Finally!

Quinn to sign $29B public works bill
July 09, 2009
(AP) — Gov. Pat Quinn says he will sign legislation creating a huge public works program to help the Illinois economy.
Quinn plans to sign the bill on Monday.

^ do we have any idea what's in that bill?

Nothing, yet. The legislature just appropriates the money. IDOT decides what actually gets built. I'm also not sure how much, if any, will go to the transit agencies.

As with any transportation spending bill that comes out of Springfield, Anywhere between 50% to 60% will go to areas outside Chicagoland. In fact, I think this particular bill set the breakdown at 50%.

So the Chicago area is 75-80% of the population and is 80+% of the GDP of the state and we split this 50 / 50 or there abouts.

Tyranny of the minority

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.

:previous:

Those could be construed as fighting words from a downstater when the Chicagoland area feeds more dollars into the system and we struggle to pay for a multiple system of transportations options of feeding people into the state’s economic engine. Metra costs monies, as does, the CTA, PACE, RTA, the local interstates...


The linear miles of road down state could be converted back to gravel for all I care by just the way the rest of rural Illinois is depopulating in comparison to Chicagoland and their lack of contribution into the system. Downstate has been a donor region longer than the state of Illinois has been a donor state in the federal tax system.....

All I'm saying is that until Chicagoland becomes a sovereign principality expect (particularly) highway spending to be divided in this way. No use complaining about it, I suppose a congressman or two should be contacted if someone was serious about changing the way its awarded and allocated. All this 'downstate is useless' rhetoric is funny until its time to eat.

I am sure they will still take our green backs....if not there is Iowa, Indiana, Wisconsin ...yadda...yadda

That is a facile comparison at best.....volume has effects on roads...and the volume in the chicago area is far greater than downstate

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

^

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?

CTA could use it to balance the budget

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...

Isn't that like A LOT of money?

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

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.

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.

^^^ 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.

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.

I agree

^^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

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.

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... :(