact lower-income residents, people with disabilities, and other marginalized demographics that rely on bus travel. They argued that, since Chicago is a key U.S. transportation hub, leaving bus passengers without a sheltered place to wait for their ride would have a harmful cascade effect on the entire national bus network.
And having no bus terminal would certainly undermine Mayor Brandon Johnson's frequent mantra that Chicago is "the greatest frickin' city in the world." (Listen to that catchphrase here at 6:00 in a video of his recent DNC speech.)
If nothing is done, the default "plan" is for Greyhound and other bus lines to pick up and drop off customers curbside from the red bus-only lane on Jackson Boulevard next to the Union Station rail hub, which serves Amtrak and Metra. Not only would that force intercity customers to wait in the elements, but it would obstruct CTA buses using Jackson as part of the Loop Link express corridor, although nowadays only the #1 Union Station/Bronzeville line regularly stops there. While in the past six intercity buses have used this location, recently nine more Greyhound routes began stopping at Jackson.
Union Station already has an indoor ticket counter, and some have argued that making the train terminal an official waiting space for bus riders is a logical solution. But at Tuesday's discussion, Ald. Carlos Ramirez-Rosa (35th), said that idea is a non-starter, because the station already gets swamped with Amtrak and Metra customers. "If you've been by there during rush hour, you know just how packed it gets," he said. "Every single chair, every singe table is full of people. The bathrooms are full." He added that there's already heavy congestion on the surrounding streets from ride-hail drivers and civilians picking up and dropping off train riders, and heavy intercity bus traffic would make that worse. Moreover a billion-dollar-plus renovation of the station is starting in 2025.
However, one advocate of officially opening Union Station to bus riders is the Chicago Tribune newspaper. In May 2023 it ran the editorial, "The best new spot for a Greyhound terminal? In or around Union Station."
And on Wednesday, August 21, the Tribune published a similar call for relocating users of the existing intercity bus station to the Amtrak/Metra building: "Amtrak should welcome Greyhound for its passengers’ sake."
Why is the Chicago Tribune so enthusiastic about moving intercity bus customers from the Greyhound terminal to Union Station? It's worth noting that, according to a recent Tribune news article on this issue, the station is "owned by Twenty Lake Holdings, an affiliate of Alden Global Capital, which also owns the Tribune."
If the Greyhound stop is vacated, Twenty Lake will be able to profit from selling the land, a valuable West Loop parcel at 630 W. Harrison St. So it might raise some eyebrows that 21 Lake's "corporate cousin" the Tribune is such an enthusiastic cheerleader for moving Chicago's intercity bus station from its current site to Union Station.
This morning Amtrak spokesperson Marc Magliari contacted Streetsblog, saying last Friday, August 23, at 4 p.m., he submitted Amtrak's rebuttal letter to the August 21 editorial to the Tribune. He complained that, although he used the standard submission process, and the paper had his contact info, almost a week later he hadn't heard from its staff, or seen his letter published.
I emailed Tribune editorial page staffers about this, and it turned out that they did publish the Amtrak letter yesterday, Wednesday August 29, with the title "Greyhound editorial misses key points."
"There was no deliberate slowness," Tribune Opinion Content Editor Colleen Kujawa wrote me. "The DNC and related topics kept the letters section busy last week."
And by email Editorial Page Editor Chris Jones rejected the notion that the Tribune dragged its feet on running an letter opposing one of its editorials. "I cannot tell you how much we want letters that disagree with what we write in editorials," he said. "In my three years in this job, we have never not run one."
Jones also dismissed the idea that the Tribune's corporate ties to the Greyhound station owner is influencing its coverage of the intercity bus issue. "We have nothing whatsoever to do with Twenty Lake and we don’t carry editorial water for them, nor would they ask us to," he said. "This editorial was our second on this topic and our response to the reporting in many outlets saying the city was looking for a new site."
"Speaking personally, I have travelled quite often on Greyhound in my life, and I am on Amtrak all the time," Jones concluded. "I see it as vitally important that we have a good situation for these travelers. We think Union Station is an option for Greyhound. There are others."
At Tuesday's talk, Ald. Ramirez-Rosa had mentioned Metra terminals LaSalle Street Station and the Ogilvie Transportation Center, which has retail space vacancies, as possibilities.
When I told Amtrak's Magliari about the Tribune's response, he replied that he hadn't noticed the publication of the Amtrak statement because the Tribune had "buried" it at the bottom of seven letters to the editor that day.
I passed along Magliari's reaction to the Trib. "[The Amtrak letter's] placement also is not an indication of board/ownership interference," Kujawa replied. "My colleague [fellow opinion content editor Grace Miserocchi] and I are not members of the editorial board; we operate independently when choosing letters for publication."
I asked Kujawa, "Can you explain why the letter rebutting a Tribune editorial supporting something that would benefit one of the paper’s corporate cousins got lower placement that, say, letters praising Cardinal Cupich’s DNC speech?"
"We group letters of a similar theme together," Kujawa responded. "The Amtrak letter was not similar to the letters above it."
Magliari eventually contacted Jones, Kujawa, and myself via email. "We appreciate knowing the letter ran in print and is posted on the website," he said. "Since the hyperlink [Kujawa sent Streetsblog] goes to your page of letters, and I am used to the print version, scrolling six letters down through a letter about Grant Park and others, an online user might not see it without using the search function to find it. Or help from the three of you."
"The larger issue is the ed board not seeking more information about Amtrak by not contacting us before the editorials ran in May and last week," Magliari added "We are easy to reach."
Read the Tribune's May editorial on the Greyhound / Union Station issue here.
Read the Tribune's August 21 editorial here.
Read Amtrak's August 28 letter to the Tribune responding to the recent editorial here – scroll down to the bottom of the screen.
Did you appreciate this post? Please consider making a tax-deductible donation, to help keep Streetsblog Chicago's sustainable transportation news and advocacy articles paywall-free.
