Well said. There truly needs to be reform in this area. By the time most of these things get the green light, they're already obsolete.

What would be the approx cost of brand new subway versus el per mile in chicago? for comparison sake?

I have no idea....I am guessing 1/2 billion a mile? but that is pure guess

Hopefully Obama and Lahood can shake this bullshit up. Right now its an absolute disgrace.

There is, in fact, a bill introduced to Congress that would reformulate transportation funding procedures. Transit and highways would no longer be considered as separate categories, but as equal contenders for the same pot of money, based on the projected traffic/ridership that said projects would generate.

The only differentiation would be by projected cost, with 4 different brackets from the most expensive to the least. Within each bracket, both highways and transit would vie for the same money.

Of course, under such a system, there is rampant incentive to inflate the projected traffic/ridership, so USDOT will need to establish regulations to discourage cheaters.

I highly doubt Obama of all people is going to roll back environmental and government regulations.

As I said before, New Starts is not a "government regulation" in the traditional sense. It was a program designed to make it difficult to build transit projects, in order to curtail the amount of money being spent on them. (and it also had the effect of redirecting a lot of the money that is spent, towards consultants)

I sincerely doubt that Obama will do anything to change the NEPA though. Highways and transit projects will probably both continue to be equally affected.

Something that gets me about the NEPA though, is that if you look at an EIS from the 1980s, and compare it with one from today, the one from today is about 10 times longer. And to the best of my knowledge there haven't been any significant changes to the actual law that says what must be included in an EIS. Part of it is just the consultants finding more work for themselves, and the "expectation" for what an EIS looks like has gradually crept upwards.

Check out costs in Madrid for their recent metro expansion, too. Much lower than any American subway project.

Not exactly - the program has proven very useful at building light rail lines in sparse auto-centric cities that don't need them and thus have to cut bus service to pay to operate them. The program is certainly biased against cities with existing transit networks and high transit utilization - which makes it all the more of a coup that Kruesi got two reconstruction projects funded as New Starts.

It's not there to make building transit projects difficult - it's there to make building transit projects difficult without heavy federal involvement and the additional layer of political dealmaking and favoritism involved therein (as the ongoing drama with WMATA's Dulles extension demonstrates, as well as with the Cermak Branch reconstruction, the supposedly objective cost effectiveness criteria fly out the window when politics demands so). As with most expansion of government regulation and involvement at all levels of government, it's about power and control much moreso than any ideological or philosophical goal.

Was not sure if this belonged here or somewhere else:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...68683.htmlpage

Interesting to see the ridership declines on the far north and south ends of the Red line. Obviously, I understand the increase in the Loop and north routes.

Spain has much more powerful unions than the US, where are the savings coming from if not from labor?

For one, I don't think the governments there instituted "Buy Spain" requirements akin to the requirements here mandating that the vast preponderence of all labor and materials involved in the project be domestic. They could actually allow multinational consortia of engineers and construction managers to come in, i.e. leveraging comparative advantage, economies of scale, and so forth.

Also, as previously bemoaned in the thread, I doubt any country anywhere has as tedious and immense a mountain of bureaucratic red tape for government construction projects as happens here.

"powerful" and "greedy" aren't necessarily synonymous.

Also, all their health care costs are probably coming from a different line item, making direct cost [comparisons] difficult.

Finally, they've been in expansion mode for quite a while, and having continuous construction for a decade or more yields big cost savings in terms of reuse and training and learning to schedule and manage work. The head of their transit agency credits extremely good project managers for a lot of it, and seeing how some of the work on the Brown Line proceeded, I'd believe that the CTA's project management has a lot of room for improvement, or at least the rules around construction could be improved to enable enhanced scheduling.

For the Transit Oriented Development meetings I mentioned in a previous post, the north one on June 22nd was moved to a new location:

Skokie Village Hall
5127 Oakton Street
Skokie, IL 60077
6pm-8pm, June 22nd

^^ Too bad the Oakton Street station still isn't even close to beginning construction. People could ride the el and walk the short distance to downtown Skokie for this meeting.

^ So they choose to locate a meeting to discuss Transit-Oriented-Development in a location that has NO nearby connection to the rail system and is surrounded by parking?

HELLO? Did somebody have a brain hemorrhage or are they just attempting to be fashionably ironic?

The Clark/Lake elevated platform has flat screen monitors installed. Maybe one day you'll be able to see them from the street.

They may be more powerful, but they are less wasteful. Also, labor rates in Spain in general are far lower than in the United States. When the average income of a Spaniard is approximately half that of an American, then you can imagine how that would save money on labor.

Capitol Hill is buzzing with the news: just moments ago, a new transportation bill was released, and the Obama administration is pushing Congress to pass a funding plan quickly. Why the rush?

Transportation funding is running out.

But we can't afford to keep throwing money at transportation agencies unable to show progress on the issues that matter to us all: Affordable ways to get around; alternatives to congestion; reducing our oil dependency; protecting the climate; safe and vibrant communities and access to jobs.

Tell Congress: No new money without a real, sustainable plan.

The National Highway Trust Fund - which pays for road work, bike and pedestrian facilities and transit projects - will run out of money in August.

With funds drying up, the pressure to throw more money at our problems is growing. Some in Congress are poised to take money from other needs to prop up the trust fund, which comes from gas taxes. They would prefer to go on spending our tax dollars without a real plan. But more money with no strings attached is not the answer.

The U.S. hasn't had a vision for transportation policy in decades. We've been trying to build our way out of a congested and inefficient system with no accountability and no actual plan to link our roads, trains, buses, bikeways and pedestrian-friendly streets.

The result? Longer, more frustrating, less safe and increasingly expensive commutes for all of us.

But now we have an opportunity for change. We must ensure that our country's transportation investments strengthen our economy, our environment and our health.

Tell your representative we need real reform before we throw more money at our problems.

Don't let Congress make the same mistakes it's made in the past. We must fund transportation, and we must do it right this time.

Thank you for your support at this crucial moment.

Sincerely,

Ilana Preuss
Outreach and Field Director
Transportation for America

^ Did anyone by chance happen to go (or plan to go)?

^I am planning on going tonight, and will provide details later.

To continue the discussion from the O'Hare thread regarding the Kennedy corridor...

The point is really moot, isn't it, because ANY sort of highway improvement would be ridiculously expensive, and IDOT is not considering any such project in their long-term plans.

This could change, but I haven't even heard any plans or political will mentioned that would change the status quo. Nor have I heard any practical solutions pitched. A double-decker highway sounds great as a congestion relief tool, but try building one through a residential neighborhood. Area residents will scream bloody murder, and I don't think it could get through environmental review.

H+T index has a few new features

http://htaindex.cnt.org/mapping_tool.php?theme_menu=0

our system needs a massive overhaul in managing, planning, and infrastructure.

it seems as though they keep repairing these slow zones over and over again.

why does it seem like the cta is run by boobs?

.....Unrelated in same article about prospects for real estate upticks....

As for the commercial market, it won't be much good until 2017, the head analyst for commercial mortgages at Deutsche Bank Securities told Reuters news service. "We are currently in something which is comparable to what we saw in the 1990s and potentially worse," Richard Parkus said. He said commercial property values would fall by more than 50 percent from a 2007 peak.

The west loop doesn't need a 3rd separate train station in the form of the old post office (one that is even further out of position for a Monroe St. or Carroll Ave. circulator at that).

For the Blue Line subway anyway, they repaired the slow zones using "normal" repairs with the money they had, then they were able to get stimulus money to make more permanent reconstruction, which is why they're "re-repairing" those slow zones. Once they complete this round, for the subway at least, there shouldn't be more than minor repair work needed for slow zones for decades.

I generally agree, although if the Post Office were the Amtrak+new high speed service station, and they also rework tracks at Union Station to run more Metra routes through the station instead of terminating there (they wouldn't have to run both directions for the whole route at rush hour, just move to be held in yards outside of downtown), you could free up some space to do other things with, and greatly increase Metra capactiy and service to a wider part of downtown (imagine trains that stopped at Roosevelt and on the south side of Union Station and at Kinzie Station, instead of only at Union Station.)

For a circulator, the Post Office would just be one more stop on the line, and if it were primarily for Amtrak and/or high speed rail, being only a few blocks further from the core really wouldn't be any worse than Union Station for that sort of trip. It'd be worse for a commuter station, sure, but not for inter-city travel.


As with a lot of things, though, that woudl require some good, strongly coordinated planning, which Chicago isn't especially good at.

From the Trib:
CTA Service Cuts Loom

We're far from the only agency with this issue - seems like Obama ought to step in and provide 1 or 2 year operating subsidies to transit agencies until the economy picks up again.

I'd much prefer they just build the WLTC/Clinton St Subway and finally integrate CTA rail access with Metra/Amtrak/intercity bus services and the potential circulator(s).

Seems to me that the CTA needs to fix their pension problems, and open their books for inspection. Then they can talk about their budget problems.

1) The CTA can't, on its own, fix the pension problems. At the very least, the city, the state and the employee unions would have to be involved.
2) While the CTA isn't stellar in its transparency, it makes a lot of the information you seek public via reports on a frequent basis.

The way you put it, the CTA would have to solve an intractable problem and be perfectly transparent (according to who?) before they would get the money they need to operate. Can you explain how, exactly, this would help the situation?

Seems to me that allowing service cuts to happen is bad policy no matter how much other reform is necessary. And I know that throwing more money at a sinking ship isn't good policy either. But as has been shown previously in this very thread, the CTA gets more done for less money than almost any big city transportation system in the country.

None of this is to detract from the very serious pension and transparency issues with the CTA. However, just because those items are high on your priority list is no reason to let the system crumble until your demands are met. That type of attitude is simply unproductive.

As was noted, the pension issue isn't theirs alone - it's much more a state issue than a CTA or even Chicago issue.

As for inspection, have you not been paying attention at all? They underwent a full audit as part of the last budget crisis and the State's Inspector General (I think that's who did it) concluded that the CTA isn't particularly wasteful. They're not perfect, but there is plenty of hard evidence that they're far more effective than you give them credit for.

Fair enough on the pension issues. Let it be a state issue. Then the CTA should call out the state.

See to me, I think the first step is transparency. It's a taxpayer funded agency, it should have open records for us to see. I'm amazed that there isn't more outcry for it. And having an inspector general audit the books is great, it should be done in addition to having the books be public record.

I suppose I'm just a little old fashioned though. You call it unproductive, I call it prudence.

Fair enough.

This issue of transparency does come up a lot, so I'd be interested to know how the CTA performs compared to other transportation agencies or municipal agencies in general. For reference, here is the information the CTA makes available:

The CTA posts ridership updates monthly at this location:
http://www.transitchicago.com/news_i...ipreports.aspx

The CTA posts reports from its board presentations every month. These reports contain high level summaries of financial information as well as a variety of analysis of that data. Find these reports, among others, on this page:
http://m.www.transitchicago.com/abou...entations.aspx

The CTA posts performance data (answering whether they are safe, on-time, clean, etc.) here:
http://m.www.transitchicago.com/news...e_metrics.aspx

One thing I can't find is their detailed yearly budget document. I know I've referenced it before, but its location eludes me.

Anyway, if anyone can shed a bit of light as to how this material (and the fact that they have a FOI officer on staff) compares to other agencies both in and out of Chicago, I'd love to hear about it. While the "lack of transparency" claim gets thrown out there a lot, the CTA doesn't seem either particularly transparent or secretive to me.

This page also has a lot of good financial information:

http://www.transitchicago.com/busine...ncebudget.aspx

I agree that transparency is VERY important. The recent Flores/Waugespack TIF transparency legislation is one of the best things to happen in Chicago in a long time.

For the past few years I think the CTA has been pretty good about transparency.

^ Shawn, did you happen to make it to that meeting?

Nice...thanks for the link.

How about some basic information:

- The CTA does not control any material funding lever except fares, which are already high and for which it takes a lot of grief if it raises them.

- Transit is a more or less fixed cost system to operate, but we fund it with variable revenue streams (sales/stamp taxes). That's a recipe for problems unless there is a major reserve fund maintained.

- The RTA funding formula overweights suburban services on a per rider basis. The CTA carries 80% of total regional transit ridership.

- The CTA has long been historically underfunded for capital needs

- The CTA did do something about pensions when it issued a billio+ dollar bond to top of its pension fund. The payments on this escalate significantly in the next couple years, which is going to produce more funding crises. By law the CTA cannot do anything about accrued benefits.

- Let's give the CTA some credit for operational improvements that have been made starting with Ron Huberman. It was a major step up.

^And the state constitution forbids changes to pension benefits already promised. It would take both legislative action and a statewide popular vote to change that, and you can bet the teachers' unions and ASFCME would be intense in their opposition.

Am I the only one who thinks that pension issues are way too trivial to be in our constitution? It should be a statutory matter.

Pensions are huge sums of money - in terms of both employee and employer (taxpayer) contributions. Further, there is a strong propensity for elected officials to avoid making the necessary (e.g. agreed upon by contract) contributions to pension funds each year, to whatever extent they are allowed by law. In recent years, workarounds to avoid making such contributions have consisted of various combinations of (a) pension obligation bonds, borrowing against future tax revenues with interest to make a one time deposit into a pension fund, thereby necessitating either a tax increase or spending cuts from other areas in the future [hopefully after the next election, right?] and (b) playing actuarial games to come to an improperly low contribution amount, both on the employee and employer side. (a) as stated basically just defers actually dealing with a structural revenue/expenditure imbalance to the future with interest, while (b) is largely responsible for why the funded ratio of pensions (assets:liabilities) have a tendency to always go downwards.

If anything, as long as defined benefit pension plans exist for public employees, the constitutional protections against messing with them should be even stronger than they are today to avoid situations like the present. It should be noted that while pension benefits are constitutionally protected from being reduced, there isn't such protection regarding employee/employer contributions, so there is still a lever by which the problem could be tackled (i.e. if employees want a certain level of benefits then a commensurate percentage of their overall compensation should go to pay for it), but as it is there are too many avenues by which elected officials can promise that nobody loses in the short run, so that's exactly what they do.

Another solution would be to phase out defined benefit, and use the portion of overall compensation currently going to employer pension contributions to fund a defined contribution plan, i.e. increase public employee base wages and use the remainder as the employer match for 401k or other voluntary retirement contributions. The problem here is that it would remove a very, very, very large source of money/power for elected officials and union leaders: the billions of pension fund dollars controlled by public pension boards (see Vanecko, Robert)

I think you are dead right. I don't know the history of how that particular bit got into the constitution, but I bet it was due to union lobbying.

I understand the problem, but it seems that the strict and inflexible nature of the Illinois constitution prevents the pension system from adapting to changing circumstances. Honestly, what are the political chances of a con-con anytime soon? Voters can be convinced so easily to vote against it.

On the other hand, the alternative involves making the pension system something that is completely under the control of Illinois lawmakers, i.e. the Guinness Book record holder for 'largest collective group of stupid'.

It seems like politicians are screwing public employees over either way, since they have figured out how to game the current system. At least with statutory-level organization of pension, the system can improve if some decent lawmakers are ever elected.

Then again, I myself admitted the unlikelihood of a con-con anytime soon, but if there ever IS one, this problem should be tackled.

^This clause is why the teachers union pulled out all the stops last year lobbying against a con-con.

Oh boy... don't get me started on the teachers' union.

..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_223500.html

Plan Calls For Midwest High Speed Rail Running At 220 MPH

First Posted: 06-30-09 06:29 PM | Updated: 06-30-09 06:59 PM


CHICAGO (AP) -- When it comes to trains, there's fast and then there's really, really fast.

Advocates on Tuesday unveiled an $11.5 billion plan for a Chicago-St. Louis high-speed line that could cut travel times to two hours from the current five. If built, it would be among the fastest U.S. lines and would rival high-tech systems already in place in Europe and Asia.

Under the proposal, electric-powered trains would zoom the nearly 300 miles between Chicago and St. Louis at up to 220 mph - more than 100 mph faster than diesel-powered trains under a comparatively modest plan already advocated by eight Midwestern governors.

The newer plan is generating excitement among rail enthusiasts, some of whom pooh-pooh the gubernatorial proposal - which envisions trains that reach top speeds of 110 mph - as too conservative.

Tuesday's proposal - the focus of a study released by the non-profit Midwest High Speed Rail Association - would require upgrading tracks and bridges as well as electrifying the line. The estimated price tag doesn't include costs of new trains or maintenance.

With backing from Illinois officials, the ambitious project could be done in time for the 2016 Summer Olympics, which Chicago is bidding to host, said Rick Harnish, the association's executive director. A deadline seven years away, he said, is ambitious but doable.

"You sometimes need an audacious goal," he said. "We also need to catch up to the rest of the world."

The proposal for a 220-mph service is intended to complement, not replace, the governors' plan, Harnish said. The 110 mph trains would serve more communities and make more stops en route, something Harnish and his Chicago-based group supports.

Pluses of the newly proposed electric-train line would include helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Harnish said.

Backers want Illinois to apply for $10 million in federal stimulus funds for further analysis they hope could lead to a detailed plan. Harnish conceded money to foot the total bill of the project may have to come from new taxes or fees.

"But I think the public will accept a new funding stream if it includes paying for new ways of travel," he said.

Skeptics question whether any benefits would justify the cost.

"This is a classic case of a nice idea - but one where the government will end up misallocating dollars," said John Tillman, head of the conservative Illinois Policy Institute. "This would be subsidized travel when there are already ways to get to and from St. Louis and Chicago."

The $11.5 billion would be better spent, he said, on buying 1 million fuel-efficient cars. He also questioned whether electric trains would be more environmentally friendly given that they would likely rely on energy generated by coal-burning plants.

The estimated $10 billion proposal backed by the Midwest governors would join 12 metropolitan areas, including Chicago and St. Louis, in a network with Chicago as its hub. Upgrading existing tracks would enable trains to travel up to 110 mph, according to the plan.

Currently, the top speed of trains running between Chicago and St. Louis, Bloomington and Springfield is just under 80 mph.

The Midwest governors' plan and a California proposal are front runners in the race for $8 billion in federal stimulus cash set aside for high-speed rail. California wants to build 800 miles of high-speed track connecting the San Francisco-San Jose area with Los Angeles and Anaheim.

The only rail service that currently qualifies as high-speed - that is, where trains travel at more than 90 mph - is Amtrak's Acela Express connecting Boston to Washington, D.C.

The CTA needs to explain delays better. I was at the Grand red line stop last night and was stuck waiting for a northbound train 21 minutes. In that same time frame, 4 southbound trains passed through the station. And in fact, there were a fair amount of people already on the platform when I got there, meaning my 21 minute wait wasn't as long as some people were stuck waiting. I would say there was at the very least a 25 minute gap between trains. I used my cell phone to check the CTA's website for any possible rail alerts, but nothing was posted. And I didn't hear the CTA make any announcements on the reason for the incredibly long gap. It's just not good customer service to provide little to no information on delays.