[arenn]

Grand is under reconstruction, so the public address system might be non-functional.

[ardecila]

Can someone answer a question for me? I routinely ride CTA buses, but almost always in the downtown area or crosstown buses, say, the 78 or X80. I pay a $2 fare on these buses.

However, I've heard reports from several people that the buses running up the North Side, say, the 22 or 156 - cost $2.25. This goes against all posted signage.

I understand that a round-trip with transfer would be $2.25, but these are one-way fares.

Are some buses more expensive than others?

[jc5680]

Can someone answer a question for me? I routinely ride CTA buses, but almost always in the downtown area or crosstown buses, say, the 78 or X80. I pay a $2 fare on these buses.

However, I've heard reports from several people that the buses running up the North Side, say, the 22 or 156 - cost $2.25. This goes against all posted signage.

I understand that a round-trip with transfer would be $2.25, but these are one-way fares.

Are some buses more expensive than others?

depends on if you pay with cash or farecard, but cash fare for all busses is $2.25. Farecard is only $2. Ride prices went up a few months back.

http://www.transitchicago.com/fareoverview.aspx

[ardecila]

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Essentially, the additional $.25 is a "cash handling fee". That's irritating.

[emathias]

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Essentially, the additional $.25 is a "cash handling fee". That's irritating.

It's not a "cash handling fee" since you can put cash into the ticket machines available at CTA stations and select other places.

It's a "cash paid on the bus slows boarding, let's encourage people to use passes" fee. Also, you can't buy a transfer on a bus when paying cash.

[Mr Downtown]

What I think is wrong is that it punishes poor people, people who don't have the money to buy monthly passes, don't have credit cards to link ChicagoCardPlus to, and don't have retail outlets or rail stations in their neighborhoods where they can purchase or reload regular ChicagoCards. So the poor dollar store worker or disability recipient ends up paying $4.50 cash money for a crosstown bus ride that involves a transfer.

It's a fare policy thought up by young rapid-transit-riding North Side MBAs who said "it works fine in European cities where there's a tobacconist every 300 meters." They have no inkling of what it's like to live in neighborhoods where a supermarket is a mirage, and cannot imagine folks so poor that they buy cigarettes one at a time.

[VivaLFuego]

What I think is wrong is that it punishes poor people, people who don't have the money to buy monthly passes, don't have credit cards to link ChicagoCardPlus to, and don't have retail outlets or rail stations in their neighborhoods where they can purchase or reload regular ChicagoCards. So the poor dollar store worker or disability recipient ends up paying $4.50 cash money for a crosstown bus ride that involves a transfer.

It's a fare policy thought up by young rapid-transit-riding North Side MBAs who said "it works fine in European cities where there's a tobacconist every 300 meters." They have no inkling of what it's like to live in neighborhoods where a supermarket is a mirage, and cannot imagine folks so poor that they buy cigarettes one at a time.

I don't think it's as obvious as you make it seem - if cash fares are lower than the magnetic/smart card fares, then the latter options, which are more cost efficient for CTA to operate, become even less attractive for any rider regardless of income, thereby requiring an increase to the cash fare sooner than otherwise because no savings were realized in cash-handling from bus fareboxes. It's a pick-your-poison dilemma; CTA seemed to generally try to ease that burden by making transit cards available at all grocery stores and currency exchanges, the latter of which are quite common in poor areas and many of which are also equipped with the scanners. From CTA's website;
http://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/fare_information/chicago_card_sales_outlets.pdf
http://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/fare_information/transit_card_sales_outlets.pdf

I'm reasonably confident that you could geocode those addresses, plug them into GIS, and find that most Chicago residents (rich/poor alike) aren't too far away from a place to buy a transit card.

Besides, your latter comment ignores the fact that the most recent fare increase placed the greatest percentage fare increase upon Chicago Card users of the rail system (probably the wealthiest segment of CTA users), whose effective fare increased from $1.82 to $2.25 (+24%) due to no longer receiving the 10% reload bonus. Meanwhile the 7-day pass, generally the lowest income ridership group, increased only from $20 to $23 (+15%). There was clearly an intent of some 'progressiveness' in the fare changes.

[Mr Downtown]

What I thought was most problematic was eliminating any transfer option if you pay with cash. That's a real blow to someone who starts and ends his trip far from a rail station.

[VivaLFuego]

^ Agreed. The elimination of cash transfers altogether was ostensibly a cost saving measure, but I've never see any actual numbers that highlight the various forces involved - I'm sure there were some shifts among fare media after the change, and if anything probably gave an additional boost to usage of the 1-day and 7-day passes. I'm not sure why it wasn't considered viable to simply up the cash transfer fee to $0.50 or something, though.

[Zerton]

This is good for me and sox fans. :D

Work begins on Metra 35th St. station

June 29, 2009
BY GUY TRIDGELL Staff writer
Metra officially broke ground this morning on a new station to serve U.S. Cellular Field and the Illinois Institute of Technology.
The $11.7 million stop on the Rock Island District Line will take about a year to complete.
The project at 35th and Federal streets will be built with $6.8 million in federal economic stimulus money. U.S. Bobby Rush (D-1st) of Chicago also secured a $4.9 million grant.
"We are happy to offer our riders this new station," Metra executive director Phil Pagano said in a statement. "We think it will fill a big need for commuters, area students, workers and residents of the growing Bridgeport and Bronzeville neighborhoods."
The station was named after deceased state Rep. Louvana "Lou" Jones (D-Chicago) during a ceremony on the IIT campus.
Guy Tridgell can be reached at gtridgell@southtownstar.com or (708)633-5970.

http://www.southtownstar.com/news/1643992,metra-cellular-field-0629.article

[Zerton]

More detailed

Finally, a Metra station for the Cell
June 30, 2009
By Guy Tridgell
One of the great injustices for fans of baseball, higher education and common sense was remedied Monday.

Metra finally broke ground on a new commuter station at 35th and Federal streets, three blocks east of U.S. Cellular Field.

The stop, already a year behind schedule, will open next fall on the Illinois Institute of Technology's campus.

Soon White Sox fans in the suburbs can make the choice of spending a few dollars to take a train to the game or applying for a home equity loan to park in the gold mine that is stadium parking. (Whether the Pace shuttle service between the park and suburbs sticks around remains to be seen.)

And IIT faculty and students who live in the south suburbs no longer have to brave the Dan Ryan Expressway every day.

But the biggest benefit to the new stop might be an end to the head scratching over why a station was never built in the area around the park in the first place.

The lack of Metra service next to the Cell made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Two sets of Metra tracks, the Rock Island District and SouthWest Service lines, flow on the west and east sides of the park.

Tens of thousands of riders roll past the stadium each day, but not one can stop and get off the train.

For the longest time, Metra didn't care.

The commuter railroad and its former chairman, Jeff Ladd, viewed the South Side and south suburbs as an outpost somewhere near Carbondale.

"Why would anyone want to live or work there," seemed to be the line of reasoning.

The Sox were completely disinterested in helping the people that keep their turnstiles spinning, making sure that "fan," "friendly" and "White Sox" should never appear together in the same sentence together. (The team's absence at the dais for Monday's station dedication did not go unnoticed.)

The folks at IIT, who were offering the land to build the station, were left to stew.

Visitors to the Cell simmered in traffic.

But all of that is history now.

About 200 people attended a morning ceremony for the future 35th Street station along the Rock Island District Line, a Joliet-to-Chicago route that serves New Lenox, Mokena, Tinley Park, Oak Forest, Midlothian, Blue Island and Chicago's Beverly and Morgan Park communities.

In a sign of how times have changed, Metra is starting to talk about tweaking its schedule to accommodate game times.

"This is a lovefest," IIT president John Anderson said. "It should remain that way."

Like other modern stations with heated platforms and specialized ramps to assist riders with disabilities, the 35th Street stop comes with a big price tag. Construction is estimated at $11.7 million.

U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-1st), of Chicago, secured a $4.9 million grant in 2005 to get the planning process rolling.

The rest of the money came from another South Sider. Metra landed $6.8 million through President Barack Obama's economic stimulus package to pay for the rest of the project.

The station will be named after Lovana "Lou" Jones, a deceased state representative who represented the Bronzeville community for 20 years in Springfield. Jones was a close friend of the Rush family.

While it would have been nice to give the riders that will use the station some input into the name, we'll take the station.

It's about time.
Guy Tridgell can be reached at gtridgell@southtownstar.com or (708) 633-5970
http://www.southtownstar.com/news/tridgell/1644694,063009tridgell.article

[lawfin]

South Side hopes Olympics bring a CTA 'Gold Line'
South Side group says CTA-Metra line would benefit underserved area and 2016 venues

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-cta-gold-line-07-jul07,0,7670117.story

By Richard Wronski | Tribune reporter
July 7, 2009

Transit riders already have a choice of Red, Green, Blue, Brown, Orange, Yellow, Pink and Purple Lines, but a coalition of South Side activists also would like commuters to go for the Gold.

Underserved by rapid transit, residents there would benefit from a proposed "Gold Line," an innovative hybrid of both Metra and the CTA, according to Southsiders Organized for Unity and Liberation, or SOUL.

With the city bidding for the 2016 Games, the line also would serve key Olympic venues, say SOUL members, who represent more than 20 churches and community organizations.

"The project would help support the needs of thousands of people on the South Side," said Dhyia Thompson, co-chair of the group's Gold Line Task Force.

Related links

*
CTA shows off the first of 58 new accordion-style hybrid buses

Although the Olympics served as inspiration, the real goal is better access to jobs -- especially Downtown and in the suburbs -- as well as improved transportation options, supporters say. Parts of the South Side, particularly neighborhoods close to the lakefront and south of Jackson Park, are among the city's most densely populated and the most in need of additional rapid transit, SOUL believes.

Under the group's Gold Line plan, more frequent trains would be provided on the Metra Electric District Line. The plan also calls for allowing transfers between Metra trains and CTA buses and adding a new station at 35th Street.

The proposal faces a number of obstacles. These include securing funding, overcoming a historic lack of cooperation between Metra and the CTA, even proving that the line is needed.

SOUL estimates that implementing the Gold Line would cost $159 million. This would pay for adding 26 Electric District Highliner cars for $91 million as well as for new tracks, station upgrades and fare equipment.

But funding for big-ticket mass transit projects is already scarce to non-existent, experts say. The Regional Transportation Authority has lobbied vigorously for a $10 billion, five-year capital plan to maintain and expand transit systems, but the legislature this spring came up with only a "status quo" $2.7 billion capital package.

But the bulk of the money for the Gold Line or any major capital project would have to come from the federal government.

Metra and the CTA already have projects in the planning stages that those agencies say would help the underserved Southeast Side and south suburbs and would bolster public transportation to the Olympic venues. One project, Metra's proposed SouthEast Service Line, would extend commuter rail service through the city on existing Union Pacific/CSX railroad tracks to 20 suburbs in south Cook and Will Counties. A preliminary estimate puts the line's cost at over $524 million, but the figure is likely to be much higher.

Meanwhile, the CTA is looking at an extension of the Red Line that would connect the current terminus at 95th Street with 130th Street. Estimates for that project range from $210 million to $1.1 billion, depending on the specific route.

Gold Line supporters say a key component of their plan calls for permitting commuters to transfer between Metra and the CTA.

"If you take both Metra and the CTA to work, the problem is there's no transferability," Thompson said.

While the two agencies operate independently, the RTA has been working to implement a universal fare card which it hopes to start testing next year.

The Gold Line is similar to a Gray Line proposal, which transit advocate Mike Payne created and has promoted for several years. The concept received little traction at the CTA and Metra. The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning has included it on a list of long-range projects, but The Gray Line plan isn't considered a high priority, a spokesman said.

[Mr Roboto]

^This seems relatively simple and easy to implement, and i think it would get a lot of riders from south shore, hyde park etc. What is the major malfunction here?

And they really need to make transferability between the two systems much more seamless, this would be a good place to make that work.

[cyked3]

I realize that one of the most obvious advantages to the Gold Line proposal is its incredibly low cost, but I wonder if a more ambitious proposal that would connect the Gold Line to Union Station/Olgivie Station through River North would pay dividends in terms of political support from a more diverse set of constituencies.

I think it makes sense to integrate the Gold Line with the proposed Carroll Avenue transit line.

http://www.rivernorthresidents.com/misc/Transitway%20map%20color2.pdf

The Carroll Avenue transit line proposal links Union/Olgivie with Streeterville and it would be relatively easy to simply connect this line to the Gold Line instead of having the Gold Line terminate at Millennium Park and extending the Carroll Avenue line north. Significantly, like the Gold Line right of way, all of the Carroll Avenue right of way has already been preserved for a transit line. If the Gold Line were continued north and then west to connect with Union/Olgivie, there could be direct transfers made with the Red, Blue, Brown and Green Lines, which is far preferable to leaving the Gold Line totally unconnected to any transfer stations. And there is already a huge demand in the vicinity of Millennium Park, Streeterville and lower River North for connections to Union/Olgivie.

An extended Gold Line would serve a lot of constituencies that the proposed Gold Line would not.

For example, the large office buildings around Aon Center and lower River North use dozens of buses every day at their own expense to carry commuters from Union and Olgivie Stations to their offices. These could all be replaced by an extended Gold Line. Surburbanites coming into the City would have direct access to some of the most important tourist destinations -- Cubs and Sox fans could take a train to Union Station, hop on the an extended Gold Line to quickly connect to the Red Line and on to either ball park. McCormick place and the cultural venues at the Museum Campus would hugely benefit from improved access to Union Station and the other transit lines. McCormick currently relies on a busway to connect the convention center to downtown hotels and conference participants have to rely on cabs to go most other places in the city. Olympic Village residents could quickly and easily get from their homes to anywhere downtown or anywhere else in the City along the Red or Blue lines. Olympic tourists from across the Midwest and from hotels across Chicago could efficiently travel from Union and Olgivie Stations to the most important Olympics venues. And, of course, the benefit to South Siders in Hyde Park, Kenwood, South Shore, etc. would be far greater with connections to other transit lines and the West Loop than it would be with a line only connecting to the Millennium Park area.

I realize that this type of connection would probably require standard CTA vehicles and thus the cost would balloon to a billion dollars but, hey, that's what the Olympics and the Feds are for, right?

[Marcu]

Looking at an RTA map, I really don't see how the areas dense enough to support transit are underserved.. There appears to be good access via Metra Electric, Green Line, and LSD buses. Then again I am not familiar with the area so I don't really know how effectively these three options are. Perhaps a cheaper solution would be to make service more frequent on exisiting infrastructure. Even with federal funds, the CTA would have to pick up operational costs and I'm generally hesitant of supporting any EL expansion until the existing system is shown to be adequately funded over the long-term and functions well.

[emathias]

I realize that one of the most obvious advantages to the Gold Line proposal is its incredibly low cost, but I wonder if a more ambitious proposal that would connect the Gold Line to Union Station/Olgivie Station through River North would pay dividends in terms of political support from a more diverse set of constituencies.

I think it makes sense to integrate the Gold Line with the proposed Carroll Avenue transit line.
...

I think youre sense of geography is a little off, since if the Gold Line went through River North, it would then have to go south to get to Ogilvie and Union.

As long as we're talking pie-in-the-sky, I think a more useful approach would be to keep the present kind of over-head catenary wire rail, but tunnel it north under Streeterville, then north under Clark to Fullerton, then west, eventually connecting to the Bloomingdale ROW and on west to Harlem or so. Cost? Like I said, pie-in-the-sky, probably in the realm of $10 billion. If it were well-connected to the "L" system, it would likely be well-used from the get-go, and if coupled with good zoning and growth near stations, could probably become the heaviest-used line in the city within a decade after completion (assuming the zoning changes were implemented at project start and not project completion).

[schwerve]

Here's the question in my mind re: "gold/grey line" is it cheaper to run more frequent service as with the existing train sets on that line or would it better to just turn that entire section of line into a BRT. You would maintain the rest of the metra electric but turned a part of the trunk and the branch into BRT you could get the types of frequencies desired, connect to the proposed monroe transitway, and carrol avenue/streeterville Navy Pier without the massive capital costs required to connect the train line to the rest of the system.

[Attrill]

The CTA just received the first of the new articulated buses paid for by the stimulus package (http://www.transitchicago.com/news/default.aspx?Month=&Year=&Category=2&ArticleId=2387):

All 58 Buses Scheduled to Arrive by Fall 2009

The Chicago Transit Authority today announced the arrival of the first articulated hybrid bus purchased with federal stimulus funds. All 58 of the buses in the order are scheduled to arrive by fall.

"The arrival of these buses is another example of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act at work for CTA riders," said CTA President Richard L. Rodriguez. "Without these funds CTA would not have been able to purchase these much-needed buses. With our budget constraints and nearly $7 billion in unfunded capital projects, it is a challenge to upgrade the system while still being fiscally prudent."

With this new bus, the CTA now has 151 articulated hybrid buses in its fleet. Once all 208 articulated hybrid buses are in service, the CTA estimates that the hybrid technology will help to save the agency over $7 million annually in parts, labor and fuel.......

[orulz]

Or run it on the SCAL to Union Station or thereabouts. Gosh the SCAL is such a useful right-of-way. It could be used for any one, or perhaps a combination of the following transit-related purposes:

-South/eastward extension of the Clinton Subway
-South/eastward extension of the Carrol/Clinton "River Line"
-Potential route for HSR to reach Union Station from the IC lines
-Route for "Gold / Gray" line trains, or even Metra Electric, to reach Union Station and connect with other transit lines

....And the city wants to turn it into a pedestrian/bike path! Seriously. If you're on foot or on a bike, is it really such a terrible inconvenience to use 16th street instead?

[VivaLFuego]

Just because an ROW is there doesn't necessarily mean it makes a good rapid transit candidate. The IC/ME has some issues that make it less than ideal:
- South of the flyunder at Marquette, it is only competitive with the #6, #14, #26, and #X28 for a limited number of origin-destination pairs - generally these buses can more quickly and more directly connect South Shore residents with their downtown destination than the ME can (certainly the 14 and 26 are as quick given their express run up Lakshore from 67th.
- Between 18th and 47th streets, there is minimal population or employment along the route, which makes a rapid transit (either bus or rail) justification very weak.

The case would be stronger if ME trains were already packed to the gills due to high passenger volume in the corridor, but it's just not the case even when ME trains are running very frequently in rush hour.

Sure, you could reduce service on the parallel bus routes in an effort to shift riders to rail but I'm not sure what that would accomplish other than annoying those riders. Start with some sort of fare integration, which may well help ridership on the ME (probably mostly riders currently taking the #6 during rush hour), but not nearly enough to justify an upgrade to rapid transit service unless the population density along the south lakefront literally triples to be in the same realm as the north lakefront. Even if ME trains ran every 20-30 minutes in the off-peak people would still just take the #6 and #14, and those that did switch to the ME due to the increased frequency wouldn't come anywhere near a large enough increase in revenue to justify the added service cost.

[lawfin]

Chicago High Speed Developments

http://www.midwesthsr.org/docs/06_30_09_CHI_STL_Study.pdf

http://www.midwesthsr.org/docs/Chicago_StLouis_HSR_Summary_June_2009.pdf


http://www.midwesthsr.org/docs/Chicago_StLouis_HSR_Study_June_2009.pdf

[Zerton]

^ The last diagram on the last link told me a lot about the expanse of that project.

[Taft]

^ The last diagram on the last link told me a lot about the expanse of that project.

Wow. Glad you pointed that out.

From that doc: $37.5 million per mile, total cost of $11.5 billion. And that's just for one corridor, I think.

Yowza!

[electricron]

Up front costs is why European countries have built HSR only one line at a time. With more countries in Europe, the expanse of HSR seems fairly quick. Never-the-less, they have been at it for 30 years. Additionally, not every HSR line in Europe was built for 200+ mph trains.

[schwerve]

going back the gold/grey line to expand on my previous point. Instead of running more frequent train service, in my mind it would be better to turn part of that right of way into a BRT Trunk line. By utilizing the proposed monroe street transitway and columbus ave (see CAAP) it can more directly integrate the southside into downtown. In addition you can use the existing well traveled bus network an eventual BRT network to feed into the trunk such not just the south chicago branch of the current ME but also the 71st street bus, 55th, etc. Each can be built as BRT and provide direct connections to downtown.

It seems to me this is a cheaper alternative and provides far better service than just running more frequent trains. Opinions?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3604/3701948530_f2a49d5f61.jpg

[Mr Downtown]

^I think it's not really addressing the ridership needs. You have five feeder bus lines that are passing both the Red Line and the Green Line before ever getting to the lakefront busway. Why wouldn't eastbound feeder bus riders simply transfer to the rapid transit lines, as they do now?

On the other hand, you've provided no front-door service in the heavily populated west end of South Shore or Jeffery Manor. The market is for door-to-door service from those areas of the South Side to the Central and West Loop. The Metra Electric ROW is unfortunately just not very well-suited for that.

[schwerve]

^I think it's not really addressing the ridership needs. You have five feeder bus lines that are passing both the Red Line and the Green Line before ever getting to the lakefront busway. Why wouldn't eastbound feeder bus riders simply transfer to the rapid transit lines, as they do now?

I think in general they would, but the sense I get from watching the city is that they would want to make those routes BRT regardless, with that trunk you've added significant options for a rider not to just get downtown but direct access to the entire lakefront. Its a matter of improving and utilizing existing ridership to help pay for capital costs of increased service in the area the gold line is theoretically targetting.

On the other hand, you've provided no front-door service in the heavily populated west end of South Shore or Jeffery Manor. The market is for door-to-door service from those areas of the South Side to the Central and West Loop. The Metra Electric ROW is unfortunately just not very well-suited for that.

I choose those feeder routes off the top of my head as they made some logical sense, you can make them anyones you want really, its fairly modular like that.

[VivaLFuego]

Operationally, you're basically proposing a similar "zoned" or "tiered" express service comparable to what already exists on the north lakefront (the 130s and 140s), wherein multiple routes sharing a high capacity trunk (lakeshore) have different origin and destination points to serve a wide array of trips.

The difference is a lot more people live on the north side - so demand is high enough to justify frequent bus service on the many tiered express bus routes. If the south lakefront doubled or more in population, the case for such a bus network would be much stronger, but it seems like that could still happen with existing infrastructure (Lakeshore Drive) rather than a great deal of construction work on the IC ROW.

On a much more general note and as a general critique of most rapid transit concepts that get tossed around, Chicago's geographic/economic structure, as a generalization is just a much more natural fit for being served by scalable express bus service, commuter rail, and high frequency arterial bus service - rapid transit is certainly viable in various corridors due to concentrated, high-volume, bidirectional trip density (e.g. the North Main portion of the Red Line), and also justified to serve as a 'trunk' for collecting downtown-bound trips from a given region of the city even if running through lower-density areas (the Dan Ryan Red, Orange Line, O'Hare Blue Line... but its a tough sell to justify two collector rapid transit lines on the south side and three on the west side).

[schwerve]

Operationally, you're basically proposing a similar "zoned" or "tiered" express service comparable to what already exists on the north lakefront (the 130s and 140s), wherein multiple routes sharing a high capacity trunk (lakeshore) have different origin and destination points to serve a wide array of trips.

The difference is a lot more people live on the north side - so demand is high enough to justify frequent bus service on the many tiered express bus routes. If the south lakefront doubled or more in population, the case for such a bus network would be much stronger, but it seems like that could still happen with existing infrastructure (Lakeshore Drive) rather than a great deal of construction work on the IC ROW.

I think that's generally true and I think the improved ridership on the southside wouldn't justify the full build out of that system on its own. However, the majority of the major costs on such would theoretically already be built.

the Cental Action Plan already calls for the monroe transitway, lakefront busway to mccormick, and the clinton street busway. Plans already exist and were going to be constructed on a number of feeder routes to be built as BRT. Essentially the cost of such a proposal isn't any more than building the trunk to link the existing proposals, 6 miles of road on an existing ROW, that's it. I'm just using the "gold line" proposal to argue for it.

[lawfin]

^^^^Have their been any studies that attest that people may opt for PT at a greater frequency if the modality is train versus bus.

I for one know many people who think nothing of jumping on the L or the metra but you could not drag them on a bus.


Additionally, do impact studies try to measure the effect of the removal of busses from surface streets. It seems that buses have a tendency to really clog traffic....see Clark Street for one. This problem would not be present with rail.

ALso isn't the on going maintenance and fuel costs of buses substantial higher than trains....I thought I read the ration was in the area of 1.8 : 1

[schwerve]

but its a tough sell to justify two collector rapid transit lines on the south side and three on the west side.

But we do have two collector rapid transit systems on the south side, the red line and south lake shore drive . My argument is basically to consolidate the south east side express bus routes and the south chicago branch of the metra electric into a mostly grade separated bus rapid transit trunk along that stretch of right of way. It would improve reliability, transit times, frequency, traffic, consolidate ridership,and connect those routes more directly into the transit system as a whole for relatively nothing (if you consider Monroe/Clinton Busways and a in-place BRT design as sunk costs post ~2012).

Dan Ryan Red Line: 54,360 Avg Weekday

South Lake Shore Rts 2,6,10,14,26,X28: 37,423 Avg Weekday
ME South Chicago ~10,000 (40,000 for all ME, not sure SC contribution)

[VivaLFuego]

^But the South Lakeshore isn't a collector rapid transit line - it's the trunk portion of zoned express bus system. It sounds like what you're suggesting is to use the street-running portion of the South Chicago branch to create a busway for the #6 to run in and switching to 1/4-mile-to-1/2-mile stop spacing along that portion - which sounds like a good idea to me (more cost efficient to operate/maintain in the long term given demand and density), aside from the major capital investment made to rebuild all those stations recently and the politics involved with such a project (e.g. the short-lived idea to replace the green line with enhanced bus service)
^^^^Have their been any studies that attest that people may opt for PT at a greater frequency if the modality is train versus bus.

I for one know many people who think nothing of jumping on the L or the metra but you could not drag them on a bus.



Rail bias is real - but generally travel time and travel comfort play a higher role in someone's mode choice than rail v. bus. Rail tends to be quicker and more comfortable than bus, but people will take a bus over a train if its faster and/or more comfortable (for example the big spikes on the 146/147 last year while the Red Line was riddled with slow zones and construction).

[Zerton]

I find buses actually more comfortable but they just seem to take a lot longer.

[Mr Downtown]

Also isn't the on going maintenance and fuel costs of buses substantial higher than trains

Other way around:

Operating costs
BUS $60/1000 place miles $3.80/revenue vehicle mile
LIGHT RAIL $96/1000 place miles $9.30/revenue vehicle mile
RAPID RAIL $50/1000 place miles $6.50/revenue vehicle mile
a "place mile" is a passenger place (seated or standing) carried one mile


These statistics on operating costs come from "Characteristics of Urban Transportation Systems," a Federal Transit Administration report from 1992:
I would certainly like to cite more recent statistics, but can't until FTA funds a new study.

[ardecila]

Characteristics of Urban Transit Systems?

Sounds like someone in Bush I's administration was having some fun.

On a more serious note, why is light rail so expensive? The lighter vehicles require far less energy to operate. Is it just that the catenary systems on light rail lines require intensive maintenance?

[Mr Downtown]

^There's catenary, track, substations, ticket machines, and signals to be maintained. The vehicles require more expensive maintenance. They deadhead more than buses.


As for energy usage, here are some numbers from the Transportation Energy Data Book, (http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb28/Edition28_Chapter02.pdf) 28th Edition, U.S. Energy Dept.

BTU of Energy Used per Passenger-Mile of Travel
7605 light rail average all systems
4800 light rail serious urban systems*
4315 transit buses
3700 heavy rail
3514 autos
1853 motorcycles

*estimated from Figure 2.2 after excluding North Little Rock, Memphis, Kenosha, and Galveston tourist lines.

The transit bus numbers are for all lines and systems nationwide; Chicago's heavily used system would have lower energy use per passenger. Conversely, the heavy rail numbers will be dominated by New York and Washington; Chicago's modestly used system will have somewhat higher energy use per passenger.

[OhioGuy]

On Chicago-L.org, it says "overhaul of the Clark/Division station is now planned for 2010." This was as of 2007. Does anyone know if Clark/Division is still scheduled to be updated next year? And if it does begin next year, will it take years & years like Grand?

[k1052]

On Chicago-L.org, it says "overhaul of the Clark/Division station is now planned for 2010." This was as of 2007. Does anyone know if Clark/Division is still scheduled to be updated next year? And if it does begin next year, will it take years & years like Grand?

I believe they've used up most of the money that they were going to spend rehabbing Clark/Division on Grand instead. I think you can expect Clark/Division to retain its crypt like glory for a while longer.

[VivaLFuego]

^There's catenary, track, substations, ticket machines, and signals to be maintained. The vehicles require more expensive maintenance. They deadhead more than buses.


As for energy usage, here are some numbers from the Transportation Energy Data Book, (http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb28/Edition28_Chapter02.pdf) 28th Edition, U.S. Energy Dept.

BTU of Energy Used per Passenger-Mile of Travel
7605 light rail average all systems
4800 light rail serious urban systems*
4315 transit buses
3700 heavy rail
3514 autos
1853 motorcycles

*estimated from Figure 2.2 after excluding North Little Rock, Memphis, Kenosha, and Galveston tourist lines.

The transit bus numbers are for all lines and systems nationwide; Chicago's heavily used system would have lower energy use per passenger. Conversely, the heavy rail numbers will be dominated by New York and Washington; Chicago's modestly used system will have somewhat higher energy use per passenger.

While I think these numbers are important and instructive, I have an issue with measuring transit performance and efficiency with "passenger-miles" as it basically begs the land use question that impacts average trip lengths. Energy usage per trip would be a better measure, I'd argue, and well-utilized transit systems would start to look much better given that (rapid rail and bus) transit trips are shorter than auto trips on average. Cars are indeed more efficient than transit for long trips, but that misses the point of an integrated transportation and land use strategic planning policy. The assumption that a single passenger-mile by car is equivalent to single passenger-mile by transit from the perspective of the rider and society introduces substantial bias to the metric that isn't clearly identified by the inclusion of comparable per-trip metrics.

Put another, more blunt way, passenger-mile stats tend to be the default tool of choice for the various anti-transit advocates, so I think it's necessary to point out these issues whenever they're brought up. Unfortunately, funding in this country tends to be largely apportioned to agencies based on the passenger-miles they provide, rather than trips, which is one component - in addition to local politics of course - of why CTA provides 80% of Chicagoland transit trips but receives around 55% of Chicagoland transit funding, and why CTA and it's short average trip lengths (relative to lower-density 'sunbelt' cities) is under constant budgetary pressure to maintain such high fare recovery ratios in support of a large highly utilized network.

If publicly-supported mass transit exists as a supplement and charity service filling in the gaps of a fixed development pattern and auto-oriented transportation network, then passenger-miles is a fine unit for performance measurement. But if transit is ever to be viewed as an essential public utility in coordinated support of a regional economy, the US will have to move to measuring based on total trips provided.

[VivaLFuego]

^ re: Clark/Division, there's also ongoing talk of building a new entrance at LaSalle/Division as well, which obviously would make it a much more expensive project than otherwise. Not sure of the status. I suspect you won't hear much of anything about it until both (a) Illinois actually enacts a capital plan to match the funds from (b) the next major Federal transportation reauthorization. The vast majority of major CDOT projects are from state and federal capital money, which also explains why Chicago's roads have gotten so bad over the last 2 years as the state money disappeared around 2005 and road maintenance has consisted of pothole patching rather than reconstruction.

[Dr. Taco]

heh...

http://illinoispolicyinstitute.org/news/article.asp?ArticleSource=1151&utm_source=Illinois+Policy+Institute&utm_campaign=9ec2b3352c-July+9,+2009+E-letter&utm_medium=email

[k1052]

^ re: Clark/Division, there's also ongoing talk of building a new entrance at LaSalle/Division as well, which obviously would make it a much more expensive project than otherwise. Not sure of the status. I suspect you won't hear much of anything about it until both (a) Illinois actually enacts a capital plan to match the funds from (b) the next major Federal transportation reauthorization. The vast majority of major CDOT projects are from state and federal capital money, which also explains why Chicago's roads have gotten so bad over the last 2 years as the state money disappeared around 2005 and road maintenance has consisted of pothole patching rather than reconstruction.

I don't see how they can possibly justify the sure to be massive expense for such a limited gain since the station is just one block away.

[emathias]

^ re: Clark/Division, there's also ongoing talk of building a new entrance at LaSalle/Division as well, which obviously would make it a much more expensive project than otherwise. Not sure of the status. I suspect you won't hear much of anything about it until both (a) Illinois actually enacts a capital plan to match the funds from (b) the next major Federal transportation reauthorization. The vast majority of major CDOT projects are from state and federal capital money, which also explains why Chicago's roads have gotten so bad over the last 2 years as the state money disappeared around 2005 and road maintenance has consisted of pothole patching rather than reconstruction.

I'd find it much more useful if they'd plan on a stop at Goethe and Clyborn instead of just an extra exit at Lasalle. It's easily a mile between Clark/Division and North/Clyborn. If you coordinated planning for a stop there with some TOD development, it'd really help extend the Clyborn corridor south to connect Division to North.

[lawfin]

I'd find it much more useful if they'd plan on a stop at Goethe and Clyborn instead of just an extra exit at Lasalle. It's easily a mile between Clark/Division and North/Clyborn. If you coordinated planning for a stop there with some TOD development, it'd really help extend the Clyborn corridor south to connect Division to North.

1.1 miles

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=1617+N+Clybourn+Ave,+Chicago,+IL+60614-5507+(North+%26+Clybourn+Ltd)&daddr=clark+and+division,+chicago&hl=en&geocode=Cek3vuuNHl1KFbWBfwIdC5TG-iF6lNkrIQxJFA%3B&mra=pe&mrcr=0&sll=41.916585,-87.658539&sspn=0.061952,0.110378&ie=UTF8&ll=41.910102,-87.642317&spn=0.01549,0.027595&t=h&z=15


Does anyone know the route the L follows underneath the near north area...

I think your idea at goeth and clybourn might be a good idea....at least conceptually

[VivaLFuego]

Is there any decent precedent for constructing an infill subway station from scratch along a live railroad? I'm sure it's technically possible but it seems like an immense project (e.g. hundreds of millions of dollars fully burdened with design costs and such - think of the costs involved in the Roosevelt Connector project in the early 90s to build a new flying junction to create the current Red Line routing, or of course Block 37 which is just a flat junction). The 'infill' station projects in rail networks nationwide that come to mind tend to be either elevated or at grade, and in best cases exist where the original line was built to allow for it. To my knowledge the only such unused 'hook' for easy(er) expansion or construction in CTA's subway system is the flying junction under Lake and Canal.

[Mr Downtown]

State/Roosevelt was also a "hook" for future expansion: the original tunnel included a center tail track that descended to allow a flying junction for a future Archer subway. That was finally used in the late 80s when the HoDaR connection was built.

As for infill subway stations, there's Lake on the Red Line. :) (A little joke for us oldtimers. For four decades the State Street subway only made three stops along its continuous downtown platform, but in the late 90s CTA decided to add a fourth, closer to the State/Lake walking transfer.)

[ardecila]

Is there any decent precedent for constructing an infill subway station from scratch along a live railroad? I'm sure it's technically possible but it seems like an immense project (e.g. hundreds of millions of dollars fully burdened with design costs and such - think of the costs involved in the Roosevelt Connector project in the early 90s to build a new flying junction to create the current Red Line routing, or of course Block 37 which is just a flat junction). The 'infill' station projects in rail networks nationwide that come to mind tend to be either elevated or at grade, and in best cases exist where the original line was built to allow for it. To my knowledge the only such unused 'hook' for easy(er) expansion or construction in CTA's subway system is the flying junction under Lake and Canal.

Not along a live railroad, but the two underground stations on Metrolink in St. Louis were built into a tunnel not designed for them. From the looks of it, they were a simple cut-and-cover job.

Conceptually, I can think of a few methodologies to build an infill station that wouldn't require a total shutdown of the line. You could probably get away with a total shutdown on Clybourn, fortunately, which would make matters easier.

Also... IF the Clinton Subway is ever built, plans include a station at Division/Larrabee, pretty close to Clybourn/Goethe.

[schwerve]

Is there any decent precedent for constructing an infill subway station from scratch along a live railroad? I'm sure it's technically possible but it seems like an immense project (e.g. hundreds of millions of dollars fully burdened with design costs and such - think of the costs involved in the Roosevelt Connector project in the early 90s to build a new flying junction to create the current Red Line routing, or of course Block 37 which is just a flat junction). The 'infill' station projects in rail networks nationwide that come to mind tend to be either elevated or at grade, and in best cases exist where the original line was built to allow for it. To my knowledge the only such unused 'hook' for easy(er) expansion or construction in CTA's subway system is the flying junction under Lake and Canal.

there was a study completed by BART in 2003 for an underground infill station at 30th & Mission, estimated cost: 450 Million

http://www.bart.gov/about/planning/sanfrancisco.aspx

[lawfin]

there was a study completed by BART in 2003 for an underground infill station at 30th & Mission, estimated cost: 450 Million

http://www.bart.gov/about/planning/sanfrancisco.aspx

^^^^Jeezuz.....I can't believe it is that expensive for one station....wow...

WHy is it so much.....trust me I know nothing about constructing subways or their stations but wouldn't mind learning a bit; if someone is willing to point me toward some good resources

Boy....I cannot get over that cost.


How much is it to build new subway by the mile?

[ardecila]

^^ It's hard to give a per-mile cost because so few subways are built in the US, and because local conditions change costs dramatically. There really are no good standards of comparison from which to make accurate estimates. This is just one reason why contractors often are able to fleece government to some degree in transit projects.

[the urban politician]

Finally!

Quinn to sign $29B public works bill (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=34699)
July 09, 2009
(AP) — Gov. Pat Quinn says he will sign legislation creating a huge public works program to help the Illinois economy.
Quinn plans to sign the bill on Monday.

[schwerve]

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

[ardecila]

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

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

[Marcu]

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

[lawfin]

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

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

Tyranny of the minority

[Busy Bee]

A linear mile of roadway is a linear mile of roadway, in Chicagoland or downstate—and downstate has more linear miles of roadway. It seems pretty simple to me.

[bnk]

:previous:

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


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

[Busy Bee]

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

[lawfin]

All I'm saying is that until Chicagoland becomes a sovereign principality expect (particularly) highway spending to be divided in this way. No use complaining about it, I suppose a congressman or two should be contacted if someone was serious about changing the way its awarded and allocated. All this 'downstate is useless' rhetoric is funny until its time to eat.
I am sure they will still take our green backs....if not there is Iowa, Indiana, Wisconsin ...yadda...yadda

[lawfin]

A linear mile of roadway is a linear mile of roadway, in Chicagoland or downstate—and downstate has more linear miles of roadway. It seems pretty simple to me.

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

[ChicagoChicago]

A linear mile of roadway is a linear mile of roadway, in Chicagoland or downstate—and downstate has more linear miles of roadway. It seems pretty simple to me.

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

[simcityaustin]

A linear mile of roadway is a linear mile of roadway, in Chicagoland or downstate—and downstate has more linear miles of roadway. It seems pretty simple to me.

Wow this is so shortsighted. Think of all the extra costs including safety precaustions, utility relocations, material costs (due to volume/usage rates), etc.. Costs don't rise in a straight line depending on how many miles you're gunna build. There's all kinds of x factors to take into account.

[Busy Bee]

My initial point was regarding routine repaving and reconstruction of roadbed, and was really just an impulsive response to the whole cliched downstate inferiority rhetoric that is so played out already.

[emathias]

My initial point was regarding routine repaving and reconstruction of roadbed, and was really just an impulsive response to the whole cliched downstate inferiority rhetoric that is so played out already.

There are hundreds of miles of roadway downstate that probably don't even have the traffic to justify them being paved. Paving lightly-used roads is one of those overlooked heavy subsidies of the automobile. Lightly-used rural roads do not justify paving except as a convenience to random drivers, at a per-use cost far in excess of public transit per-use subsidies.

[VivaLFuego]

There are hundreds of miles of roadway downstate that probably don't even have the traffic to justify them being paved. Paving lightly-used roads is one of those overlooked heavy subsidies of the automobile. Lightly-used rural roads do not justify paving except as a convenience to random drivers, at a per-use cost far in excess of public transit per-use subsidies.

Just playing devil's advocate, but cross-subsidization within the network can be justifiable for the purposes of maintaining the reach of that network. More specifically, someone can say the same thing about any number of very lightly-used unproductive CTA and Pace routes in the far reaches of their respective bus systems that are nonetheless justified despite their low cost-effectiveness because they "fill out" the network, which is itself an important goal and increases the ability of the network to meet it's public purpose of providing connectivity, access, and so forth.

But yeah, the number of roads so overwhelms the number of transit routes by several orders of magnitude that in practice, I agree with your point, I'm just highlighting that if a transportation network only receives improvements on the absolute highest volume links and everything else is left as is, you basically get... well, something like India, I'd guess, where despite having some specific improvements there is basically no overall functioning network in a meaningful sense.

[emathias]

Just playing devil's advocate, but cross-subsidization within the network can be justifiable for the purposes of maintaining the reach of that network. More specifically, someone can say the same thing about any number of very lightly-used unproductive CTA and Pace routes in the far reaches of their respective bus systems that are nonetheless justified despite their low cost-effectiveness because they "fill out" the network, which is itself an important goal and increases the ability of the network to meet it's public purpose of providing connectivity, access, and so forth.

But yeah, the number of roads so overwhelms the number of transit routes by several orders of magnitude that in practice, I agree with your point, I'm just highlighting that if a transportation network only receives improvements on the absolute highest volume links and everything else is left as is, you basically get... well, something like India, I'd guess, where despite having some specific improvements there is basically no overall functioning network in a meaningful sense.

I see your point, however a gravel road is still a road. Leaving a lightly-used road unpaved only slightly reduces the functionailty, while greatly reducing the cost. Paving a lightly used road is more like converting a low-frequency bus route to light-rail than just having a bus route.

[spyguy]

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%3a4a9e57fb-f407-4872-b486-4237f12ba11e&plckCommentSortOrder=TimeStampAscending&sid=sitelife.chicagobusiness.com

Lots and lots of local winners in Quinn's capital plan
Posted by Greg H. at 7/13/2009 1:37 PM CDT

...Like $300 million in new state funds for Create, the hugely important but slow-moving proposal to reduce freight rail congestion here by building bridges and other traffic-speeding infrastructure. Tens of thousands of jobs in the transit and warehousing businesses could benefit.

Or $110 million to purchase more land for the proposed third airport near Peotone, $600 million for work on new and renovated Chicago Public Schools, $360 million to rebuild Wacker Drive in the West Loop, $125 million for reconstructing a part of the Kennedy Expressway downtown and $196 million for new charter schools.

Not to mention $73 million for a new education building at Northeastern Illinois University, $40 million for a new West Side campus for Chicago State University, $2.7 billion for Chicago Transit Authority and Metra projects and equipment and $400 million in state funds to match up to $2 billion in available federal high-speed rail money.

[ardecila]

I didn't know the CTA was getting capital funding out of this! I wonder what they will choose to spend it on. I guess we'll see in the next few months.

As for CREATE: I think a large bit of that money will go to the grade-separation project at 130th and Torrence, which involves lots of bridges and flyovers.

[lawfin]

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%3a4a9e57fb-f407-4872-b486-4237f12ba11e&plckCommentSortOrder=TimeStampAscending&sid=sitelife.chicagobusiness.com

Lots and lots of local winners in Quinn's capital plan
Posted by Greg H. at 7/13/2009 1:37 PM CDT

...Like $300 million in new state funds for Create, the hugely important but slow-moving proposal to reduce freight rail congestion here by building bridges and other traffic-speeding infrastructure. Tens of thousands of jobs in the transit and warehousing businesses could benefit.

Or $110 million to purchase more land for the proposed third airport near Peotone, $600 million for work on new and renovated Chicago Public Schools, $360 million to rebuild Wacker Drive in the West Loop, $125 million for reconstructing a part of the Kennedy Expressway downtown and $196 million for new charter schools.

Not to mention $73 million for a new education building at Northeastern Illinois University, $40 million for a new West Side campus for Chicago State University, $2.7 billion for Chicago Transit Authority and Metra projects and equipment and $400 million in state funds to match up to $2 billion in available federal high-speed rail money.

Only thing I don't like is Peotone....that is a boondoggle....we should be thinking Gary.....transit alreay in place, infrastructure already there largely....

Peotone will just encourage more and more sprawl.


Gary could help revitalize the south lakefront

[whyhuhwhy]

^

The problem with Gary is that it is landlocked. Peotone could eventually be the size of O'Hare. Either way I doubt the governor of Illinois would pass a bill taking money from Illinois taxpayers and giving it to Indiana taxpayers.

I think the author got the Kennedy Expressway reconstruction incorrect. From what I've read it deals with 190, not downtown. Anyone have any details on what the heck that is? That came out of nowhere.

And what about stuff that is really needed such as the Eisenhower reconstruction? Is that not happening now?

[jcchii]

CTA could use it to balance the budget

[ChicagoChicago]

^

The problem with Gary is that it is landlocked. Peotone could eventually be the size of O'Hare. Either way I doubt the governor of Illinois would pass a bill taking money from Illinois taxpayers and giving it to Indiana taxpayers.

I think the author got the Kennedy Expressway reconstruction incorrect. From what I've read it deals with 190, not downtown. Anyone have any details on what the heck that is? That came out of nowhere.

And what about stuff that is really needed such as the Eisenhower reconstruction? Is that not happening now?Other than a few cosmetic issues, the Kennedy is in great shape. Now the Eisenhower...that is another story. I'd love to see some type of re-engineering of the Ike around Oak Park. What a snafu that is, both ways... And of course the fact that the road is falling apart...

[pottebaum]

$2.7 billion for Chicago Transit Authority and Metra projects and equipment/B]

Isn't that like A LOT of money?

[Busy Bee]

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

[jpIllInoIs]

I know this is not the forum, but $40. mil for CSU to build a west side campus. That is throwing $$$ down the drain. That is an incompetent bunch running that skool.

[ardecila]

Isn't that like A LOT of money?

A lot of it probably goes toward debt service on bonds that are already issued. Essentially, the money is helping to fund stuff CTA's already done.

Part of it (may) go towards the repeatedly-postponed purchase of new railcars for the Blue Line. Some may go toward the HUGE backlog of maintenance, in station renovations, signal upgrades, or slow zone work. Finally, some may be set aside as the local match for CTA's three expansion projects.

Also, remember that Metra is getting some. Since funding levels are determined by passenger-miles, and Metra trips tend to be far longer than CTA trips, Metra will probably get a larger share of the money than is fair. This will probably go towards the UP-NW and UP-W capacity upgrades, which includes the reconstruction of the A-2 interlocking. This should simplify and improve operations at the north end of Union Station and Ogilvie.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I don't mind money going to Metra because Metra doesn't seem to waste as much as CTA and the suburbs are going to need enhanced Metra service as car travel becomes less practical with future increases in the cost of car transit (increased gas prices, increased millage requirements driving up the cost of cars, etc.). Metra has generally had the good effect of generating TOD nodes all along the network.

Isn't that like A LOT of money?

Yeah, isn't that like 10% of the total spending to CTA and Metra alone, that's not bad at all. More than I expected for sure.

[lawfin]

I know this is not the forum, but $40. mil for CSU to build a west side campus. That is throwing $$$ down the drain. That is an incompetent bunch running that skool.
I agree

[lawfin]

^

The problem with Gary is that it is landlocked. Peotone could eventually be the size of O'Hare. Either way I doubt the governor of Illinois would pass a bill taking money from Illinois taxpayers and giving it to Indiana taxpayers.

I think the author got the Kennedy Expressway reconstruction incorrect. From what I've read it deals with 190, not downtown. Anyone have any details on what the heck that is? That came out of nowhere.

And what about stuff that is really needed such as the Eisenhower reconstruction? Is that not happening now?
^^This is part of the problem with our archaic state boundary notions.....I think a Gary Airport would be both cheaper and provide more benefit to the region....

That is how we need to think regionally....thinking as separate states is so 19th century

[VivaLFuego]

Isn't that like A LOT of money?

For a 5-year plan, after 4 years of zero state funding? Assuming this is the matched amount (i.e. the total amount available in state+federal money and not the state-only amount), this is more or less back to status quo, which is close to but still below the amount needed to reach and maintain a "state of good repair" on the CTA transit system, following several dry years (2006-2009) whose capital expenditures were paid for by borrowing against the future with interest since there was no state capital money available.

I mean, yes it's way better than nothing, but this is no quantum leap in transit funding for Illinois - it's more like a return to the Illinois FIRST years of 1999-2005, which indeed saw many important renovation projects.

EDIT: an article this morning suggested that the $2.7 billion is only the state share which would match $2.7 billion in federal money - if true, then this is indeed a very good day for Chicago area transit. I'll hold out before concluding that's the case though, because previous news articles had suggested $1.8 billion for statewide transit and $1.4 billion for Chicago-area transit, which would correspond to a matched amount of around $2.7 billion.

[lawfin]

A lot of it probably goes toward debt service on bonds that are already issued. Essentially, the money is helping to fund stuff CTA's already done.

Part of it (may) go towards the repeatedly-postponed purchase of new railcars for the Blue Line. Some may go toward the HUGE backlog of maintenance, in station renovations, signal upgrades, or slow zone work. Finally, some may be set aside as the local match for CTA's three expansion projects.

Also, remember that Metra is getting some. Since funding levels are determined by passenger-miles, and Metra trips tend to be far longer than CTA trips, Metra will probably get a larger share of the money than is fair. This will probably go towards the UP-NW and UP-W capacity upgrades, which includes the reconstruction of the A-2 interlocking. This should simplify and improve operations at the north end of Union Station and Ogilvie.

One thing I wish Metra would consider is increasing frequency of trains...instead of dropping new lines all the way out to elburn or some such....how about increasing freqnuency to every 1/2 hour on the north line and also increasing frequency on the weekends as well

By the way anyone know which Metra lines have the highest ridership? Link?

[ardecila]

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

$125 million seems like way too much for the relatively simple job of the ramp reconstruction, even with construction constraints. A whole new interchange at Eola Road in Aurora is costing only $50 million. Besides, the money presumably wouldn't be spent until the funding is authorized. The timeline on the ramp reconstruction suggests that funding was available long ago.

whyhuhwhy's explanation, that the appropriation refers to 190 instead, doesn't really make sense either. The plans for that road are extensive and huge-scale, and $125 million wouldn't do much, unless there is a funding match from airlines or ticket taxes.

[lawfin]

Found it -- Metra ridership

Rail Line Weekday Ridership and Service Levels Route Miles Trains Passenger Trips
BNSF Railway - Aurora
(Into Chicago Union Station) 37.5 94 61,300
Union Pacific

North - Kenosha, WI
Northwest - Harvard/McHenry
West - Elburn

(Into Ogilvie Transportation Center) 51.6
63.1
43.6 70
65
59 38,000
41,900
30,200
Electric District - University Park, Blue Island, South Chicago
(Into Millennium Station) 40.6 170 44,000
Heritage Corridor - Joliet
(Into Chicago Union Station) 37.2 6 2,900
Milwaukee District

North - Fox Lake
West - Elgin

(Into Chicago Union Station) 49.5
39.8 60
58 24,400
22,600
North Central Service - Antioch
(Into Chicago Union Station) 52.8 22 5,200
Rock Island District - Joliet, Blue Island
(Into LaSalle Street Station) 46.8 68 36,600
Southwest Service - Manhattan
(Into Chicago Union Station) 40.8 36 10,000Rail Line Weekday Ridership and Service Levels Route Miles Trains Passenger Trips
BNSF Railway - Aurora
(Into Chicago Union Station) 37.5 94 61,300
Union Pacific

North - Kenosha, WI
Northwest - Harvard/McHenry
West - Elburn

(Into Ogilvie Transportation Center) 51.6
63.1
43.6 70
65
59 38,000
41,900
30,200
Electric District - University Park, Blue Island, South Chicago
(Into Millennium Station) 40.6 170 44,000
Heritage Corridor - Joliet
(Into Chicago Union Station) 37.2 6 2,900
Milwaukee District

North - Fox Lake
West - Elgin

(Into Chicago Union Station) 49.5
39.8 60
58 24,400
22,600
North Central Service - Antioch
(Into Chicago Union Station) 52.8 22 5,200
Rock Island District - Joliet, Blue Island
(Into LaSalle Street Station) 46.8 68 36,600
Southwest Service - Manhattan
(Into Chicago Union Station) 40.8 36 10,000



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

[jpIllInoIs]

moved to Chicago O'Hare thread....

[schwerve]

question:

the CTA system currently needs ~7 billion to reach a "state of good repair" does anybody have any idea what the breakdown of that is? (i.e. structural work, track work, station rehab, car replacement, etc)?

[k1052]

question:

the CTA system currently needs ~7 billion to reach a "state of good repair" does anybody have any idea what the breakdown of that is? (i.e. structural work, track work, station rehab, car replacement, etc)?

borrowed from 2007 CTA document:

CTA’s goal to reach a State of Good Repair is not merely to replace equipment and
facilities in-kind, but to replace existing systems, where appropriate, with current,
modern technology. CTA has based its State of Good Repair estimates on the
following industry replacement and rehabilitation standards:
–
Buses should be rehabbed at 6 years and replaced at 12 years.
–
Railcars should be rehabbed at quarter- and mid-life intervals, and replaced at 25 years.
–
Rail stations should be comfortable and secure, and replaced or rehabbed at 40 years.
–
Rail lines should be free of slow zones, and should have reliable signal systems.
–
Maintenance facilities should be replaced at 40 years (or 70 years if rehabbed).
–
Service management systems should be modern and reliable.
•
A State of Good Repair is consistent with current technology and standard business
practices.
•


CTA Capital Needs
Summary of unfunded need
Asset Category
Unfunded Need FY 2006-2010
Bus Fleet
$159,580,200
Bus Turnarounds & Terminals
$40,213,950
Communications
$199,228,637
Data Processing - Information Tech.
$117,954,352
Maintenance and Support Facilities
$661,063,577
Non-revenue Vehicles & Equipment
$151,419,446
Automated Fare Control Systems
$79,180,241
Traction Power & Substations
$381,332,421
Rail Cars Fleet
$666,594,480
Rail Stations & Park -n- Ride
$773,433,586
Safety and Security
$448,920,555
Rail Right of Way - Signals
$727,146,906
Rail Right of Way - Structures
$779,383,912
Rail Right of Way - Track
$637,210,485

[ChicagoChicago]

^^^

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

[Zerton]

I know this is not the forum, but $40. mil for CSU to build a west side campus. That is throwing $$$ down the drain. That is an incompetent bunch running that skool.

"Part of their concerns include a graduation rate of only 16.2% (as of 2007) and a grossly inadequate infrastructure.[2]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_State_University#cite_note-1
:stunned:

[VivaLFuego]

The system would be pretty sweet if every project going into those estimates were funded. A very satisfactory and high-quality transit system could easily be obtained for 50-75% of that amount, but part of the problem is the difficulty US transit agencies have in planning their capital programs given the deterioration of assets and complete unpredictability/unreliability of available funding.

Projects are prone to backlog in years with little funding, and then the overall tab in year of expenditure gets higher, so its generally better to err on the high side anyway - if CTA got 75% of that amount but then got el zilcho for the next 25 years it'd be right back where it started. There's an inherent deficiency in thinking of the problem as "CTA needs $X Billion to reach a state of good repair" because maintaining capital assets is an ongoing cyclical activity, so the solution lies in a consistent funding stream so that "CTA may maintain its state of good repair with $X00 million per year in capital funds" rather than reaching a state of good repair with a one-time infusion then having the entire system crumble at the same time.

On a similar train of thought, boy are some faces gonna be red when two-thirds of CTA's best-and-newest-in-the-nation brand new bus fleet (that Huberman ordered with borrowed money) all get old at exactly the same time. In fairness to Huberman, though, the backlog was created by the lack of adequate capital funding to maintain an appropriate bus replacement cycle through the late-90s and then again in the mid-00s, but I'm highlighting the issue inherent to catching up on the backlog in one fell swoop.

[BTinSF]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124761544642242215.html#mod=todays_us_page_one

[denizen467]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com (Hinz blog - couldn't find direct link)

Good, bad and ugly: Illinois' new capital plan
Posted by Greg H. at 7/15/2009 10:53 AM CDT on Chicago Business

...
total reconstruction of Wacker Drive south of Randolph, now scheduled to begin late next spring, according to the Chicago Department of Transportation.
...

[orulz]

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

[emathias]

I was curious about ADA-compliance and system usage for the CTA.

By my calculations, there are 53 non-ADA-compliant "L" stations and 83 ADA-compliant ones (counting all Brown Line stations as compliant even if they're still under construction).

So 61% are compliant.

But those 61% of stations account for 65% of "L" ridership. Not too bad - at least the busiest stations seem to be getting priority. That percentage is actually slightly higher, since I took annual stats for 2008 and some of those Brown Line number would be skewed last year.

Looking over the stats, the non-ADA Blue Line subway stations and North Main stations would yield the biggest impact for ADA improvements.

[lawfin]

I am going to get slammed for this. I think mandating ADA compliance for all CTA stations or even attempting to make them such is a huge waste of invesment.

People who cannot use a traditional station because of some malady make up a relatively small % of users.....yet the cost is borne by all of us.

I am generally quite liberal; but this seems preposterously unfair

[ardecila]

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

At any rate, lawfin, elevators are not only for the disabled. They make it far easier for people with suitcases, parents with strollers, cyclists, etc to use the CTA system, which is something that would increase the attractiveness of the system greatly for many potential riders.

[emathias]

I am going to get slammed for this. I think mandating ADA compliance for all CTA stations or even attempting to make them such is a huge waste of invesment.

People who cannot use a traditional station because of some malady make up a relatively small % of users.....yet the cost is borne by all of us.

I am generally quite liberal; but this seems preposterously unfair

I don't think anyone's going to slam you for that - many people generally agree with the idea that special service for the disabled, even if the government should subsidize it, shouldn't come off the general transit budget but off of a seperate item.

As ardecila points out, it's not just "the disabled" that take advantage of ADA features, though. One large group that is and will continue to grow larger over the next 50 years is the elderly - ADA features greatly benefit the elderly, and as the population ages that will only increase in importance.

I think most transit agencies are fine with incrementally updating their infrastructure to accomodate ADA standards, but being forced to do it faster than they have money to do it with isn't necessarily in anyone's interest - not even in the interest of the disabled if the excess cost leads to a reduction in overall service.

A link I found to an intresting article. (http://secondavenuesagas.com/2008/08/25/ada-compliant-stations-coming-slowly/)

[Chicago Shawn]

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

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


There are up to 10,000 of these truck movements per 24 hours in our region. Create when fully implemented, will do a lot to improve congestion in the region.

[brian_b]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-high-speed-trains-18-jul18,0,2356087.story

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[whyhuhwhy]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-high-speed-trains-18-jul18,0,2356087.story

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

^

Pardon my french but holy shit that's the best damn news I've heard in a LONG time. The only problem is the actual PLAN is half-assed at 110mph and it won't even start ramping up to that speed until we are north of Glenview! It sounds like Illinois and Chicago are the ones holding this one back without a plan for grade crossing and improvements locally. Wisconsin is clearly on board.

[orulz]

Read some other news articles, and unfortunately the order doesn't include new engines - only the passenger cars. So there will be standard Amtrak Genesis locomotives pulling the trains. Now, the speed doesn't so much concern me at this point - Genesis locomotives are good for up to 125mph - but the aesthetics of the train will suffer.Out of all the trains in the US, only ONE (Acela) actually looks good... :(