Isn't that fairly standard in industry? These are not office jobs where work not done one day will still be there the next. Maybe Viva can explain exactly how this works and whether it's solely for the extra board or also applies to regular tricks.

^ I'm not 100% sure but I think that one is only for the extra board (in layman's terms, part of an operator's scheduled work is being available and ready at the garage to run special events service or cover the runs of absentees). The language suggests it's primarily for the extra board ("show up"), as the proposal for the minimum pay guarantee (which refers to the guarantee to be paid for 40 hours even if only picked/scheduled for 38 hours of service, for example) is listed as a separate line item in the proposal list.

Obviously, most of these proposals are smaller items around the margins. The biggest cost drivers, by a very large margin, are the base wage, pension benefits, medical benefits, and the ratio of part-time to full-time work. These latter 4 form the basis of the structural deficit, as they specified by means completely independent from those specifying the exact size of CTA revenue sources.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2...ons-lines.html

Seems like a brillinat idea to me depending on the terms and as long as they adopt some standards for who is allowed to name things (no names promoting a current political or religious agenda). Aren't they already doing this with a station sponsored by Apple?

The CTA is doing the Apple thing. Anyway, my feelings are mixed. In some cases, I think it makes sense and there are already names related to nearby attractions (for example, Brookfield Zoo). But it would get ridiculous if Borders decided to buy say the Naperville stop and rename it after themselves. You need at least a passing reference to where you actually are geographically, especially on Metra where you're going through dozens of different suburbs.

I also personally feel like naming rights cheapen the experience and the public realm. In any case, who knows if this will even happen. Remember that Metra did a trial run with wrap advertising, and I havent even seen those in a couple years.

I wonder if they'll send a bill for back services to Mars.

You could add the sponsor name to the existing name, eg. the Borders' Naperville station or the Naperville station brought to you by Borders :D like they do with the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl or the FedEx Orange Bowl.

Even better, if you retain the original station name like that it would be more feasible to have annual agreements for some ongoing money instead of a big infusion of money from a one time agreement, then that's it. It'd be a bit ridiculous to have the entire station name change every year, but I don't see the problem with the Border's Naperville station one year and the McDonald's Naperville station the next year. Then, when/if more money is freed up elsewhere, it's not too difficult to drop the sponsor name completely.

Whether or not I agree with you, unfortunately personal feelings and the experience are way down the list of funding priorities. Minimizing service cuts and maximizing funding for infrastructure expansion have to take priority when funding is limited.

Its a public good, funding should remain in the public's hands. Either that or just stop pussyfooting around the issue and privatize the lines entirely.

They also chip away at a little thing called integrity.

The Bureau of Electricity (didn't realize we had something called that) has "White Light Study" signs up along several streets in Wicker Park (Wood just north of Division, et al). There's a several-block stretch where all the streetlights are new, shorter than typical, and have a second, decorative lamp partway up. It would be interesting to see what they look like at night.

Does anyone know what the grand plans are with this? Are these LED fixtures? (Maybe this should be in the Gen Dev thread, but transit aficionados might be more versed in this kind of subject.)

I am kind of impressed with the way the City is using these detailed signs to inform the public.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/antre/3411790584
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3305/...d8cdee8da4.jpg
(Googled this photo by "Antre" on flickr from last spring)

^ I would probably put this in the General Developments thread..

re: the Bureau of Electricity... Somebody has to change the bulbs in streetlights when they go out, to preserve Chicago's status as the world's best-lit city. Streets and San is the logical agency to do this work, since they have a system for covering every street in the city effectively. CDOT is the other logical choice, but they just do large construction projects and pothole filling. Tracking down potholes is easy, since people notice them and report them, but streetlights going out is usually not something that most people will remember long enough to report, if they notice it at all.

I kinda like the yellow/orange sodium vapor lights, so I'm not too excited about a color change, but I would welcome a better-designed reflector so that light from streetlamps is not wasted by being sent upwards or laterally instead of down.

Merely switching to a "white" light is an aesthetic and not a functional change, so I say forget it. If the city does adopt them en masse, though, it will be interesting to see the effects on night-time photography, although it will probably take 5-10 years to replace most of the bulbs.

Thought it was just Streets & San; wasn't familiar with their internal components. Also "Bureau" sounds more important than, say, "Division" or something. I dig it.

Hey, are we really the best-lit, by some measure?

Those light standards are pretty common for all street light replacement projects, but in most places they just receive the sodium orange.

I'm with ardec - not worth the trouble to switch them to white. Sodium is more energy efficient (light output per energy consumed) than the "true white" light sources like mercury, xenon, etc. So being the best lit city requires some sane compromises in the interest of pocketbooks.

I dunno... but we're the Dubai of streetlights, in terms of sheer quantity and excess. Just look at any nighttime aerial shot of the city.

I believe that dates back to one of Daley Sr.'s plans to reduce crime by improving lighting, where pretty much every street in the city was covered to the point of ridiculousness. I'm not sure if it had much of an effect on crime or not. Certainly, it's more difficult to commit crimes unnoticed, but it also makes it more difficult for a gang to attack rivals by surprise, so there's probably more overall gang activity on the street, in terms of drug-dealing and so forth.

CTA union threatens work-to-rule
 

From today's Tribune

"Darrell Jefferson, president of the bus drivers union, said Saturday that if there's no agreement soon to restore service cuts he will ask his membership to adhere strictly to CTA operating rules, including a 35-mph speed limit. . . Drivers also would follow other rules to the letter, such as waiting until all riders are seated or "standing securely" before leaving a stop . . ."

I though almost all street lamps had parbolic deflectors that reflect the light going upwards downwards.
http://www.outdoorlightingn.com/prod...0088295760.jpg
There's also some street lamps that use lenses to refract light downwards too.
http://www.freewebs.com/streetlanter...reet-light.jpg
Even decorative lamps have reflectors, or use lenses.
http://germes-online.com/direct/dbim...treet_Lamp.jpg
http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/Gl...017/874410.jpg
Most of the light pollution you see from space is light reflected back up from objects on the ground.

It's like something out of The Onion.

The aerial nighttime view (especially from an approaching aircraft) of Chicago is one of the planet's most thrilling sights. But I always thought that, to the extent other cities aren't as striking, it's because they are (other than Manhattan, where narrow canyons block the effect) just smaller, less dense, more leafy, and/or less rectilinear -- not because they are equipped less densely with streetlights.

Driving around Chicago's neighborhoods at night I have never thought of the lighting as excessive -- it seems perfect for being able to see what's around you. I've always felt comfortable roaming into unknown neighborhoods at night (other than known war zones, of course). Maybe that itself is an excessive amount of streetlights, you're saying?

Other folks, what do y'all think?

..

You honestly like sodium vapor? Id rank their development and insane overabundance as one of the greatest urban blights of the last century. Night light should not be yellow.

I also dont understand why some people take so much pride in our light pollution...seems like some bizarre ego thing.

To address your question, my personal take on that is yes, you've been conditioned to feel comfortable in areas that are well lit. It dosent mean they actually ARE safer.

In any case, there are studies which can prove virtually any stance you have
http://www.britastro.org/dark-skies/crime.html

I think within moderation, streetlighting is good. But again, it shouldnt be excessive, and the light itself should be effectively directed downwards. LEDs show a lot of promise in this area. Something along the lines of this:
http://www.ledlite-power.co.uk/images/baoding.jpg

It did reduce crime, particularly in alleys which had not been illuminated prior to Daley Sr. Nighttime illumination does have a effect on criminal physiology, in fact gangbangers will sometimes shoot out streetlights to darken their territory where streetside drug deals are common.


The heavy night lighting is one of my favorite things about Chicago, and you always know where the city limits begin at night. I do not like Mercury Vapor lighting, because, its does not provide enough illumination, and aesthetically, the lighting temperature is very cold. The sodium vapor provides a much warmer hue. As a pedestrian often walking around in the late evening/early morning, I want my streets well lit; even if it means the birds are chirping at 2:30am, thinking the sun is about to rise.


On the transit union, just wow. So now they are going to pout like babies and take it out on the customers, all because the CTA rejected their bullshit "proposal", which provided no real means of dealing with this year's deficit.

^ I say go ahead and let the bus drivers do their "slow driving" thing.

They are the ones who will have to deal with pissed off riders more than anyone else.

Easy for you to say, when you don't have to deal with it as part of your commute. Now, generally I would agree with you in principal, but think of the long term consequences; slower and more crowded buses does create more pissed off people, but these people will also give up on the system and turn to driving if its not effective and reliable enough for their traveling needs. This will do a lot of harm to the future of public transit in Chicago, because it will increase the severity of the service cuts on the riding population. Not to mention it endangers some of the public living in bad neighborhoods. Would you like to wait 30 minutes for a bus in a gang warzone? Not everyone has the ability to access bus tracker and the safety element is a real concern raised by the public at CTA board meetings.

Prior to high pressure sodium, mercury vapor was the standard street lamp.

Look at their specifications:
Mercury Vapor:
50 Watts 16,000 Hours 1,900 Lumens
75 Watts 16,000 Hours 3, 000 Lumens
100 Watts 24,000 Hours 4,500 Lumens
175 Watts 24,000 Hours 8,900 Lumens
250 Watts 24,000 Hours 13,700 Lumens
400 Watts 24,000 Hours 24,000 Lumens

High Pressure Vapor:
35 Watts 24,000 Hours 2,250 Lumens
50 Watts 24000 Hours 4,000 Lumens
70 Watts 24000 Hours 6,300 Lumens
100 Watts 24,000 Hours 9,500 Lumens
150 Watts 24,000 Hours 16,000 Lumens
250 Watts 24,000 Hours 27,500 Lumens
400 Watts 24000 Hours 50,000 Lumens

Comparisons:
Lumens per Watt.
High Pressure Sodium gives at least twice as much Lumens per Watt than Mercury Vapor.

Light pollution considerations
For placements where light pollution is of prime importance (for example, an observatory parking lot), low pressure sodium is preferred. As it emits light on only one wavelength, it is the easiest to filter out. Mercury vapor lamps without any phosphor are second best; they produce only a few distinct mercury lines that need to be filtered out.

Bans
Mercury vapor lamps will be banned in the EU in 2015. In the USA, ballasts and fixtures were banned in 2008.

Source for lamp information: http://www.globalindustrial.com/c/el...FQohDQod5libkw

Yea, actually.

It's just part of the aura of Chicago that I've grown up with. At night, Chicago becomes a city of gold.

electricron,
Thanks for posting those tables - exactly what I wanted to post, but could only point out that sodium is vastly more energy efficient than the alternatives.

^ Can't the CTA simply counter by lifting the 35 mph restriction?

Bada boom! Problem solved.. :bowtie:

I can't think of any places CTA buses ever go over 35 mph anyway, except for the Lake Shore Drive expresses and maybe the #30 way down on Torrence.

But there are oodles of other official ordinances that could be obstinately observed by obstreperous operators.

Maybe I can bring a baseball bat onto the bus and bash some better behavior into their backward brains? ;)

The CTA garden car lives!

According to CTA Tattler, the CTA has given approval for the idea. Joe Baldwin--the guy that came up with the idea--just needs to find the cash to implement the car.

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/cta-...een-light.html

Good times...

Create project slated for $100M from feds for railroad fix
By: Paul Merrion Feb. 16, 2010
(Crain's) — A Chicago-area plan to fix railroad bottlenecks will get a $100-million boost from a new round of federal stimulus grants to be awarded Wednesday, according to a source briefed on the matter.
A substantial grant means continued progress for the Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency program, known as Create, a partnership of freight railroads, Amtrak, Metra, and state and local transportation agencies.
Illinois transportation officials applied for $300 million, the maximum any state could get.

^ I just want to mention that I find it outright stupid that a bill for Nationally significant transportation projects has a spending limit for each state.

Yeah, because national transportation issues are resolved by treating Nebraska and Illinois equally.. :rolleyes:

At this rate ($100 million every 2 years), CREATE will be completed (adjusting for inflation) in.....100 years! Nice one, LaHood and Obama. By the time CREATE is completed, Chicago won't need to untie its freight bottleneck because we'll be importing all of our raw materials from the Martian colonies instead..

^Simmerdown TUP. I'm sure more cash for CREATE will come in larger and larger quantities once the ball gets moving. At least the train is leaving the station–pardon the pun.

as of December 2009, ~20% of the create projects were either in construction or completed. In the span of a month create was just awarded another 10% of the total estimated construction budget by the feds (not sure what/if Illinois ponied up any), calm down.

There is more than one grant program that CREATE will have to use to receive funding. This TIGER grant is a ery significant boost. Many of the CREATE projects are road/rail grade separations. 26 of those I think. That funding can also come from road/highway funds. And the State and City and host railroads have some funding promised. Also the Engelwood Flyover (P1) got funded to the tune of $133 mil under the HSR ARRA round of stimulus.

^^ Yes, the Englewood Flyover is a significant part of CREATE as well. Bear in mind that the state and the railroads will also be contributing, so don't look to the Feds for a blank check.

Besides, many of the improvements in CREATE need to be completed in a specific order. For example, the Englewood Flyover is required before the Grand Crossing or 75th Street projects can be built - both of those projects will send additional trains through Englewood Junction, which is completely unable to cope with additional traffic until a flyover is built. Because the timeline for CREATE is necessarily drawn-out, a large investment in CREATE projects would be a poor choice for stimulus funding intended to provide a short-term boost to the economy.

I should also mention that Illinois DOES have other applications for TIGER funding that could still see approval. Pace has an application for $220m (the max they can now receive would be $200m) for an express bus system on 294, which also includes the partial build-out of an managed-lanes system. IDOT and the Tollway have an application for $300m for an interchange at 294 and 57. Rockford has an application for $72 million to reduce freight rail congestion and lay the groundwork for commuter rail. $100m for CREATE does not mean that Illinois is one-and-done for TIGER.

Any idea yet what CREATE projects will be funded with this $100 million? Most of the projects in the application are related to freight capacity and congestion. (In other words, boring stuff but necessary and useful.) The two that seemed less boring to me were GS14, the 71st street grade separation, and B2, triple-tracking the UP-W line between Elmhurst and Melrose Park, including reconstruction of the Bellwood and Berkeley stations.

It'll be up to the CREATE planners to decide what gets the money.

No other TIGER grants were awarded to the Chicago area, although Normal will get money for its big new Amtrak station and the "Southwestern Illinois Intermodal Freight Transportation Hub" will get money.

On the bright side, the CREATE grant was the second-largest one awarded.

The Port of Gulfport Missisippi is also getting $20 mil to connect it by rail to Chicago, among other cities.

^ The largest grant being the one that was awarded to States in the SE to improve their freight rail and intermodal capacity.

Would this be in direct competition with the Chicago freight hub? Perhaps JpIllinois would know..

^^ Not really. The Crescent Corridor is speeding up trains from Gulf ports to East Coast cities, and trains from Mid-Atlantic ports to Sunbelt cities. These trains aren't currently going through Chicago anyway - much of that freight is probably going by truck at the moment down I-85 or I-20.

The Crescent Corridor will also directly improve passenger rail service on Amtrak's daily Crescent by adding sidings, upgrading track, and so forth.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7257132.story

chicagotribune.com
Stadium-goers to get benefit of stimulus funds
$100 million grant intended to unclog rail congestion
By Richard Wronski, Tribune reporter

February 18, 2010


The $100 million federal grant awarded to the Chicago region Wednesday to unclog rail congestion will benefit Jimmy Buffett Parrotheads and Chicago Fire soccer aficionados along with freight haulers, motorists and rail passengers.

That's because $20 million of that money will go toward building a rail/highway underpass on 71st Street, west of Harlem Avenue and across from Bridgeview's Toyota Park, a 28,000-seat sports and music venue.

The underpass is one of five Chicago-area rail projects receiving part of $1.5 billion in Obama administration stimulus money designed to spur the economy, develop infrastructure and create jobs.

The rail projects are lumped together under a rail congestion relief program known as the Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency program, or CREATE, a partnership of railroads and transportation agencies.

With the strong support of state and federal officials, particularly CREATE's chief proponent, U.S. Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., the rail program beat out scores of other agencies for stimulus money.

The Illinois Tollway unsuccessfully sought $300 million to help build an interchange where Interstate Highway 57 and the Tri-State Tollway (Interstate Highway 294) intersect.

The tollway also lost out in its bid for $38 million to set up a Dial-511 traffic and travel information system. The tollway and Pace had partnered on a losing $200 million proposal for Tri-State express buses.

Observers said Wednesday that the CREATE program had the edge on the other applicants from the start.

"I am surprised that CREATE didn't get more," said Jim LaBelle, a transportation expert with the civic group Chicago Metropolis 2020 and a Metra director.

Peter Skosey of the Metropolitan Planning Council said the Illinois Department of Transportation, one of the CREATE partners, "put all its eggs in one basket" with the rail program. "IDOT tried to corral everybody around CREATE," Skosey said.

...

Freight has to go somewhere...Why not south? I did note with interest that Kansas City was denied their request for intermodal assistance, and that yard would be direct competition to Chicago's East-West dominance.

Isn't Chicago's dominance due to the need to switch between eastern and western companies, since both BNSF and UP don't serve east of Chicago?

And CSX does not serve west of Chicago, but NS does go all the way to Kansas City, thus making a connection with both UP and BNSF that can completely bypass Chicago. And KC has another play in that Kansas City Southern has a big network form KC into Mexico.

Of course Chicago is still the Emporer of rail with major terminals and yards for all the biggest players CN CP NS UP BNSF and CSX. We just need to not get complacent and take it for granted. Memphis, Birmingham and Kansas City are all making a play for intermodal expansion.

Metra contracts design of CREATE’s Englewood flyover
 

Things are starting to move ahead! This is the same group that did the 220mph HSR study.

Metra contracts TranSystems to design CREATE’s Englewood flyover

Metra’s board recently approved a final design contract for the Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency (CREATE) program’s Englewood flyover project, according to the program’s partners.

TranSystems Corp. obtained a $5.65 million contract to design the flyover, which will carry Metra’s north-south Rock Island line over the an east-west Norfolk Southern Railway/Amtrak line. To be completed in 2012, the project is designed to eliminate conflicts between 68 Metra trains and 60 freight and Amtrak trains that intersect daily at an existing grade crossing.

The project will be funded with a portion of a $133 million federal grant CREATE partners received in January through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The flyover must be built and in operation before two adjacent CREATE projects — 75th Street corridor improvements and the Grand Crossing — can be completed, according to a prepared statement.

CREATE partners include Amtrak, the Association of American Railroads, Belt Railway Co. of Chicago, BNSF Railway Co., CSX Transportation, CN, Canadian Pacific, Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co., Norfolk Southern Railway, Union Pacific Railroad, and the Illinois and Chicago Departments of Transportation.

Funded through a public-private partnership, CREATE calls for building roadway underpasses or overpasses to separate vehicle/pedestrian and rail traffic; constructing rail overpasses to separate freight- and passenger-rail tracks; and upgrading track, switches, signal systems and other rail infrastructure.

http://www.progressiverailroading.co...e.asp?id=22622

Union Station is soliciting plans for a redevelopment of the Great Hall. Not sure how I feel about that. It clearly could be utilized better, but I dont see how anything regarding that station will change until they address the 800 lb gorilla in the room, which is the smoke filled, overcrowded, mazelike, underground hallways and crumbling platforms which comprise 90% of the the actual operational building.

^^ agreed

I mentioned in the MWRRI thread that Amtrak has set aside $1.5 million for preliminary design and EIS work on the Grand Crossing project.