[Abner]

Is/was the Mid-City Transitway envisioned to ever go beyond Ford City (like heading east to Englewood or something) ?

Yes, the concept would be to turn east and take the tracks roughly along 75th all the way over to the Red Line. Remember the 79th bus is the busiest route in the city.

[OhioGuy]

It would be nice if some of that funding could find it's way into rebuilding State/Lake.

Along with all three Wabash stations which are giant eyesores and pitifully dilapidated.

[k1052]

Along with all three Wabash stations which are giant eyesores and pitifully dilapidated.

The plan to combine Randolph/Wabash and Madison/Wabash into one new Washington/Wabash station makes the most sense. Adams can probably skate by for a while with a good cleaning, some new paint, and replacement of the wood platform deck.

[jpIllInoIs]

^^ Whenever the Wabash stations are rebuilt, it wont be all 3, they will consolidate to 2 stations just like they did on the Wells street station rebuilds. The 2 new stations will have longer platforms, and multiple stairwell entrances, most likely a Randloph/Washington and then a Madison/Monroe or Monroe/Adams alignment.

[VivaLFuego]

The most recent plans I've seen (as of a couple years ago) have a Washington/Wabash station connected to the Garland Building. I'd be curious to know how many people transfer between Millenium Station and the L at Randolph, as this is one of the few locations where there is very good connectivity between the two systems, and anecdotally during rush hour there are a decent number of commuters headed between the two. Moving the station a block south would lose that, but maybe it would ultimately be a negligible loss.

[Mr Downtown]

I believe Adams/Wabash is covered by the preservation consent agreement that requires it to be saved.

[ardecila]

^^ Why? What is there left to preserve at Adams/Wabash? It's such a chimera of various additions that it doesn't seem worth saving. The most distinctive features, the Plexiglas roofs, were added in the 1980s.

The station that merits preservation is Madison/Wabash, or at least the Inner Loop stationhouse at the aforementioned stop.

[Mr Downtown]

From http://www.chicago-l.org/stations/adams-wabash.html

An agreement with the US Department of the Interior and the Illinois State Historic Preservation Office protected the Loop Elevated structure but only required two stations to be retained. One station, Quincy, was to be restored to near-original condition. The other, Adams/Wabash, was to be retained and rehabilitated but significantly modernized. All of the other stations would be rebuilt and some relocated.

[arenn]

Word to the wise: never, ever sign a consent {decree,agreement}

[denizen467]

Yes, the concept would be to turn east and take the tracks roughly along 75th all the way over to the Red Line. Remember the 79th bus is the busiest route in the city.
Thanks for emphasizing that point - I'm curious enough to trek down to 79th and drive it myself to see that part of the city.

Given how busy the 79th bus is, I hope a rail alignment 4 blocks north would still be practicable for riders there.

[Busy Bee]

Whatever the fate of the 'superstation' is, I'd love to see the stainless steel CTA shield on Randolph/Wabash saved and restored. According to chicago-l.org is used to have neon glowing behind it. How bad ass is that?

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Yeah that sign is a total BAMF. I am obsessed with it and nearly everyone I point it out too goes "wow that's cool, I never even noticed it before".

[Zerton]

Anyone know when the 35th street Metra stop is supposed to be completed? I'm sure its in here somewhere I'm lazy today.

[ardecila]

Does anybody know why the Oak Park stations on the Green Line weren't made ADA-accessible in the 1990s rehab? Also, Garfield and 87th weren't made ADA-accessible in the recent Dan Ryan rehab.

It struck me that these are notable omissions in what should be an entirely accessible system. The fact that many stations still lack elevators adds a large degree of confusion when using the system for handicapped riders.

Ordinarily, I'm not an ADA hawk (I certainly am aware of the annoying constraints it places on building design) but a recent trip to DC showed me the value that a completely-accessible system holds, as I saw quite a few wheelchair-bound riders during the week I was there, whereas I rarely see them on the L.

[Mr Downtown]

^Probably because they weren't part of the rehab project, which primarily involved rebuilding the 1890s structure. The Oak Park stations were only built when the L was relocated to the embankment in 1962.

[BVictor1]

Jackson Viaduct at Union Station
Reconstruction Project
Canal to Chicago River

http://origin.ih.constantcontact.com/fs018/1102142667758/img/71.jpg?a=1102595586227


The Chicago Department of Transportation is rebuilding the Jackson Boulevard viaduct between Canal Street and the Chicago River. The viaduct spans Unions Station's south passenger platforms and 16 tracks.

The work will entail building new piers, superstructure, roadway, sidewalk, as well as repairing the Jackson bridge and sidewalk. New lighting and upgraded signals will also be included.


Traffic Impacts

Jackson viaduct -- Closed from Canal to Wacker

Jackson Detour: Clinton (south) to Harrison (east) to Franklin (north), back to Jackson

Canal Intersection with Jackson -- reduced to two lanes for two months in fall of 2009.

Pedestrian Impacts

Pedestrian access to Union Station will be maintained from both the east and west. Pedestrians can cross the Jackson bridge to access the east side of Union Station.

[Taft]

Jackson Viaduct at Union Station
Reconstruction Project
Canal to Chicago River


Besides a rebuilt bridge/sidewalk, does anyone know what the positive impact on commuters will be?

[ardecila]

Speaking of CDOT, I saw their Anticipated Contracts list for 2009. There's some good stuff on here... lots of stuff that I'm looking forward to as an infrastructure geek. This is, of course, a highly tentative list, and it presumes that the city will get enough funds for the entire list, which is doubtful. Also, these are projects that the city is bidding this year. Even if contractors are selected, construction may not finish by the end of this year, or even begin. I expect some of the smaller projects to be completed, however.

Lake/Ogden CTA Column Relocation (I'm hoping this will be like the job they did on the Brown Line at Wacker Drive - a huge truss installed to remove obstructing columns in the middle of Ogden)
LaSalle Street Intermodal Transfer Center
Morgan Green Line CTA Station
Congress Parkway Streetscape - Michigan to Wells
US-41 Relocation - Contracts II/III (this is the major arterial road that will be built through the South Works site)
Wacker Drive Reconstruction - Randolph-Adams/Adams-Congress (split into two megaprojects to get varying bids)
130th/Torrence Grade Separations (a major project in CREATE)
35th Street Pedestrian Bridge (on the lakefront. this one has been postponed many times - a good indicator of how tentative this list is)

The remaining 90% of the list is resurfacing and much-needed streetscape improvements on major streets, some in the central area. There are also quite a few bridge replacement/renovation projects, like the one BVic posted above.

The Full List (http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/2009anticipatedcontracts_Mar09.pdf)

[denizen467]

LaSalle Street Intermodal Transfer Center
Wacker Drive Reconstruction - Randolph-Adams/Adams-Congress (split into two megaprojects to get varying bids)

What's the LaSalle project?

And the Wacker project really needs to go to Harrison, and include all those crazy ramps linking Lower-to-Eisenhower, Upper/Lower-to-Harrison, Eisenhower-to-Upper and Lower, et cetera, no? Or are they waiting to know whether/how a Wacker extension southwards would be built?

[Mr Downtown]

I'm pretty sure the Wacker project does include the Congress ramps.

The LaSalle project is a transfer area for CTA buses at Congress/Financial:

http://i44.tinypic.com/mhxcg.jpg

[ardecila]

And the Wacker project really needs to go to Harrison, and include all those crazy ramps linking Lower-to-Eisenhower, Upper/Lower-to-Harrison, Eisenhower-to-Upper and Lower, et cetera, no? Or are they waiting to know whether/how a Wacker extension southwards would be built?

I'm pretty sure the boat sailed on any extension of Wacker when they built River City. The plan right now is to build a Wells-Wentworth connector. A 1-block extension of Wacker diagonally across the Franklin Point site might be a good idea, having a direct Wacker-Wells connection, but I haven't seen any plans for this.

[denizen467]

I'm pretty sure the boat sailed on any extension of Wacker when they built River City.
Smooth pun. I guess it sailed right into River City.

A 1-block extension of Wacker diagonally across the Franklin Point site might be a good idea, having a direct Wacker-Wells connection, but I haven't seen any plans for this.
I think this would instantly massively increase the appeal of office or other buildings at Franklin Point. Not only because of direct access from/onto Wacker, but you'd open up the possibility of sexy new addresses from "600 South Wacker" thru as much as "799 South Wacker". If the area is already too residential to attain any office-building critical mass, then hotels would likely find some benefit from this so they can market themselves to outsiders as not being in the Loop's boondocks.

I'm curious what people think about
(1) whether a Franklin Point developer would find this beneficial (assuming zoning increase or some other way of making up for losing buildable site area to the roadway, in addition to of course being paid for selling the roadway land).
(2) whether the city itself would consider it worth building the extension (whether this time around or in a future phase) to effectively enlarge the developable area of the most desirable part of the Loop. Certainly there will be no Loop land constraint problems for a long while, but a decision on an extension would have to occur sooner, before Franklin Point begins any development.

I guess a lot of this enthusiasm is dampened when you consider the western views would be of the McCormick-sized post office across the river - not exactly pretty to look at or down upon.

[orulz]

I'm pretty sure the boat sailed on any extension of Wacker when they built River City. The plan right now is to build a Wells-Wentworth connector. A 1-block extension of Wacker diagonally across the Franklin Point site might be a good idea, having a direct Wacker-Wells connection, but I haven't seen any plans for this.

Couldn't they build the same connection on the Congress/Wells/Franklin/Harrison block? (The block that's already filled with the Congress-Wacker ramps.) The ramps could be rebuilt to tie in with this connector.

You lose the ability to have "700 S Wacker Drive" addresses, but you avoid having to take a big chunk of land from the Franklin Point site, and instead use only public land.

Or was there some agreement already in force for air rights development over those ramps that would make this impossible?

[ardecila]

Right, but that would require coordination with the current Wacker Drive project. I believe the intent is to replace the existing roadway with an identical one, except with better streetscaping and higher vertical clearances to allow larger trucks onto Lower Wacker (fulfilling the road's original intention). If this is the case, then the terminus of Wacker will still be on Harrison one block west of Wells after the project is done.

[ardecila]

Okay... I went to the Red Line Alternatives Analysis meeting tonight. The alignment (the Locally Preferred Alternative) was chosen: along the UP railroad from 95th to 130th. After some refinement, CTA will take this plan to the Feds in the fall for negotiation and begin working on the Environmental Impact Statement and early design.

CTA has not decided whether the line will be built on the east or west side of the UP tracks. There are preliminary alignments for either choice, but the projected cost is $1.1 billion either way. The line will be almost all elevated, but the UP railroad will remain at-grade. This irritates me... most projects of this type in other cities allow for both the transit and the railroad to be grade-separated, since the Federal funding process allows cities to receive money for this grade-separation that would not otherwise be available. CTA and UP also need to be separated by 50 feet, making for a rather inefficient use of space in a dense city. To be honest, I was hoping for something like DC's Red Line where rail and transit are right next to each other.

There will be a station at 115th, which is close to the major intersection of 115th/Michigan, and the City is working with a developer for a mixed-use complex with a grocery and residential here that will have a transit connection. I'm sure it will be half-assed and strip-mallish, like the thing they built at Howard.

A major park and ride is planned at the 130th terminal similar to the garage at Cumberland. Like Kimball, O'Hare, and Midway, 130th will have 3 tracks. Since the station would abut the South Shore Line, CTA is negotiating with South Shore to build a transfer station. North of the station will be a rather large new train yard to replace the existing one at 95th.

FINALLY, CTA has developed a rainy-day plan in case the Feds are stingy: a shortened line extension to 115th, with the remainder of the line to 130th deferred to a later project. It increases the cost-effectiveness rating of the extension by 23%, since it dramatically reduces the cost without a huge loss in projected ridership. This shortened version would not include the new yard, which CTA claims the Red Line needs. They will probably use this as leverage to get the Feds to fund the entire project (besides, there's a South Sider running the show in DC - what are the chances this thing doesn't get funded?)

Detailed Map of East and West Alignments (http://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/alternatives_analysis/HRT_UPRR_Maps.pdf)

103rd Station (not the final design)
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/2773/103rd.jpg

[denizen467]

:worship: for the report!

Are those UP tracks just for freight and not Metra or Amtrak? And are their grade crossings included in CREATE at all?

That 103rd Street image looks totally goofy - RR gates right in front of an elevated crossing.

[ardecila]

^^ The tracks serve only freight right now, but Metra has a proposal for a new SouthEast Service that would use these tracks. If that comes to fruition, then Metra would plan a joint station next to one of CTA's stations, like what exists at Jefferson Park.

The crossings are not included in CREATE because they do not cause significant road congestion, so they aren't urgent enough to make the cut. However, with major pedestrian generators like L stations right next door, they will become a safety problem fast IMO.

[the urban politician]

^ Thanks for all the info, ardecila. I'm glad they chose a route that doesn't run in the median of an expressway, and actually runs through neighborhoods.

This is a great opportunity for the city to promote TOD, especially along the planned route of this train. Did you get any sense that the CTA and the Planning Dept have been talking to eachother about this? If I'm correct, part of 103rd st is a designated "Pedestrian Street", although I"m not sure if it's the portion that would be served by this new L stop.

[the urban politician]

Ald Manny Flores appears to be pretty progressive with the TOD thing. He collaborated to form an organization known as Green Economy Chicago. Here is a recent posting by them:

Add Transit-Oriented Development Designation to Chicago Zoning Code (http://www.greeneconomychicago.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=132:add-transit-oriented-development-designation-to-chicago-zoning-code&catid=34:ideas&Itemid=55)
Written by Lee Crandell - Friday, 22 May 2009 17:18
Our zoning code needs to address the unique opportunities and challenges in the areas around our train stations. Transit-oriented development could provide more destinations and housing options within walking distance of transit. It would promote a healthier lifestyle and allow us to reduce vehicle miles traveled (along with associated greenhouse gases and pollution). While some stations are already surrounding by vibrant walkable areas (such as Belmont Red Line and Damen Blue Line), many others are underdeveloped and surrounded by parking lots. The current zoning code also puts heavy restrictions on density around many of the stations, even though these areas would be most the appropriate for higher-density development.
Chicago currently has a Pedestrian Street designation in its zoning code that could be adapted for transit-oriented development. This new designation could be applied to a radius (1/4 mile, 5-minute walk?) around all train stations in the city, much like the current zoning code provides for limited exceptions to the parking requirements in transit-served locations (defined as within 600 feet of CTA or METRA station). The Pedestrian Street designation has lower parking requirements, ensures fewer curb cuts interrupting the sidewalk, restricts strip malls, and ensures buildings abut the sidewalk with windows and doors instead of being set back behind parking. All of these requirements would also be appropriate for the areas around the stations. A transit-oriented development designation could also go a step further, allowing for an automatic increase in floor-area ratio and minimum lot area per unit within the existing allowable building height. This would enable developers to provide more diverse housing options near the stations as the market demands, including studios and one-bedrooms that may not be feasible under the existing code.

^ You know, I would love to see Ald Flores actually try to bring this up and try to get an ordinance passed. Since all it takes is one Alderman to back these things, why not do something that would benefit the city, as opposed to wasting everybody's time banning foie gras and street drummers, and now with Ald Ed Burke pushing to require red light camera ticketeers to go to driving school.

[BVictor1]

This should be added here also...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-midwest-highspeed-rail-04-jun04,0,7751889.story

High-speed rail: Biden praises Midwest plan to enhance passenger train system

Federal officials laud Midwest pitch for upgrade funds
By Mike Dorning and Jon Hilkevitch | Tribune reporters
June 4, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Obama administration officials offered encouraging signs Wednesday that a proposed Midwest high-speed rail network based around a Chicago hub has an inside track on a significant piece of $8 billion to be distributed among 10 major U.S. projects.

Vice President Joe Biden lauded the Midwest proposal, which envisions passenger trains speeding through the region at 110 m.p.h., as "one of the most comprehensive plans that have been put forward so far."

The full 3,000-mile Midwest corridor system stretching over nine states would cost $9.6 billion to construct over 10 years, according to the latest estimate.

But "for $3.4 billion, you can get a big chunk of this plan done," Biden said in a conference call with reporters.



The administration gathered eight governors, including Gov. Pat Quinn, for a roundtable at the White House on Wednesday. Interviewed at the White House afterward, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a former Illinois congressman, noted that Obama and his chief of staff, Chicagoan Rahm Emanuel, have taken an intense interest in the rail initiative. He suggested that that would work in favor of substantial financial support for a Midwest network.

Obama and Emanuel made funding for high-speed rail a priority in negotiations over the economic stimulus package. In addition to the $8 billion secured in the economic stimulus, the White House has asked for another $5 billion over the next five years.

"This is the president's initiative," LaHood said. "I mean he and Rahm personally saw to it that Congress included $8 billion for high-speed rail. And I don't want to answer to the president why we're not doing something in the Midwest."

According to transportation experts, the Midwest bid also will merit support because of Chicago's central role in the nation's rail and other transportation networks.

"Based on the conversations I had with the governors today, I think [the Midwest] will have as good a proposal as any that we will receive," LaHood said. "Everyone will have a reasonable chance."

At a meeting earlier in the day to strategize on funding with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Quinn announced plans for a July summit of Midwest governors to address high-speed rail in Chicago. He said he and the other governors will coordinate plans and try to muster enthusiasm among mayors, members of Congress and business.

"The point is, the more people who are invested in this, the better," Quinn said. He added that a successful Olympic bid for Chicago could add political immediacy to the regional project.

Regardless of how much money the Midwest project receives in the first round of funding, the initial phase of work in and around Chicago, St. Louis and Detroit would concentrate on eliminating slow zones, where Amtrak passenger trains often travel as slow as 10 m.p.h. because of freight train interference and antiquated tracks and signals.

The goal would be to increase those speeds to 30 to 50 m.p.h. initially and faster later, operating in accordance with the philosophy of rail experts that the key to going fast is to not go slow.

The Federal Railroad Administration will issue guidelines for applications by June 17, and Biden said grants will start rolling this summer.

The first category of grants will focus on improving existing rail systems and putting people to work under the economic recovery plan, the vice president said. The strategy appears to benefit the Midwest proposal.

The second round will go toward building sections of corridors and aiding high-speed rail programs such as California's plan, which will feature trains moving at up to 220 m.p.h. between Sacramento and San Diego.

Mike Dorning reported from Washington and Jon Hilkevitch from Chicago. mdorning@tribune.com

jhilkevitch@tribune.com

[Chicago Shawn]

:worship: for the report!

Are those UP tracks just for freight and not Metra or Amtrak? And are their grade crossings included in CREATE at all?

That 103rd Street image looks totally goofy - RR gates right in front of an elevated crossing.

That is how the Pulaski Orange Line station is. Right next to a single fright track. A couple of the crossing gates are actually between the two CTA viaducts carrying the inbound and outbound tracks. The trains on the fright track are slow and infrequent, so safety really isn't that much of an issue at Pulaski.

Ardecila, was there any mention of eminent domain or takings of residential property along the route? I think its a little ridiculous to keep that 50' distance if we have to condemn private property when the line could easily be constructed on the existing right of way. Is the reason a federal restriction, or does Union Pacific intend to triple track the route at some point in the future? The line seems to have enough buffer space along the whole route to avoid eminent domain along most of the route, but it seems some may be inevitable.

Other than that, the route is fantastic. Its equidistant between Metra Lines, so it provides supplemental rather than duplicate service, and the prospect of new transfer stations between the South East Service and South Shore is pretty exciting. The 130th St transfer would be heavily used by Indiana Sox fans coming in by way of the South Shore.

[ardecila]

That is how the Pulaski Orange Line station is. Right next to a single fright track. A couple of the crossing gates are actually between the two CTA viaducts carrying the inbound and outbound tracks. The trains on the fright track are slow and infrequent, so safety really isn't that much of an issue at Pulaski.

I know about Pulaski - and I thought it was weird when I first saw it - but that track is a short line railroad that exists only to serve some nearby industrial clients with a few cars occasionally. As you said, safety there is not the issue that it would be next to a main-line railroad like this stretch of UP tracks.

Ardecila, was there any mention of eminent domain or takings of residential property along the route? I think its a little ridiculous to keep that 50' distance if we have to condemn private property when the line could easily be constructed on the existing right of way. Is the reason a federal restriction, or does Union Pacific intend to triple track the route at some point in the future? The line seems to have enough buffer space along the whole route to avoid eminent domain along most of the route, but it seems some may be inevitable.

Takings will depend on whether an alignment east or west of the UP tracks is chosen. The east alignment requires quite a bit of takings, while the west requires less. Despite the takings, I actually think the east alignment is more favorable, since it puts a station on the near side of the UP tracks at 115th. (That might be a bad thing, however, if a large bus turnaround is built separating the station from the Michigan/115th intersection)

The 50' separation was chosen based on an combination of FRA regulations and negotiations with UP. I think UP is worried about the impact of SouthEast Service on their freight operations, and if SouthEast Service is built, they would push for a third track. They also want room to store construction equipment or build sidings.

However, the presentation boards suggested that CTA could be moved closer to UP if CTA builds a 2'6" crash wall to prevent structural damage to the viaduct in the event of a freight crash. UP is not in favor of this, obviously, and they have better legal help than the residents of Roseland to fight takings.

[Abner]

What was the response of the audience at the Red Line presentation? Did the crowd at the meeting seem supportive of the plan and the alignment?

There was a segment on 848 on Chicago Public Radio about Roseland residents organizing to promote the Red Line extension. There are definitely people who are passionate about this. I'm wondering how people reacted to the proposed alignment.

[Busy Bee]

:worship: for the report!

Are those UP tracks just for freight and not Metra or Amtrak? And are their grade crossings included in CREATE at all?

That 103rd Street image looks totally goofy - RR gates right in front of an elevated crossing.

Yeah that's about as queer as it gets. Seems it would be mre logically, cheaper and frankly more aesthetically pleasing to just put everything in a trench. I guess I just like trench rapid transit though, it more like a subway to me and it makes for some pretty cool looking stations.

[ardecila]

What was the response of the audience at the Red Line presentation? Did the crowd at the meeting seem supportive of the plan and the alignment?

There was a segment on 848 on Chicago Public Radio about Roseland residents organizing to promote the Red Line extension. There are definitely people who are passionate about this. I'm wondering how people reacted to the proposed alignment.

I believe the CTA conducted a survey finding that something like 94% of people favored the UP alignment over the Halsted alignment. (The idea of an elevated rail viaduct in the center of a major road is off-putting to most people, me included). At the meeting, with the 'official' announcement of the UP alignment as the LPA, virtually everybody in the room clapped.

Roseland is a community that feels largely ignored, both historically and in the recent wave of streetscaping and civic improvements that have swept the city under Daley. They are understandably very excited about a new rapid transit line running through their neighborhood. There is also a definite need for this extension: I got to see 95th on my way to the meeting, during rush hour to boot, and it was my first time there. To see such traffic at a non-downtown station was pretty cool.

Busy Bee: I understand about the trench, and initially I was hoping for that as well. But the more I look at it, the more I see only a huge pricetag. Building anything subterranean, especially in Chicago's soil, requires huge and expensive infrastructure to deal with the problem of water - pumping it, redirecting it, moving sewers and power lines, etc. Because of our soft clay soil, it's even arguable that bored tunnels would be cheaper than the construction of a trench, which would require expensive and time-consuming sheet piling along its entire length. A tunnel would just require a bunch of guys with power knives to cut away the clay, then some concrete rings to stabilize the tunnel.

[denizen467]

The 130th St transfer would be heavily used by Indiana Sox fans coming in by way of the South Shore.
Doesn't seem too smart they have one option where the 130th St station is a couple hundred yards west of the South Shore line (when the other option has it adjacent).

[arenn]

$1.1 billion? I just can't fathom the cost of these projects. Reconstructing the entire Dan Ryan Expressway, including adding lanes on the south end, didn't cost that much.

[ardecila]

It seems like quite a bit, but it's on par with other current heavy rail projects. The Silver Line in DC is 23 miles, $5.2 billion, or $226 million/mile. Chicago's Red Line extension is 5.3 miles, $1.1 billion, or $220 million/mile.

Both lines run largely in unused right-of-way, so they are a good rough comparison, as opposed to say the Second Avenue Subway.

It's not like there are a ton of these projects to establish comparison - actually, I would not be surprised if CTA is merely taking the cost/mile figure from the DC project. CTA hasn't actually bid the project yet, and I don't know how the $1.1 billion figure stands in relation to construction cost inflation. You of all people should understand that. This could be $1.1 billion only after factoring in several years' inflation due to the duration of the Federal process.

[Busy Bee]

For everyone's benefit, is there anyone here (Viva???) that can spell out what exactly costs $220 million a mile for a new rail line on unused ROW not requiring major demolition or utility removal? The skeptic in me is dying to call bullshit.

[VivaLFuego]

My understanding is that the $1.1 billion is:
(a) fully burdened, i.e. including design/engineering and construction management costs, and
(b) estimated in year-of-expenditure (YOE) i.e. projecting future inflation/fluctuations in construction cost.

It's hard to compare construction costs amongst projects unless you know for certain that you are comparing apples to apples (in regards to (a) & (b)). Naturally, most journalists don't include such useful information when discussing how much such and such transportation project costs. The Dan Ryan project was apparently $975 million in total expenditure, but it's unclear if that is fully burdened including design/engineering costs and so on.

Off-hand, ardec's comparison to the Silver Line is a good one.

One thing I'm not sure of is whether the $1.1 billion includes (c) railcar purchases to actually operate the line. Obviously, this would be a huge cost component. Busy Bee, a major cost component in rapid transit construction is the traction power and signal infrastructure that needs to be installed - this also explains why starter commuter rail systems can often be brought online so cheaply.

[emathias]

...
^ You know, I would love to see Ald Flores actually try to bring this up and try to get an ordinance passed. Since all it takes is one Alderman to back these things, why not do something that would benefit the city, as opposed to wasting everybody's time banning foie gras and street drummers, and now with Ald Ed Burke pushing to require red light camera ticketeers to go to driving school.

FYI (from an email out of Reilly's office, no less):


CTA Transit-Friendly Development Typology Open House

The CTA and the Chicago Department of Zoning and Land Use Planning will be holding an open house on the CTA Station Area Typology Study, to discuss transit-friendly development around CTA rail stations system-wide. Two meetings will be held at the following locations, are accessible to people with disabilities:

North:
Monday, June 22, 2009
6:00- 8:00pm
Chicago Public Library
Sulzer Regional Library
4455 N. Lincoln Ave.
Chicago, IL60625
312.744.7616

South:
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
6:00- 8:00pm
Chicago Urban LeagueCenter
4510 S. Michigan Ave.
Chicago, IL60653
773.258.5800

For more information please call or e-mail:
Ryan Mouw, Senior Government Relations Officer, Chicago Transit Authority at 312.681.2751 or rmouw@transitchicago.com.

[the urban politician]

^ GREAT news.

I know Viva will be excited. Where are you, Viva? Lets hear it

[arenn]

What is the cost/incremental rider of this expansion? I need to download the documents I guess.

[Jaroslaw]

American mass transit prices are the highest in the world... In Seoul the recent 61km train link to the new airport is coming in at about $50 million a mile, and a third of that is in tunel... The recently opened line 9 (25.5km) has cost about $100 million per mile, all in deep tunnel.1 But then it's a private enterprise, something apparently unimaginable in America--with major participation by Macquire (England), and Veolia (France). Same with the new Bundang line (18.5km), around $50 million per mile, all underground, private 30-year concession.2,3

1 http://english.seoul.go.kr/today/news/newsclip/1249872_3675.html

2 http://info.korail.com/ROOT/cambo-view.cambo?programid=12&boardid=757&lang=eng

3 http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view/article/2009/04/9450/ppp_consortium_builds_seouls_first_automated_metro_line.html

[ardecila]

Asian countries do not have union labor - a big factor that lowers construction costs and allows their transportation networks to expand much more quickly than ours.

Chicago also has a problem with cronyism, where contractors with political connections tend to get the biggest civil projects.

Finally, restrictions on construction send costs through the roof, as construction on certain projects only takes place at night to pose minimal slowdowns to traffic.

There are many other factors too, but those are the biggest ones. I too am frustrated by the high cost of civil projects (and therefore the huge political challenge in finding money for them).

[VivaLFuego]

American mass transit prices are the highest in the world... In Seoul the recent 61km train link to the new airport is coming in at about $50 million a mile, and a third of that is in tunel... The recently opened line 9 (25.5km) has cost about $100 million per mile, all in deep tunnel.1 But then it's a private enterprise, something apparently unimaginable in America--with major participation by Macquire (England), and Veolia (France). Same with the new Bundang line (18.5km), around $50 million per mile, all underground, private 30-year concession.2,3

1 http://english.seoul.go.kr/today/news/newsclip/1249872_3675.html

2 http://info.korail.com/ROOT/cambo-view.cambo?programid=12&boardid=757&lang=eng

3 http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view/article/2009/04/9450/ppp_consortium_builds_seouls_first_automated_metro_line.html

Isn't Macquarie Australian?

Anyway, some of these drivers of higher domestic transit costs have already been mentioned:
1. "Buy America" requirements for minimum percentage of domestic materials and labor including all final assembly (this subsequently impacts the relative ability to take advantage of economies of scale, in contrast to similar requirements for road projects i.e. Veolia has a large office in Chicago, but not much in the way of tunnel engineering/construction expertise staffed here).
2. Very high regulatory costs in the planning and environmental impact stages - both in terms of time, labor, and resulting project modifications, which in turn increase design costs and often construction costs based on mitigating those impacts.
3. The obvious one, union construction labor costs.

A big part of the 'problem' or 'cause' is really just a combination of the domestic political culture and some specific federal regulations. If it's to change, those would be the targets - definitely not a lowly local transit operator or even a metropolitan planning agency.

[Jaroslaw]

Macquire might be Australian, right.

The larger issue: just one more of the inner contradictions of modern left-wing politics: "we want more mass transit, and more government regulations. Green transit, and environmental regulations that strangle transit development." :koko:

[ChicagoChicago]

Macquire might be Australian, right.

The larger issue: just one more of the inner contradictions of modern left-wing politics: "we want more mass transit, and more government regulations. Green transit, and environmental regulations that strangle transit development." :koko:

Correct, Macquarie is Australian. Their US headquarters is in Chicago (Sears Tower).

I'd say the largest hurdles for mass transit costs are labor and right-of-way costs.

[Mr Downtown]

I think the engineering consultants are a big part of the unbelievable costs of US transit projects. Pretty much every project of any size will be a consortium with PB at the lead. With virtually no competition to keep them lean, they gold-plate everything from the alternatives analysis to the catenary.

[orulz]

I think the engineering consultants are a big part of the unbelievable costs of US transit projects. Pretty much every project of any size will be a consortium with PB at the lead. With virtually no competition to keep them lean, they gold-plate everything from the alternatives analysis to the catenary.

The New Starts and NEPA processes themselves are at the core of the problem. They require huge expenses on consultants, and in many cases give too much voice to NIMBYs. We are the only place in the world where a planned transit line must first spend at least 10 years percolating through an incredibly detailed process: the MIS, Alternatives Analysis, Preliminary Engineering, and EIS project, with months of public comments at every stage - before even being given final consideration for funding (FFGA).

This is a textbook case of bureaucracy gone haywire. New Starts was implemented with the explicit purpose of making it more difficult to build transit lines. All of this for a (these days) meager 50% federal share.

[ChicagoChicago]

The New Starts and NEPA processes themselves are at the core of the problem. They require huge expenses on consultants, and in many cases give too much voice to NIMBYs. We are the only place in the world where a planned transit line must first spend at least 10 years percolating through an incredibly detailed process: the MIS, Alternatives Analysis, Preliminary Engineering, and EIS project, with months of public comments at every stage - before even being given final consideration for funding (FFGA).

This is a textbook case of bureaucracy gone haywire. New Starts was implemented with the explicit purpose of making it more difficult to build transit lines. All of this for a (these days) meager 50% federal share.Well said. There truly needs to be reform in this area. By the time most of these things get the green light, they're already obsolete.

[lawfin]

American mass transit prices are the highest in the world... In Seoul the recent 61km train link to the new airport is coming in at about $50 million a mile, and a third of that is in tunel... The recently opened line 9 (25.5km) has cost about $100 million per mile, all in deep tunnel.1 But then it's a private enterprise, something apparently unimaginable in America--with major participation by Macquire (England), and Veolia (France). Same with the new Bundang line (18.5km), around $50 million per mile, all underground, private 30-year concession.2,3

1 http://english.seoul.go.kr/today/news/newsclip/1249872_3675.html

2 http://info.korail.com/ROOT/cambo-view.cambo?programid=12&boardid=757&lang=eng

3 http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view/article/2009/04/9450/ppp_consortium_builds_seouls_first_automated_metro_line.html

What would be the approx cost of brand new subway versus el per mile in chicago? for comparison sake?

I have no idea....I am guessing 1/2 billion a mile? but that is pure guess

[Busy Bee]

The New Starts and NEPA processes themselves are at the core of the problem. They require huge expenses on consultants, and in many cases give too much voice to NIMBYs. We are the only place in the world where a planned transit line must first spend at least 10 years percolating through an incredibly detailed process: the MIS, Alternatives Analysis, Preliminary Engineering, and EIS project, with months of public comments at every stage - before even being given final consideration for funding (FFGA).

This is a textbook case of bureaucracy gone haywire. New Starts was implemented with the explicit purpose of making it more difficult to build transit lines. All of this for a (these days) meager 50% federal share.

Hopefully Obama and Lahood can shake this bullshit up. Right now its an absolute disgrace.

[ardecila]

There is, in fact, a bill introduced to Congress that would reformulate transportation funding procedures. Transit and highways would no longer be considered as separate categories, but as equal contenders for the same pot of money, based on the projected traffic/ridership that said projects would generate.

The only differentiation would be by projected cost, with 4 different brackets from the most expensive to the least. Within each bracket, both highways and transit would vie for the same money.

Of course, under such a system, there is rampant incentive to inflate the projected traffic/ridership, so USDOT will need to establish regulations to discourage cheaters.

[whyhuhwhy]

Hopefully Obama and Lahood can shake this bullshit up. Right now its an absolute disgrace.

I highly doubt Obama of all people is going to roll back environmental and government regulations.

[orulz]

I highly doubt Obama of all people is going to roll back environmental and government regulations.

As I said before, New Starts is not a "government regulation" in the traditional sense. It was a program designed to make it difficult to build transit projects, in order to curtail the amount of money being spent on them. (and it also had the effect of redirecting a lot of the money that is spent, towards consultants)

I sincerely doubt that Obama will do anything to change the NEPA though. Highways and transit projects will probably both continue to be equally affected.

Something that gets me about the NEPA though, is that if you look at an EIS from the 1980s, and compare it with one from today, the one from today is about 10 times longer. And to the best of my knowledge there haven't been any significant changes to the actual law that says what must be included in an EIS. Part of it is just the consultants finding more work for themselves, and the "expectation" for what an EIS looks like has gradually crept upwards.

[emathias]

American mass transit prices are the highest in the world... In Seoul the recent 61km train link to the new airport is coming in at about $50 million a mile, and a third of that is in tunel... The recently opened line 9 (25.5km) has cost about $100 million per mile, ...

Check out costs in Madrid for their recent metro expansion, too. Much lower than any American subway project.

[VivaLFuego]

As I said before, New Starts is not a "government regulation" in the traditional sense. It was a program designed to make it difficult to build transit projects, in order to curtail the amount of money being spent on them.


Not exactly - the program has proven very useful at building light rail lines in sparse auto-centric cities that don't need them and thus have to cut bus service to pay to operate them. The program is certainly biased against cities with existing transit networks and high transit utilization - which makes it all the more of a coup that Kruesi got two reconstruction projects funded as New Starts.

It's not there to make building transit projects difficult - it's there to make building transit projects difficult without heavy federal involvement and the additional layer of political dealmaking and favoritism involved therein (as the ongoing drama with WMATA's Dulles extension demonstrates, as well as with the Cermak Branch reconstruction, the supposedly objective cost effectiveness criteria fly out the window when politics demands so). As with most expansion of government regulation and involvement at all levels of government, it's about power and control much moreso than any ideological or philosophical goal.

[lawfin]

Was not sure if this belonged here or somewhere else:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-cta-stations,0,2468683.htmlpage

[ChicagoChicago]

Was not sure if this belonged here or somewhere else:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-cta-stations,0,2468683.htmlpage

Interesting to see the ridership declines on the far north and south ends of the Red line. Obviously, I understand the increase in the Loop and north routes.

[sammyg]

Check out costs in Madrid for their recent metro expansion, too. Much lower than any American subway project.

Spain has much more powerful unions than the US, where are the savings coming from if not from labor?

[VivaLFuego]

Spain has much more powerful unions than the US, where are the savings coming from if not from labor?

For one, I don't think the governments there instituted "Buy Spain" requirements akin to the requirements here mandating that the vast preponderence of all labor and materials involved in the project be domestic. They could actually allow multinational consortia of engineers and construction managers to come in, i.e. leveraging comparative advantage, economies of scale, and so forth.

Also, as previously bemoaned in the thread, I doubt any country anywhere has as tedious and immense a mountain of bureaucratic red tape for government construction projects as happens here.

[emathias]

Spain has much more powerful unions than the US, where are the savings coming from if not from labor?

"powerful" and "greedy" aren't necessarily synonymous.

Also, all their health care costs are probably coming from a different line item, making direct cost [comparisons] difficult.

Finally, they've been in expansion mode for quite a while, and having continuous construction for a decade or more yields big cost savings in terms of reuse and training and learning to schedule and manage work. The head of their transit agency credits extremely good project managers for a lot of it, and seeing how some of the work on the Brown Line proceeded, I'd believe that the CTA's project management has a lot of room for improvement, or at least the rules around construction could be improved to enable enhanced scheduling.

[emathias]

For the Transit Oriented Development meetings I mentioned in a previous post, the north one on June 22nd was moved to a new location:

Skokie Village Hall
5127 Oakton Street
Skokie, IL 60077
6pm-8pm, June 22nd

[OhioGuy]

^^ Too bad the Oakton Street station still isn't even close to beginning construction. People could ride the el and walk the short distance to downtown Skokie for this meeting.

[the urban politician]

For the Transit Oriented Development meetings I mentioned in a previous post, the north one on June 22nd was moved to a new location:

Skokie Village Hall
5127 Oakton Street
Skokie, IL 60077
6pm-8pm, June 22nd

^ So they choose to locate a meeting to discuss Transit-Oriented-Development in a location that has NO nearby connection to the rail system and is surrounded by parking?

HELLO? Did somebody have a brain hemorrhage or are they just attempting to be fashionably ironic?

[ChicagoChicago]

The Clark/Lake elevated platform has flat screen monitors installed. Maybe one day you'll be able to see them from the street.

[Nowhereman1280]

Spain has much more powerful unions than the US, where are the savings coming from if not from labor?

They may be more powerful, but they are less wasteful. Also, labor rates in Spain in general are far lower than in the United States. When the average income of a Spaniard is approximately half that of an American, then you can imagine how that would save money on labor.

[lawfin]

Capitol Hill is buzzing with the news: just moments ago, a new transportation bill was released, and the Obama administration is pushing Congress to pass a funding plan quickly. Why the rush?

Transportation funding is running out.

But we can't afford to keep throwing money at transportation agencies unable to show progress on the issues that matter to us all: Affordable ways to get around; alternatives to congestion; reducing our oil dependency; protecting the climate; safe and vibrant communities and access to jobs.

Tell Congress: No new money without a real, sustainable plan.

The National Highway Trust Fund - which pays for road work, bike and pedestrian facilities and transit projects - will run out of money in August.

With funds drying up, the pressure to throw more money at our problems is growing. Some in Congress are poised to take money from other needs to prop up the trust fund, which comes from gas taxes. They would prefer to go on spending our tax dollars without a real plan. But more money with no strings attached is not the answer.

The U.S. hasn't had a vision for transportation policy in decades. We've been trying to build our way out of a congested and inefficient system with no accountability and no actual plan to link our roads, trains, buses, bikeways and pedestrian-friendly streets.

The result? Longer, more frustrating, less safe and increasingly expensive commutes for all of us.

But now we have an opportunity for change. We must ensure that our country's transportation investments strengthen our economy, our environment and our health.

Tell your representative we need real reform before we throw more money at our problems.

Don't let Congress make the same mistakes it's made in the past. We must fund transportation, and we must do it right this time.

Thank you for your support at this crucial moment.

Sincerely,

Ilana Preuss
Outreach and Field Director
Transportation for America

[the urban politician]

FYI (from an email out of Reilly's office, no less):
CTA Transit-Friendly Development Typology Open House

The CTA and the Chicago Department of Zoning and Land Use Planning will be holding an open house on the CTA Station Area Typology Study, to discuss transit-friendly development around CTA rail stations system-wide. Two meetings will be held at the following locations, are accessible to people with disabilities:

North:
Monday, June 22, 2009
6:00- 8:00pm
Chicago Public Library
Sulzer Regional Library
4455 N. Lincoln Ave.
Chicago, IL60625
312.744.7616

South:
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
6:00- 8:00pm
Chicago Urban LeagueCenter
4510 S. Michigan Ave.
Chicago, IL60653
773.258.5800


^ Did anyone by chance happen to go (or plan to go)?

[Chicago Shawn]

^I am planning on going tonight, and will provide details later.

[ardecila]

To continue the discussion from the O'Hare thread regarding the Kennedy corridor...

The point is really moot, isn't it, because ANY sort of highway improvement would be ridiculously expensive, and IDOT is not considering any such project in their long-term plans.

This could change, but I haven't even heard any plans or political will mentioned that would change the status quo. Nor have I heard any practical solutions pitched. A double-decker highway sounds great as a congestion relief tool, but try building one through a residential neighborhood. Area residents will scream bloody murder, and I don't think it could get through environmental review.

[lawfin]

H+T index has a few new features

http://htaindex.cnt.org/mapping_tool.php?theme_menu=0

[Tom Servo]

our system needs a massive overhaul in managing, planning, and infrastructure.

it seems as though they keep repairing these slow zones over and over again.

why does it seem like the cta is run by boobs?

[nomarandlee]

http://www.suntimes.com/business/roeder/1636228,CST-NWS-roeder24.article


Old post office 'perfect' for train hub
REAL ESTATE | Building has access already to all major rail lines serving

June 24, 2009

DAVID ROEDER droeder@suntimes.com

Two weeks ago, the U.S. Postal Service said it plans to auction its old main post office in Chicago. Ever since, I've been struggling with the futility of the agency's backward process.

After years working with Walton Street Capital to establish that the redevelopment prospects are daunting, the agency now wants a buyer to assume an estimated $2-million-a-year cost just to keep the huge old place secure, plus get assessed a few million dollars more in property taxes each year. It isn't a stretch to suggest the Postal Service might have to pay a buyer for its trouble.

Then I heard from Reuben Hedlund, zoning lawyer and former Chicago Plan Commission chairman, who had a great idea. "Location, location, location" is the classic real estate mantra, but his suggestion for the post office comes down to location, opportunity and actual money.

President Obama wants to pass out $8 billion to localities to start high-speed rail passenger lines. For Chicago, what better hub is there than the post office, Hedlund asked. He explained his idea last week in accepting the Daniel H. Burnham Distinguished Service Award from Lambda Alpha International.

"The old post office building would be the perfect central station for high-speed rail, given its unique collection of railroad tracks with access to all of the trunk lines serving Chicago, with indoor parking available for more than 400 automobiles," Hedlund said. He said it's available for express trains to O'Hare Airport, as well as light rail service connecting McCormick Place to Streeterville and Navy Pier, an idea akin to the unbuilt downtown circulator.

Seriously, anything you need for light rail is already there. The idea is fabulous and, with federal help, promises less fiscal risk and maybe greater rewards than a 2016 Olympics.


.....Unrelated in same article about prospects for real estate upticks....

As for the commercial market, it won't be much good until 2017, the head analyst for commercial mortgages at Deutsche Bank Securities told Reuters news service. "We are currently in something which is comparable to what we saw in the 1990s and potentially worse," Richard Parkus said. He said commercial property values would fall by more than 50 percent from a 2007 peak.

[k1052]

The west loop doesn't need a 3rd separate train station in the form of the old post office (one that is even further out of position for a Monroe St. or Carroll Ave. circulator at that).

[emathias]

...

it seems as though they keep repairing these slow zones over and over again.

why does it seem like the cta is run by boobs?

For the Blue Line subway anyway, they repaired the slow zones using "normal" repairs with the money they had, then they were able to get stimulus money to make more permanent reconstruction, which is why they're "re-repairing" those slow zones. Once they complete this round, for the subway at least, there shouldn't be more than minor repair work needed for slow zones for decades.

[emathias]

The west loop doesn't need a 3rd separate train station in the form of the old post office (one that is even further out of position for a Monroe St. or Carroll Ave. circulator at that).

I generally agree, although if the Post Office were the Amtrak+new high speed service station, and they also rework tracks at Union Station to run more Metra routes through the station instead of terminating there (they wouldn't have to run both directions for the whole route at rush hour, just move to be held in yards outside of downtown), you could free up some space to do other things with, and greatly increase Metra capactiy and service to a wider part of downtown (imagine trains that stopped at Roosevelt and on the south side of Union Station and at Kinzie Station, instead of only at Union Station.)

For a circulator, the Post Office would just be one more stop on the line, and if it were primarily for Amtrak and/or high speed rail, being only a few blocks further from the core really wouldn't be any worse than Union Station for that sort of trip. It'd be worse for a commuter station, sure, but not for inter-city travel.


As with a lot of things, though, that woudl require some good, strongly coordinated planning, which Chicago isn't especially good at.

[emathias]

From the Trib:
CTA Service Cuts Loom (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-cta-budget_24jun24,0,6943473.story)

A second round of budget cuts this year is on the way for Chicago-area mass transit agencies because of the recession, greatly increasing the prospect that commuters will face cuts in service, officials warned Tuesday.

The Regional Transportation Authority board will be asked Thursday to approve operating cuts totaling $61 million at the CTA, Metra and Pace to make up for a deepening drop in sales-tax revenue to pay for transit, officials said.

Entire CTA bus routes could be terminated and bus and rail service overall reduced by as much as 20 percent, CTA officials said.

We're far from the only agency with this issue - seems like Obama ought to step in and provide 1 or 2 year operating subsidies to transit agencies until the economy picks up again.

[k1052]

I generally agree, although if the Post Office were the Amtrak+new high speed service station, and they also rework tracks at Union Station to run more Metra routes through the station instead of terminating there (they wouldn't have to run both directions for the whole route at rush hour, just move to be held in yards outside of downtown), you could free up some space to do other things with, and greatly increase Metra capactiy and service to a wider part of downtown (imagine trains that stopped at Roosevelt and on the south side of Union Station and at Kinzie Station, instead of only at Union Station.)

For a circulator, the Post Office would just be one more stop on the line, and if it were primarily for Amtrak and/or high speed rail, being only a few blocks further from the core really wouldn't be any worse than Union Station for that sort of trip. It'd be worse for a commuter station, sure, but not for inter-city travel.


As with a lot of things, though, that woudl require some good, strongly coordinated planning, which Chicago isn't especially good at.

I'd much prefer they just build the WLTC/Clinton St Subway and finally integrate CTA rail access with Metra/Amtrak/intercity bus services and the potential circulator(s).

[ChicagoChicago]

From the Trib:
CTA Service Cuts Loom (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-cta-budget_24jun24,0,6943473.story)



We're far from the only agency with this issue - seems like Obama ought to step in and provide 1 or 2 year operating subsidies to transit agencies until the economy picks up again.

Seems to me that the CTA needs to fix their pension problems, and open their books for inspection. Then they can talk about their budget problems.

[Taft]

Seems to me that the CTA needs to fix their pension problems, and open their books for inspection. Then they can talk about their budget problems.

1) The CTA can't, on its own, fix the pension problems. At the very least, the city, the state and the employee unions would have to be involved.
2) While the CTA isn't stellar in its transparency, it makes a lot of the information you seek public via reports on a frequent basis.

The way you put it, the CTA would have to solve an intractable problem and be perfectly transparent (according to who?) before they would get the money they need to operate. Can you explain how, exactly, this would help the situation?

Seems to me that allowing service cuts to happen is bad policy no matter how much other reform is necessary. And I know that throwing more money at a sinking ship isn't good policy either. But as has been shown previously in this very thread, the CTA gets more done for less money than almost any big city transportation system in the country.

None of this is to detract from the very serious pension and transparency issues with the CTA. However, just because those items are high on your priority list is no reason to let the system crumble until your demands are met. That type of attitude is simply unproductive.

[emathias]

Seems to me that the CTA needs to fix their pension problems, and open their books for inspection. Then they can talk about their budget problems.

As was noted, the pension issue isn't theirs alone - it's much more a state issue than a CTA or even Chicago issue.

As for inspection, have you not been paying attention at all? They underwent a full audit as part of the last budget crisis and the State's Inspector General (I think that's who did it) concluded that the CTA isn't particularly wasteful. They're not perfect, but there is plenty of hard evidence that they're far more effective than you give them credit for.

[ChicagoChicago]

1) The CTA can't, on its own, fix the pension problems. At the very least, the city, the state and the employee unions would have to be involved.
2) While the CTA isn't stellar in its transparency, it makes a lot of the information you seek public via reports on a frequent basis.

The way you put it, the CTA would have to solve an intractable problem and be perfectly transparent (according to who?) before they would get the money they need to operate. Can you explain how, exactly, this would help the situation?

Seems to me that allowing service cuts to happen is bad policy no matter how much other reform is necessary. And I know that throwing more money at a sinking ship isn't good policy either. But as has been shown previously in this very thread, the CTA gets more done for less money than almost any big city transportation system in the country.

None of this is to detract from the very serious pension and transparency issues with the CTA. However, just because those items are high on your priority list is no reason to let the system crumble until your demands are met. That type of attitude is simply unproductive.

Fair enough on the pension issues. Let it be a state issue. Then the CTA should call out the state.

See to me, I think the first step is transparency. It's a taxpayer funded agency, it should have open records for us to see. I'm amazed that there isn't more outcry for it. And having an inspector general audit the books is great, it should be done in addition to having the books be public record.

I suppose I'm just a little old fashioned though. You call it unproductive, I call it prudence.

[Taft]

Fair enough on the pension issues. Let it be a state issue. Then the CTA should call out the state.

See to me, I think the first step is transparency. It's a taxpayer funded agency, it should have open records for us to see. I'm amazed that there isn't more outcry for it. And having an inspector general audit the books is great, it should be done in addition to having the books be public record.

I suppose I'm just a little old fashioned though. You call it unproductive, I call it prudence.

Fair enough.

This issue of transparency does come up a lot, so I'd be interested to know how the CTA performs compared to other transportation agencies or municipal agencies in general. For reference, here is the information the CTA makes available:

The CTA posts ridership updates monthly at this location:
http://www.transitchicago.com/news_initiatives/ridershipreports.aspx

The CTA posts reports from its board presentations every month. These reports contain high level summaries of financial information as well as a variety of analysis of that data. Find these reports, among others, on this page:
http://m.www.transitchicago.com/about/transit_board_meetings/boardpresentations.aspx

The CTA posts performance data (answering whether they are safe, on-time, clean, etc.) here:
http://m.www.transitchicago.com/news_initiatives/performance_metrics.aspx

One thing I can't find is their detailed yearly budget document. I know I've referenced it before, but its location eludes me.

Anyway, if anyone can shed a bit of light as to how this material (and the fact that they have a FOI officer on staff) compares to other agencies both in and out of Chicago, I'd love to hear about it. While the "lack of transparency" claim gets thrown out there a lot, the CTA doesn't seem either particularly transparent or secretive to me.

[Attrill]

Fair enough.

This issue of transparency does come up a lot, so I'd be interested to know how the CTA performs compared to other transportation agencies or municipal agencies in general. For reference, here is the information the CTA makes available:


This page (http://www.transitchicago.com/business/financebudget.aspx) also has a lot of good financial information:

http://www.transitchicago.com/business/financebudget.aspx

I agree that transparency is VERY important. The recent Flores/Waugespack TIF transparency legislation is one of the best things to happen in Chicago in a long time.

For the past few years I think the CTA has been pretty good about transparency.

[the urban politician]

^I am planning on going tonight, and will provide details later.

^ Shawn, did you happen to make it to that meeting?

[Taft]

This page (http://www.transitchicago.com/business/financebudget.aspx) also has a lot of good financial information:

http://www.transitchicago.com/business/financebudget.aspx

I agree that transparency is VERY important. The recent Flores/Waugespack TIF transparency legislation is one of the best things to happen in Chicago in a long time.

For the past few years I think the CTA has been pretty good about transparency.

Nice...thanks for the link.

[VivaLFuego]

http://www.auditor.illinois.gov/Audit-Reports/Performance-Audits.asp

[arenn]

How about some basic information:

- The CTA does not control any material funding lever except fares, which are already high and for which it takes a lot of grief if it raises them.

- Transit is a more or less fixed cost system to operate, but we fund it with variable revenue streams (sales/stamp taxes). That's a recipe for problems unless there is a major reserve fund maintained.

- The RTA funding formula overweights suburban services on a per rider basis. The CTA carries 80% of total regional transit ridership.

- The CTA has long been historically underfunded for capital needs

- The CTA did do something about pensions when it issued a billio+ dollar bond to top of its pension fund. The payments on this escalate significantly in the next couple years, which is going to produce more funding crises. By law the CTA cannot do anything about accrued benefits.

- Let's give the CTA some credit for operational improvements that have been made starting with Ron Huberman. It was a major step up.

[Mr Downtown]

^And the state constitution forbids changes to pension benefits already promised. It would take both legislative action and a statewide popular vote to change that, and you can bet the teachers' unions and ASFCME would be intense in their opposition.

[ardecila]

Am I the only one who thinks that pension issues are way too trivial to be in our constitution? It should be a statutory matter.

[VivaLFuego]

Am I the only one who thinks that pension issues are way too trivial to be in our constitution? It should be a statutory matter.

Pensions are huge sums of money - in terms of both employee and employer (taxpayer) contributions. Further, there is a strong propensity for elected officials to avoid making the necessary (e.g. agreed upon by contract) contributions to pension funds each year, to whatever extent they are allowed by law. In recent years, workarounds to avoid making such contributions have consisted of various combinations of (a) pension obligation bonds, borrowing against future tax revenues with interest to make a one time deposit into a pension fund, thereby necessitating either a tax increase or spending cuts from other areas in the future [hopefully after the next election, right?] and (b) playing actuarial games to come to an improperly low contribution amount, both on the employee and employer side. (a) as stated basically just defers actually dealing with a structural revenue/expenditure imbalance to the future with interest, while (b) is largely responsible for why the funded ratio of pensions (assets:liabilities) have a tendency to always go downwards.

If anything, as long as defined benefit pension plans exist for public employees, the constitutional protections against messing with them should be even stronger than they are today to avoid situations like the present. It should be noted that while pension benefits are constitutionally protected from being reduced, there isn't such protection regarding employee/employer contributions, so there is still a lever by which the problem could be tackled (i.e. if employees want a certain level of benefits then a commensurate percentage of their overall compensation should go to pay for it), but as it is there are too many avenues by which elected officials can promise that nobody loses in the short run, so that's exactly what they do.

Another solution would be to phase out defined benefit, and use the portion of overall compensation currently going to employer pension contributions to fund a defined contribution plan, i.e. increase public employee base wages and use the remainder as the employer match for 401k or other voluntary retirement contributions. The problem here is that it would remove a very, very, very large source of money/power for elected officials and union leaders: the billions of pension fund dollars controlled by public pension boards (see Vanecko, Robert)

[Taft]

Am I the only one who thinks that pension issues are way too trivial to be in our constitution? It should be a statutory matter.

I think you are dead right. I don't know the history of how that particular bit got into the constitution, but I bet it was due to union lobbying.

[ardecila]

If anything, as long as defined benefit pension plans exist for public employees, the constitutional protections against messing with them should be even stronger than they are today to avoid situations like the present.

I understand the problem, but it seems that the strict and inflexible nature of the Illinois constitution prevents the pension system from adapting to changing circumstances. Honestly, what are the political chances of a con-con anytime soon? Voters can be convinced so easily to vote against it.

On the other hand, the alternative involves making the pension system something that is completely under the control of Illinois lawmakers, i.e. the Guinness Book record holder for 'largest collective group of stupid'.

It seems like politicians are screwing public employees over either way, since they have figured out how to game the current system. At least with statutory-level organization of pension, the system can improve if some decent lawmakers are ever elected.

Then again, I myself admitted the unlikelihood of a con-con anytime soon, but if there ever IS one, this problem should be tackled.

[Mr Downtown]

^This clause is why the teachers union pulled out all the stops last year lobbying against a con-con.

[ardecila]

Oh boy... don't get me started on the teachers' union.

[nomarandlee]

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/06/metra-breaks-ground-on-station-near-sox-park.html

Metra breaks ground on station near Sox park
June 29, 2009 3:49 PM | 26 Comments

More than a year behind schedule, Metra broke ground today on a new station at 35th Street on the Rock Island District Line to serve White Sox fans and college students while giving neighborhood residents another mass-transit option.

The station, at 35th and Federal Streets, is expected to open in the fall of 2010, at least a full year later than what Metra officials said when they announced the project in 2008................
..

[BVictor1]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/30/plan-calls-for-midwest-hi_n_223500.html

Plan Calls For Midwest High Speed Rail Running At 220 MPH

First Posted: 06-30-09 06:29 PM | Updated: 06-30-09 06:59 PM


CHICAGO (AP) -- When it comes to trains, there's fast and then there's really, really fast.

Advocates on Tuesday unveiled an $11.5 billion plan for a Chicago-St. Louis high-speed line that could cut travel times to two hours from the current five. If built, it would be among the fastest U.S. lines and would rival high-tech systems already in place in Europe and Asia.

Under the proposal, electric-powered trains would zoom the nearly 300 miles between Chicago and St. Louis at up to 220 mph - more than 100 mph faster than diesel-powered trains under a comparatively modest plan already advocated by eight Midwestern governors.

The newer plan is generating excitement among rail enthusiasts, some of whom pooh-pooh the gubernatorial proposal - which envisions trains that reach top speeds of 110 mph - as too conservative.

Tuesday's proposal - the focus of a study released by the non-profit Midwest High Speed Rail Association - would require upgrading tracks and bridges as well as electrifying the line. The estimated price tag doesn't include costs of new trains or maintenance.

With backing from Illinois officials, the ambitious project could be done in time for the 2016 Summer Olympics, which Chicago is bidding to host, said Rick Harnish, the association's executive director. A deadline seven years away, he said, is ambitious but doable.

"You sometimes need an audacious goal," he said. "We also need to catch up to the rest of the world."

The proposal for a 220-mph service is intended to complement, not replace, the governors' plan, Harnish said. The 110 mph trains would serve more communities and make more stops en route, something Harnish and his Chicago-based group supports.

Pluses of the newly proposed electric-train line would include helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Harnish said.

Backers want Illinois to apply for $10 million in federal stimulus funds for further analysis they hope could lead to a detailed plan. Harnish conceded money to foot the total bill of the project may have to come from new taxes or fees.

"But I think the public will accept a new funding stream if it includes paying for new ways of travel," he said.

Skeptics question whether any benefits would justify the cost.

"This is a classic case of a nice idea - but one where the government will end up misallocating dollars," said John Tillman, head of the conservative Illinois Policy Institute. "This would be subsidized travel when there are already ways to get to and from St. Louis and Chicago."

The $11.5 billion would be better spent, he said, on buying 1 million fuel-efficient cars. He also questioned whether electric trains would be more environmentally friendly given that they would likely rely on energy generated by coal-burning plants.

The estimated $10 billion proposal backed by the Midwest governors would join 12 metropolitan areas, including Chicago and St. Louis, in a network with Chicago as its hub. Upgrading existing tracks would enable trains to travel up to 110 mph, according to the plan.

Currently, the top speed of trains running between Chicago and St. Louis, Bloomington and Springfield is just under 80 mph.

The Midwest governors' plan and a California proposal are front runners in the race for $8 billion in federal stimulus cash set aside for high-speed rail. California wants to build 800 miles of high-speed track connecting the San Francisco-San Jose area with Los Angeles and Anaheim.

The only rail service that currently qualifies as high-speed - that is, where trains travel at more than 90 mph - is Amtrak's Acela Express connecting Boston to Washington, D.C.

[OhioGuy]

The CTA needs to explain delays better. I was at the Grand red line stop last night and was stuck waiting for a northbound train 21 minutes. In that same time frame, 4 southbound trains passed through the station. And in fact, there were a fair amount of people already on the platform when I got there, meaning my 21 minute wait wasn't as long as some people were stuck waiting. I would say there was at the very least a 25 minute gap between trains. I used my cell phone to check the CTA's website for any possible rail alerts, but nothing was posted. And I didn't hear the CTA make any announcements on the reason for the incredibly long gap. It's just not good customer service to provide little to no information on delays.