One thing I wish Metra would consider is increasing frequency of trains...instead of dropping new lines all the way out to elburn or some such....how about increasing freqnuency to every 1/2 hour on the north line and also increasing frequency on the weekends as well

By the way anyone know which Metra lines have the highest ridership? Link?

$125 million seems like way too much for the relatively simple job of the ramp reconstruction, even with construction constraints. A whole new interchange at Eola Road in Aurora is costing only $50 million. Besides, the money presumably wouldn't be spent until the funding is authorized. The timeline on the ramp reconstruction suggests that funding was available long ago.

whyhuhwhy's explanation, that the appropriation refers to 190 instead, doesn't really make sense either. The plans for that road are extensive and huge-scale, and $125 million wouldn't do much, unless there is a funding match from airlines or ticket taxes.

Found it -- Metra ridership

Rail Line Weekday Ridership and Service Levels Route Miles Trains Passenger Trips
BNSF Railway - Aurora
(Into Chicago Union Station) 37.5 94 61,300
Union Pacific

North - Kenosha, WI
Northwest - Harvard/McHenry
West - Elburn

(Into Ogilvie Transportation Center) 51.6
63.1
43.6 70
65
59 38,000
41,900
30,200
Electric District - University Park, Blue Island, South Chicago
(Into Millennium Station) 40.6 170 44,000
Heritage Corridor - Joliet
(Into Chicago Union Station) 37.2 6 2,900
Milwaukee District

North - Fox Lake
West - Elgin

(Into Chicago Union Station) 49.5
39.8 60
58 24,400
22,600
North Central Service - Antioch
(Into Chicago Union Station) 52.8 22 5,200
Rock Island District - Joliet, Blue Island
(Into LaSalle Street Station) 46.8 68 36,600
Southwest Service - Manhattan
(Into Chicago Union Station) 40.8 36 10,000Ehhhh....I goofed that up here is the link: http://metrarail.com/Newsroom/quick_facts.html

moved to Chicago O'Hare thread....

question:

the CTA system currently needs ~7 billion to reach a "state of good repair" does anybody have any idea what the breakdown of that is? (i.e. structural work, track work, station rehab, car replacement, etc)?

borrowed from 2007 CTA document:

CTA’s goal to reach a State of Good Repair is not merely to replace equipment and
facilities in-kind, but to replace existing systems, where appropriate, with current,
modern technology. CTA has based its State of Good Repair estimates on the
following industry replacement and rehabilitation standards:
–
Buses should be rehabbed at 6 years and replaced at 12 years.
–
Railcars should be rehabbed at quarter- and mid-life intervals, and replaced at 25 years.
–
Rail stations should be comfortable and secure, and replaced or rehabbed at 40 years.
–
Rail lines should be free of slow zones, and should have reliable signal systems.
–
Maintenance facilities should be replaced at 40 years (or 70 years if rehabbed).
–
Service management systems should be modern and reliable.
•
A State of Good Repair is consistent with current technology and standard business
practices.
•


CTA Capital Needs
Summary of unfunded need
Asset Category
Unfunded Need FY 2006-2010
Bus Fleet
$159,580,200
Bus Turnarounds & Terminals
$40,213,950
Communications
$199,228,637
Data Processing - Information Tech.
$117,954,352
Maintenance and Support Facilities
$661,063,577
Non-revenue Vehicles & Equipment
$151,419,446
Automated Fare Control Systems
$79,180,241
Traction Power & Substations
$381,332,421
Rail Cars Fleet
$666,594,480
Rail Stations & Park -n- Ride
$773,433,586
Safety and Security
$448,920,555
Rail Right of Way - Signals
$727,146,906
Rail Right of Way - Structures
$779,383,912
Rail Right of Way - Track
$637,210,485

^^^

Just...WOW. Those numbers are staggering, especially considering what they consider "good repair" isn't all that unreasonable.

"Part of their concerns include a graduation rate of only 16.2% (as of 2007) and a grossly inadequate infrastructure.[2]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago...ty#cite_note-1
:stunned:

The system would be pretty sweet if every project going into those estimates were funded. A very satisfactory and high-quality transit system could easily be obtained for 50-75% of that amount, but part of the problem is the difficulty US transit agencies have in planning their capital programs given the deterioration of assets and complete unpredictability/unreliability of available funding.

Projects are prone to backlog in years with little funding, and then the overall tab in year of expenditure gets higher, so its generally better to err on the high side anyway - if CTA got 75% of that amount but then got el zilcho for the next 25 years it'd be right back where it started. There's an inherent deficiency in thinking of the problem as "CTA needs $X Billion to reach a state of good repair" because maintaining capital assets is an ongoing cyclical activity, so the solution lies in a consistent funding stream so that "CTA may maintain its state of good repair with $X00 million per year in capital funds" rather than reaching a state of good repair with a one-time infusion then having the entire system crumble at the same time.

On a similar train of thought, boy are some faces gonna be red when two-thirds of CTA's best-and-newest-in-the-nation brand new bus fleet (that Huberman ordered with borrowed money) all get old at exactly the same time. In fairness to Huberman, though, the backlog was created by the lack of adequate capital funding to maintain an appropriate bus replacement cycle through the late-90s and then again in the mid-00s, but I'm highlighting the issue inherent to catching up on the backlog in one fell swoop.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1247...ys_us_page_one

http://www.chicagobusiness.com (Hinz blog - couldn't find direct link)

Good, bad and ugly: Illinois' new capital plan
Posted by Greg H. at 7/15/2009 10:53 AM CDT on Chicago Business

...
total reconstruction of Wacker Drive south of Randolph, now scheduled to begin late next spring, according to the Chicago Department of Transportation.
...

Good news about CREATE. Which of the many planned CREATE projects will be funded with this $522 million?

I was curious about ADA-compliance and system usage for the CTA.

By my calculations, there are 53 non-ADA-compliant "L" stations and 83 ADA-compliant ones (counting all Brown Line stations as compliant even if they're still under construction).

So 61% are compliant.

But those 61% of stations account for 65% of "L" ridership. Not too bad - at least the busiest stations seem to be getting priority. That percentage is actually slightly higher, since I took annual stats for 2008 and some of those Brown Line number would be skewed last year.

Looking over the stats, the non-ADA Blue Line subway stations and North Main stations would yield the biggest impact for ADA improvements.

I am going to get slammed for this. I think mandating ADA compliance for all CTA stations or even attempting to make them such is a huge waste of invesment.

People who cannot use a traditional station because of some malady make up a relatively small % of users.....yet the cost is borne by all of us.

I am generally quite liberal; but this seems preposterously unfair

At any rate, lawfin, elevators are not only for the disabled. They make it far easier for people with suitcases, parents with strollers, cyclists, etc to use the CTA system, which is something that would increase the attractiveness of the system greatly for many potential riders.

I don't think anyone's going to slam you for that - many people generally agree with the idea that special service for the disabled, even if the government should subsidize it, shouldn't come off the general transit budget but off of a seperate item.

As ardecila points out, it's not just "the disabled" that take advantage of ADA features, though. One large group that is and will continue to grow larger over the next 50 years is the elderly - ADA features greatly benefit the elderly, and as the population ages that will only increase in importance.

I think most transit agencies are fine with incrementally updating their infrastructure to accomodate ADA standards, but being forced to do it faster than they have money to do it with isn't necessarily in anyone's interest - not even in the interest of the disabled if the excess cost leads to a reduction in overall service.

A link I found to an intresting article.

There are up to 10,000 of these truck movements per 24 hours in our region. Create when fully implemented, will do a lot to improve congestion in the region.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,2356087.story

Ultra-fast trains ordered
200 m.p.h. vehicles coming to Chicago in speedy-rail plan

^

Pardon my french but holy shit that's the best damn news I've heard in a LONG time. The only problem is the actual PLAN is half-assed at 110mph and it won't even start ramping up to that speed until we are north of Glenview! It sounds like Illinois and Chicago are the ones holding this one back without a plan for grade crossing and improvements locally. Wisconsin is clearly on board.

Read some other news articles, and unfortunately the order doesn't include new engines - only the passenger cars. So there will be standard Amtrak Genesis locomotives pulling the trains. Now, the speed doesn't so much concern me at this point - Genesis locomotives are good for up to 125mph - but the aesthetics of the train will suffer.Out of all the trains in the US, only ONE (Acela) actually looks good... :(