CHICAGO: Transit Developments

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by ardecila

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.

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?

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

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

$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.

[lawfin]

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 10,000

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 10,000

Ehhhh....I goofed that up here is the link: http://metrarail.com/Newsroom/quick_facts.html

[jpIllInoIs]

moved to Chicago O'Hare thread....

[schwerve]

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)?

[k1052]

Originally Posted by schwerve

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

[ChicagoChicago]

^^^

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

[Zerton]

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

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.

"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

[VivaLFuego]

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.

[BTinSF]

BUSINESS
JULY 16, 2009
Rail Funds Give Chicago Hub a Lift
By CHRISTOPHER CONKEY and ALEX ROTH

CHICAGO -- A long-delayed plan to reduce congestion in the nation's busiest freight rail hub has won $322 million in funding from Illinois, a big victory for railroads that improves the odds the state will win federal stimulus grants to expand passenger rail service.

The project, called Create, was launched in 2003 to untangle a system with dozens of rail yards and hundreds of intersecting lines that bog down rail and vehicle traffic, wasting fuel and driving up costs for shippers. The plan is emblematic of the sort of big infrastructure improvement project the Obama administration has said it wants to advance with stimulus money.

But the Chicago overhaul has been hamstrung by a lack of funding. As a senator from Illinois in 2006, President Barack Obama urged his colleagues to provide more money for the plan.

Rail congestion in Chicago is so bad that some freight is taken off trains at one side of the city, driven across town on trucks and placed back on another train. Paul Nowicki, assistant vice president at Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp., said that is particularly true for perishable goods transiting Chicago via Western states.

"If you're going to hold a train outside Chicago for 12 hours, that cuts down the shelf life," he said "Meanwhile, a truck is coming through Chicago at noon at 60 miles per hour."

The situation has improved only marginally since Canadian National Railway Co.'s recent purchase of the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway, a suburban Chicago line that allows CN to route some of its freight around the city.

On Tuesday, CSX Corp. Chief Executive Michael Ward said he has also seen a marginal reduction in congestion thanks to the few Create projects that have already been finished. Hugh Kiley, assistant vice president at Norfolk Southern Corp., said the Create program, when finished, is expected to result in an increase in Norfolk's average Chicago train speed.

Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn's decision to sign a bill providing new money for the Chicago rail overhaul means that $322 million from the state will be pooled with roughly $200 million provided by railroads and the federal government to fund a series of projects, including modern signal technology, new underpasses and "flyovers" that will carry fast-moving passenger trains up and over lines used by lumbering freight trains.

The funding will allow several key projects to move forward, but railroad and government officials will need to come up with at least an additional $1 billion to finish all 78 projects envisioned.

The Transportation Department, led by former Illinois congressman Ray LaHood, is taking applications for a $1.5 billion stimulus program that will award grants for infrastructure projects of regional and national significance. The Federal Railroad Administration, headed by Joseph Szabo, a former labor leader from Illinois, will dole out more than $8 billion in grants for high-speed rail projects in the years ahead. The Chicago plan ties into both priorities, and it may have a leg up thanks to the financial backing shown by Illinois and the railroads.

"We'll be very disappointed if we don't get something, given the fact that we've got $700 million of projects ready to go," said Edward Hamberger, president of the Association of American Railroads.

Separately, Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D., Ill.) is seeking to earmark about $700 million for the Create project in a major transportation spending bill being crafted by House lawmakers.

Write to Christopher Conkey at christopher.conkey@wsj.com and Alex Roth at alex.roth@wsj.com

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

[denizen467]

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.
...

[orulz]

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

[emathias]

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.

[lawfin]

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

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by devil's advocate

Wouldn't it be cheaper simply to have paratransit take disabled persons to the nearest ADA-compliant station? Among the handicapped, I can't imagine that a lengthy CTA trip would be attractive, compared to the paratransit that we already pay for.

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.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by lawfin

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

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.

[Chicago Shawn]

Rail congestion in Chicago is so bad that some freight is taken off trains at one side of the city, driven across town on trucks and placed back on another train. Paul Nowicki, assistant vice president at Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp., said that is particularly true for perishable goods transiting Chicago via Western states.

"If you're going to hold a train outside Chicago for 12 hours, that cuts down the shelf life," he said "Meanwhile, a truck is coming through Chicago at noon at 60 miles per hour."

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.

[brian_b]

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

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

New passenger trains capable of exceeding 200 m.p.h. will operate from Chicago to Milwaukee under a purchase agreement that Wisconsin officials announced Friday.

The $47 million deal with the Spanish train manufacturer Talgo includes two sets of 14-car passenger trains.

The trains will be assembled at plants in Wisconsin, Gov. Jim Doyle said.

Each train, outfitted with large windows and passenger comforts, could accommodate more than 400 riders, depending on the seating configuration, officials said.

The deal marks the first train order as part of plans to build high-speed rail corridors across the Midwest using federal stimulus money and investment by states.

Amtrak's Chicago-to-Milwaukee line has experienced strong ridership growth in recent years. Plans call for increasing top train speeds to 110 m.p.h. from the current 79 m.p.h. and extending the high-speed rail corridor to Madison, Wis., and up to Minneapolis by about 2015.

High-speed trains would knock 45 minutes off the current 1-hour, 40-minute trip from Chicago to Milwaukee, after track improvements are made to facilitate faster speeds. The trains leaving Chicago would not throttle up significantly until somewhere north of the Glenview station.

[whyhuhwhy]

Originally Posted by brian_b

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.

[orulz]

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...