Monthly Archives: October 2016

Review

Taking Chicago passengers for a ride

Sometimes seeking a commonsense response from government can be as satisfying as waiting for a taxi in the rain. So we’re hopeful that negotiations involving Uber, taxi drivers and Chicago’s City Hall end up in the correct spot: in favor of competition, not stifling regulation.

For weeks, the City Council has been moving toward an ordinance that would slap Uber and other app-based ride firms with many of the same rules that apply to licensed cabs. That would include requiring ride-share drivers to spend hundreds of dollars on chauffeur classes and other fees, be fingerprinted, get a drug test and a physical. As of Monday, all sides were working on a compromise that could strip away the worst of the requirements before a scheduled vote Wednesday.

There is no public outcry in favor of tightening restrictions on Uber drivers. Chicagoans have come to appreciate using their smartphones to hail a ride as an alternative to taxis. A lot of part-time workers, from college students to soccer moms, benefit from turning their vehicles into income-generators.

The constituency in Chicago that wants to squash Uber is the entrenched and highly regulated taxi industry, which is losing customers to the upstarts. The cab companies’ allies in the City Council have been pushing for a crackdown. It’s about “consumer protection,” said Ald. Anthony Beale, who’s leading the charge. Well, it is about “protection.” But not for consumers — for cabbies and their bosses.

Technology plays a role in building the new and tearing down the old. Ride-hailing companies, which use a smartphone app to connect people needing a ride and car owners willing to provide a lift, are an extraordinary example. Uber was founded in San Francisco in 2009. Last time we looked it was worth $68 billion.

The system works because passengers are confident Uber drivers will get them where they want to go. The company does basic background checks and car inspections. The smartphone app identifies the driver by name and tracks the ride in progress. At the end of each ride, drivers and passengers rate each other, providing another form of safety check. Payment is done automatically via credit card.

Some customers may not be comfortable with ride-sharing, which is why taxis need to exist too. There’s nothing as easy as stepping onto the street and immediately seeing a cab to hail. Uber rides are often cheaper than taxis, but can also be much higher because the company can adjust pricing to match demand. Taxi rates are set by the city. On the other hand, Uber drivers serve neighborhoods on the West and South sides where it’s hard to find a taxi, even though cabs are required to serve those communities.

This tension between the two sides is intense. The taxi industry wants Uber and the others to follow all the same rules, since they are providing the same basic service. But Uber’s business model is based on the fact that drivers generally are part-timers who decide when to look for fares. Someone wanting to try out the business or drive for 10 hours every other week won’t jump through the hoops required to get a taxi driver license. Uber and Lyft suspended service in Austin, Texas, in protest of more regulations. Other competitors have stepped in there, but the results aren’t clear.

Chicago’s cabbies have a legitimate beef. Under the old regulated system, investors paid big bucks for a strictly limited number of taxi medallions. Can you say, monopoly? Drivers got licensed because they expected busy shifts. Now business is terrible. The industry is suing the city, arguing that ride-share firms have an unfair advantage. Beale, whose heavy-handed version of the ordinance passed the Transportation Committee on Friday, says his aim is to level the playing field. His plan, though, would have made things equally bad for both taxis and Uber.

The goal for aldermen should be to help both thrive, because that’s what’s best for consumers.

Taxis need to do a better job of competing — Uber already has forced taxis to raise their game, but there’s still room for improvement — but they do need some help. Instead of imposing new rules on the apps firms, the city should look for ways to reduce regulations on taxis. The answer to a competitive problem is not for government to heap rules on a new industry. It never is.

News, Review

Chicago May be Named The Best Bike City, but Perfect It Is Not

Bicycling magazine today declared Chicago the best city in America in which to pedal your two-wheeled vehicle. It’s largely a testament to Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s decision to build a network of 100-plus miles of protected bike lanes and push hard to create and expand the Divvy bike-share program.

Congrats all around. Some improvement indeed has occurred. But bike nirvana has not arrived.

Consider this: Four bikers have been killed by autos so far this year, according to Streetsblog Chicago, including what appears to be the nation’s first death of a rider on a relatively slow-moving bike-share bike. Dozens and dozens of nonfatal injuries have occurred, including a few among my circle of friends and acquaintances.

I’ve managed to avoid injury in the past 12 months, including this morning’s ride in from Lakeview. But it’s a rare ride when I don’t have to swerve to avoid a pothole, come close to being clocked by some motorist throwing open their door without looking or—truth be told—mumble under my breath at a fellow biker emulating a master of the universe by breezing across multiple lanes of traffic, blowing inconvenient red lights and whisking past startled pedestrians.

I will say that things are better, in part because of the protected bike lanes and in part because drivers now are more familiar with the growing number of bikers. On occasion, I’ll actually see three or four bikers waiting for a red light to change, even when no traffic is coming. That amazes me, because the first rule of any dedicated biker is to never stop, ever, because stopping means you have to put out the energy to start again.

Still, the typical Chicago motorist never is going to figure out that you have to look in the mirror before throwing open the door. Not gonna happen. So, like it or not, I have to ride at least a yard away from any parked car. Drivers don’t like it. But being doored is no fun—trust me.

Meanwhile, a subset of bikers really has got to leave aside the concept that the morning commute is the Tour de Chicago, a way to work up the heart rate and skip hitting the gym that night. Some basic concepts—you don’t pass with 2 inches of clearance; you don’t pass a line of other bikes waiting for a red light to change because you have to be first—routinely are ignored by such folks.

If you want to race, go to the country, pal. Busy city streets are used by too many people for too many things.

And City Hall?

Continuing to roll out protected bike lanes is a good idea, though I understand it means less pavement for cars. Being a little more sensible in placement is a good idea, too. One bike lane I can think of goes right in front of a hotel that considers the space to be its private loading zone.

And the potholes. Let’s start with North Clark Street.

My bottom line: Yes, biking in Chicago has gotten a little better. However, you still have to have full awareness, and sometimes that’s not even enough.

So, bikers, slow down a tad—even (gads) for obnoxious pedestrians. Drivers, think and look before you move. Pedestrians, quit texting as you walk into traffic.

News

U.S. wants to force lower speeds on truck and bus drivers

The U.S. is seeking to forcibly limit how fast trucks, buses and other large vehicles can travel on the nation’s highways.

A new proposal today would impose a nationwide limit by electronically capping speeds with a device on newly made U.S. vehicles that weigh more than 26,000 pounds. Regulators are considering a cap of 60, 65 or 68 miles per hour, though that could change.

Whatever the speed limit, drivers would be physically prevented from exceeding it.

The government said capping speeds for large vehicles will reduce the 1,115 fatal crashes involving heavy trucks that occur each year and save $1 billion in fuel costs.

The proposal from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is subject to public comment before becoming final.

While the news is being welcomed by safety advocates and non-professional drivers, many truckers say that such changes could lead to dangerous scenarios where they are traveling at much lower speeds than everyone else.

The rule has been ensnared in a regulatory maze in the decade since the nonprofit group Roadsafe America issued its first petition in 2006. The group was founded by Atlanta financial adviser Scott Owings and his wife Susan, whose son Cullum was killed by a speeding tractor-trailer during a trip back to school in Virginia after Thanksgiving in 2002. The nonprofit was later joined by the American Trucking Associations, the nation’s largest trucking industry group.

Owings said he’s happy that speed-limiting technology may be in place soon, but frustrated by how long it took.

“This glacial process, if you can call it a process, is not effective,” Owings said before the latest proposal arrived. “It’s easy to see why so many citizens are angry about the ineffectiveness of government.”

The government agencies involved will take public comment for 60 days, then determine the final limit and decide if the regulation should be put in place.

The agencies said the proposal is based on available safety data and the additional benefit of better fuel economy. The cost would be minimal because all of the 3.6 million big rigs on U.S. roads have speed-limiting devices installed already, but some don’t have the limits set, according to agency documents.

But Norita Taylor, spokeswoman for the 157,000-member Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association, said her group has opposed the speed limiters because they create dangerous interactions between vehicles as faster cars slow down for trucks. “Differentials in speed increase interactions between vehicles, which increases the likelihood of crashes,” Taylor said.

Yet there is another compelling reason to limit truck speeds. An investigation last year by The Associated Press found that 14 states have speed limits for big trucks that are equal to or higher than their tires were designed to handle. Most truck tires aren’t designed to go faster than 75 mph, and tire manufacturers say traveling faster than that can cause tires to fail and blow out, creating safety issues.

Most of the states with the higher speed limits are west of the Mississippi River. Of the 14, five have speed limits of 80 mph or more and allow trucks to exceed the capability of their tires. NHTSA has said the speed limiters should take care of the discrepancy between state speed limits and truck tire capabilities.

Most of the states with speed limits of 80 or above either didn’t know about the truck tire speed ratings or didn’t consider them. States set their own speed limits, having been given sole authority to do so by Congress in the mid-1990s.

News

Chicago disability rights group sues Uber over wheelchair access

Chicago disability rights group has sued the mobile ride-hailing service Uber for allegedly violating U.S. laws mandating wheelchair accessibility.

The suit was filed Thursday in Chicago federal court on behalf of Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago and several individuals. It seeks an order requiring that Uber comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and provide more wheelchair-accessible vehicles.

The filing notes Uber offers a service for wheelchair-bound customers called UberWAV. But it says Uber’s mobile map often shows no such vehicles available in Chicago.

The suit says Uber provided nearly 2 million rides in Chicago in June last year. But it says Uber gave just 14 rides to motorized wheelchair users from 2011 to 2015.

A Chicago spokeswoman for San Francisco-based Uber Technologies, Inc., didn’t have an immediate comment.

Review

Chicago is now a ‘knowledge capital,’ but is the title earned?

A new study from the Brookings Institution classifies Chicago as one of 19 global “knowledge capitals.” Cool, right? Well, yes and no.

It’s great to see Chicago recognized as a player in research and innovation alongside entrepreneurial hotbeds like Boston and Silicon Valley. On the other hand, the report also confirms that Chicago still lags when it comes to converting ideas into economic growth.

Brookings provides a fresh angle on the 123 largest metropolitan economies in the world, illuminating their distinct roles in an increasingly specialized global economy. The studydivides cities into seven categories based on how they compete economically. For example, “global giants” such as New York, Los Angeles, London and Tokyo, some with $1 trillion-plus GDPs, dominate global trade and investment flows; “Asian anchors” like Seoul, Shanghai and Singapore are the economic command centers for a continent on the rise; and “American middleweights” such as Kansas City and Columbus circle the fringes of international trade, looking for an opening.

Better to be a knowledge capital than a middleweight. Chicago’s category includes cities with high levels of education, research activity, venture investment and global connectedness.

Study co-author Joseph Parilla says Chicago qualifies as a knowledge capital largely on the strength of world-class research universities, patent output, venture capital levels and strong international transportation connections, aka O’Hare International Airport.

These assets are familiar to anyone who knows Chicago’s economy. As my colleague John Pletz reported in the latest issue of Crain’s, Chicago companies churn out innovations in everything from tennis rackets and medical technology to software and food-processing equipment.

And it’s a good thing, too, because Chicago long ago lost its edge as a manufacturing center. “It can’t compete on costs” with low-wage Asian cities, says Parilla. “Chicago has been forced into its specialization as a knowledge capital because that’s what it can do better than the rest of the world.”

NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

Trouble is, Chicago doesn’t do it better than the other 18 knowledge capitals. And that’s who we’re competing against in a specialized world economy. Chicago places in the bottom half of the group on all but four of 15 indicators tracked by Brookings. We rank first in population, GDP and air travel, and ninth in university research.

Most disappointing is the absence of any apparent link between innovation and economic growth in Chicago. While other knowledge capitals such as Dallas, Seattle and San Diego posted average annual GDP growth of more than 2 percent between 2000 and 2015, Chicago finished dead last at 0.8 percent. Similarly, our per capita GDP of $60,988 ranked 16th out of 19 knowledge capitals. Our unemployment rate of 5.4 percent is far above the group average of 4.5 percent.

In part, this reflects a fundamental difference between Chicago and other innovation-driven cities. Unlike San Jose, Denver and Dallas, Chicago had a prior life as a 20th century manufacturing behemoth. Our industrial heyday left us with a huge population base, too much of it ill-equipped for knowledge economy work.

Chicago won’t fulfill its potential as a knowledge capital until it retools its legacy economy for the 21st century. This requires a systematic effort on several fronts.

It starts with better training and education for a workforce that needs new skills. High schools and community colleges should work more closely with employers to develop curricula that match the requirements of a knowledge-based economy. Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s “College to Careers” program connecting companies and City Colleges is a good example of the kind of coordination we need.

Another key is focusing on areas where Chicago has a potential advantage over other knowledge capitals, such as the cutting-edge production techniques under development at UI Labs’ digital manufacturing center on Goose Island. That collaboration among universities, big companies and small businesses could serve as a model for extending the value chain of innovation across Chicago.

Tax policy also has a role to play in fostering innovation. As Crain’s editorial board argued in the current issue, reinstating Illinois’ research and development tax credit would encourage companies in a wide range of industries to invest in innovation here.

And of course, we should maintain our lead over other knowledge capitals in transportation. That means making every investment necessary to preserve O’Hare’s status as a top global aviation hub.

Over time, these efforts will develop the muscles Chicago needs to compete with its new rivals. We may never topple Silicon Valley. But if we learn to punch our weight as a knowledge capital, we won’t become just another middleweight.

 

News, Review

Aldermen winning in taxi war with ride-booking companies

The renewed City Council fight over whether to require ride-booking companies like Uber and Lyft to use only drivers with a chauffeur’s license is sparking a campaign cash windfall for Chicago aldermen and some of their pet causes.

Most obvious is the giving by the Illinois Transportation Trade Association PAC, which represents traditional taxi companies, but both sides are opening their wallets.

Since a measure by Ald. Anthony Beale, 9th, and other members of the City Council’s progressive caucus to require such a license, was introduced last month, ITTA has donated at least $23,000 to a total of 18 aldermen. Most got $1,000 each, but Beale received $5,000.

Beale was also a big beneficiary of money from ITTA in recent years, receiving $15,000 in 2014 and 2015, with a three-year total of at least $20,000, according to state financial disclosure reports.

In a phone interview late last week, Beale said he’s always been an ally of cab drivers and there is “no connection” between the donations and his sponsorship. “I haven’t cashed the ($5,000) check,” Beale added, saying he won’t decide whether to do so until later.

Beyond that, the progressive caucus, which has allied itself politically with a union representing cab drivers, has itself been a big winner .

The group got $10,000 in October and another $1,000 right after Beale submitted his plan. It also received $10,000 late last year from the union.

“A lot of outfits that come before the City Council make contributions,” said Ald. Ricardo Munoz, 22nd, who is listed in state records as caucus chairman. “We listen to the arguments and try to be as fair as possible.”

I can find no sign that Uber and Lyft, the other major company in the field, have made similar contributions recently, though Lyft did donate $5,000 to Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s re-electionfund in March 2015.

But in response to a question, Uber spokeswoman Brooke Anderson said the company did donate “several thousand dollars” to the City Council Latino caucus’ scholarship gala in November.

“We do not make political contributions to anyone as a matter of policy,” and the caucus event was for charity, Anderson said.

Other sources said they believe the donation was $10,000.

Also, lobbyists working for Uber and Lyft have been active donors to aldermen.

For instance, Nicolay & Dart, which Anderson said was officially retained by Uber last week, donated $1,000 each to progressive caucus members Scott Waguespack, 32nd, and Roderick Sawyer, 6th, in April.

The lobbying firm has donated several thousands more to other aldermen and their political organizations since last fall, when it was representing Lyft. But Nicolay & Dart has numerous clients, not just ride-hailing companies.

Uber’s main lobbyist is Mike Kasper, Anderson said. He’s the election lawyer who helped Rahm Emanuel fight off a residency challenge when he first ran for mayor in 2011.

The Beale bill is the second attempt by aldermen to toughen rules on the ridesharing companies. Last year, the council decided against requiring Uber and its competitors to mandate chauffeur’s licenses for drivers. The new Beale proposal would also require more intensive background checks for drivers.

The companies said the rules are onerous, unnecessary and potentially devastating to their business. Taxi companies said the rules would even the playing field and protect riders.

News, Review

Chicago taxi group asks appellate court to even playing field with Uber

CHICAGO — An attorney for Chicago’s taxi industry on Monday argued to a federal appeals court panel that the city of Chicago has unconstitutionally enforced two sets of rules for the taxi and ridesharing industries, making it impossible for cabbies to compete with Uber and Lyft drivers.

The argument in front of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals marked the latest effort by the city’s taxi industry to stem the financial tumult caused by the emergence of rideshare companies that some in the Windy City says is inching the legacy cab industry to the precipice of collapse.

Meanwhile, an attorney for three Chicago-area ridesharing drivers urged the appellate court to affirm an Illinois federal judge’s April decision to reject a preliminary injunction requested by city’s taxi industry that would have forced Uber and Lyft drivers to face the same regulations as taxi drivers—including the requirement they be fingerprinted, obtain a chauffeur’s license, and undergo the same vehicular safety inspections as taxi drivers.

The argument in front of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals marked the latest effort by the city’s taxi industry to stem the financial tumult caused by the emergence of rideshare companies that some in the Windy City says is inching the legacy cab industry to the precipice of collapse.

Meanwhile, an attorney for three Chicago-area ridesharing drivers urged the appellate court to affirm an Illinois federal judge’s April decision to reject a preliminary injunction requested by city’s taxi industry that would have forced Uber and Lyft drivers to face the same regulations as taxi drivers—including the requirement they be fingerprinted, obtain a chauffeur’s license, and undergo the same vehicular safety inspections as taxi drivers.

Chicago’s city council in June passed an ordinance that would require ridesharing drivers to get a special license, one that is easier to obtain than the chauffeur’s license required for taxi and livery drivers.

The ordinance, which was pushed by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, was far weaker than what some members of Chicago’s city council were advocating for, including requiring rideshare drivers to acquire a chauffeur’s license and be fingerprinted.

Instead, the recently passed ordinance requires rideshare drivers in Chicago to complete online training. The city also decided to further study the possibility of fingerprinting for rideshare drivers in the future.

In contrast, Chicago taxi drivers are required to take a class in-person that costs more than $300 and also be fingerprinted to obtain a chauffer’s license.

The weaker ordinance came as Uber and Lyft threatened to leave Chicago if more onerous regulations were passed in the city. The companies did just that in Austin after voters there rejected a proposal by the companies to self-regulate their drivers and mandated that drivers undergo fingerprint background checks and have emblems on their cars.

“What’s the rationale for having fingerprinting for one and not the other?” said Shakman, who represent the Illinois Transportation Trade Association, which includes dozens of licensed cab companies.  “What’s the rationale for requiring a chauffeur’s license for one and not the other?”

The taxi industry also complains that the lack of regulation of ridesharing by Chicago and other cities has lead to owners of medallions—the city issued permit that owners of taxis must obtain to operate—seeing the value of their property diminish.

In 2013, the price of taxi medallions in Chicago peaked at $357,000. In April, a medallion was transferred between owners for $60,000. Taxi medallion owners in other cities have also seen the value of medallions plummet.

“It’s fundamentally unfair to the people who have played by the city’s rules since 1937,” said Shakman, referring to the inception of Chicago’s medallion system.

Judge Richard Posner, a member of the three member appeals panel, countered that it was absurd to assert that there aren’t fundamental differences between rideshare services and the taxi industry, which justifies different types of regulations.

At one point, Posner suggested that what is happening to the taxi industry was similar to what happened when to the “horse-and-buggy.”

“This is what competition does,” Posner said. “It wipes out industry.”

In a related case, the 7th Circuit also on Monday heard an appeal from the Joe Sanfelippo Cabs Inc., which had unsuccessfully sued the city of Milwaukee over its decision in 2014 to lift the cap it had placed on the number taxis that it would permit to operate in the city.

Sanfelippo and other legacy cab companies filed suit against Milwaukee that ending the cap devalued the taxi permit holders’ property without compensation. Milwaukee taxi permit holders had been able to sell the permits for up to $100,000 on the secondary market prior to the cap being lifted.

Anthony Sanders, a Libertarian public-interest attorney involved in the Milwaukee and Chicago lawsuits, said the two cases will play a critical role in determining how cities will approach regulation of the taxi and rideshare industries in the future.

“Deregulation is not a taking (of property),” said Sanders, with the Arlington, Va.,Institute for Justice. “There are serious questions about shackling taxi cabs to regulation, but the solution is not to shackle them on drivers like my clients. The solution deregulation of the taxi cabs.”

The appellate judges did not say when they would return with their decisions on the two cases.

 

News, Review

Why Hiring a Chicago Cab is Better than Riding the L

Don’t get us wrong. The L is great , and has become quite an institution around the Chicago area. However, taking it all the time has its own sets of pros and cons. Once you figure out what the downsides are the L instead of taking a Universal Taxi, you just might realize that the latter is the better choice.

1.It drops you off exactly where you’re supposed to go

One huge downside to the L is the fact that not every place you go to is found next to a train station. You would have to find the station nearest your destination . Og course , not every place around Chicago has a station near it, so you would end up having to do a lot of walking. Take a Cab and you get off right where you’re going.

2. It picks you up right where you are

It doesn’t matter where you are around the city. Just call a cab and you can expect to be picked up right where  you’re standing. You can even download the Universal Taxi app and book a cab straight from your phone without having to call the cab company . The app lets you send the driver all the information they need to find where you are, and just like that, your cab pick you up any minute.

3. It lets you have great conversations with a true-blue Chicago cabbie

One of the great things about Chicago cabs are the cabbies themselves! these cabbies know everything there is to know about the city, making them the perfect companions for those who are just visiting, or are still new to the area. They can also give you great recommendations on places to see and food to eat, and could serve an instant tour guides for those who are still unsure where they’re going.

4. It is rarely late.

Universal cabbies are known for their courtesy and proffessionalism, and are rarely late for appointments. Should you find yourself booking a cab in advance , expects the cab to be there at your doorstep at the exact time your asked it to be . Chicago cabbies know the flow of traffic quite well, so they know which routes to take to make sure they’re on time every time. As for the train, its ounctuality is something you can’t control. And if the train comes in late, then you have no other choice but to either wait it out, or find other options at the last minute.

5. It can be scheduled ahead

Through the help of the Universal Taxi app, you can book your cab ahead of time. This allows you to take care of all your other errands without having to worry about getting a ride at the last minute. This is such a huge convenience, especially for people who follow a strict schedule.

Without at doubt, taxis are better choice than the L  most of time. The L is a great way to expereince Chicago every now and then . But if you plan on getting around  the most efficient way possible, they best way to do it is by taking a cab.

 

 

 

Review

How to Make Traveling to Chicago Enjoyable for Children

If Chicago is the next travel destination of your family and your kids are 16 years below, you would appreciate the many parks, zoos, restaurants and museums all over Windy City. Going around the city with the help of Universal Taxi is a huge advantage. We’ll safely take you and your children anywhere you want to go.

Best Places in Chicago for Children (and Adults!)

It doesn’t matter if you’ve been born and raised in Chicago or if it’s your first time to visit the city. The following places will be a sure hit among kids and kids at heart.

Restaurants for Kids

  • American Girl Place Café

Pretty little girls aged 4 to 12 who just can’t wait to grow up will find this place fun. The café serves brunch, lunch, and dinner, and holds tea parties that girls’ dreams are made of. It is best to call ahead for reservations as the place is quite popular. Make plans and check for the specific time they serve meals and tea.

 

  • Rainforest Café

Make your vacation meal more adventurous in this restaurant built to look like a rainforest in the city. The restaurant has three branches in the city. Guests of all ages will be amazed by the ambiance and the natural outdoor feel of the place, not to mention the awesome food being served here.

Nature Tripping

 

  • Lincoln Park Zoo

 

This travel stop has become quite popular because of the fantastic display of holiday lights during the winter and the great view of the city during the warm, clear weather. The Lincoln Park Zoo is one of the last free zoos in the US. Kids are bound to learn more about animals and have fun interacting with their favorites.

  • North Park Village Nature Center

Experience the March Maple Syrup Festival and be one with nature as you visit the North Park Village Nature Center. Here you’ll find deer, birds of different species, bees, and many others. Teaching your kids to become nature lovers would be very easy when you bring them to this haven.

Cultural Attractions

 

  • Museum of Science and Industry

 

This is one of the best museums in Chicago where you will find high-tech stuff for both children and adults. Aside from various exhibits, the museum features some behind-the-scenes as part of the tour. There’s a lot to explore in this place of technology including robots and mazes. Youngsters aged three and above will have a grand time in fairy castles and steel trains. There are space-themed activities, too!  

 

  • Chicago Cultural Center

 

The building itself is a tourist attraction. Free monthly events like concerts and various kiddie activities make this an even more exciting place to visit. Check the center’s calendar so you can make plans accordingly.

Whenever you are traveling with kids, free yourself from stress by allotting extra time for the little ones’ mood swings and random kiddie acts. Let them have fun. If the kids would like to explore the city using different rides, go with the flow. You can catch a Universal Taxi one day and take the L the next. Be open to spontaneity. That would make the trip more enjoyable for everyone.