SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   CHICAGO: Transit Developments (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=101657)

ChicagoChicago Jul 11, 2009 3:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 4351866)
A linear mile of roadway is a linear mile of roadway, in Chicagoland or downstate—and downstate has more linear miles of roadway. It seems pretty simple to me.

Except a linear mile in Chicago probably costs 3 times as much to resurface, and likely gets 10 times the traffic.

simcityaustin Jul 11, 2009 7:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 4351866)
A linear mile of roadway is a linear mile of roadway, in Chicagoland or downstate—and downstate has more linear miles of roadway. It seems pretty simple to me.

Wow this is so shortsighted. Think of all the extra costs including safety precaustions, utility relocations, material costs (due to volume/usage rates), etc.. Costs don't rise in a straight line depending on how many miles you're gunna build. There's all kinds of x factors to take into account.

Busy Bee Jul 11, 2009 10:25 PM

My initial point was regarding routine repaving and reconstruction of roadbed, and was really just an impulsive response to the whole cliched downstate inferiority rhetoric that is so played out already.

emathias Jul 13, 2009 3:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 4353008)
My initial point was regarding routine repaving and reconstruction of roadbed, and was really just an impulsive response to the whole cliched downstate inferiority rhetoric that is so played out already.

There are hundreds of miles of roadway downstate that probably don't even have the traffic to justify them being paved. Paving lightly-used roads is one of those overlooked heavy subsidies of the automobile. Lightly-used rural roads do not justify paving except as a convenience to random drivers, at a per-use cost far in excess of public transit per-use subsidies.

VivaLFuego Jul 13, 2009 3:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 4354575)
There are hundreds of miles of roadway downstate that probably don't even have the traffic to justify them being paved. Paving lightly-used roads is one of those overlooked heavy subsidies of the automobile. Lightly-used rural roads do not justify paving except as a convenience to random drivers, at a per-use cost far in excess of public transit per-use subsidies.

Just playing devil's advocate, but cross-subsidization within the network can be justifiable for the purposes of maintaining the reach of that network. More specifically, someone can say the same thing about any number of very lightly-used unproductive CTA and Pace routes in the far reaches of their respective bus systems that are nonetheless justified despite their low cost-effectiveness because they "fill out" the network, which is itself an important goal and increases the ability of the network to meet it's public purpose of providing connectivity, access, and so forth.

But yeah, the number of roads so overwhelms the number of transit routes by several orders of magnitude that in practice, I agree with your point, I'm just highlighting that if a transportation network only receives improvements on the absolute highest volume links and everything else is left as is, you basically get... well, something like India, I'd guess, where despite having some specific improvements there is basically no overall functioning network in a meaningful sense.

emathias Jul 13, 2009 9:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego (Post 4355066)
Just playing devil's advocate, but cross-subsidization within the network can be justifiable for the purposes of maintaining the reach of that network. More specifically, someone can say the same thing about any number of very lightly-used unproductive CTA and Pace routes in the far reaches of their respective bus systems that are nonetheless justified despite their low cost-effectiveness because they "fill out" the network, which is itself an important goal and increases the ability of the network to meet it's public purpose of providing connectivity, access, and so forth.

But yeah, the number of roads so overwhelms the number of transit routes by several orders of magnitude that in practice, I agree with your point, I'm just highlighting that if a transportation network only receives improvements on the absolute highest volume links and everything else is left as is, you basically get... well, something like India, I'd guess, where despite having some specific improvements there is basically no overall functioning network in a meaningful sense.

I see your point, however a gravel road is still a road. Leaving a lightly-used road unpaved only slightly reduces the functionailty, while greatly reducing the cost. Paving a lightly used road is more like converting a low-frequency bus route to light-rail than just having a bus route.

spyguy Jul 13, 2009 11:23 PM

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-b...gobusiness.com

Lots and lots of local winners in Quinn's capital plan
Posted by Greg H. at 7/13/2009 1:37 PM CDT


...Like $300 million in new state funds for Create, the hugely important but slow-moving proposal to reduce freight rail congestion here by building bridges and other traffic-speeding infrastructure. Tens of thousands of jobs in the transit and warehousing businesses could benefit.

Or $110 million to purchase more land for the proposed third airport near Peotone, $600 million for work on new and renovated Chicago Public Schools, $360 million to rebuild Wacker Drive in the West Loop, $125 million for reconstructing a part of the Kennedy Expressway downtown and $196 million for new charter schools.

Not to mention $73 million for a new education building at Northeastern Illinois University, $40 million for a new West Side campus for Chicago State University, $2.7 billion for Chicago Transit Authority and Metra projects and equipment and $400 million in state funds to match up to $2 billion in available federal high-speed rail money.

ardecila Jul 13, 2009 11:46 PM

I didn't know the CTA was getting capital funding out of this! I wonder what they will choose to spend it on. I guess we'll see in the next few months.

As for CREATE: I think a large bit of that money will go to the grade-separation project at 130th and Torrence, which involves lots of bridges and flyovers.

lawfin Jul 14, 2009 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy (Post 4356068)
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-b...gobusiness.com

Lots and lots of local winners in Quinn's capital plan
Posted by Greg H. at 7/13/2009 1:37 PM CDT


...Like $300 million in new state funds for Create, the hugely important but slow-moving proposal to reduce freight rail congestion here by building bridges and other traffic-speeding infrastructure. Tens of thousands of jobs in the transit and warehousing businesses could benefit.

Or $110 million to purchase more land for the proposed third airport near Peotone, $600 million for work on new and renovated Chicago Public Schools, $360 million to rebuild Wacker Drive in the West Loop, $125 million for reconstructing a part of the Kennedy Expressway downtown and $196 million for new charter schools.

Not to mention $73 million for a new education building at Northeastern Illinois University, $40 million for a new West Side campus for Chicago State University, $2.7 billion for Chicago Transit Authority and Metra projects and equipment and $400 million in state funds to match up to $2 billion in available federal high-speed rail money.

Only thing I don't like is Peotone....that is a boondoggle....we should be thinking Gary.....transit alreay in place, infrastructure already there largely....

Peotone will just encourage more and more sprawl.


Gary could help revitalize the south lakefront

whyhuhwhy Jul 14, 2009 1:23 AM

^

The problem with Gary is that it is landlocked. Peotone could eventually be the size of O'Hare. Either way I doubt the governor of Illinois would pass a bill taking money from Illinois taxpayers and giving it to Indiana taxpayers.

I think the author got the Kennedy Expressway reconstruction incorrect. From what I've read it deals with 190, not downtown. Anyone have any details on what the heck that is? That came out of nowhere.

And what about stuff that is really needed such as the Eisenhower reconstruction? Is that not happening now?

jcchii Jul 14, 2009 1:55 AM

CTA could use it to balance the budget

ChicagoChicago Jul 14, 2009 3:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whyhuhwhy (Post 4356266)
^

The problem with Gary is that it is landlocked. Peotone could eventually be the size of O'Hare. Either way I doubt the governor of Illinois would pass a bill taking money from Illinois taxpayers and giving it to Indiana taxpayers.

I think the author got the Kennedy Expressway reconstruction incorrect. From what I've read it deals with 190, not downtown. Anyone have any details on what the heck that is? That came out of nowhere.

And what about stuff that is really needed such as the Eisenhower reconstruction? Is that not happening now?

Other than a few cosmetic issues, the Kennedy is in great shape. Now the Eisenhower...that is another story. I'd love to see some type of re-engineering of the Ike around Oak Park. What a snafu that is, both ways... And of course the fact that the road is falling apart...

pottebaum Jul 14, 2009 3:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy (Post 4356068)
$2.7 billion for Chicago Transit Authority and Metra projects and equipment/B]

Isn't that like A LOT of money?

Busy Bee Jul 14, 2009 3:54 AM

Maybe its referring to the ramp reconstruction project on the Kennedy downtown. They were talking about it on WGN just the other day.

jpIllInoIs Jul 14, 2009 4:00 AM

I know this is not the forum, but $40. mil for CSU to build a west side campus. That is throwing $$$ down the drain. That is an incompetent bunch running that skool.

ardecila Jul 14, 2009 4:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pottebaum (Post 4356512)
Isn't that like A LOT of money?

A lot of it probably goes toward debt service on bonds that are already issued. Essentially, the money is helping to fund stuff CTA's already done.

Part of it (may) go towards the repeatedly-postponed purchase of new railcars for the Blue Line. Some may go toward the HUGE backlog of maintenance, in station renovations, signal upgrades, or slow zone work. Finally, some may be set aside as the local match for CTA's three expansion projects.

Also, remember that Metra is getting some. Since funding levels are determined by passenger-miles, and Metra trips tend to be far longer than CTA trips, Metra will probably get a larger share of the money than is fair. This will probably go towards the UP-NW and UP-W capacity upgrades, which includes the reconstruction of the A-2 interlocking. This should simplify and improve operations at the north end of Union Station and Ogilvie.

Nowhereman1280 Jul 14, 2009 4:44 AM

^^^ I don't mind money going to Metra because Metra doesn't seem to waste as much as CTA and the suburbs are going to need enhanced Metra service as car travel becomes less practical with future increases in the cost of car transit (increased gas prices, increased millage requirements driving up the cost of cars, etc.). Metra has generally had the good effect of generating TOD nodes all along the network.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pottebaum (Post 4356512)
Isn't that like A LOT of money?

Yeah, isn't that like 10% of the total spending to CTA and Metra alone, that's not bad at all. More than I expected for sure.

lawfin Jul 14, 2009 5:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs (Post 4356582)
I know this is not the forum, but $40. mil for CSU to build a west side campus. That is throwing $$$ down the drain. That is an incompetent bunch running that skool.

I agree

lawfin Jul 14, 2009 5:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whyhuhwhy (Post 4356266)
^

The problem with Gary is that it is landlocked. Peotone could eventually be the size of O'Hare. Either way I doubt the governor of Illinois would pass a bill taking money from Illinois taxpayers and giving it to Indiana taxpayers.

I think the author got the Kennedy Expressway reconstruction incorrect. From what I've read it deals with 190, not downtown. Anyone have any details on what the heck that is? That came out of nowhere.

And what about stuff that is really needed such as the Eisenhower reconstruction? Is that not happening now?

^^This is part of the problem with our archaic state boundary notions.....I think a Gary Airport would be both cheaper and provide more benefit to the region....

That is how we need to think regionally....thinking as separate states is so 19th century

VivaLFuego Jul 14, 2009 5:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pottebaum (Post 4356512)
Isn't that like A LOT of money?

For a 5-year plan, after 4 years of zero state funding? Assuming this is the matched amount (i.e. the total amount available in state+federal money and not the state-only amount), this is more or less back to status quo, which is close to but still below the amount needed to reach and maintain a "state of good repair" on the CTA transit system, following several dry years (2006-2009) whose capital expenditures were paid for by borrowing against the future with interest since there was no state capital money available.

I mean, yes it's way better than nothing, but this is no quantum leap in transit funding for Illinois - it's more like a return to the Illinois FIRST years of 1999-2005, which indeed saw many important renovation projects.

EDIT: an article this morning suggested that the $2.7 billion is only the state share which would match $2.7 billion in federal money - if true, then this is indeed a very good day for Chicago area transit. I'll hold out before concluding that's the case though, because previous news articles had suggested $1.8 billion for statewide transit and $1.4 billion for Chicago-area transit, which would correspond to a matched amount of around $2.7 billion.


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.