There was some news a couple months back similar to the following:

http://metrarail.com/metra/en/home/u...schedulec.html

Metra Home / Newsroom

UP North bridge project to resume with two-track operation ...
03/14/2011

Metra will resume work in April on a major project to replace 22 aging bridges along the Union Pacific North line on the north side of Chicago, as well as to build a completely new Ravenswood Station.

...

the new approach will cost up to $42.2 million more, bringing the total cost of the project to $215 million. That’s because keeping two tracks open will require a new track to be built closer to the western edge of the right of way, which in turn will require extensive and expensive retaining wall work to support the new track. ...

...

Their replacement will be done in two phases of 11 bridges each. The first phase, which will cost $112 million and take until November 2015, will cover bridges over Balmoral, Foster, Winnemac, Lawrence, Leland, Wilson, Sunnyside, Montrose, Berteau, Irving Park and Grace. Construction of the new Ravenswood Station, the only stop in the construction zone and the busiest stop on the UP North line, will also be done in the first phase.

...

The Red Line Extension to 130th St. would end immediately adjacent to the West side of the Bishop Ford Expressway, about 2 miles West of the 130th & Torrence Ave. intersection in the above illustration.


The Gray Line Conversion would provide a new CTA Hegewisch Shuttle from Kensington (operating over the South Shore Line tracks) with a 130th & Bishop Ford Expy. CTA 'L' Station to serve Atgeld Gardens, a 130th & Torrence Ave. CTA 'L' Station (just above the Blue Truss Bridge in the image shown above) to serve the Ford Assembly Plant - with the 'L' Shuttle service ending at a new CTA 'L' Terminal addition to the present Metra/South Shore Hegewisch Station.

Haven't checked the transit thread in a while, so does anyone know if they are making wells a 2 way street north of the river? There are lights going up for northbound traffic now.

Are there lights going up, or are the lights from when it was 2-way still up? As far as I know, they never removed some of the northbound lights.

O maybe that could be. What would be the north bound side of the road is torn up though, so not entirely sure.

They have been doing utilities type work/maintenance on that stretch of Wells for weeks now.

Chicago Pedestrian Plan: City strives to be more pedestrian-friendly city


http://www.chicagotribune.com/classi...6145100.column



http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/...6/62607630.jpg

Kirk unveils plan to ease transit privatization


Read More: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7495123.story




http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/m...7-20063950.jpg

This seems to be the big debate now... personally, I'm fine if brand-new facilities are built privately, but existing assets paid for with tax money should not be sold off.

The main benefit of PPPs are that, done right, they shield the taxpayer from risk—less-than-expected demand or higher-than-expected maintenance costs in the case of leased-off existing infrastructure, or construction risk in the case of existing infrastructure. Unfortunately, a lot of them don’t do either and are merely giveaways, too often to politically-connected parties. Personally, I think most of the concessions are too long as well—30-40 years should be the maximum, not 99 years.

Still, I definitely think they have their place—Europe and Japan have both seen extensive private investment in infrastructure—but PPPs are tools to help get infrastructure built and maintained, not a panacea that will solve all of our infrastructure issues because it involves the magical private sector. Unfortunately, I get the impression that most Republicans at the federal level think the latter—witness Mica’s NEC privatization plan. While I think NEC privatization can be done well, he seems to assume that if SNCF or DB were to get rights to the corridor they’d be able to make improvements without much public money, whereas every report either group’s done about HSR in the US has emphasized the need for steady federal investment. Private sector involvement doesn’t take the government completely off the hook.

Back on topic, I’ve heard that Elgin-O’Hare might be finished by a PPP—anyone else heard anything about this?

The Elgin-O'Hare planning process is incredibly transparent, especially for an IDOT project. You can read all the meeting agendas and view the presentations at the official website. The Advisory Council has several different committees exploring financing, aesthetic design, engineering, diversity, and community impacts.

To answer your question, a PPP is being considered. Financial projections say that the expressway can't pay for itself purely through new tolls - tolls on existing highways would have to be raised.

In addition, the Advisory Council is looking to drastically reduce the cost of the project (by up to 40%). The hope is that much of this savings can be achieved by turning to a private company to build the road... private corporations can use non-union labor, they can leverage economies of scale, they have easier access to credit so they are more flexible in responding to cost-saving opportunities, etc.

The contract for CREATE's Englewood Flyover was signed today. Completion of the project is all but inevitable now. Should be starting work soon with completion some time in 2013.

Thank God the backassward republicans in the house weren't able to succeed in killing this critical piece of infrastructure.

From the latest Elgin-O'Hare study (emphasis/annotation is mine):

In other words, even the initial phase of the project can't be fully funded through a public-private partnership. The tolling rates are set, I believe, to maximize revenue (any higher and they would see diminishing returns). The remainder of the cost that can't be funded through a PPP would have to be supplied by the government, either by using revenue from the existing Illinois Tollway system or by using state/federal highway funding. Also, as the engineering work progresses, there may be opportunities to reduce the cost.

Complicating matters is the fact that the Tollway doesn't really have any extra revenue to spend from their existing toll plazas. Whatever future toll revenue that isn't going towards debt service on the big "Congestion Relief Program" they just completed, will go towards the impending reconstruction of the Northwest Tollway and the new interchange at 294/57. There isn't really any money left over for "nice-to-have" projects like the Elgin-O'Hare, the 53 extension, the Illiana, or the Prairie Sprawlway.

Actually, the Illiana and/or Prairie Parkway might be a better fit for a PPP. They run through flat rural areas where land is relatively cheap and construction staging is easy. In contrast, the Elgin-O'Hare must be carefully threaded around other major pieces of infrastructure like the O'Hare flight paths, cargo facilities, railyards, arterial roads, water reclamation, etc.

Oakton Construction Updates

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/6959/oakton1.jpg

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/6792/oakton2.jpg

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/3220/oakton3.jpg

Anyone know why the CPD and CTA decided to close down the Belmont Red/Brown station today right in the midde of the Pride Parade? It caused quite a lot of chaos and was very inconvenient, too. It seemed like the CTA wasn't running nearly as many trains as it should have been, too. Friday's New York marriage announcement plus beautiful weather forecast for Sunday should have been plenty of notice to get a working train plan in place.

I dunno... but weren't Wellington and Addison enough to handle the load?

Maybe you enjoy walking a half mile out of your way on a lame foot with no notice and for no reported reason, but I think the least the CTA could do is provide an explanation for shutting down a major station in the middle of one of the largest annual events the city provides.

Or they could have put signs up that Belmont was closed along routes people would be walking so, for example, they could choose to walk to Southport for the Brown Line instead of walking additional distance south of Belmont from Addison.

Seriously, the no notice and no explanation stuff is simply unacceptable. This is the sort of reason why I don't have a monthly pass with the CTA. This sort of occurance is exactly why I'm a lot more prone to take taxis or simply walk than I am to use the CTA even though I'm usually a strong advocate of them when the issue of transit comes up. But truth be told, when it comes to voting with my dollars, the CTA simply isn't getting my "vote" nearly as often as it could if it were more reliable and/or explained itself better when it failed to be reliable.

Sometimes I think they're improving in that regard - and I think they improved their communications a LOT under Huberman - but since he left, I feel like it's sliding back into its previous information blackout habits.

Why Southport? That's nowhere near the parade.

My assumption is that he was watching the parade up closer to Addison, wanted the brown line & opted to walk to Belmont to catch it there (rather than deal with a transfer), only to arrive and find the station closed. Considering where he was watching, had he known Belmont was closed, it might have been closer to walk to Southport to catch the brown line than where he presumably ended up catching the brown line (Wellington). It's just one of those situations where had the station closure been known, people (including emathias) might have altered their plans on where to catch a train.

Resurrecting an old question that never got answered.

The Englewood Flyover, now funded, will include three tracks for the RI lines. As noted above, there are plans for a significant increase in the number of trains going to Lasalle Street (with SWS and SES), so a full third track from 89th (where SES branches off) all the way in to Lasalle would likely be necessary in the future. However, the new station at 35th street only has two tracks. Can anyone confirm if/how they plan to accommodate a future third track through the new station?

The western (southbound?) platform is wider than the eastern (northbound?) one, which might leave room to narrow the SB platform and add a third track to the west. This would turn the current southbound track into a center express track (with no platform). This is just based on observation, I have no idea whether this is the real plan or not.

I took the train from Belmont yesterday around 5pm and it was open - although PACKED.

They said the number of people at the parade this year was nearly 750,000, which is hundreds of thousands over the previous record of around 550,000.

You could barely get near the Belmont station at 5pm. All of Belmont, Clark, Halsted, everything was totally shut down and wall to wall people. I'm guessing the station was horribly overcrowded and they weren't running enough trains to clear the platforms.

I was reading how the city activated the office of emergency management due to uncontrollable crowd levels up and down Halsted and Belmont. The last 50 floats/participants actually had to turn right from Halsted and go down Clark Street directly to the end of the parade route - they never even made it past the staging area. Belmont station was reported to be closed down because platforms were at capacity and the situation was spinning out of control. People were crashing through barricades and crawling up fences to try to escape along Halsted. Police had to be called in from multiple surrounding districts after people started fighting and jumping on parked cars along Belmont. Areas around Diversey were also swamped, with thousands of people blocking streets and trying to exit the area. The ABC broadcasting booth at Halsted and Belmont was almost overrun at many points.

One of the big problems was thousands of people trying to exit trains at Belmont and Addison as thousands more were trying t get on. From a lot of the stories out there it looks like it was right at the breaking point all across the neighborhood for awhile - but the crowds and police were able to hold it together.

Like they said though, most people, including myself, probably didn't even realize anything was afoot except it was busy. It was an event set up to handle around 500,000 people - and 750,000 showed up. Many of them really drunk as well.

They won't. The majority of trains will stop at 35th the way Metra Electric trains stop at Roosevelt and Van Buren, and UP-Northwest/North trains stop at Clybourn. If you don't have a need for passing, then two tracks is enough for both the Rock Island and SouthWest Service. However, I believe that once the Englewood and 75th St projects are done, Metra will increase service sharply on the SWS. The travel times for SWS should drop by about 15 minutes from Wrightwood to downtown.

I really don't even know why they need a third track at all. My guess is that if community groups push for infill stations in Englewood or Washington Park (already one planned for 79th), Metra can run occasional local trains while sending the majority of trains up the express track.

Part of the reason for the third track in my mind (the only reason, really) is to allow for trains to be moved to the coach yard at the Rocket House (south of 47th). I don't know the extent of Metra's plans, so I can't say whether two tracks is enough... but the capacity of two tracks is a lot more than you might think, once freight trains are removed from the equation.

I imagine a third track would be less about absolute capacity, and more about preventing delays on one line from propagating to others.

Lasalle Street Station will eventually be the terminus for 4 lines (SWS, SES, RI Mainline, and RI Suburban line). Departures from Lasalle Street can be orchestrated so there's no conflicts, but an extra northbound track would help keep delays or disturbances on one line from affecting all the others.

Consider this scenario. A RI suburban line train is scheduled to arrive at Lasalle at 8:30 AM and a SWS train is scheduled at 8:40. For whatever reason, the RI train is delayed by 10 minutes. Hey, it happens. So they both enter the main line at the same time. With two tracks, the following train has to stop and wait for the leading train, potentially several times, for every time that the leading train makes a stop. So instead of one delayed train, you now have two. A third track allows both trains to proceed unimpeded to the terminus at Lasalle.

After the Englewood Flyover improvements, the only obvious obstacles to adding a third track from Lasalle to 89th (where the SES will split off), are:
1. The diamonds at the St Charles Air Line. This goes away when the CREATE project at Grand Crossing is built, allowing the SCAL to be deactivated.
2. The two-track bridges at Archer and 69th-72nd. This can be rectified by building another bridge to accommodate a third track.
3. The station at 35th street.

Okay, but even in the event of a delay, you still don't need three tracks continuously from 75th to LaSalle.

If you have trains operating at different speeds on a line, then there's a need for passing and therefore a third track makes sense. The best example is BNSF, where heavy freight traffic, Amtrak, and a dense Metra schedule all fit onto only three tracks without conflict because of well-planned scheduling and crossovers.

In the case of the Rock Island, I still don't see why a 3rd track is necessary. There are no stations between 75th and LaSalle except for 35th, and all trains will stop at 35th. Therefore, all trains will have the same average speed along the corridor.

As I mentioned above, the increased utilization of the tracks in the LaSalle terminal may require Metra to store more of their trains at the Rocket House during midday. The yard moves from LaSalle to the Rocket House will not move at the high speeds of a standard passenger run, and so they might justify a third track as far south as 47th.

At least the aerial images on Google Maps show that, when those images were taken, there is already a third track (albeit sometimes disconnected from the mainline) from:
Lasalle to 15th: 3 tracks
15th-24th: 2 tracks (bridge at Archer, diamonds at SCAL)
24th-33rd: 3 tracks
33rd-35th: gap (35th street station)
35th-43rd: 3 tracks
43rd-53rd: >3 tracks (yards)
53rd-59th: 3 tracks


With the reconstruction involved in the flyovers at 63rd and 75th, that will probably in effect result in the corridor being triple-tracked from 59th to 75th as well.

If all the traffic is the same speed and follows the same stopping pattern on a single line, then you're right, you can handle a lot of traffic. The potential for delays comes when you have trains from four different branches (SWS, SES, RI Mainline, RI Suburban), and a train from one branch arrives at the mainline too close to another train. They could devise a schedule so that trains will leave their endpoints such that they will arrive at the mainline with enough padding between them, but some delays and disturbances are a fact of life. Especially if the frequency of the branch lines increase, then the padding will be reduced, and the probability of reaching the mainline at the same time as another train from a different branch increases.

In any case a third track probably won't really be needed right away, I guess as a transit nerd, and given that the infrastructure for the 3rd track is mostly already in place (and that even more of it will be in place after the flyovers at 63rd / 75th), they should at least keep the option open. Anyway that's all I have to say on this.

If Metra is acting to preserve a third track on the Englewood Flyover (the third track must add to the cost tremendously) then that tells me they are open to the possibility of more inner-city stations.

Metra's management has historically been opposed to serving Chicago neighborhoods at a higher service level, but now the Ravenswood station is busier than any of the suburban stations on the UP-North line, and Metra management is starting to take note, allowing plans to go forward for new urban stations at 79th on the Rock Island and Peterson on the UP-North. They are also rebuilding Ravenswood to be more like a rapid-transit station, with a full canopy, a concessionaire, and multiple access points, as well as a station agent (finally!)

From the CREATE P1 Fact Sheet:
This project will build a rail-rail flyover to carry the north - south Metra Rock Island line over the east-west NS/Amtrak line. The project will construct bridges that will accommodate 3 tracks to carry Metra operations over the four tracks of NS and a possible future fifth track for a high speed intercity passenger rail connection to points east and/or south.

Great to hear about more in-town stations on Metra. How about one more on the UP-N at Addison? Would there be any demand for a transfer to the Brown Line, and how much demand would there be for a faster trip to the (west) Loop?

The Ravenswood ridership stats are a bit of a blip... they were inflated somewhat by people from Ravenswood and Uptown who avoided the Brown Line during the rehab project.

However, if I understand correctly, most of the ridership at Ravenswood comes from reverse commuters who bike or take the Lawrence bus to Metra, or walk. (I believe that section of Ravenswood has attracted lots of urbanites who work in the suburbs; these people have only a short walk to the station.)

The chances of an Addison station are pretty slim, I think. Metra doesn't want to deal with the rowdy Cubs fans, who always manage to overwhelm the platforms at Irving Park. So many regular riders have complained about the behavior of Cub fans that Metra has occasionally set aside a special car for them, which is closed off until Irving Park. You'd probably see a station at Belmont before one at Addison, I think, simply to discourage the Cub fans somewhat.

Other than the stations I already mentioned at Peterson/Ridge and Auburn Park/79th, I think several things will happen in the next 10-15 years:
Rebuild of Clybourn with longer platforms and ADA (this was delayed by CTA's Circle Line planning, which proposed shifting Clybourn to North)
Access improvements and additional service at Jefferson Park
Kedzie gets closed and shifted to Western (once the A2 interlocking is moved)
27th Street is closed, shifted to 31st and/or 35th
59th Street is rebuilt

If the city and Metra can ever work together, then we could see more improvements backed by TIF dollars that are coordinated with some sort of strategic plan. We'll see if Emanuel and Klein can convince Metra of the benefits of improving city service. There are lots of changes I'd make to the existing Metra network... lots of their urban stations don't make sense. Case in point: Mayfair and Grayland. I'd consolidate the two into a single station on Irving Park, which would cut in half the walking distance to Six Corners and provide for convenient transfers to the frequent Irving Park bus. A higher-quality station there might attract a decent number of reverse commuters to Old Irving, or conversely, encourage employment growth in that area. Plus, consolidating the stations would speed up Metra service and reduce their operating costs while increasing the ridership.

Ardecila, how can you say that Metra doesn't want to deal with rowdy Cubs fans and then point out that Metra provides an additional car. Actually Metra does a remarkable job in providing special trains and additional cars for major Chicago events...Taste, Bears games, Fireworks, Cubs games, a new station for Sox fans...

But I do agree that a combined station on the UP North line at Irving and/or Addison would be great. But just don't take away the Grayland station on the Milw Dist North line, that is the station that I use for Cubs games .;)

BRT plans on Western and Jeffery
 

I haven't seen this written about here, but I wrote a blog post about the CTA's revamped BRT plans--they're starting with Jeffery from downtown to 103rd and a Western-Ashland corridor from Howard to 95th. It's exciting they're doing this--I think this is the future of transit expansion in Chicago, given that we're not likely to get much L expansion other than on the fringes any time soon--but they're really half-assing it. Dedicated lanes only during rush hour, etc. Anyway, the post starts out with an explanation of BRT that I'm sure everyone here would be familiar with, but the details of the plans are about halfway down.

Sexy bus transit in Chicago

Yeah, and Metra often has to hire private security guards to police the drunk sports fans, break up fights, kick the non-paying riders off the train, etc...

Sports fans and visitors to downtown events will take the train because there's no other option... the city simply doesn't contain enough parking or have enough road space to meet the extreme demand of large sporting events and festivals. Metra doesn't have to encourage these riders or market itself to them... these riders will just show up.

An Irving Park station on MD-N would be just as good, especially if you could pick up a rapid bus on Irving that would get you to Clark in half the time. :tup: Addison isn't wide enough or fast enough for express service.

You mean my beloved, belated X80 Irving Park express? When I lived in Lakeview I'd see hundreds of Cubs fans taking it back to the Irving Park Metra stop. (literally hundreds, CTA had 3 or more busses waiting at the end of games to fit all of them)

I think it's good - it shows that public transit is gaining popularity among suburbanites, and they'll be more willing to support funding from the state and county.

I've spoken to Harry Osterman re the Peterson station on several occasions. Osterman was the former state rep for the area and the current 48th ward alderman. I've known Harry for a long time and I like him and think he is a good guy but i disagree with him on the peterson station idea for Metra.

I expressed the idea that the area surrounding peterson is one of the more pedestrian un-friendly parcels on the north side lake front area....if not the out right worst.

That a station there would not be easily walkable for much of the neighborhood just given the awkward positioning of the parcel; the fact the a near full 1/4 circle in a radius extending say 1/4 mile from said station is literally dead people who have a tendency not to use transit.

I suggested to him as did some other to put the station at Devon instead....this could help the west ridge business strip and the emerging strip near clark / devon....as well as their being a rather large undeveloped parcel that has set fallow for decades on the south of devon, across from S&C ( a natural ridership driver who currently uses LUnt...Devon actually would probably be more convenient for S&C actually).

I also suggested to have the Lunt stop moved to Howard.....this would affect me directly as Lunt is my Metra stop.

It just seemd to me the Peterson stop is going to be a clusterfuck of an already clusterfuck....with little ancillary benefit to any business strips...versus the realignment to Devon and to Howard (not to mention a tie in to Redline /Yellow / Purple lines).

He actually thought these suggestions were a good idea....but in his words he was more concerned with the traffic passing through his ward.....ie the traffic passing via ridge, and to lesser extents hollywood and bryn mawr....ie where northwest siders and near suburbanites barrel down peterson / ridge through edgewater. And that Devon was not his ward so he wasn't that concerned about it.....that was irritating.


I have also written to Jan Schakowsky (sp??) re ths.

At first glance, I like your idea. The Metra-CTA transfer at Howard would be a long one, but I made that trip frequently last summer and usually took the frustrating Metra-Purple-Red, or occasionally walked from Lunt Metra to Morse on the Red Line.

Better than the X80, actually. Irving Park is one of the few east-west streets on the North Side to have 4 traffic lanes (Peterson does also).

That makes Irving Park an ideal candidate for median bus lanes, or as I suggested earlier, a light-rail line from Harlem-Irving to the lakefront. The express buses or light-rail trains would stop every 1/2 mile with occasional 1/4-mile stations at major traffic generators.

Wouldn't it be better in the long term to just extend the Red Line to Linden, as is already planned, for the (much easier) transfer at Davis?

Wait... since when is CTA planning this? Current plans have the Purple Line running as a full-time "express" service to the Loop, with a few new intermediate stops at Loyola and Wilson. Red Line service will continue to terminate at Howard, because that's where the loop track and yards are.

Getting from a local North Side station (say, Berwyn) to the Metra UP-N line should be a one-seat ride. The facilities to turn around North Side local trains exist at Howard, so they can't go further north than that without overloading the Purple Line. Howard is where the Metra station needs to be.

An enclosed connection would be great (they could build a passageway between the buildings along Howard, and the south side of the yard). However, even a basic sidewalk widening on Howard would do the trick; Howard's sidewalks are currently uncomfortable and narrow, and that (along with the obvious crime issues) are keeping the area depressed.

The subway alternative, which I think makes the most sense for a variety of reasons, would run the Red to Linden.

How long are the platforms at Belmont and Fullerton? One of the sketches in the RPM display boards showed a renovated Berwyn/Foster station with two entrances and a ten-car Red Line train in the station.

Assuming all the stations from Addison-Howard are rebuilt, how easy would it be to introduce ten-car service on the Red Line? Can Belmont, Fullerton, and the subway/Dan Ryan stations support longer trains?

Fullerton and Belmont were designed so that the current platforms are 8-car platforms, but the tracks were laid such that the platforms can be extended to accommodate 10-car trains without the tracks being changed.

South Shore Line weighs Munster, Dyer expansion
 

Gary Post Tribune link By Chelsea Schneider Kirk cschneider@post-trib.com July 2, 2011 8:42PM

The operator of the South Shore Line is renewing talks of extending its commuter rail service.

A challenge is finding local funding to help sustain new lines.

Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District officials plan to build a rail line south to Munster and Dyer as the first phase of its West Lake Corridor project. Earlier plans for the corridor called for the line to extend to Lowell and for a second rail line to run to Valparaiso.

While those aren’t off the table, NICTD wants to first implement service to the Munster and Dyer area because an analysis shows the extension meets a critical guideline to qualify for federal funding. The federal New Starts money helps state and local governments implement capital transportation projects, and NICTD is positioning its project to go after it.

“Technically what we’re able to show for half the cost we capture maybe 90 percent of the projected ridership,” NICTD General Manager Gerald Hanas said. “Rather than going all the way to Lowell, it makes sense to do this.”

But to receive federal funding, NICTD must find local revenue to help operate the system and pay for construction costs federal funding doesn’t pick up.

That step led NICTD to canvass Northwest Indiana leaders last month with the goal of drumming up support for the project.

Fares are expected to cover at least $4.2 million of the estimated $14 million in operating costs, but local dollars would need to cover the rest. NICTD plans to ask the federal government to fund half of the estimated $464 million in capital costs leaving a $232 million gap.

“We are seeing certainly the cities and towns that are in the corridor are still enthusiastic about the project,” Hanas said. “They still believe it has economic benefits for their communities. They are very supportive of this effort. We’re putting our heads together in how we can meet the mandate of the local share.”

Next step, local funding

Community leaders who met with NICTD say no specifics were discussed on a plan to obtain local funding.

An answer, or at least a tool to secure those dollars, may come at next year’s Indiana General Assembly where public transit is expected to become a big issue in the off-budget year. In the upcoming session, a central Indiana group is planning to make a push for lawmakers to authorize county referendums for the purpose of dedicating funds to transportation projects.

“If they think that tool legislatively works for them, certainly we want not to be left out or have that option available to us whether it will work or not,” Hanas said. “We hear from various elected officials as they do polling that transportation and this commuter railroad question polls very high even if it involves local financing.”

The majority of transit-orientated referendums ask for a dedicated portion of the sales tax, Central Indiana Regional Transportation Authority Executive Director Ehren Bingaman said. Other than a sales tax, an income tax is another highly considered option. Vehicle registration fees fund some transportation initiatives, but very few, if any, use the gas tax, Bingaman said.

“I don’t know what the Legislature’s approach may be. Obviously, I work for CIRTA, and I would like to see our organization come out with something that benefits the region,” Bingaman said. “We want to see the whole state win, too; by win, have the tool available to them. All we are talking about is creating a tool.”

Yet, Hanas doesn’t know if a referendum is the right tool for the NICTD project. An earlier referendum attempt to create a Regional Transportation Authority with the ability to raise funding for transportation projects was soundly defeated, but that initiative wasn’t well-coordinated, Hanas said.

NICTD isn’t limiting itself to a referendum strategy; public-private partnerships or local improvement districts are also options, according to the proposal..........more

Wow, I could have swore that the project was dead. I'm relieved to see that it's still foremost in the minds of NW Indiana planners. The new approach with the smaller project is probably for the best.

Interestingly, the original proposal wanted to use dual-mode locomotives. I imagine that, if they move fast, they can probably get a decent deal by piggybacking onto NJTransit's order from Bombardier.

It occurs to me that this proposal will directly compete with Metra's SouthEast Service... the favorite stepchild boondoggle of the Will County politicians and Jesse Jackson Jr (after Peotone, of course).

I'll believe it when I see it, but this is a huge step forward. Hopefully we can have a system as good as London's Oyster.

London figured out that they could allow for free transfers without a physical connecting passage by adding "touch-out" validation machines at the two stations to be linked. In Chicago, that would really come in handy linking State/Lake to Lake, or Polk to Medical Center, etc... There's no money and not much will to build connector passages, but a properly-designed card system could allow for this kind of stuff.

All well and good, but I'm exceptionally annoyed that the State is levying even MORE requirements on the RTA while failing to pay hundreds of millions of money owed.

Quinn should find ways to fund existing operations before he starts throwing new requirements at the agencies.

I’d have to agree with emathias—although there are good ideas in the bill, it’s a bit too specific, especially on the side of the universal fare card. The legislature should have simply mandated coordination of fares, not requiring a universal fare card. Although based on the Crain’s article it sounds like Raoul and Burns (my former senator and rep/alderman, both of whom I’m probably 90+% in agreement with on most issues) seem to generally know what they’re talking about, if a farecard’s done wrong—imagine some custom, one-of-a-kind deal from a not-great vendor instead of just going with one of the standard Asian systems—it could be a big money drain on the RTA. And a smartcard’s just assumed to be the right choice—there’s no looking into whether unified fares with paper tickets and inspectors might actually be more cost-effective. Sure, tickets and inspectors seems more primitive, but if big German and Swiss cities—which I’m sure have higher mode shares and just as crowded vehicles at peak—have stuck with them, there must be some advantage. Saying we need a farecard is just self-flattery—it makes Chicago seem like a transit powerhouse along the lines of Tokyo, HK or London, when in reality we’re more comparable to Hamburg

So, in short universal fares are good, but specifying exactly how to achieve that’s unnecessary (this rant inspired by Alon Levy’s post on New York).

I don’t have as much of a problem with the realtime data requirement. The CTA already does it, and I think would be great for Pace but if it’s an unfunded mandate I don’t see how they could manage it. I’m not sure how necessary it is for Metra—requiring them to do clockface schedule, which they already have or get pretty close to having on their lines—would be just as good, if coupled with some kind of requirement about disclosing delays.

Yeah... as a daily Metra commuter, I'm having difficulty envisioning how a smartcard system would work.

Unless there's also fare integration, whereby I can have a discounted transfer from Metra to CTA, it doesn't really make sense. It's really not any more convenient to carry one unified card vs. a Metra monthly pass and my Chicago Card. In fact, it's more convenient to carry both - if I misplace one, I still have the other one to get me where I'm going via a less-convenient route.

I think a smart system would work if Metra had its conductors use a handheld device which calculated the cost of the fair. It could work like a Chicago card where proximity is sufficient to read it. I could then print a receipt. UPS uses something like this right now. They might be able to re-purpose something like that.

I would find this very convenient. For instance, I have two rides left on a 10 ride Zones B-F. I would love to use that money for the CTA or to go B->A. As it is, this ticket will go to waste.

UPS's are old and clunky and fairly limited in capability. There are better systems available. Heck, for maybe a quarter million dollars, the RTA could probably have a custom Android app developed that would use whatever sort of android device they wanted to use and connect back to a backend tracking system via whatever wireless vendor gave them the best deal.

What transit projects in Chicago are linked to the "Back to Work Illinois" infrastructure bill that the Illinois Supreme Court just affirmed as legal? I could only find vague, non-specific mentions in my online searches.

They're vague, non-specific grants. Presumably, each RTA agency will use it for regular capital spending rather than system expansion.

$500 million was promised about a year ago. Greg Hinz enumerates:
CTA specifically has not prioritized their capital needs (Viva, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) so the projects that get money are decided on a pretty ad-hoc basis. The ventilation system seems to be in direct response to last year's Red Line fire, for example.