[schwerve]

I haven't heard anybody ask yet why the Dan Ryan Red Line is 14% slow when the line was just redone.

my understanding is that the rehab project was just power and station work, they didn't touch the rails.

[Chicago Shawn]

I haven't heard anybody ask yet why the Dan Ryan Red Line is 14% slow when the line was just redone. It crawls all the way from Cermak to 35th. Same with the Dearborn Subway, I thought they had just gotten done fixing things down there. Is there a good explanation?

Also remember that 8.4% of the system being slow zoned means you spend a lot more than 8.4% of your time in a slow zone.

Was the Cermak to 35th stretch redone? I know south of 35th certinaly was. If it was redone, and the slow zone is not weather related, is there any way to hold the contractor accountable for shoddy work?

The Dearborn Subway just secured stimulas funds to do a full track and tie rebuild, ala State Street Subway. I spotted some electrical work for a new signal in the Clark/Lake station this afternoon, so perhaps work has already started.

[Chicago Shawn]

my understanding is that the rehab project was just power and station work, they didn't touch the rails.

I think you are right about that.

[VivaLFuego]

I think they did some selective tie and ballast renewal on the Dan Ryan branch, but it really needs all new ties, tie plates, and ballast; might as well do the whole shebang like on the O'Hare branch and build it to a 70mph standard. Not sure about the running rail - the rail itself can in theory last a very long time but running in the middle of the Dan Ryan is a particularly harsh environment on infrastructure because of not only the temperature but also the salt spray.

[Taft]

Right now, even if we ignore the Purple Line as just being ridiculously ignored, the rest of the system still averages 6.6% slow - and that's with three lines being essentially 15 or fewer years old (Green rebuilt, Pink rebuilt, Orange new just over 15 years ago), and the Dan Ryan, State Street subway and O'Hare branches having significant recent track work. It astounds me how far it's gone and how accepting we are of that.

You have a good point: the CTA can and should do better. At the same time, look at where the system was 2 years ago. The CTA has improved.

But more important (for me, anyway) is that transit in Chicago in general could very well see some of the funding it has been waiting so long for. Between the stimulus money and the new capital improvement budget being floated at the state level, the CTA may finally have at least a good chunk of the money it needs to get the system to a state of good repair. And to be clear: this money, if available, would be put overwhelmingly towards repair and improvement of existing service.

I know this isn't a sure thing, but it does seem like some of the politics that have been saddling the CTA for a decade may be fading, even if only temporarily. I remain cautiously optimistic.

[ChicagoChicago]

Can someone explain to me the significance of building the Belmont and Fullerton stations out of concrete? I imagine it’s more expensive, but does it last longer too? It is definitely quieter and easier on the surrounding environment.

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=33405

Obama taps Aon lawyer for DOT role
By: Paul Merrion March 20, 2009

As expected, President Barack Obama nominated Robert Rivkin, vice-president and deputy general counsel of Aon Corp., to be general counsel of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

He’s the third Illinoisan tapped for a top post at that department so far, starting with Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, former Republican congressman from Peoria. Former Riverdale Mayor Joe Szabo also was named Thursday as administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration.

Mr. Rivkin, who served as general counsel of the Chicago Transit Authority from 2001 to 2004, was a member of the president’s transition team on transportation and led a transportation policy committee for the Obama for America campaign.

[the urban politician]

^ Wow, Illinois sure is building a lot of Federal transportation clout

[Busy Bee]

Cue up Sam Cooke's Bring It On Home To Me.

[denizen467]

"We will build a third airport in the south suburbs of Chicago and we will build it as fast as humanly possible," Quinn said during his budget address at the state Capitol.
What, is the new guy as disconnected from reality as G-Rod was?
I love the emphasis on infrastructure, but priorities should be elsewhere now. Is he just plumbing for suburban votes?

[Chicago Shawn]

What, is the new guy as disconnected from reality as G-Rod was?
I love the emphasis on infrastructure, but priorities should be elsewhere now. Is he just plumbing for suburban votes?

Probably.

I went to a town hall meeting in Oak Lawn yesterday held by Congressman Dan Lipinski. When asked, he said that he has not and will not support Peotone unless airlines sign on to use it, and cited Mid-America airport downstate as an example of an unused white elephant.

That town hall was a little brutal, the room was filled with angry suburban Republicans, some of them openly racist saying shit like "Mexico is taking us over, we now need to go take over Mexico!" And getting applauds for saying it. :( It was a nice reminder of one little reason of why I can't stand the suburbs. As dysfunctional as city government can be at times, at least we don't have to deal with that ultra-conservative crap on a daily basis. I had to keep reminding myself, that the room was probably filled with just the staunchest folks in the area, and does not represent common beliefs (I hope!). I went to the meeting because I wanted to personally thank Lipinski for his hard work in securing mass transit funds in the stimulus bill, and to voice my support for the Orange Line extension.

A nice little mood cleanser was the nice weather that accompanied me on a 2 1/2 mile walk up to the Oak Lawn Metra Station where I boarded one of the SWS new Saturday trains. I was happily greeted by a platform filled with other happy folks cheering loudly as the train pulled in. The Village of Oak Lawn had some employees taking pictures of the event. I am happy to report that the second inbound train was pretty darn full. Just about every seat was taken in the cars that were open for public seating. :tup:

[puckle74]

That town hall was a little brutal, the room was filled with angry suburban Republicans, some of them openly racist saying shit like "Mexico is taking us over, we now need to go take over Mexico!" And getting applauds for saying it. :( It was a nice reminder of one little reason of why I can't stand the suburbs. As dysfunctional as city government can be at times, at least we don't have to deal with that ultra-conservative crap on a daily basis. I had to keep reminding myself, that the room was probably filled with just the staunchest folks in the area, and does not represent common beliefs (I hope!). :tup:

Oak Lawn? I thought all of the right wingers lived in yorkville now. Or Indiana? Don't they hate everything about chicago and cook county.

[Chicago Shawn]

Oak Lawn? I thought all of the right wingers lived in yorkville now. Or Indiana? Don't they hate everything about chicago and cook county.

One would think so. The grumpiest people were old dust farts. So, I would wager these were the folks that moved to what was then the fringe in the 1960's, raised families and then never left. They are living out their final years and final frustrations of watching their community and nation adjust to a changing society.

[the urban politician]

That town hall was a little brutal, the room was filled with angry suburban Republicans, some of them openly racist saying shit like "Mexico is taking us over, we now need to go take over Mexico!" And getting applauds for saying it. :( It was a nice reminder of one little reason of why I can't stand the suburbs. As dysfunctional as city government can be at times, at least we don't have to deal with that ultra-conservative crap on a daily basis. I had to keep reminding myself, that the room was probably filled with just the staunchest folks in the area, and does not represent common beliefs (I hope!). I went to the meeting because I wanted to personally thank Lipinski for his hard work in securing mass transit funds in the stimulus bill, and to voice my support for the Orange Line extension.


^ Not to get political, but lets not generalize about suburbanites here. I don't deny that you were clearly in a room full of fuck-faces, but Obama won the presidency by winning over suburban America.

[simcityaustin]

Probably.

That town hall was a little brutal, the room was filled with angry suburban Republicans, some of them openly racist saying shit like "Mexico is taking us over, we now need to go take over Mexico!"



Why are you trying to make the correlation between racists and Republicans? I know more rascist liberals than conservatives....seriously, even if a correlation can be made it's not because Republicans are racists, they just agree with things rednecks like...less taxes, less gun control, more state control....a classic case of correlation not equaling causation.

[nomarandlee]

:previous: Just par for the course. SSP is known for first discussing urbanity, only slightly second is the brave righteous indignation of liberal folk about all of the diabolic evils of anything right of center (inside this country at least).



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-unfriendly-rails-mar23,0,398128.story

Metra service: Why Metra is riding slow train to future
Conductors still manually check tickets, collect cash fares
By Richard Wronski | Tribune reporter
March 23, 2009

Since Metra was formed more than two decades ago, people have made the use of credit cards, cell phones and the Internet second nature.

But Metra conductors still ply the aisles as they did back in 1983, punching paper tickets by hand. And while other transit agencies provide alerts about delayed trains on Web-enabled cell phones, Metra customers stuck on platforms rely on squawky public-address announcements that sound straight from the Thomas Edison era.

Despite ridership that has soared to a record 85 million, Metra still operates, some argue, as if it's stuck in the past.

And don't get people started on the usefulness of Metra's Web site.

So if Metra really aims to be "the way to really fly" in the 21st Century, here are some suggestions from passengers and transportation experts. They're not all about technology, but that's a good place to start:

Paper tickets

Metra runs on paper, as in paper tickets. Although the majority of riders use monthly passes, passengers in January still bought more than 666,000 one-way tickets or used 10-ride tickets, which conductors have to punch individually.

Conductors also sell tickets on board, which can be time-consuming when trains are crowded.

Checking every ticket is necessary, Metra says, because it has an "open" boarding system, unlike the CTA and other closed rail systems that use turnstiles.

Other open rail systems have done away with punching and checking individual tickets. For example, conductors on Boston's Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority check tickets with hand-held electronic devices.

"Electronic fare collection is the standard almost everywhere," said Joseph Schofer, a transportation expert at Northwestern University.

On Caltrain, a commuter rail line operating between San Francisco and San Jose, passengers buy tickets from vending machines and conductors make random checks. Anyone without a ticket faces a $250 fine.


Credit cards
It's cash or checks only on Metra. The line doesn't take plastic because of the processing fees that credit-card companies impose, Metra spokeswoman Judy Pardonnet said.

This would amount to millions of dollars a year and would have to be passed along to customers, she said.

The CTA and other commuter lines accept credit and debit cards while allowing riders to buy tickets from fare vending machines.

Installing vending machines at 240 stations on 11 train lines would be cost-prohibitive for a service that is convenient but not crucial, Pardonnet said.

DePaul University transportation expert Joseph Schwieterman said he was struck by how easy it was to buy a $2 ticket with a credit card on Portland's MAX light-rail system. Not allowing this on Metra "is a shame," he said.

Meanwhile, other transit systems are bypassing tickets altogether in favor of "smart" versions of MasterCard and Visa cards containing computer chips. These "touch and go" cards don't need to be swiped, allowing quicker boarding.

MasterCard has had a trial under way with the New York transit system since 2006. The CTA said it plans to do the same next year.


Train tracker

For harried commuters, few experiences are more grating than making a mad dash to the station, only to discover that the train is running 15 minutes late.

The practice of manually checking tickets and collecting fares strikes some riders as harmlessly quaint. But it riles others who have to dig down for cash or sign a check because Metra won't take plastic.

A system similar to the CTA's Bus Tracker would help by sending service advisories directly to a customer's BlackBerry or similar device.

Metra already keeps track of its trains with global positioning system (GPS) technology and posts service advisories on its Web site, metrarail.com. It also uses this information to make station announcements over a low-tech public-address system.

But riders such as Kirk Hartley of Orland Park want more.

"Riders for years have been asking for something very basic—to be able to sign up for e-mail alerts for service interruptions, which the airlines have been doing for years," Hartley said.

Metra says it will award a contract this year to upgrade its Web site, which will allow the line to offer a train tracker system.

Other commuter rail lines, including those in Boston and Long Island, N.Y., already offer real-time information on train schedules, alerts and service advisories.



Web site
The coming improvements to the Web site are long overdue, say experts and customers who agree the site is outdated.

"The Metra Web site looks like an old paper [railroad] schedule posted on the Web," Schofer said. "It is not easy to find or see what you are looking for. And it is not interactive."

For attractiveness and ease of navigation, the mass-transit gold standard might be the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority's site, mbta.com.

Wireless Internet access

Although Metra riders can use laptops, they can forget about accessing the Internet.

The MBTA boasts that it offers first-in-the-nation free Wi-Fi service on its commuter trains.

The Boston-area agency plans to have at least two coaches on each train Wi-Fi-enabled by spring.

The MBTA says it costs about $1 million to install the hardware, plus about $270,000 a year to service, but the agency expects to make up the cost in additional ridership.

Seat hogs

Passengers who take up more than one seat are a common target of barbs in Metra's on-board newsletter, On the Bi-Level.

If trains are crowded, conductors are expected to remind riders to put bags or packages on the floor or luggage rack and to flip over seat backs.

"Frequently the conductor will go through the cars and mention it when people are taking up more than their fair share" of space, Pardonnet said.


Cell phone noise

So you've found a seat and settled in, only to discover another bane of rail commuting: the rider who thinks phone conversations should be conducted in a booming voice.

Metra says it broadcasts reminders and posts notices asking for courtesy, and conductors occasionally remind passengers to be considerate.

But designating "quiet cars" or requiring cell phone users to talk in vestibules would be impractical, Pardonnet said.


Toilets

Metra riders have long been challenged in finding convenient toilets.

In August, Metra announced it would cut the number of toilets to install more seats. The goal is to reduce the percentage of cars with toilets from 60 percent to 50 percent of the fleet.

Metra chief Phil Pagano vowed that every other car will have a toilet but added that he didn't believe passengers would notice the difference.


Bar cars

Metra also decided last year to shut down its remaining 10 "refreshment" cars, where alcoholic beverages were sold.

Patrons were upset, although some riders found the party atmosphere on the cars to be irritating. Now, fans BYO and party on.


Food and drink

Except for events such as Taste of Chicago or on New Year's Eve, Metra allows passengers to bring drinks on board.

Food is also permitted, although some passengers are sure to find the smell of someone else's sweet-and-sour shrimp dinner annoying.

"We don't have a problem with messes on the trains," Pardonnet said. "People seem to be pretty cooperative with cleaning up after themselves."

rwronski@tribune.com

[Chicago Shawn]

^As old fashioned as it is, the paper system does work. Metra however, should have never removed the turnstyles from the electric line stations. I do wish that perhaps we could get a few vending machines where one could generate a paper ticket by swiping a CTA fare card or Chicago Card and deducting the needed amount.


Why are you trying to make the correlation between racists and Republicans? I know more rascist liberals than conservatives....seriously, even if a correlation can be made it's not because Republicans are racists, they just agree with things rednecks like...less taxes, less gun control, more state control....a classic case of correlation not equaling causation.

Um, because they publicly said they are Republicans. I was just posting an observation, not making a correlation. That is why I said, Some were openly racist, not accusing the whole room. My old neighborhood of Jefferson Park has a quite a few racist democrats that I had to deal with.

[Abner]

Metra's website looks like it was made by a 12 year old in 1998. Hope they can finally fix that.

How do zoned commuter rail systems work in other cities? Do they usually have turnstiles that you put your card into when you enter and exit?

[nomarandlee]

Though all of those are important improvements I think the most needed could be the Wi-Fi. One has to give some customers some service advantages they just will not be able to get with driving anytime in the near future. Being able to easily do your work before you even get to the office would be seen as a major plus by potential riders.

[VivaLFuego]

Metra however, should have never removed the turnstyles from the electric line stations.

While having an electronic ticketing system was a potential plus for that line, the south side and south suburban residents had a decent point in wondering why that was the only line "singled out" for such a fare collection scheme. Of course one could get into a lengthy historical explanation of how that came to be, but by then you've already lost any political debate. Removing them was probably a cheaper option anyway - less old equipment to maintain, particularly at some low ridership stations.

The RTA should step up to the plate and get Metra to immediately plan and budget for implementation of electronic fare collection - of course they will still need conductors, but they need to accept credit cards, and importantly need to accept smart cards for something resembling actual fare integration with CTA and Pace.

For years, Metra under Jeff Ladd fought vigorously against any sort of regional cooperation - and you know what? Metra has been a very well run, well-maintained, prudent railroad, with few boondoggle projects initiatives (leaving out the STAR line, here). It has become so in part because of Ladd's conscious and consistent hostility to bowing to any political pressure whatsoever - not that Metra even receives much at all compared to the ludicrous political demands placed on CTA. But Metra has, for nearly 2 decades, almost always done what is best for Metra in terms of capital budgeting/planning, scheduling, and so on. Are the results so bad? Riding Metra is a great experience - but using it intermodally as part of a regional transit network? Not so much.

Upgrading the fare systems would be expensive - from the standpoint Metra's bottom line, maintaining the status quo is probably cheaper, as ongoing operating savings in cash handling would be eaten up by credit card fees. This issue highlights the need for a stronger and more active RTA, as such an initiative, while costly to Metra, has important regional benefit.

EDIT: somewhat amusingly, check out this Crain's article:
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?page_id=2308&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a1daca073-2eab-468e-9f19-ec177090a35cPost%3a5090cf48-21a4-4094-bdf5-ceb444301393&sid=sitelife.chicagobusiness.com

Well, I guess to clarify, Ladd was perhaps only against doing anything political in terms of actual train service...

[Dr. Taco]

Metra's website looks like it was made by a 12 year old in 1998.

haha, it really does

[Mr Downtown]

How do zoned commuter rail systems work in other cities? Do they usually have turnstiles that you put your card into when you enter and exit?

No, suburban train systems work pretty much the same all over the world: there's no barrier to access and a conductor or trainman audits tickets on the train.

BART and WMATA are hybrids between rapid transit and traditional suburban rail, so they have turnstiles at all stations.

[emathias]

No, suburban train systems work pretty much the same all over the world: there's no barrier to access and a conductor or trainman audits tickets on the train.

BART and WMATA are hybrids between rapid transit and traditional suburban rail, so they have turnstiles at all stations.

As does the RER in Paris.

Some of the CTA "L" Lines are as long as commuter lines in some places. That said, I'd love to see Metra through-routed more than I care about the fare-collection system. Someone posted an old (1914 I think) recommendation report to do that, and it would open up some interesting possibilities.

[orulz]

No, suburban train systems work pretty much the same all over the world: there's no barrier to access and a conductor or trainman audits tickets on the train.

BART and WMATA are hybrids between rapid transit and traditional suburban rail, so they have turnstiles at all stations.
That's not the case everywhere; Japan, and I believe Korea as well, have ticket agents and/or automatic fare gates for suburban and intercity rail.

Fares in Japan area always calculated by distance.

Some lines with fewer trains and less traffic operate in "Wan Man" mode. When you get off the train, you show your ticket to the driver or conductor who stands by the door. Or if you board at a station that is particularly sparse and has no agent or ticket vending machine, you are given a "Seiriken" when you board that serves as proof of where you boarded, and when you get off show the seiriken to the conductor/engineer and pay the proper fare based on the distance you have traveled.

Basically, this means that instead of the platform being the "paid area", the train itself becomes the "paid area."

No doubt you've heard that in Japan there is a culture of mutual respect and of following rules, so I find it odd that in they are so strict about having barriers and ensuring that no unpaid customers can travel. Compared to the US or Europe, fare evasion on a proof-of-payment system would not be a problem in Japan, yet proof-of-payment is essentially non-existent.


As does the RER in Paris.

Some of the CTA "L" Lines are as long as commuter lines in some places. That said, I'd love to see Metra through-routed more than I care about the fare-collection system. Someone posted an old (1914 I think) recommendation report to do that, and it would open up some interesting possibilities.

More run-through tracks at Union Station would be an excellent place to start. I doubt they can do that without tearing down the building that sits above the platforms, though. Some plans for union station call for doing just that.

[VivaLFuego]

As does the RER in Paris.

Some of the CTA "L" Lines are as long as commuter lines in some places. That said, I'd love to see Metra through-routed more than I care about the fare-collection system. Someone posted an old (1914 I think) recommendation report to do that, and it would open up some interesting possibilities.

The only justification for such through-routing would be for efficient real estate usage downtown: wasting less space on tracks/platforms/viaducts etc. With through-routing, you just require less trackage overall. From a consumer demand and cost-efficiency standpoint, the nature of commuter traffic is such that the standard commuter rail model is far and away most efficient, assuming you have a staging yard not too far out from the center to hold trains mid-day. Remember, even the early rapid transit lines, built as private enterprises, built stub terminals downtown, and through-routing only became the norm for rapid transit operations as the lines consolidated into a public corporation (that's my take, MrD might be able to fill in some details).

The study from 1914 hyped up the fact that with through-routing, someone could ride from Hyde Park to Evanston... on the same train. So what? Through-routing the service reduces your basic RASM/CASM (revenue-avg-seat-mile divided by cost-avg-seat-mile) as it reduces the overall average load on the trains while in service.

Even with rapid transit, only in the densest/busiest of corridors (e.g. the Red Line) is there an operating cost/revenue justification for through-routed train service. The only reason for CTA to run so many 8-car trains heading back out of downtown all the way to end-of-the-line terminals is because there is nowhere to store the trains near downtown. Well, that, and politics.

[Mr Roboto]

^As old fashioned as it is, the paper system does work. Metra however, should have never removed the turnstyles from the electric line stations. I do wish that perhaps we could get a few vending machines where one could generate a paper ticket by swiping a CTA fare card or Chicago Card and deducting the needed amount.


I agree there has to be some sort of compatability between the CTA and Metra fare systems. The fact that there still isnt is not only outdated, its moronic.

[arenn]

What percentage of people transfer between Metra and CTA other than commuters using the CTA for distribution from the train station?

[emathias]

What percentage of people transfer between Metra and CTA other than commuters using the CTA for distribution from the train station?

I don't have numbers, but I'd guess not a lot.

The real question, though, is how many would if it were an easier option? Not just tickets (which are really not an insurmountable issue right even now), but station location and defined transfer walkways, schedule coordination, etc.

[VivaLFuego]

What percentage of people transfer between Metra and CTA other than commuters using the CTA for distribution from the train station?

Pretty small. There are a few thousand Metra commuters per day (out of a total of what, approximately 125,000?) who use one of the various CTA distributor buses (the 120s, 157, and the 33, the latter paid for by Metra interestingly). There are statistically significant (by which I mean statistically larger than zero) levels of transfer activity at Davis, Jefferson Park, and Montrose/Mayfair, but it's still pretty small as percentage of commute trips. This is studied every so often, and if memory serves, Davis was the only notable commuter rail <-> rapid transit transfer point, and it was in the range of a couple hundred per day.

However, I don't think this has been studied again since the advent of the Pink Line - there is definitely some level of interchange between UP district Metra riders and the Pink Line out to the Medical District from the Clinton/Lake station.

Fare integration would be useful to regional transit riders primarily as a form of bus transfer, I think - it makes CTA and Pace bus service more attractive as a feeder system to long-haul trips via Metra rail.

[Chicago3rd]

I agree there has to be some sort of compatability between the CTA and Metra fare systems. The fact that there still isnt is not only outdated, its moronic.

Amen. I hate not being able to buy my tickets for metra at the stops like CTA. I hate there isn't a combined system for paying fares. We need RTA to be regional once and for all.

Metra doesn't want CTA because the same reason CTA doesn't allow the Yellow, Brown and Purple line to continue west or south

[Chicago3rd]

Fare integration would be useful to regional transit riders primarily as a form of bus transfer, I think - it makes CTA and Pace bus service more attractive as a feeder system to long-haul trips via Metra rail.

It would be useful for me to use my CTA pass to take the Lawrence bus to the Ravenwood Metra then transfer with my CTA Card to take the 14 minute ride downtown.

It would be easier for me to hop the Metra to Jefferson Station then the BLue line out to O'Hare. Can save a lot of time.

It would be useful if the brownline at Addison had a transfer station to CTA so people along the lake could use Metra to go north.....quicker than the red line/purple line.

Am sure there are tons of scenerios that would be beneficial to the riders....it is the political ownership issues that get in the way of easier public transportation in the Chicagoland area.

[jpIllInoIs]

^ I've always thought that there should be a Metra stop at Addison St. where the UP North Line runs parallel to the Brown Line.

[Abner]

I would certainly transfer between Metra and CTA a lot if I didn't have to pay two full fares to do it. I have a hunch there would be a lot more transferring between the systems if the fares were integrated.

[bnk]

Pretty small. There are a few thousand Metra commuters per day (out of a total of what, approximately 125,000?) who use one of the various CTA distributor buses (the 120s, 157, and the 33, the latter paid for by Metra interestingly). .

Number of lines 11
Number of stations 237
Daily ridership 335,900

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metra

[Attrill]

What percentage of people transfer between Metra and CTA other than commuters using the CTA for distribution from the train station?

I take Metra from Clybourn to Ravenswood on a regular basis and there are plenty of people transferring from buses to Metra and vice versa (roughly a third of riders). I take the Armitage bus to get to the Clybourn Metra stop.

Why do you exclude "commuters using the CTA for distribution from the train station"? That is a large number of Metra riders who would benefit from an integrated system.

[VivaLFuego]

It would be useful for me to use my CTA pass to take the Lawrence bus to the Ravenwood Metra then transfer with my CTA Card to take the 14 minute ride downtown.

This is probably your only hypothetical scenario that would have high enough ridership levels to justify the investment. An Addison transfer has been studied in the past - but it has a very narrowly focused benefit geographically, in contrast to say, making it more attractive to take a bus to a Metra line, which is regional.

[VivaLFuego]

Number of lines 11
Number of stations 237
Daily ridership 335,900

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metra

Total rides, not commuters. 335K sounds a little high, I'm guessing that's a fall peak figure and not an annual average? I thought it was more in the 310K daily range.

[Mr Downtown]

Here's Bion J. Arnold's 1914 scheme for through-routing steam road commuter service. It still makes a lot of sense to me:

http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/7459/throughrouteslg7.gif
Hooker, George Ellsworth. Through Routes for Chicago's Steam Railroads. City Club of Chicago, 1914

1. IC to C&NW North Line via a new subway under St. Clair and Ohio
2. Rock Island, NYC, and C&WI to C&NW Northwest Line via a new subway under LaSalle and Ohio
3. Alton, Wabash, and Pennsy to Milwaukee Road lines via Union Station
4. Burlington to C&NW West Line via Union Station

Arnold took a lot of trouble to avoid crossing lines, which today might not be so essential. It might make sense to reconsider his threading, so that the BNSF, for instance, would link to the UP North Line rather than doubling back west. Or, since every line basically goes through a throat near Kinzie/Desplaines, a big transfer station there would allow any possible transfer. Of course, my first move would be to put all the Metra lines on half-hour non-rush headways, so the system could work as regional rail rather than commuter rail.

Though I'd probably put the new subway under Chicago rather than Ohio, I still think that would be a useful and farsighted way for us to spend a billion dollars.

It's not just to make for better transfers to CTA; this through-routing allows regional rail lines to do their own downtown distribution so some CTA trips become unnecessary. Such connections have been created in several German cities, notably Munich, by Paris's new RER tunnels, and in Sydney and Melbourne. The only North American example is Philadelphia's mid-80s project to connect the former Pennsylvania and Reading commuter lines with a tunnel under Market Street.

The through-routing of Chicago streetcars and rapid transit trains was forced by the city, I think. The Union Loop was built as a loop that the various elevated railroads could use by paying so much per car, but in 1911 the four companies consolidated for marketing purposes as Chicago Rapid Transit, though the underlying corporations still existed legally. The same thing was true of the streetcars, where several different companies received the franchises and built the lines, but eventually they called the whole system "Chicago Surface Lines."

[Chicago Shawn]

^Awesome information. Thanks for that informative post Mr. D.

I find it particularity interesting that Ohio was chosen as a through route connection. Who would have thought just 40 years later that it was used for the same purpose, but with an entirely new mode of transportation.


*If* the West Loop Transportation Center ever becomes a reality, then Union Station will get a minimum of two new through-tracks under Clinton Street. I would imagine this would be built in conjunction with a new CTA Clinton-Larabee subway, as they would be stacked together vertically under the street. It will be ridiculously expensive to construct, but I personally believe the benefits would be worth it. Union Station right now is at capacity during AM-PM peak. Those new tracks would certainly be used frequently between Metra and Amtrak, which would no longer be forced to back trains out of the station and could do a St. Louis to Milwaukee Route and so forth. There has been a right-of-way easement preserved in K Station to allow for the future decent down to the subterranean through-route tracks that would be built under Clinton.

[denizen467]

^ Ahh, the South Branch had so much more personality in 1914, before it was straightened.

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=33446

South Shore rail line to increase service
March 25, 2009

The South Shore commuter rail line in northwestern Indiana plans to add trains to its weekend schedule to ease overcrowding and delays between South Bend and Chicago.

Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District spokesman John Parsons says that currently only 53 percent of weekend trains run on time.

The railroad wants to add cars to trains departing Chicago on weekend mornings and add a train that leaves at 9:15 p.m. A morning express train from South Bend to Chicago is also planned.

[arenn]

Arnold took a lot of trouble to avoid crossing lines, which today might not be so essential. It might make sense to reconsider his threading, so that the BNSF, for instance, would link to the UP North Line rather than doubling back west. Or, since every line basically goes through a throat near Kinzie/Desplaines, a big transfer station there would allow any possible transfer. Of course, my first move would be to put all the Metra lines on half-hour non-rush headways, so the system could work as regional rail rather than commuter rail.


The beauty of through routing is that you could use your subway connections to reduce volume through the A-2 interlocking.


Though I'd probably put the new subway under Chicago rather than Ohio, I still think that would be a useful and farsighted way for us to spend a billion dollars.

It's not just to make for better transfers to CTA; this through-routing allows regional rail lines to do their own downtown distribution so some CTA trips become unnecessary. Such connections have been created in several German cities, notably Munich, by Paris's new RER tunnels, and in Sydney and Melbourne. The only North American example is Philadelphia's mid-80s project to connect the former Pennsylvania and Reading commuter lines with a tunnel under Market Street.


That's it. The beauty is collection and distribution, not through routing per se. If you through route the IC with CNW-N line, you really could create something like the RER route, especially as there is an abandoned express track on the CNW-N routing that could be used. This would also facilitate better Metra-CTA connectivity at key junctions like say Irving Park Rd.

Don't I recall that Illinois Center was designed to accommodate trains to the Chicago River?

The BART system more or less acts like this.

Of course, the RER by itself carries more people than the entire Chicagoland public transit system....

[arenn]

I don't have numbers, but I'd guess not a lot.

The real question, though, is how many would if it were an easier option? Not just tickets (which are really not an insurmountable issue right even now), but station location and defined transfer walkways, schedule coordination, etc.

That's my point. If the systems aren't integrated, then fare integration doesn't buy you anything.

[ChicagoChicago]

Can somebody tell me when the Paulina brown line stop is supposed to open? In the past, they’ve announced around 2 weeks out when the stations would reopen. We’re coming up on the 1 year timetable the CTA laid out, but I haven’t heard anything. Other than painting the track beams, the thing is done.

[arenn]

Can somebody tell me when the Paulina brown line stop is supposed to open? In the past, they’ve announced around 2 weeks out when the stations would reopen. We’re coming up on the 1 year timetable the CTA laid out, but I haven’t heard anything. Other than painting the track beams, the thing is done.

It's a joke. That station has been like 95% complete since December. The media have reported that it will re-open by the end of the month. Right now they are painting the L structure, so hopefully that's the last bit. The for sale sign is already up for the corner lot leftover after construction.

[schwerve]

Can somebody tell me when the Paulina brown line stop is supposed to open? In the past, they’ve announced around 2 weeks out when the stations would reopen. We’re coming up on the 1 year timetable the CTA laid out, but I haven’t heard anything. Other than painting the track beams, the thing is done.

http://www.ctabrownline.com/

april 3rd

[ChicagoChicago]

http://www.ctabrownline.com/

april 3rd

They must've posted that today... Bastards.

[schwerve]

They must've posted that today... Bastards.

I think they did, but it has been on the construction schedule for a couple months.

[Taft]

Sound familiar?

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/mta-board-meets-to-vote-on-fare-hikes/?hp

M.T.A. Increases Fares and Cuts Services
By WILLIAM NEUMAN AND JENNIFER 8. LEE

Ruby Washington/The New York Times
David S. Mack, vice chairman of the M.T.A. board, and H. Dale Hemmerdinger, the chairman, at Wednesday’s session.
Updated, 11:40 a.m. | The board of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority voted on Wednesday morning to enact a series of fare hikes and service cutbacks needed to keep the transit system from going broke.

The vote was broken largely into three parts: fare hikes, toll increases and service cutbacks. After hearing from the public and the board members, the board approved each by a vote of 12 to 1.

As I've long maintained, Chicago isn't completely unique in its transit funding quagmire. While pols around here like to point the finger at the CTA, other systems in this economic downturn are facing similar situations. Falling state and county revenue are really hitting transit hard right now.

I just wish the Trib would run this under the headline, "Economic downturn effecting transit systems nationwide" rather than, "MTA takes notes from CTA; threatens doomsday." :rolleyes:

[arenn]

Aren't the MTA's funding problems the result of massive borrowing without identified revenue to pay it back? IIRC they borrowed something like $50 billion for capital improvements. Laudable to invest, but not without having a plan to fund the debt service.

[emathias]

...
I just wish the Trib would run this under the headline, "Economic downturn effecting transit systems nationwide" rather than, "MTA takes notes from CTA; threatens doomsday." :rolleyes:

Well, the Trib has repeatedly shown itself to be provincial and myopic in my opinion. And I don't understand why - it's better journalism to put things in proper context for people and when you're in the news business you have so much access to so much news and information that to ignore that and write provincially is a sign of either stupidity (and I dont' think the Trib staff is stupid) or just supreme arrogance (which seems to fit better).

Looking around, no newspaper can afford to be arrogant, and I actually think the Trib has been doing better lately - although it may be too little, too late - I guess we'll know soon enough.

[Abner]

The Trib has pretty thoroughly hung its fortunes on attracting conservatives who fled Chicago for the suburbs decades ago and don't remember exactly why but are sure it had something to do with things being screwed up in city government. (The Trib's poster child for this demographic is of course John Kass.) The paper exists to vilify every person and agency that has little to do with the problems Chicago faces and ignore the ones that do. The CTA is an incredibly easy whipping boy because nobody will stand up for it, and reversing course on the CTA now would be awkward for the paper since they've invested so much credibility in ripping it up, so the Trib can go on pretending that it's Chicago's second biggest scourge... next to pitbulls.

[Attrill]

^^^ I think they also like to generate CTA stories for the Red Eye, since those stories appeal to that rag's readers. The only time I read the Red Eye is when it has an article about the CTA on the front page.

[whyhuhwhy]

The Trib has pretty thoroughly hung its fortunes on attracting conservatives who fled Chicago for the suburbs decades ago and don't remember exactly why but are sure it had something to do with things being screwed up in city government. (The Trib's poster child for this demographic is of course John Kass.) The paper exists to vilify every person and agency that has little to do with the problems Chicago faces and ignore the ones that do. The CTA is an incredibly easy whipping boy because nobody will stand up for it, and reversing course on the CTA now would be awkward for the paper since they've invested so much credibility in ripping it up, so the Trib can go on pretending that it's Chicago's second biggest scourge... next to pitbulls.

I'm not sure why we should encourage a system where literally 80% of your fare goes towards people's pensions and not actual infrastructure. The CTA has become a massive 401K and I'm happy the Trib continues to expose that. Not sure why they have to run only positive stories about a system that is totally mismanaged. I mean isn't the whole point to eventually have a world class system here?

[Mr Downtown]

^Well, there's the small problem that the state constitution says that public pension systems can't be abrogated. That's why the teachers unions were so adamant about fighting a con-con last fall.

[VivaLFuego]

I'm not sure why we should encourage a system where literally 80% of your fare goes towards people's pensions and not actual infrastructure. The CTA has become a massive 401K and I'm happy the Trib continues to expose that. Not sure why they have to run only positive stories about a system that is totally mismanaged. I mean isn't the whole point to eventually have a world class system here?

And all of your Chicago property tax levy goes to support pensions and debt service, not wages. So? Pension/retirement benefits are part of the overall compensation offered to an public employee when hired; I'm not sure why the retirement benefits should be considered so distinctly from wages/salaries. Paying into a pension fund is a labor operating expense, too.

...this is not even getting into how most CTA employees saw take-home pay and taxable income decrease over the past several years due to employee benefits contributions more than doubling and the lack of cost-of-living increases due to the repeated doomsdays.

To the extent there is mismanagement/waste/corruption on a large scale ('large scale' meaning significant dollar amounts - a couple cronies at $90k/year, while certainly annoying, hardly bankrupt a public agency with an annual operating budget over $1bn), look to the public pension boards themselves, the management companies they hire, the firms they invest in, and so on.

[Rilestone75]

And all of your Chicago property tax levy goes to support pensions and debt service, not wages. So? Pension/retirement benefits are part of the overall compensation offered to an public employee when hired; I'm not sure why the retirement benefits should be considered so distinctly from wages/salaries. Paying into a pension fund is a labor operating expense, too.

...this is not even getting into how most CTA employees saw take-home pay and taxable income decrease over the past several years due to employee benefits contributions more than doubling and the lack of cost-of-living increases due to the repeated doomsdays.

To the extent there is mismanagement/waste/corruption on a large scale ('large scale' meaning significant dollar amounts - a couple cronies at $90k/year, while certainly annoying, hardly bankrupt a public agency with an annual operating budget over $1bn), look to the public pension boards themselves, the management companies they hire, the firms they invest in, and so on.

VivaLFuego, this brings up a good point. Can anyone fill us in on the standard number of years the City and/or the CTA require employees to work before being allowed to collect pensions?

I don't know what it is off the top of my head, but if it is like most public entities, I'm sure it is short. Perhaps the answer is extending the number of years. It seems to me that city jobs pay pretty well, compared to the rest of the market, and that one of the benefits of working for the city/cta was that while you did not necessarily make a ton of cash, the trade off was for an early retirement with good pension. If that is the case, then it seems these employees are getting it good from both sides. Right?

I'm not trying to stir up drama here, just trying to make sense of the 80% going to pensions...:koko:

[Taft]

I'm not sure why we should encourage a system where literally 80% of your fare goes towards people's pensions and not actual infrastructure. The CTA has become a massive 401K and I'm happy the Trib continues to expose that. Not sure why they have to run only positive stories about a system that is totally mismanaged. I mean isn't the whole point to eventually have a world class system here?

I'd be with you if the Trib was actually exposing the true cost of the pension system, putting it in context of the entire CTA budget and reporting on the long term costs. They don't. They just complain, call budget shortfalls "doomsdays" and generally provoke the public rather than informing them. Their reporting around transit funding issues is very one dimensional, provocative and biased.

And about those pensions: don't you think that if the CTA/city could, they'd just stop paying into those pension funds? They are a HUGE drain on their budget and I'm sure they'd be glad to use that money for other purposes. Small problem, though: they are legally obligated to keep paying in (as Mr. Downtown pointed out). Until the city, state and unions can work out a feasible long term solution to the pension problem, these issues will persist.

Blaming the CTA for the issue demonstrates a pretty limited understanding of the roots of the problem, IMO.

[ChicagoChicago]

And all of your Chicago property tax levy goes to support pensions and debt service, not wages. So? Pension/retirement benefits are part of the overall compensation offered to an public employee when hired; I'm not sure why the retirement benefits should be considered so distinctly from wages/salaries. Paying into a pension fund is a labor operating expense, too.

...this is not even getting into how most CTA employees saw take-home pay and taxable income decrease over the past several years due to employee benefits contributions more than doubling and the lack of cost-of-living increases due to the repeated doomsdays.

To the extent there is mismanagement/waste/corruption on a large scale ('large scale' meaning significant dollar amounts - a couple cronies at $90k/year, while certainly annoying, hardly bankrupt a public agency with an annual operating budget over $1bn), look to the public pension boards themselves, the management companies they hire, the firms they invest in, and so on.
The truth is, we don't know how FUBAR the operating budget is, because the CTA isn't required to publish its budget particulars.

[ChicagoChicago]

I'd be with you if the Trib was actually exposing the true cost of the pension system, putting it in context of the entire CTA budget and reporting on the long term costs. They don't. They just complain, call budget shortfalls "doomsdays" and generally provoke the public rather than informing them. Their reporting around transit funding issues is very one dimensional, provocative and biased.

And about those pensions: don't you think that if the CTA/city could, they'd just stop paying into those pension funds? They are a HUGE drain on their budget and I'm sure they'd be glad to use that money for other purposes. Small problem, though: they are legally obligated to keep paying in (as Mr. Downtown pointed out). Until the city, state and unions can work out a feasible long term solution to the pension problem, these issues will persist.

Blaming the CTA for the issue demonstrates a pretty limited understanding of the roots of the problem, IMO.

I agree…blaming the CTA for its pension problem is completely shortsighted. We should blame the newspaper instead!!!

Chicago has no history of city employees being in bed with the unions. I doubt they would ever fathom getting kickbacks for making sure the pension programs are fat and happy!

/sarcasm

[VivaLFuego]

VivaLFuego, this brings up a good point. Can anyone fill us in on the standard number of years the City and/or the CTA require employees to work before being allowed to collect pensions?

I don't know what it is off the top of my head, but if it is like most public entities, I'm sure it is short. Perhaps the answer is extending the number of years.
It varies among the various agencies, each of which have their own employment contracts and retirement plans: City, Police, Fire, Transit, Schools, etc. Generally speaking, you "vest" in the pension, meaning you are eligible to receive pension benefits upon retirement, after between 5-11 years of employment (CTA is 11, FYI). However, with so few years, your pension benefits will be very low. Most pensions max out sometime around 25-35 years of employment, i.e. at that point you will reach the maximum possible percentage rate of your average salary over the final few years of employment (generally in the 65-75% range). Different pensions also have different minimum ages, before which you can't receive any pension benefits. CTA used to have none - but has since been raised to 55 and later I think to 60. Other funds are similar - generally between 55 and 60.

One of the killers for CTA's budget was retiree health benefits, with people qualifying to receive them after a relatively low number of years and getting very generous coverage. This was one of the major things fixed after the most recent doomsday/bailout cycle, with a reduction in retiree health benefits and increased employee contributions to a retiree health care fund - and more years of employment required to qualify.

Other various differences between pensions: I believe the CTA pension has a 6% employee contribution, but CTA employees still pay social security taxes as well. In contrast, Police/Fire/Teachers I think have in the 9-12% employee contribution range, except they don't pay a social security tax (nor will they receive social security benefits). Each one is different due to a series of historical peculiarities. But the generous ~75% of final salary received by Police/Fire/Teachers is important to consider in the context of their having not paid/received social security, as well, in contrast to CTA.

I think Taft hits the main point: these issues, generally, aren't a result of 'management' - 'management' of public agencies simply operate within the parameters set by elected officials. Sometimes the problem is indeed poor management, but sometimes the problem is structural: the result of laws, statutes, regulations, arbitration - that is to say, politics.

It seems to me that city jobs pay pretty well, compared to the rest of the market, and that one of the benefits of working for the city/cta was that while you did not necessarily make a ton of cash, the trade off was for an early retirement with good pension. If that is the case, then it seems these employees are getting it good from both sides. Right?

I'm not trying to stir up drama here, just trying to make sense of the 80% going to pensions...:koko:
Well, in city government you can't get merit-based raises or merit-based bonuses (or bonuses at all...), unreliable/inconsistent cost-of-living raises, and a general expectation that your take-home pay will be somewhat but not drastically less than private sector (perhaps 80%, with the exception of certain professions like Law where you're probably make half or less than your private-sector counterparts). In 'exchange,' historically, public employees could look forward to comfortable retirement and health benefits, and job security. They still have the former, but public sector's aura of job security has basically evaporated over the past decade as almost all Chicago-area public agencies have substantially smaller ranks than they did 5-7 years ago (with the exception of the Federal government)

[Taft]

I agree…blaming the CTA for its pension problem is completely shortsighted. We should blame the newspaper instead!!!

Chicago has no history of city employees being in bed with the unions. I doubt they would ever fathom getting kickbacks for making sure the pension programs are fat and happy!

/sarcasm

I'm asking you to take a step back and ask "what CAUSED the pension problem?" You seem very quick to lay this at the feet of the CTA (or the CTA's management), but have you ever stopped to think about how much control the agency or its management has over expenditures such as pensions?

As Viva very effectively laid out above (and I believe you alluded to), politics plays a HUGE part in how these pensions have been setup and how much money the various agencies are REQUIRED to pay into them. Blaming CTA management for an expense they have no control over is just plain silly.

And if you think I'm blaming the papers for any of this, you have serious reading comprehension issues. All I am saying is that the papers rarely get into WHY the CTA has funding issues, focusing on sensationalism like "doomsday scenarios" instead. Such shoddy reporting does little to inform the public about the very real issues facing the CTA (and any other public agency). Can you really argue with that?

[arenn]

In an ear of ever increasing means to extend human life, the defined benefit pension may not be the most appropriate model. Regardless, the real problem with pensions isn't that people have them, it is that pensions allow an organization to accrue unfunded liabilities. I haven't seen benchmarks versus Chicago, but in many places public sector employees are paid far below market. The pension makes up for low cash pay. However, cash pay has to be paid in cash, while pensions can be paid in promised until they come due. This creates an enormous temptation for people to balance budgets by deferring pension contributions. That's the real issue. If the CTA or any other agency properly recognized and funded the true cost of their payroll, pensions would be a non-issue unless the actuarials change materially.

[ChicagoChicago]

:previous:

I don’t disagree that it is useless to blame the CTA brass now for their obligations set forth decades ago. But I give them zero wiggle room in this mess because they keep the budget details under lock and key and cry about the problem. We fund this train wreck (pun intended) and we deserve to know how the money is spent.

[Taft]

:previous:

I don’t disagree that it is useless to blame the CTA brass now for their obligations set forth decades ago. But I give them zero wiggle room in this mess because they keep the budget details under lock and key and cry about the problem. We fund this train wreck (pun intended) and we deserve to know how the money is spent.

This is definitely something I can get behind. I completely agree local government needs to be more transparent. The CTA has made nominal steps forward in this area, but I'd love to see them pick up the pace.

[Taft]

The CTA has a proposal for filling its budget holes:


CTA plan would avoid service cuts, fare hikes
Posted by Greg H.
...
Under the proposal from CTA Board Chairwoman Carole Brown, about half of the projected $155-million hole in the CTA's $1.3 billion annual budget would be filled by using federal economic-stimulus funds. Some of that money would be switched from capital to maintenance, a switch allowed under federal law, and some is anticipated savings as the agency reaps the benefits of new buses, track work and other projects that stimulus funds are providing.

Another $18 million would come from internal savings, with about $30 million borrowed from the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), which has talked about temporary loans to the CTA, Pace and Metra to tide them through a deep recession.

But the key to the plan is $40 million Ms. Brown would like to save by reducing mandatory CTA contributions to its pension fund.

Under a deal worked out last year in Springfield, the CTA restructured the plan, with workers agreeing to cut their benefits and the CTA agreeing to refinance it with a large bond issue.

The bonds were issued and proceeds turned over to the fund, which according to Ms. Brown now has a relatively healthy 84% ratio of assets to potential liabilities. But the agency still has to pay $132 million a year in debt service on the bonds and $58 million a year in annual pension contributions.

...


http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?page_id=2308&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a1daca073-2eab-468e-9f19-ec177090a35cPost%3a997a851d-2d49-4ae4-bf54-72a1ac3ecd16&plckCommentSortOrder=TimeStampAscending&sid=sitelife.chicagobusiness.com

Interestingly, Hinz makes mention of the similar problems the MTA is now facing in the column. Take a lesson, Trib!

[VivaLFuego]

In an ear of ever increasing means to extend human life, the defined benefit pension may not be the most appropriate model. Regardless, the real problem with pensions isn't that people have them, it is that pensions allow an organization to accrue unfunded liabilities. I haven't seen benchmarks versus Chicago, but in many places public sector employees are paid far below market. The pension makes up for low cash pay. However, cash pay has to be paid in cash, while pensions can be paid in promised until they come due. This creates an enormous temptation for people to balance budgets by deferring pension contributions. That's the real issue.
There is the issue also of the fact that public pensions are allowed to take on an absurd amount of risk in pursuit of higher rates of return. A higher rate of return on investments would of course allow for lower employer and employee contributions and/or better benefits. The problem with chasing high rates of return like 8% is that when the market goes south, you get creamed - I've seen estimates that public pensions in this country collectively lost over $1 trillion in the latest market crash. In the old days, public pensions were required to have the vast majority of their assets in bonds, particularly low-risk government bonds.

From the politician's (short-term) standpoint, everyone wins when you give the fund management contract to the favored fellow promising you 9% annual return: everyone gets their kickback, the employees are promised more benefits for less contributions, the public agency needs less of its operations budget for employer contributions.

If the CTA or any other agency properly recognized and funded the true cost of their payroll, pensions would be a non-issue unless the actuarials change materially.
Assume (a) everyone lives longer and (b) a realistic and importantly safe rate of return on the fund, and those actuarials change drastically in a way that any politician would throw his own grandmother under the bus in an effort to pawn off the problem on his successors - anything, such as, for example, issue pension obligation bonds, the equivalent of using a bucket to bail out a leaking boat, with the added requirement of eventual mandatory tax increase (or public service reductions) to cover the debt service on the bonds. Again, from the politician's (short-term) standpoint, it's a win-win no-brainer. There are few politicians who take public pension finance seriously, and Mike Madigan deserves some credit in that regard.

Yes, public pensions are a complete disaster, but saying CTA management is inept because such a high portion of the operating budget goes to pensions is completely missing the issue.

[Nowhereman1280]

There is the issue also of the fact that public pensions are allowed to take on an absurd amount of risk in pursuit of higher rates of return. A higher rate of return on investments would of course allow for lower employer and employee contributions and/or better benefits. The problem with chasing high rates of return like 8% is that when the market goes south, you get creamed

8%? Psh that's not how you get creamed. Most CD's and bank accounts greater than $1 million will return 5%-7%, I imagine that a pension fund with $100+ million could easily get an almost risk-free rate in a bank deposit of 8%. The losses in the pension industry were largely in places where a few idiot fund managers were running around looking for 10-15% returns on their money. That is where they got into Credit-default swaps and sub-primes. Those funds that invested in that stuff are SOL.

7-10% is also the expected long term return on investments in the Stock Market depending on the industry. A lot of funds are hurting badly because they invested in very reasonable stocks (GE, Citi, CME, even Oil stocks like BP) which have all lost 40+% of their value in the market crash. These were not bad calls and the funds that lost 30% of their value in the stock market will get that money back when the market recovers, which it will eventually do. Investing in a stock like GE or IBM is not a risky investment if you are in it for the long term like a Pension, this just as investing in real estate is not risky if you are in it for the long run.

[VivaLFuego]

8%? Psh that's not how you get creamed. Most CD's and bank accounts greater than $1 million will return 5%-7%,

Aren't rates running about 3.5% now? Maybe you could have gotten 5-7% some months ago... of course going all in at that point would have required the fund to have a lower RoR target, which have saved the massive losses they took from being too heavily in equities.

I imagine that a pension fund with $100+ million could easily get an almost risk-free rate in a bank deposit of 8%. The losses in the pension industry were largely in places where a few idiot fund managers were running around looking for 10-15% returns on their money. That is where they got into Credit-default swaps and sub-primes. Those funds that invested in that stuff are SOL.

Almost every pension fund in recent years has set targets of between 8-9%, I think.

7-10% is also the expected long term return on investments in the Stock Market depending on the industry.
Did anyone bother to stop and question whether this was a reasonable expectation, particularly for a pension fund constitutionally required to pay benefits out every month? If we ignore survivor bias and assume a large investment fund went "all in" when the Dow hit absolute bottom in 1932, they would now be looking at a nominal annual return of... 7%. Absolute bottom. If our fund didn't time their all-in investment so perfectly and went in later in 1932 (while still in the midst of a major depression and asset deflation, mind you) we'd be looking at 6%. Over 70 years, measuring from the market bottom (not from a "long-term trendline"... do that and the RoRs look even worse).

By all means, 8-10% is a reasonable target for the private sector, where risk is necessary for expansion and competition. But for a public retirement fund that must pay monthly benefits in cash, it's ludicrous. And every fund in the country has been doing it for decades now.

A lot of funds are hurting badly because they invested in very reasonable stocks (GE, Citi, CME, even Oil stocks like BP) which have all lost 40+% of their value in the market crash. These were not bad calls and the funds that lost 30% of their value in the stock market will get that money back when the market recovers, which it will eventually do. Investing in a stock like GE or IBM is not a risky investment if you are in it for the long term like a Pension, this just as investing in real estate is not risky if you are in it for the long run.

Right, and time was, public pensions could only invest in the safest, highest-rated bonds, which included some corporates as well as government. Relatively low percentages were allowed in equities, even for the relatively safe ones. Hindsight is 20/20, but it sure seems foolish to expose yourself to losing 40% of your fund value when you're sending cash out the door every month in benefits, no? A pension fund is not a normal investment.

[BVictor1]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/25/amtrak-to-get-80-million_n_179279.html

Amtrak To Get $80 Million From Stimulus For Illinois Projects
Associated Press | March 25, 2009 07:36 PM


Amtrak in Illinois will receive $80 million in federal stimulus money to modernize train repair centers as well as to improve security and wheelchair accessibility.

That's according to a statement Wednesday from U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, a longtime advocate of the passenger train service.

The Illinois Democrat says the money is the state's cut of the $1.3 billion set aside for Amtrak in the federal stimulus bill.

Durbin also says federal authorities are allotting $90 million to refurbish train cars for use around the country, including in Illinois.

More than a dozen states, including Illinois, are competing for a piece of a separate $8 billion for high-speed rail in the stimulus bill. That money hasn't yet been allocated.

__

On the Net:

Amtrak summary of individual state projects: http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/ARRA/Amtrak-ARRA_By-State.pdf.

[denizen467]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=33476

Region's transportation wish list gets review
By: Paul Merrion March 27, 2009

(Crain's) — Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is in Chicago Friday getting a first-hand look at several items on the region's wish list for the upcoming $500-billion federal transportation bill.

He'll start in Bridgeview, meeting with Illinois Transportation Secretary Gary Hannig, Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Chicago, and other state and local officials. They will discuss the Create project to reduce freight rail bottlenecks and the Central Avenue Bypass, which would connect that road to Narragansett Avenue under railyards in Bedford Park.

...

---------------------------

How do you connect Central with Narragansett ... aren't they a mile apart?
Wouldn't it make more sense to build an underpass for one of those streets under the railyards (I'm assuming nothing exists there yet) ?

[the urban politician]

^ of all things you're emphasizing a road connection in the suburbs? I am far more interested in any rail invesment

[denizen467]

To be fair, this is hardly a suburb - it's basically adjacent to MDW.

I think the issue must be that the railyard there, one of the few biggest in the world, is about 3 miles long and creates a 3-mile east-west barrier where north-south traffic must go around it. (Again, I could be wrong and maybe there is some sort of way through it currently.) Maybe they feel a need to connect the MDW area to Bedford Park / Burbank. I have no idea though. I too would prefer rail projects (like, in that area, a big Orange Line extension to Toyota Park).

[whyhuhwhy]

^ of all things you're emphasizing a road connection in the suburbs? I am far more interested in any rail invesment

Hardly a suburb. Have you driven around that area? A Central Avenue bypass through that 3-mile long railyard would be great and has been in planning since the 70's. Cicero and Harlem are about as choked as they get.

[nomarandlee]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?page_id=2308&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a1daca073-2eab-468e-9f19-ec177090a35cPost%3a2d3f8d9f-912e-43ba-9b9a-47f7770bb4c2&sid=sitelife.chicagobusiness.com


Transit groups bash Quinn's capital plan
Posted by Greg H. at 3/27/2009 12:09 PM CDT on Chicago Business

Gov. Pat Quinn's proposed big capital plan is getting a big raspberry from a coalition of influential Chicago civic groups.

Echoing private gripes by public-transit leaders, the coalition says the governor's plan does too little to help the Chicago Transit Authority, Metra and other transit operators deal with years of deferred projects to repair train lines, buy new buses and handle other infrastructure needs.............
..

[jpIllInoIs]

To be fair, this is hardly a suburb - it's basically adjacent to MDW.

I think the issue must be that the railyard there, one of the few biggest in the world, is about 3 miles long and creates a 3-mile east-west barrier where north-south traffic must go around it. (Again, I could be wrong and maybe there is some sort of way through it currently.) Maybe they feel a need to connect the MDW area to Bedford Park / Burbank. I have no idea though. I too would prefer rail projects (like, in that area, a big Orange Line extension to Toyota Park).

Folks, the CREATE Road projects ARE Rail projects. The are building Road/Rail grade seperations and that is good for rail, including freight, Amtrak, Metra and CTA since buses will be using the underpass.

[left of center]

^ of all things you're emphasizing a road connection in the suburbs? I am far more interested in any rail invesment

You have no idea how much congestion the Bedford Park rail yard creates along Cicero and Harlem Avenues. This very much affects the Chicago neighborhoods of Garfield Ridge and Clearing. Take Cicero from 55 south past Midway during rush hour. Its a nightmare. All north-south traffic between those neighborhoods and locations south of Bedford Park have to funnel onto either Harlem or Cicero. Its been a problem now for years. I for one (originally from that area) am very excited at the prospect of the oft talked about Central Ave viaduct finally getting somewhere politically...

[Chicago Shawn]

Folks, the CREATE Road projects ARE Rail projects. The are building Road/Rail grade seperations and that is good for rail, including freight, Amtrak, Metra and CTA since buses will be using the underpass.

Not really in this case, because the "road" does not exist here. This is a new segment that would be built under the rail yard. Both Cicero to the east and Harlem to the west are grade separated as well (overpasses). I agree that this is needed (very needed, Cicero is already six lanes wide and jammed); but I would not call it a CREATE priority project, as it does nothing to improve rail safety and/or efficiency.

I wonder though if the reporter may have not gotten the story right. Connecting Narragansett to Central through the yard does not make a lick of sense. Central should just be punched through, as it is an arterial street on both sides of the yard. Narragansett is a mile further west and is a collector street on both sides of the yard, and is in fact discontinuous to the south (A public park is in the way).

[ardecila]

Not really in this case, because the "road" does not exist here. This is a new segment that would be built under the rail yard. Both Cicero to the east and Harlem to the west are grade separated as well (overpasses). I agree that this is needed (very needed, Cicero is already six lanes wide and jammed); but I would not call it a CREATE priority project, as it does nothing to improve rail safety and/or efficiency.

I wonder though if the reporter may have not gotten the story right. Connecting Narragansett to Central through the yard does not make a lick of sense. Central should just be punched through, as it is an arterial street on both sides of the yard. Narragansett is a mile further west and is a collector street on both sides of the yard, and is in fact discontinuous to the south (A public park is in the way).

The city has planned for awhile to build an overpass at Central Avenue, and a long-term plan also included one at Narragansett. Building an underpass, however, makes absolutely no sense to me. They would have to tear up every track in one of the nation's biggest and busiest railyards to build something underground. The cost would be massive! :koko:

[ardecila]

^Awesome information. Thanks for that informative post Mr. D.

I find it particularity interesting that Ohio was chosen as a through route connection. Who would have thought just 40 years later that it was used for the same purpose, but with an entirely new mode of transportation.


*If* the West Loop Transportation Center ever becomes a reality, then Union Station will get a minimum of two new through-tracks under Clinton Street. I would imagine this would be built in conjunction with a new CTA Clinton-Larabee subway, as they would be stacked together vertically under the street. It will be ridiculously expensive to construct, but I personally believe the benefits would be worth it. Union Station right now is at capacity during AM-PM peak. Those new tracks would certainly be used frequently between Metra and Amtrak, which would no longer be forced to back trains out of the station and could do a St. Louis to Milwaukee Route and so forth. There has been a right-of-way easement preserved in K Station to allow for the future decent down to the subterranean through-route tracks that would be built under Clinton.

A far cheaper option would be to build a connector at 75th Street that redirects the SouthWest Service into LaSalle St Station.

Then, you could free up some capacity at Union Station and connect some of the stub tracks, creating 2 new through tracks (the columns of Gateway Center 3 allow this, from what I hear).

You could even revive the Van Buren Street tunnel under the river and turn it into a pedway connecting Union and LaSalle Street Stations - with moving sidewalks, airport style, to allow the trip to be made in minutes.

All this for maybe $200 million, instead of the billions that the West Loop Transportation Center would cost.

[arenn]

ardecila, I suggest looking at this: http://transit.chicago.il.us/

[denizen467]

^ About the Central Avenue bypass:

Okay, a couple background facts - from Wikipedia - might help clarify the underpass / overpass issue. Apparently the Belt Railway's Clearing Yard is a "hump classification" yard, which apparently means that all the zillions of parallel tracks merge together into a narrow pinch point at the "hump". A quick look at its satellite photo shows just how pronounced this pattern is. In addition, the "hump" happens to be exactly where Central Avenue's alignment is. This must be an amazing coincidence, and it suggests Central Avenue would need to clear a width of only about 2 or 3 tracks to punch through the railyard.

That makes an underpass no more complicated a feat that burrowing under a Metra line. In addition, there is a control tower that straddles the hump - so sightlines might be quite important in that part of the yard, rendering an overpass highly undesirable. Thus, an underpass. Just my guess though.

As for the Narragansett reference, the reporter must be poor with maps or something.

[denizen467]

this city rocks. (as does the internet.)

http://www.beltrailway.com/images/clearingyard.gif

[ardecila]

Ah, I see. Regardless, an underpass is still quite expensive compared to a viaduct, and the plan (as far as I know) has always been to build a viaduct. This is how it is referred to in all the IDOT lists and CDOT documents. If an underpass is indeed part of the plan, then the road will probably go over the small tracks to the north and south and then dip underground to cross the main choke point on some crazy curving alignment.

At Narragansett, if something is built there at all, it will doubtless need to be an overpass.

[jpIllInoIs]

http://www.innovatenow.us/wdkm_in/wcm/resources/documents/adobe_pdf/sustainability_challenge/4141_4811867_18500/winning_submission_79-_aaron_renn.pdf

A friend of the forum gives his solutions to CTA growth.

[arenn]

Thanks for noticing. Please keep in mind that is a response to a brief and I wanted to win. So the ideas are not 100% my own program, though I do support many of them.

[schwerve]

from bvic post in the general

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3418/3398879865_34371b58e5_o.jpg

all of those have completion schedules of... 2016 (except the clinton subway)

[jpIllInoIs]

^ I think that puts to rest the looney 'circle line'. And supports the Clinton Subway as the preferred development for the CCAP agency.

[ChicagoChicago]

^ I think that puts to rest the looney 'circle line'. And supports the Clinton Subway as the preferred development for the CCAP agency.
That’s really the most detail I’ve seen on the Clinton subway line…and it would be huge for the West Loop. Right now, I don’t even bother doing anything in the West Loop area simply because it’s a pain in the ass to get to from the Lincoln Park/Lakeview area.

[Taft]

^ I think that puts to rest the looney 'circle line'. And supports the Clinton Subway as the preferred development for the CCAP agency.

As I outlined a few pages back, federal stimulus money is going to (at least) further studies on the circle line (or portions thereof). I don't think that this particular publication says ANYTHING about whether the circle line will be built or the political support of the project in general.

Sorry to disappoint, but this "looney" idea is still in play, so far as I can tell. Personally, I'm not so disappointed. :)

[schwerve]

^ I think that puts to rest the looney 'circle line'. And supports the Clinton Subway as the preferred development for the CCAP agency.

circle line is later in the document when they talk about the chicago as a whole, that's just the center core of the city.

[VivaLFuego]

Right now, I don’t even bother doing anything in the West Loop area simply because it’s a pain in the ass to get to from the Lincoln Park/Lakeview area.

8 Halsted

[ChicagoChicago]

8 Halsted

Oh I'm all too familiar with the #8 bus. The problem is that if you're off the brown line, what do you do? Ride the train to Belmont, huff it 2 blocks to Halsted, and then hop on the #8 for the 50 stops through LP? I'm exhausted just thinking about it.

[jpIllInoIs]

Thanks for noticing. Please keep in mind that is a response to a brief and I wanted to win. So the ideas are not 100% my own program, though I do support many of them.

Well youre ideas on the Western and Cicero BRT and other E/W BRT are sound. All in all an enjoyable read with some well founded concepts. thanks

[Mr Downtown]

if you're off the brown line, what do you do?

You ride it to Washington/Wells and catch any bus westbound on Madison. How hard is that?

People, Chicago's is an integrated system. Has been since 1948. You're supposed to use the trains and the bus in combination. That's why they're shown on the same map. The train gets you across town; the bus gets you right to the door.

[Abner]

Yeah, options abound for getting from the North Side to the West Loop. Aside from the zillions of buses, if you're a train snob there's the Clinton Green/Pink stop and the Clinton and Halsted Blue stops. From the Brown Line, transfer to Pink at Washington/Wells or to Blue at LaSalle, from the Red, transfer to Green at State/Lake or to Blue at Jackson. Not a very hard trip.

[the urban politician]

You ride it to Washington/Wells and catch any bus westbound on Madison. How hard is that?

People, Chicago's is an integrated system. Has been since 1948. You're supposed to use the trains and the bus in combination. That's why they're shown on the same map. The train gets you across town; the bus gets you right to the door.

^ Didn't you get the memo?

Buses SUCK. They are a shitty way to get around any major city, and I"m pretty sure from the horror stories I've heard that Chicago is no exception.

Why not increase rail options in getting around town?

[ChicagoChicago]

You ride it to Washington/Wells and catch any bus westbound on Madison. How hard is that?

People, Chicago's is an integrated system. Has been since 1948. You're supposed to use the trains and the bus in combination. That's why they're shown on the same map. The train gets you across town; the bus gets you right to the door.

25 minutes, from Addison to Washington/Wells. Then another bus ride...That's at least 45 minutes on average, to go 4 miles. Yeah, I'll stick to River North, Lakeview, and LP.

This is of course all theoretical. We have a car, so if we need to go, we drive. But the point of this is to be an alternate to driving. If you really want to increase ridership, you have to focus on the people that don't need to ride. Your captive market is already on the trains and buses.

[Nowhereman1280]

Buses SUCK. They are a shitty way to get around any major city, and I"m pretty sure from the horror stories I've heard that Chicago is no exception.


That's complete BS TUP. I don't know how much experience you have with it, but I find the bus system in Chicago to be much faster than the train in most cases if you know what you are doing, especially now that you can see when the next bus is coming on Bustracker.

I'm sorry but who in their right mind takes the Red Line downtown when there is a plethora of wonderful express buses down LSD. The only reason I ever take the El is inclimate weather or rush hour, both of which make the certainty of using Buses go down.

In fact, the best way to get to the west loop from Lakeview is simple if you are going between 6am and 9am and coming back between 3:30pm and 6:30pm on a weekday. The 134, 135, and 136 buses go express from Arlington, Belmont, and Irving Park to Columbus and Wacker and end up on Franklin. These buses are extremely conveinent and take less than 15 min in some cases... When traveling during off-peak hours, simply take the 146 from Belmont express to Michigan and transfer to any Westbound bus through the loop, that will get you there in less than 30 min every time...

If you know how to use the bus in this city you can get from anywhere on the northside to anywhere within about 3 miles of the loop in less than 30 min, you just have to be smart...

[Abner]

oops, this is obviously in response to two posts up.

How exactly would one make traveling to the West Loop easier? The Monroe subway, I guess, but the thing is you would still have to transfer downtown no matter what. It sounds like your main complaint is having to transfer downtown to get from one place to another, and that isn't changing anytime soon.

Chicago is really big and there are a whole lot of possible trips. Without a subway system as complete as the bus system, how would you expect a trip between two neighborhoods without a direct train link not to take a long time? Most places in the city have much, much worse transit access than Lakeview and the West Loop.

TUP, taking the bus from the Loop to the West Loop is ridiculously easy, the buses come constantly, and the ride is really short. I don't like buses either, but for connecting two areas that close, complaining about having to take the bus is just whining.