[Steely Dan]

Color notwithstanding, I think the Metro Series HK (http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/rail-vehicles/metros/berlin--germany-series-hk?docID=0901260d8000d14e) will hold their own when it comes to design longevity.

those will look FAR more dated in 40 years than a 5000 series.

[VivaLFuego]

Don't forget the issue of climate and operating environment in vehicle design. There's a good reason why Russian, American, and Canadian railcars have a much more... "robust" and utilitarian design aesthetic than the toys that operate in southern Europe, Australia, etc.

When your typical temperature range is a mediterranean 40F-75F (or even 50F-90F such as in subtropical regions) your design constraints are much different than when your temperature range is a midcontinental 0F-100F --- and all that time below 32F also means you're dealing with corrosive salt spray if your ROW is anywhere near a road.

[emathias]

those will look FAR more dated in 40 years than a 5000 series.

I doubt it. In 40 years, the HK will look 40 years old and the 5000 series will look 80 years old - they already look like a 40-year-old design to me. I know there are "reasons" Chicago doesn't have cars you can move between, but honestly they've had the better part of 50 years to work out the complications and I don't see why it can't be done. Even if it added a few minutes per coupling, the safety and comfort factors seem like a no-brainer to me.

Then there's the new LED signage. The LEDs they chose are old tech. Sure simple is sometimes more reliable, but it just looks dated right out of the box. Honestly, I'm so disappointed in the LED signs I'd rather they'd stuck with the old ones which at least had the train color on obvious display and had more style.

Don't forget the issue of climate and operating environment in vehicle design. There's a good reason why Russian, American, and Canadian railcars have a much more... "robust" and utilitarian design aesthetic than the toys that operate in southern Europe, Australia, etc.

When your typical temperature range is a mediterranean 40F-75F (or even 50F-90F such as in subtropical regions) your design constraints are much different than when your temperature range is a midcontinental 0F-100F --- and all that time below 32F also means you're dealing with corrosive salt spray if your ROW is anywhere near a road.

Some of my favorite cars are the Stockholm ones, and while Stockholm doesn't have quite the temperature range Chicago does, it's a lot bigger than a Mediterranean or subtropical range. The cars in Germany or Austria or Moscow or pretty much anywhere in central Europe would certainly have to deal with temperature swings like Chicago, as does Beijing.

[Steely Dan]

I doubt it. In 40 years, the HK will look 40 years old and the 5000 series will look 80 years old - they already look like a 40-year-old design to me.

and that's precisely where we differ.

there's no accounting for taste.

[Miu]

I doubt it. In 40 years, the HK will look 40 years old and the 5000 series will look 80 years old - they already look like a 40-year-old design to me. I know there are "reasons" Chicago doesn't have cars you can move between, but honestly they've had the better part of 50 years to work out the complications and I don't see why it can't be done. Even if it added a few minutes per coupling, the safety and comfort factors seem like a no-brainer to me.

Then there's the new LED signage. The LEDs they chose are old tech. Sure simple is sometimes more reliable, but it just looks dated right out of the box. Honestly, I'm so disappointed in the LED signs I'd rather they'd stuck with the old ones which at least had the train color on obvious display and had more style.



Some of my favorite cars are the Stockholm ones, and while Stockholm doesn't have quite the temperature range Chicago does, it's a lot bigger than a Mediterranean or subtropical range. The cars in Germany or Austria or Moscow or pretty much anywhere in central Europe would certainly have to deal with temperature swings like Chicago, as does Beijing.


Germany for the most part has an oceanic climate, much more similar to Seattle than Chicago. Winters in German cities are milder and a lot less snowy than Chicago.
Central Europe falls into the continental range, but even there the weather is generally more similar to places like Maryland or Virginia rather than the upper Midwest.

You have to travel very far east in Europe to experience temperature swings as in the Midwest. That would include Moscow, which isn't in central Europe by any stretch of the meaning.

[OhioGuy]

CTA puts riders in a N.Y. seat of mind (http://www.suntimes.com/news/8856525-418/cta-puts-riders-ina-ny-seat-of-mind.html)

Ask around, New York-style anything isn’t welcome in Chicago.

Natives will tell you New Yorkers can keep their floppy pizza slices, choke on their kraut-covered hot dogs and keep their pushy fake purse vendors to themselves.

Why would Chicagoans feel differently about New York-style seating on new CTA trains — a wide aisle between two rows of center-facing seats and hand straps for standing riders?

Most CTA train cars include two rows of seats in pairs. The configuration allows riders to spread out by putting an arm on the windowsill, sit at a slight angle to get more leg room, and avoid eye contact by staring at the back of a seat.

“The way this is set up,” Blackmon said, “everyone has to look at each other. It can be kind of intimidating.”

And what if I stand here, I said, grabbing the rubber hand strap directly over his seat, my belly just a few inches from his face.

“Yeah,” Blackmon said, “no personal space. Not good.”

[lawfin]

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/November-2011/Did-the-CTA-and-Metra-Save-Chicago/


Chicago has several mottoes and names, like Horto in Urbs Urbs in Horto, the City that Works, and the Windy City. But more recently the unofficial motto has been "Chicago: We're not Detroit." It's fun to get urbanists and historians talking about why that's the case: why Chicago, though it has lost population over the last decade, has avoided the collapse its midwest/rust belt peers have faced. There are a lot of answers, like the fact that the city's base as a real hub for the products of the Upper Midwest allowed it to transition into a virtual one, laying the groundwork for its financial industry.

[Standpoor]

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/November-2011/Did-the-CTA-and-Metra-Save-Chicago/


Chicago has several mottoes and names, like Horto in Urbs Urbs in Horto, the City that Works, and the Windy City. But more recently the unofficial motto has been "Chicago: We're not Detroit." It's fun to get urbanists and historians talking about why that's the case: why Chicago, though it has lost population over the last decade, has avoided the collapse its midwest/rust belt peers have faced. There are a lot of answers, like the fact that the city's base as a real hub for the products of the Upper Midwest allowed it to transition into a virtual one, laying the groundwork for its financial industry.

But Detroit could have done something similar, leveraged the power of automobile manufacturing to become the center for management, development, and finance for the world wide automobile industry even after manufacturing had declined. And to some degree they have done that. It is not like the auto industry worldwide has collapsed and foreign manufacturers have a strong presence in the Detroit area. What is different, is that there was no agglomeration forces keeping Detroit as the economic center of the region. Today most of the work is spread out over a vast stretch of land hobbled together in different political boundaries, i.e. Toyota in Ann Arbor.

Of course this was true from the very beginning and a natural effect of huge manufacturing plants but even the headquarters and research firms are spread to thin throughout the region. This dilutes the political and economic power of a city/region. One of the most important numbers for strong cities is revenue per area. The higher the ratio, the more businesses will come together and the higher the economies of scale. This is what keeps a city together.

Chicago followed the exact opposite path of Detroit and the reason why the city and region is much stronger than Detroit today. Great Lakes shipping concentrated along the river meaning shippers and financiers needed downtown offices and docks. Eventually railroad shipping over took the boats but maintained the central location theme. Meat packing was concentrated at the stock yards. Regional and local transit catered to this centralization and developed in the spoke pattern we see today. The l, trolleys, buses, street cars, and commuter railroads dumped vast quantities of people in an extremely small area which allowed businesses to make large profits per square footage and build up rather than out.

What this meant over time was that the city of Chicago was much more powerful in its region as compared to Detroit in Southeast Michigan. Just look at the number of people living in Detroit as a percent of those living in the entire region and compare it to Chicago. This suburbanization dilutes the political and economic power of not only the city but the region. The suburbs and the city are linked together and cannot grow without working together. In Chicago's case, the city has used sheer numbers to hold onto power but as the population on the periphery increases and the population in the city declines, there might be a shift of power to the suburbs that could undercut the viability of the entire region.

To this extent, CTA and Metra did save Chicago. Today these transit options allow for huge numbers of workers to come together in a small area and make vast quantities of money. Relying solely on the car means firms have to spend large amounts of money on parking spaces or move towards cheaper land diluting the economies of scale. The resurgence of bike commuting and walking to work also allows for large numbers of commuters in a smaller area and why all forms of transit should be pursued. High speed rail should be pursued not because American's like big and fast things but because it gets large numbers of people to a small area quickly as opposed to airports that need huge quantities of land. That is why putting Detroit's rail station in New Center is a mistake. It should be Downtown.

Of course most people on this board already know this but it feels gratifying to say things sometimes. Democracy demands wisdom.

[emathias]

I noticed at the Chicago Brown Line stop last night that there were a few large piles of new planks - the creosote kind - that will presumably be installed to replace the quickly-failing planks people have been complaining about.

[ardecila]

^ Cool. I thought creosote was prohibited, but apparently it's fine for certain uses.

I still maintain that CTA should be using artificial decking of some kind, but going back to tried-and-true creosote is an improvement. Of course, creosote is only a preservative. You still need a sealant and a fire retardant. Historically CTA has used coal tar sealant, which is gross and awful in hot weather. Hopefully there is a better alternative.

[emathias]

^ Cool. I thought creosote was prohibited, but apparently it's fine for certain uses.

I still maintain that CTA should be using artificial decking of some kind, but going back to tried-and-true creosote is an improvement. Of course, creosote is only a preservative. You still need a sealant and a fire retardant. Historically CTA has used coal tar sealant, which is gross and awful in hot weather. Hopefully there is a better alternative.

hmm, actually tonight I was on the far south end of the platform, and the new planks piled there look like ordinary pressure-treated boards. I have no idea what they're doing with the mix.

[emathias]

Has anyone else noticed that, at least in the Central Area, Chicago seems to be switching from the two-parallel-line style crosswalk that's common in most of the U.S. to the multiple wide lines running perpendicular to pedestrian travel that's common in New York, Toronto and a few other places?

I notice that Boston, Atlanta and Washington also have a style in some places that mixes the two, and Seattle has its own take on crosswalks, too. I didn't realize there was so much variety in the way to mark crosswalks until I started looking at what other cities do. For example, San Francisco is mostly parallel lines, but then they do have some of the perpendicular style, and some of those are done in yellow paint instead of white.

Is there some sort of standards shift that Chicago is joining? Or maybe the film industry said we could stand in for New York more if we had New York-style crosswalks? ;)

[ardecila]

By "perpendicular", I assume you mean zebra-stripe, Abbey Road style?

I really dunno, but my guess is that the zebra-stripe crosswalks are far more visible to drivers, which discourages them from blocking the crosswalk with their vehicles and encourages them to slow down as they approach. As pedestrian traffic has grown in downtown Chicago, so have the conflicts between drivers and pedestrians.

[denizen467]

Or maybe the film industry said we could stand in for New York more if we had New York-style crosswalks? ;)
Good one.

I was entertaining a foreign visitor once who saw two different styles in the same intersection, and asked the obvious question of what the functional difference was. All I could think of was, different reigns, different eras at Streets & San. Though I always do end up also querying the roles of snowfall and snowplow scraping when it comes to trying to explain any street markings.

But that did lead to the discovery of all the crosswalk information your little heart could desire -- at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_crossing -- including this transit-nerd pocket-reference diagram-cum-eye-chart:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Crosswalk_styles_%28en%29.svg/500px-Crosswalk_styles_%28en%29.svg.png

[emathias]

Going by that, it appears we're aligning our crosswalk style with our climate - continental.

...
-- including this transit-nerd pocket-reference diagram-cum-eye-chart:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Crosswalk_styles_%28en%29.svg/500px-Crosswalk_styles_%28en%29.svg.png

[M II A II R II K]

RTA asks transit users: How's the ride?


November 29, 2011

Read More: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-rta-surveys-riders-20111129,0,4273833,full.story

The Regional Transportation Authority wants to know how the public feels about bus and train service, and believes it's worth spending more than $500,000 to find out. In recent weeks, thousands of CTA and Metra riders on selected buses and trains have received brochure-like surveys and emails asking how satisfied they are with their public transportation. The effort marks the first time that Chicago area transit users have been surveyed in a comprehensive, cohesive manner, RTA officials say.

The survey "enables us to receive honest and helpful feedback from our customers to help us improve all facets of our operation," CTA President Forrest Claypool said. In past years, the CTA, Metra and Pace have regularly conducted their own ridership assessments. But those surveys didn't provide a big enough picture of the region as a whole, the RTA says. "Each of the service boards in the past had done (surveys) individually," said RTA division manager Donna Anderson. "We couldn't (compare) those results because they were either done with different scales or time periods, or some of the the questions would be slightly different, so we couldn't just automatically aggregate (them)."

.....




http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2011-11/66380733.jpg

[migueltorres]

Having recently moved to a building right next to an elevated L station on the Green/pink line and finally ditching my car, I can hear the frequent rumblings of the trains passing by. And I can definitely say that the 5000 series cars are SO much quieter that any of the other models. It'll be interesting to walk on any of the loop streets after all train cars used in the loop are 5000s. Wabash will be so much quieter

[MayorOfChicago]

Having recently moved to a building right next to an elevated L station on the Green/pink line and finally ditching my car, I can hear the frequent rumblings of the trains passing by. And I can definitely say that the 5000 series cars are SO much quieter that any of the other models. It'll be interesting to walk on any of the loop streets after all train cars used in the loop are 5000s. Wabash will be so much quieter

I work on the 26th floor overlooking the Pink/Green lines at the corner of Lake and Wacker. I can slightly hear the rumblings of the trains when they go by, and definitely noticed right off the bat when the new ones started. Instead of the jerking and slamming of the trains starting and stopping, you hear that 'hiss' more as they slowly speed up and down. I always think of DC when I hear that whine, since I'm assuming they use alternating current as well.

I do agree though, just walking up and down Lake Street all day, the new trains are quieter. It's funny when one goes by, cause people that walk the street on a daily basis will all look up to see what the new noise is coming from the L tracks.

[Hayward]

RTA asks transit users: How's the ride?



I filled out the survey a couple days ago. It was lengthy but it asked important questions.

[Hayward]

Going by that, it appears we're aligning our crosswalk style with our climate - continental.

In Michigan they sometimes recess the pavement a bit and then stripe within the recess for lane markings and crosswalks. This allows plows to pass over without lifting the paint. I haven't really seen this done anywhere in Chicagoland.

[ardecila]

^^ Creative solution.

Nowhereman posted a link in the General Developments thread that inadvertently showed me something I wasn't aware of. It's well-known that CTA plans to use the UP's alignment through Roseland for the Red Line Extension. However, UP's line is at-grade and has quite a few grade crossings, which pose a problem for station access, as both a major inconvenience and potential safety hazard.

Therefore, the city is exploring the idea of relocating the UP entirely between 87th and 101st Streets. The new alignment would follow the existing CRL/CN lines, which are fully grade-separated and under-capacity, and could be linked together with a new flyover and two track connections. Freeing up the UP corridor would also allow the city to avoid any property takings along the new Red Line route. The city could then build the Red Line more cheaply on the former UP alignment, and potentially re-connect streets to fill in the missing links in the grid.

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/4843/updiagram.jpg

[M II A II R II K]

Three Years Down, 72 More to Go On Chicago Parking Meter Lease by Michelle Stenzel


December 6th, 2011

Read More: http://www.urbanophile.com/2011/12/06/three-years-down-72-more-to-go-on-chicago-parking-meter-lease/

December 4, 2011 marks the three-year anniversary of our city council approving the deal that traded our right to collect revenue on parking meters in exchange for a large-but-not-large-enough lump sum of money. Why are we talking about this parking meter deal on a bike/walk blog? We’ll get to that.

- According to most recent documents posted on the city’s website, as of June 30, 2011, 2.5 years into the deal, we had already spent $879 million of the money we received. It’s true that much of the money was used to pay off big debts the city had incurred in the years prior to 2008, including projects like building Millennium Park. That’s money that we owed, and paid off, and is now off the books. However, it’s disheartening to realize that three-quarters of the money from the lease deal is already spent, with 96% of the lease term still in front of us (72 more years!).

- Most disturbing is that $400 million was specifically earmarked to be a “revenue replacement fund”, the investment earnings on which was to provide a steady stream of approximately $20 million a year to make up for the fact that we’re not earning that money any longer from our parking meters. Unfortunately, in 2010, contrary to the stated plan, $210 million was transferred out of that fund for other uses, so we only had $178 million left, as of June 30, 2011. That’s not going to earn enough to replace our lost parking meter revenue. Again, for the next 72 years.

- But here’s the part that affects us most as pedestrians and bicyclists: Under the lease deal, the city retains ownership of the actual street, the physical land on which people park. However, CPM LLC now has the lawful right to earn parking fees on every single 20-foot stretch of curb that was already a metered parking space on December 4, 2008. So now, if the city planners feel there’s a need to eliminate a metered parking space, they cannot do so unless they create a new comparable space nearby to make up for the lost one, or they need to negotiate with CPM LLC and pay cold, hard cash to make up for CPM LLC’s lost revenue.

First, let’s review some basics:

• Under the lease agreement, Chicago Parking Meters, LLC, paid the city $1,156,500,000 in exchange for the right to keep the revenue earned from Chicago’s parking meters for the following 75 years.

• Chicago Parking Meters, LLC (CPM LLC) was an entity formed for the purpose of the deal. The name makes it sound like a local entity, but in fact it is made up mostly of investors from Morgan Stanley and Abu Dhabi.

• Mayor Daley’s administration had been working on the possible deal for about 18 months but pressured the aldermen to pass the proposed deal within 48 hours of ever bringing it to their attention.

• There was no public input or review process.

• Only two bids were submitted, and the higher bid was quickly accepted.

• Six months later, the city’s Inspector General released a detailed financial analysis of the bids and concluded that even using conservative estimates, we should have received nearly $1 billion more than what was accepted.

• Most of the $1.1565 billion we received from the deal is already spent and gone.

• We have 72 years left to go on the contract.

• It’s grim.

.....

[CTA Gray Line]

^^ Creative solution.

Nowhereman posted a link in the General Developments thread that inadvertently showed me something I wasn't aware of. It's well-known that CTA plans to use the UP's alignment through Roseland for the Red Line Extension. However, UP's line is at-grade and has quite a few grade crossings, which pose a problem for station access, as both a major inconvenience and potential safety hazard.

Therefore, the city is exploring the idea of relocating the UP entirely between 87th and 101st Streets. The new alignment would follow the existing CRL/CN lines, which are fully grade-separated and under-capacity, and could be linked together with a new flyover and two track connections. Freeing up the UP corridor would also allow the city to avoid any property takings along the new Red Line route. The city could then build the Red Line more cheaply on the former UP alignment, and potentially re-connect streets to fill in the missing links in the grid.

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/4843/updiagram.jpg

If the freight railroad operation were eliminated from the equation, the Red Line Extension could be placed in a trench, or cut-and-cover subway (best) - for MUCH less cost than an aerial structure.

[sammyg]

If the freight railroad operation were eliminated from the equation, the Red Line Extension could be placed in a trench, or cut-and-cover subway (best) - for MUCH less cost than an aerial structure.

Freight is worth alot more money, and it employs alot more people in the city than the CTA does.

[Nowhereman1280]

I still don't understand all the fretting about the parking meter deal. It's wonderful to see parking rates downtown on the meters go up up up where they belong. I know it makes me think twice about taking my car downtown and makes taking the Blue Line in, even if I have to transfer to Chicago bus or something, a LOT more appealing. That would never have happened without taking the pricing out of the control of the city where the political reality of "free parking as a constitutional right" reigns.

[Mr Downtown]

the Red Line Extension could be placed in a trench, or cut-and-cover subway (best) - for MUCH less cost than an aerial structure.

Where on earth are you getting your construction cost estimates? Retained cut is twice as expensive as elevated structure, and that's without filling back over it. Actual subway is more than four times as expensive. Any time you go below grade you have utility relocation, soil stabilization, dewatering, and construction of bridges for all the overcrossing streets.

[VivaLFuego]

The 2007 city budget proposal included purchasing the payboxes (around $35m investment) and raising rates itself, but as Nowhereman points out, the aldermen balked. By the 2009 budget, money was so tight that there wasn't even anything to spare to buy the payboxes, and they needed the one time infusion to plug the budget hole.

From a purely financial, it wasn't a terrible price paid (just run the numbers yourself using a reasonable discount rate). The crime was using what should have been $1bn in capital reserve to gain interest and fund construction projects over 75 years to pay ~3 years of operating expenses.

[harveyk400]

For one, a costly railroad relocation adds to the cost of the Red Line.
Proposed UP relocation could make CREATE proposal for Amtrak Grand Crossing re-connection redundant.
Proposed high-speed rail corridor to Saint Louis would need most of the available right of way and the raising of the existing UP overhead bridge south of Kensington to ease the vertical curve in electric power catenary.
The Metra Electric Kensington Junction also needs to be expanded, increasing use of the right of way.

[jpIllInoIs]

For one, a costly railroad relocation adds to the cost of the Red Line.
Proposed UP relocation could make CREATE proposal for Amtrak Grand Crossing re-connection redundant.
Proposed high-speed rail corridor to Saint Louis would need most of the available right of way and the raising of the existing UP overhead bridge south of Kensington to ease the vertical curve in electric power catenary.
The Metra Electric Kensington Junction also needs to be expanded, increasing use of the right of way.

Welcome to the forum Harveyk400. You put alot of random fact statements out there. Care to address them in a little more digestible form?

For Instance: construction of Create P4 is currently unfunded so while the UP relo and alignment with CN-IC is redundant it is not a bad thing in regards to Create P4.

[ardecila]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. You're offering reasons but no main argument.

Anyway... it may in fact be cheaper overall to relocate UP than for CTA to seize all the properties adjacent to UP and create their own ROW. Plus, relocating UP doesn't displace any residents (except for maybe around 95th/Cottage Grove when they build the flyover).

The IC right-of-way is eight tracks wide. It is wide enough to accommodate both passenger and freight demands for the next 100 years. With proper management, four tracks is more than enough for the future high-speed trains, Metra Electric commuter operations, and the South Shore. CN reserved four tracks in that area for freight operations - two tracks for mainline freight and two tracks for storage. With CN shifting more and more of their traffic onto the EJ&E, their sidings and main lines within the city will see much less usage. The storage tracks can become a new UP mainline while the two CN mainline tracks can be saved for super-express and high-speed intercity trains.

[untitledreality]

If the freight railroad operation were eliminated from the equation...
Just stop right there.

Freight built this city and continues to ensure our economic status both now and in the future... and you want to just eliminate a line? For the sake of (supposedly) saving (doubt it) a couple hundred million dollars in construction costs? Care to guess on how much it would cost to buy that ROW (without providing an alternative) off of Union Pacific? Im betting a lot more than whatever possible saving you would have on the Red Line extension... and it would simply add to the freight rail clusterfuck that is the SouthEast side of the city.

Yeah, sounds good.

[CTA Gray Line]

Just stop right there.

Freight built this city and continues to ensure our economic status both now and in the future... and you want to just eliminate a line? For the sake of (supposedly) saving (doubt it) a couple hundred million dollars in construction costs? Care to guess on how much it would cost to buy that ROW (without providing an alternative) off of Union Pacific? Im betting a lot more than whatever possible saving you would have on the Red Line extension... and it would simply add to the freight rail clusterfuck that is the SouthEast side of the city.

Yeah, sounds good.


When I said "freight railroad eliminated from the equation" - I was talking about the UP ROW between I-57 at 99th and the MED ROW at 119th.

I meant that if freight trains were re-routed (as per the image) onto the MED ROW at 95th, they would be "eliminated" from the ROW of the Red Line Extension, instead of having to share it; I did NOT mean getting rid of the freight services altogether, which is how you seem to have interpreted what I said.

And while the Red Line Extension seems to be a done deal (or it will be), I obviously favor the 25 MILE 40 STATION Gray Line Conversion of the in-city Metra Electric District services (from the Downtown Millenium Park Station at Randolph & Michigan - to [93rd & Brandon], [115th & Cottage Grove], [Downtown Blue Island] and [Hegewisch]) at a TOTAL Capital Cost of approx. $200 Million: Grayline.20m.com

That 200 MILLION Dollars is ONE S E V E N T H of the 1.4 B I L L I O N Dollar Total Capital Cost to extend the Red Line only 6 miles with only 4 stations (ALL South of 95th St. - and now add the cost of re-routing the UP freight trains).


btw: I believe these same UP tracks will also be carrying the new Metra SouthEast Service: http://metraconnects.metrarail.com/ses.php http://metraconnects.metrarail.com/pdf/ses_map09012010.pdf

[chicagopcclcar1]

I have just discovered this group and many of your discussions are repeated on CHICAGOTRANSIT@yahoogroups. I am only a member there but you might find additional and interesting discussions there, so here's an invite to come take a look. I have just posted a response from CTA sources about wheel truing and the new AC5000 cars, for instance.

Meanwhile I am enjoying going through your past pages.

David Harrison

[CTA Gray Line]

I have just discovered this group and many of your discussions are repeated on CHICAGOTRANSIT@yahoogroups. I am only a member there but you might find additional and interesting discussions there, so here's an invite to come take a look. I have just posted a response from CTA sources about wheel truing and the new AC5000 cars, for instance.

Meanwhile I am enjoying going through your past pages.

David Harrison


Welcome David, you will be a valuable asset to this forum; here is a link to the CHICAGO TRANSIT forum for all to use: http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/CHICAGOTRANSIT/

[untitledreality]

I obviously favor the 25 MILE 40 STATION Gray Line Conversion of the in-city Metra Electric District services...at a TOTAL Capital Cost of approx. $200 Million

Where does this magical $200mm number come from? At the very minimum this project requires 40 station rehabs, or complete rebuilds. Add to that the changes that would be made to the HighLiner cars (removal of bathrooms, plastic seats, signage), acquisition of HighLiner maintenance facilities/machinery and new staff trained to work on the HighLiners. No way even a fraction of that gets accomplished for $200mm.

[ardecila]

I'll let Mike defend his own idea, but the pricetag seems very realistic. If you assume that every station must be accessible, then the cost would go up substantially. But if you don't, then the Grey Line can be implemented as soon as they re-install the missing turnstiles and purchase new rolling stock to allow for the higher service frequency.

[emathias]

Maybe someone already mentioned it, but the CTA now publishes Open Data on the web (http://www.transitchicago.com/data/). It's a lot of data! Included in the ridership statistics are "L" ridership numbers for over a half-million station-days (a specific day at a specific station).

There are some interesting numbers in that big pile of numbers, for example:

The four busiest station-days are at the Belmont Red/Brown/Purple station for the last Sunday in June for 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. The 2011 day was 15% busier than the 2nd-place day despite the station being closed down for several hours. For those of you who don't know, the last Sunday in June in Chicago's Gay Pride Parade, and Belmont station is the closest "L" station to the middle of the route. Also the biggest Sunday ever for Addison, and biggest-ever days for Sheridan, Wellington and Diversey. Altogether, 2011 Gay Pride Parade resulted in at least 73,000 riders across the stations within 1/2 mile of the Parade route. A typical weekday for those five stations together would be less than half that - around 35,000.

Obama's 2008 Election Day rally in Grant Park is the likely reason Clark-Lake takes the 24th-busiest station-day.

The Stanley Cup rally on June 11, 2010 gave Clark/Lake and Lake/State Loop stations the 5th and 9th-busiest station-days ever.

Not surprisingly, 7 of the busiest 100 station-days are related to Independence Day fireworks (the stats I have only cover 11 years, so 7/11 are in the top 100. 6/11 are in the top 50 and 2 are in the top 10 busiest station-days.

Those were just some ones I could picking pick out with a spreadsheet. I'm sure ever more interesting data could be mined with a little scripting.

[M II A II R II K]

New Connection Between Chicago and Quad Cities


December 13, 2011

By Ellen Cannon

Read More: http://www.examiner.com/homeland-security-in-chicago/massive-innovation-il-transit-new-connection-between-chicag-and-quad-cities

The Quad Cities has long considered passenger rail service connecting it to Chicago a goal that might never happen. Well, it happened yesterday due in no small part to the efforts of Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and U.S. Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood. Secretary LaHood announced that Illinois will receive more than $177 million from the Department of Transportation (IDOT) for a passenger rail project that will operate twice daily providing roundtrip service between the two cities. Intermediate stops along the way will include the towns of Geneseo, Princeton, Mendota, and Plano, Illinois. The expected completion date of the project is 2014.

- Senator Durbin, a member of the Senate Transportation Appropriation Subcommittee considers federal funding of transportation systems and infrastructure a key element to sustained economic investment in Illinois, job creation, and improved public health. Senator Durbin has repeatedly said that,” For every $1 billion spent in transportation infrastructure, it is estimated that 24,000 new jobs are supported.” Illinois has more than 10% unemployment. The expected employment opportunities resulting from this investment are considerable.

- Paul Rumler, executive director of Quad Cities Rail Coalition, is ecstatic. He told Katie Jones of cbs4 Quad Cities News, “We look at this as being able to put the QC on the map not only in the Midwest but globally to be able to attract a qualified work force.” Rumler said, “The straight shot to and from the windy city will bring in jobs, business, and tourists. It is going to improve our transportation options, help with our quality of life and really create some jobs that are much needed in this area to stimulate economic growth. It is something we can all be excited about.”

.....

[Mr Downtown]

The Union Station Master Plan meeting drew a good crowd. No earthshaking ideas (or funded projects). When Canal Street is rebuilt (next few years) it might be done with the east curb lanes for buses, and a taxi dropoff island in the middle of the street (but no access to that island except at the Adams and Jackson crosswalks). The offstreet bus facility south of Jackson was described as "for CTA buses," which probably means no Megabus or private shuttles. "Medium-range" ideas to someday create additional through tracks and to shift some of the south side tracks over a bit, widening passenger platforms enough to allow escalators up to Jackson by eliminating the underused baggage platforms.

Here's a PDF (http://www.unionstationmp.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/CUS-Public-Meeting-Presentation-2011-1212-FINAL.pdf) of the presentation.

[ardecila]

Yea, the same stuff I garnered from the animated GIF they had a few weeks ago.

One new thing is that the city is considering adding new tracks under Canal instead of Clinton. Adding intercity or regional trains under Canal with CTA under Clinton may be cheaper than the crazy 4-level WLTC concept under Clinton. It could greatly simplify junctions and underground clearance issues. Plus, it would divorce the Clinton Street Subway from the expansion of Union Station, allowing them to be funded separately.


If you look closely, both alignments include four tracks. Clinton has them in a stacked arrangement, while Canal has them on the same level.
http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/851/westloop.jpg

[N830MH]

If the freight railroad operation were eliminated from the equation, the Red Line Extension could be placed in a trench, or cut-and-cover subway (best) - for MUCH less cost than an aerial structure.

What about Blue Line? Will they ever more rail service extension?

[jpIllInoIs]

Looks like the Blue Line scored a little money for 3 mile of track and a bike facility..

http://www.rtands.com/newsflash/chicagos-cta-receives-20-million-tiger-grant-4827.html.

[ardecila]

^^ I'm confused. That track is not a slow zone, according to CTA's own maps (http://www.transitchicago.com/news_initiatives/slowzonemaps.aspx). From personal experience, I know there is a southbound slow zone around California. But how can it possibly cost $20 million to replace only 1600' of track?

CTA did rebuild all the track in the Dearborn Subway and between O'Hare and Addison.

[the urban politician]

^^ I'm confused. That track is not a slow zone, according to CTA's own maps (http://www.transitchicago.com/news_initiatives/slowzonemaps.aspx). From personal experience, I know there is a southbound slow zone around California. But how can it possibly cost $20 million to replace only 1600' of track?


^ The report quoted says '3.6 miles' of track.

Also, not all 20 million will go to the blue line. Some is also going to the bike sharing program.

[ardecila]

Yeah, but the slow zone map I linked to (the most recent one at the top) only shows 1600' of slow zones.

[the urban politician]

Yeah, but the slow zone map I linked to (the most recent one at the top) only shows 1600' of slow zones.

^ Maybe they are trying to prevent future slow zones?

[M II A II R II K]

Emanuel, Quinn hope bicycles fill the missing link in mass transit


December 16, 2011

By Jon Hilkevitch

Read More: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-transit-grant-1216-20111216,0,3771067.story

Going from bicycle to train and even to airplane could be a breeze thanks to new funding designed to encourage creative solutions to urban congestion, officials said Thursday. A $20 million federal transportation grant for Chicago that was first announced Monday will allocate $16 million toward repairs on the CTA Blue Line O'Hare branch and $4 million for the city's planned bicycle-sharing project set to start next year, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Gov. Pat Quinn said during an event at the Logan Square Blue Line station, 2620 N. Milwaukee Ave.

The Logan Square neighborhood near the CTA stop is a candidate to get one of 300 bike-sharing stations in 2012, Emanuel said. The city plans to provide 3,000 bikes for short-term use, for free or a modest fee, starting in June, to encourage less driving and more use of mass transit, and to reduce traffic congestion and pollution. The mass transit-bicycling connection encourages bike use before or after using transit, officials said. Users will pick up a bike from a self-service docking station, ride to their destination and drop off the bike at the nearest station.

Officials expect to expand the bike-sharing program to 4,000 bicycles and 400 stations near bus stops and rail stations by 2013. The total cost of the Blue Line and bike projects is estimated at $64.6 million, according to a document provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation. While the CTA and Chicago Department of Transportation are getting a total of $20 million, Chicago's original grant application totaled $50 million — $40 million for the CTA and $10 million for bike-sharing, CDOT spokesman Bill McCaffrey said. Forty-six transportation projects nationwide will get a total of $511 million in this funding round, according to the U.S. Transportation Department. The top single amounts awarded were $20 million apiece to four projects, including Chicago's.

.....




Gov. Pat Quinn, from left, Mayor Rahm Emanuel and U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood gather Thursday at the Logan Square CTA station to announce a $20 million federal grant for Blue Line repairs and a bicycle-sharing program. (José M. Osorio, Chicago Tribune / December 15, 2011)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2011-12/66804248.jpg

[emathias]

^ Maybe they are trying to prevent future slow zones?

Could also be they knew they were going to get it and so already did the work and will just replace the money they used.

But more likely it's that the current condition is such that they can keep it out of slow zone status, but it takes more and more work to do so, so replacing track or whatever it is they're doing provides a more permanent solution.

[ardecila]

Hopefully they can use the recycled-plastic ties and modern tie clips to give the track a longer lifespan than the previous generation of track.

I just have a fundamental issue with CTA using one-time grants to pay for periodic maintenance. What's gonna happen when we get conservatives in Washington (it's guaranteed to happen eventually) and the well dries up? We're still gonna need to find those maintenance funds somewhere.

[M II A II R II K]

Will Rahm Emanuel Show America What BRT Can Do?


December 19, 2011

By Ben Schulman

Read More: http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/12/19/will-rahm-emanuel-show-america-what-brt-can-do/


.....

With Chicago DOT Commissioner Gabe Klein at his side, Emanuel has already implemented the city’s first protected bike lanes as part of a plan to add 100 miles of bike lanes within four years, announced a $1 billion upgrade to the Chicago Transit Authority’s Red Line, and passed a $2 “congestion fee” on downtown parking garages that will go towards the creation of a CTA Green Line stop that serves McCormick Place – the nation’s largest convention center – and a downtown circulator bus route being billed as bus rapid transit.

- He has stated that BRT projects in Chicago will include “dedicated bus lanes, signal preemption, pre-paid boarding or on-board fare verification, multiple entry and exit points on the buses, limited stops, and at-grade boarding.” As it’s proposed now — with off-board fare payment and signal priority — the downtown circulator is a step in this direction. But it has yet to be seen whether Chicago will commit to high-performance BRT that sets a precedent for other American cities.

- From Boston to Kansas City, U.S. cities tend to implement “BRT-lite,” where the actual benefits fall well short of expectations. Most of this disconnect is due to poor marketing by transit agencies trying to drum up excitement for projects that don’t meet true BRT standards. When the projects deliver less than promised, the reputation of BRT as an effective transit solution suffers.

- A gold-standard BRT system in Chicago could serve as the bellwether for the next wave of American BRT. “Chicago looks very promising, and could be a model for other cities,” says ITDP Executive Director Walter Hook. “Rahm Emanuel understands BRT better than any other U.S. municipal leader, according to Enrique Penalosa,” he added, referring to the former mayor of Bogota, Columbia, who built perhaps the world’s most advanced BRT system. The early word from respected voices like Hook and Penalosa bodes well for Chicago’s BRT efforts. And if the city follows through, it will bode well for BRT nationwide.

.....




With Mayor Rahm Emanuel signaling a commitment to high-performance bus rapid transit, the Chicago-based nonprofit Metropolitan Planning Council envisions a 95-mile BRT network that would carry an additional 71,000 daily riders.

http://dc.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/MPC_BRT.jpg

[the urban politician]

Will Rahm Emanuel Show America What BRT Can Do?


December 19, 2011

By Ben Schulman

Read More: http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/12/19/will-rahm-emanuel-show-america-what-brt-can-do/






With Mayor Rahm Emanuel signaling a commitment to high-performance bus rapid transit, the Chicago-based nonprofit Metropolitan Planning Council envisions a 95-mile BRT network that would carry an additional 71,000 daily riders.

http://dc.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/MPC_BRT.jpg

^ I gleamed through the study, and it is very interesting, but I have 2 reservations:

1. I'm not convinced that improving transit will go very far in promoting infill development in many areas of the south side, as mentioned in Chicago's BRT study. Just looking at the fields of grass surrounding south side Green Line L stops pretty much backs up my assumption. I think gangs, violence, and drugs kind of hold most of these areas from redevelopment. Having a fancy BRT route, even one that is well implemented, may certainly improve ridership and connectivity, but I don't see a lot of infill happening until the whole gang/drug thing is solved. That is why I am disappointed to see that so many of the BRT routes are in those areas of the city.

2. Will the city do anything to addess zoning along these BRT routes? If I can still build a strip mall next to a BRT station, then what's the point of all of this investment? I especially am targeting Western Ave, which already has been pockmarked with strip centers, auto dealerships, and large parking lots.

[M II A II R II K]

Laying track down has more of a sense of permanence to it and more likely to attract transit prompted development.

[ardecila]

^ I gleamed through the study, and it is very interesting, but I have 2 reservations:

1. I'm not convinced that improving transit will go very far in promoting infill development in many areas of the south side, as mentioned in Chicago's BRT study. Just looking at the fields of grass surrounding south side Green Line L stops pretty much backs up my assumption. I think gangs, violence, and drugs kind of hold most of these areas from redevelopment. Having a fancy BRT route, even one that is well implemented, may certainly improve ridership and connectivity, but I don't see a lot of infill happening until the whole gang/drug thing is solved. That is why I am disappointed to see that so many of the BRT routes are in those areas of the city.

2. Will the city do anything to addess zoning along these BRT routes? If I can still build a strip mall next to a BRT station, then what's the point of all of this investment? I especially am targeting Western Ave, which already has been pockmarked with strip centers, auto dealerships, and large parking lots.

Look at it from a political perspective. It's best if all demographics are behind Emanuel's transportation agenda. If you look at some of the BRT lines as the political price for support, then it's a pretty low price relative to expensive rail.

Plus, the BRT lines have a regional impact. Imagine the benefits that would accrue from a rapid bus connection between Hyde Park and Midway, for example. The South Side contains 2/3 of the city's land area and many strong neighborhoods. Connecting those isolated areas of strength can only benefit the South Side.

[nomarandlee]

Yea, the same stuff I garnered from the animated GIF they had a few weeks ago.

One new thing is that the city is considering adding new tracks under Canal instead of Clinton. Adding intercity or regional trains under Canal with CTA under Clinton may be cheaper than the crazy 4-level WLTC concept under Clinton. It could greatly simplify junctions and underground clearance issues. Plus, it would divorce the Clinton Street Subway from the expansion of Union Station, allowing them to be funded separately.


Just a few questions on the Union Station redevelopment. Redistributing the lines from the WLTC to go under Canal and Clinto does sound like a much better option to me.

However if the plans to go down the Canal/Clinton route were set forth then would that essentially put the 222 Riverside tear down out of play or would there still be a push to redevelop the 222 Riverside with through tracks? If it was still in play then I'm a bit confused why there would be the need to also put HSR/regional tracks under Canal Street.

[johnnygosox]

Yep Ardecila...... a terrible prospect looms before us when the money actually used by our omniscient government is finally not borrowed and printed. By the way....the "well" is dried up and empty.....the hacks and incompetents in Washington just haven't got the memo yet. Don't worry.....they'll be just fine but I worry a bit about you and me. We need to be more self sufficient in terms of our needs.......city needs that is.

[Mr Downtown]

However if the plans to go down the Canal/Clinton route were set forth then would that essentially put the 222 Riverside tear down out of play or would there still be a push to redevelop the 222 Riverside with through tracks?

I don't know of any connection between the two. The city is interested in a WLTC that was first talked about for Clinton and now for Canal. Meanwhile, a group of railfans with no power to do anything had a rendering prepared of a rebuilt Union Station concourse with no 222.

[ardecila]

I'm envisioning Union Station remaining as the preferred location for intercity and "standard" commuter trains, with the under-Canal tracks reserved for a new class of regional trains running through downtown, like Paris' RER. Such trains would make all local stops out to the 355 ring, while Metra would continue to operate push-pull trains as express service to the outer suburbs.

This is veering into fantasy territory, but later phases of the Chicago RER could connect Millennium, Water Tower, and Clybourn, with the St Charles Air Line seeing some service as well. If you route the lines correctly you can connect every suburban line to every major downtown destination and employment node with at most one transfer.

[jpIllInoIs]

^
I would add a connection to Ohare to that fantasy list. The ROW exists and is plenty wide. Add Ohare express service on the new thru tracks at CUS and you can have 1/2 hourly service from Millenium; McMk place and CUS direct to Ohare. Along with a short extension of the ppl mover to either the existing transfer station or to a the existing Rosemont Metra Station on Balmoral St and you have some direct O'hare service from the Loop which I venture would be far cheaper and faster to implement than any Blue Line express that involve new track.

[ardecila]

I was only talking about downtown stuff. I'm assuming that there would also be a suburban branch running through O'Hare Central and O'Hare West, or at least to a spiffy new O'Hare Transfer at the current site with a People Mover connection.

Unfortunately the current plans for the long-term parking site are a huge garage with a not-even-half-assed transit connection. Basically the same as Midway, because the city doesn't seem to give a crap about making connections quick and pleasant.

[sammyg]

Instead of BRT, wouldn't it make sense to re-instate express service on Irving Park, Western and Ashland first? (I don't remember which other corridors were cut)

[k1052]

Why not build a short spur off the NCS line just south of the Rosemont stop and take it under Mannheim Rd and right into the surface parking lot of Terminal 5 next to the ATS station?

That has to be cheaper and more direct than most of the plans put forward.


Also in other news apparently the city will open the new Halsted bridge just south of Division on Friday. To celebrate they will immediately close the Halsted bridge north of Chicago until May. Way to go CDOT.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-12-21/news/ct-met-halsted-bridges-1222-20111222_1_bridge-branch-canal-north-branch-street

[Hayward]

Why not build a short spur off the NCS line just south of the Rosemont stop and take it under Mannheim Rd and right into the surface parking lot of Terminal 5 next to the ATS station?

That has to be cheaper and more direct than most of the plans put forward.


Also in other news apparently the city will open the new Halsted bridge just south of Division on Friday. To celebrate they will immediately close the Halsted bridge north of Chicago until May. Way to go CDOT.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-12-21/news/ct-met-halsted-bridges-1222-20111222_1_bridge-branch-canal-north-branch-street

They were scheduled that way to ensure detour traffic used Chicago Ave.
Closing both at the same time would have created major problems. The other bridge is in terrible disrepair. I can't believe a bridge is allowed to exist in such condition.

[k1052]

They were scheduled that way to ensure detour traffic used Chicago Ave.
Closing both at the same time would have created major problems. The other bridge is in terrible disrepair. I can't believe a bridge is allowed to exist in such condition.

The detour through Goose Island wasn't heavily used, particularly because Division is almost always a parking lot between Halsted and Elston so nobody wanted to go near it. It would have been better do do them at the same time and have the whole road open again.

The other brige is in terrible shape but I trust it more than the Grand Ave. bridge, which I am convinced will just fall into the river one way when I'm walking across it.

[nomarandlee]

Why not build a short spur off the NCS line just south of the Rosemont stop and take it under Mannheim Rd and right into the surface parking lot of Terminal 5 next to the ATS station?

That has to be cheaper and more direct than most of the plans put forward.


Also in other news apparently the city will open the new Halsted bridge just south of Division on Friday. To celebrate they will immediately close the Halsted bridge north of Chicago until May. Way to go CDOT.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-12-21/news/ct-met-halsted-bridges-1222-20111222_1_bridge-branch-canal-north-branch-street

Running an O'Hare express from NCS into Terminal 5 isn't a bad idea but it wouldn't really shave off the time enough for most passengers the clear majority of which will still be going to the domestic terminals. They would still need to make a transfer to the ATS mover at Terminal 5 anyhow.

If one wants to maximize convenience and have x-press to terminal service it would be best to just run the trains into one of the domestic terminals though its so congested there I'm not sure how easy or cost efficient that would be to do.

While train to terminal service would be nice I think I lean towards an enclosed super station of sorts where the NCS/x-press and the ATS can meet given that many passengers will make the ATS part of their travel anyway to get to their final terminal. Such a state would also still be able to cater to Metra passengers and perhaps even Amtrak/HSR trains as well.

[k1052]

Running an O'Hare express from NCS into Terminal 5 isn't a bad idea but it wouldn't really shave off the time enough for most passengers the clear majority of which will still be going to the domestic terminals. They would still need to make a transfer to the ATS mover at Terminal 5 anyhow.

If one wants to maximize convenience and have x-press to terminal service it would be best to just run the trains into one of the domestic terminals though its so congested there I'm not sure how easy or cost efficient that would be to do.

While train to terminal service would be nice I think I lean towards an enclosed super station of sorts where the NCS/x-press and the ATS can meet given that many passengers will make the ATS part of their travel anyway to get to their final terminal. Such a state would also still be able to cater to Metra passengers and perhaps even Amtrak/HSR trains as well.

It would seem a LOT less expensive to have people transfer from Metra/express rail to ATS at T5 than to serve the other terminals with heavy rail. They'll have to buy some more cars and pump up frequency on the ATS but that has to be done anyway. If you only have a couple minute wait time and a trip time of 5ish min to the farthest terminal I think that's pretty reasonable. Heck it already takes at least that long to walk from the blue line station to any of the security lines.

[lawfin]

They were scheduled that way to ensure detour traffic used Chicago Ave.
Closing both at the same time would have created major problems. The other bridge is in terrible disrepair. I can't believe a bridge is allowed to exist in such condition.

That bridge is in atrocious shape. My Lord. It is literally crumbling beneath you. I just walked across it last night walking home from Girl and the Goat.

[emathias]

^
I would add a connection to Ohare to that fantasy list. The ROW exists and is plenty wide. Add Ohare express service on the new thru tracks at CUS and you can have 1/2 hourly service from Millenium; McMk place and CUS direct to Ohare. Along with a short extension of the ppl mover to either the existing transfer station or to a the existing Rosemont Metra Station on Balmoral St and you have some direct O'hare service from the Loop which I venture would be far cheaper and faster to implement than any Blue Line express that involve new track.

I posted this a while back.

O'Hare express, plus downtown circulator subway loop. Dotted blue stops are local stops only for the circulator. Solid blue are airport express stops. Green dots are transfer to intercity HSR. Other than cost, the biggest problem with this is probably that HSR cars couldn't make most of those turns.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5052/5540629785_9f1258020a_z.jpg (http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5052/5540629785_fde6031838_o.gif)
mine - Click to enlarge.

[ardecila]

Exactly... The deep foundations of the skyscrapers really limit your alignment choices. SF is facing that problem right now trying to design tunnel access into the new Transbay.

This is not to say you couldn't tunnel beneath a skyscraper if you absolutely HAD to, but it's best to avoid it if possible.

[k1052]

I had occasion to be in Union Station a couple times on the 23rd and 24th to meet family coming into town and predictably the concourse was a disaster.

Luggage carts blocking pedestrian flow? Check

2 of 4 Quick Track ticketing machines broken down? Check

People trying to cluster around the tiny ancient displays that show track locations for arrivals and departures? Check.

Anonymous boarding lines extending out through the doors of the waiting area an into the ticketing room? Check.

LOTS of lost people? Check.

Meanwhile in the Great Hall there were a few random people waiting for long distance trains and what looked like a flea market taking up most of the space. Fantastic use of real estate.

[Mr Downtown]

^I can't disagree with you, but how would you ever get people to go into the Great Hall rather than wait as close as possible to their gates?

[k1052]

^I can't disagree with you, but how would you ever get people to go into the Great Hall rather than wait as close as possible to their gates?

Pull all Amtrak/Metra ticketing and customer service into the great hall. Add larger clear displays to the hall for departures/arrivals. Move most food concessions out of the concourse and into the vacant retail surrounding the hall.

After all that is done they can gut much of the concourse and rework it into something useful. At the top of the list would be queuing areas for boarding to keep the lines from stretching all through the waiting/ticket areas which consequently blocks traffic flow.

[ardecila]

I don't understand why they can't just queue on the platforms, or just have open access to the trains and do ticket checks on board with a several-hundred-dollar fee for ticketless riders. European trains have been remarkably terror-free considering how many intercity trains are run every year.

The reason train stations are ideal for a dense urban environment is the simplicity of rail travel, which requires only simple compact facilities. Overly complex security and boarding procedures are cumbersome, expensive, and unnecessary.

[k1052]

I don't understand why they can't just queue on the platforms, or just have open access to the trains and do ticket checks on board with a several-hundred-dollar fee for ticketless riders. European trains have been remarkably terror-free considering how many intercity trains are run every year.

The reason train stations are ideal for a dense urban environment is the simplicity of rail travel, which requires only simple compact facilities. Overly complex security and boarding procedures are cumbersome, expensive, and unnecessary.

Metra does it so I'm not sure why Amtrak doesn't, there has to be some reason beyond tradition (DHS maybe?). I don't really have a problem with making people wait in the concourse but they need to actually have somewhere to wait that doesn't obstruct the rest of the station. The platform areas at Union could also use some work though (waterproofing, ventilation, lighting, pressure washing, etc).

Amtrak also needs to aggressively roll out more e-ticketing and Quick Track stations.

[ardecila]

^^ Agreed about the machines. Metra should really switch to machines for their downtown terminals, too. A bank of machines would be far cheaper than a handful of ticket-sellers. Then there could be a consolidated ticketing hall with maybe 5 or 6 Amtrak ticket-sellers, one Metra seller, and a bank of machines off to the side for Amtrak and Metra.

If you think about it, there's no reason you couldn't sell all kinds of Metra tickets from a machine. Reduced fares, which require ID, and elderly/disabled persons could continue to use a greatly reduced number of ticket sellers. Metra Electric already works this way.

Rather than firing the existing ticket sellers, you could transfer them to stations that are currently unmanned. Jefferson Park comes to mind, or Clybourn, Ravenswood, or Grand/Cicero.

[lawfin]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-tollway-2012-20111227,0,6808704.story

I am not very sympathetic

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I'm thrilled. This is exactly the kind of policy that chokes the suburbs while not driving businesses out of the metro. There is nowhere they can go to avoid these tolls. They can go all the way out to Rockford and STILL get tolled. So the logical answer is to go downtown where your employees can pay as much as they pay in tolls and avoid gas money by taking the Metra.

Driving's not so appealing when you start having to pay the full cost of it.

[Mr Downtown]

^Tollway drivers have always, by definition, paid the full cost of driving.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^Tollway drivers have always, by definition, paid the full cost of driving.

Does air quality or anthropogenic climate change factor into that definition?

[Mr Downtown]

^No more than in the numbers for Metra. It's pretty tricky to allocate externalities or indirect costs to things, but not indirect benefits.

[ardecila]

Of course not, but fuel-tax money obviously goes towards transit programs and CMAQ which reduce emissions in selected areas.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Of course not, but fuel-tax money obviously goes towards transit programs and CMAQ which reduce emissions in selected areas.

...it was a rhetorical question; "tollways drivers have always... paid the full cost of driving" is a dubious claim, even if it is difficult to measure externalities.

[Nowhereman1280]

^Tollway drivers have always, by definition, paid the full cost of driving.

I knew you were going to post this.

They have only paid for the full cost of road construction. This ignores the massive subsidies given to the auto industry in Detroit that drove down the price of vehicles in the first place. It also ignores the fact that the government acquired land for the tollways using eminent domain in many cases leading to far lower land acquisition costs than the market would demand. And of course there are the oil industry subsidies on top of all of that and, additionally, 30 years of ethanol subsides that are just now ending. That's not to mention the massive cost of our military adventures to protect the low price of our oil against repeated threats in the past. If we didn't spend half a trillion dollars a year on defense and have troops stationed all over the middle east you can bet that gas prices would have been far far higher over the past 30 years. Just look at the recent Libya conflict which sent prices soaring over just 1.5% of global output or the fact that Iran's unrealistic threat of shutting off the gulf sent prices up $2 a barrel yesterday alone.

The price of building the driving surface is only a tiny fraction of the full price we pay for our automobile-industrial complex that controls massive parts of our government.

^No more than in the numbers for Metra. It's pretty tricky to allocate externalities or indirect costs to things, but not indirect benefits.

Actually no, negative externalities for vehicles are FAR higher per person than for Metra. This is because the amount of fuel burned and plastics/raw materials used per person for one ride on Metra is but a tiny fraction of what is used for one ride in a car. How you can deny that is beyond me. But this argument is not about whether Metra is any better, it is about whether or not people who drive pay the full cost of driving. Metra, CTA, Amtrak, Airlines, private submarines, those are all beside the point and outside of the scope of the discussion.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ I meant to say all that, too. :D

[Mr Downtown]

This ignores the massive subsidies given to the auto industry in Detroit that drove down the price of vehicles in the first place.

What would be a pre-2008 example of such a massive subsidy?

It also ignores the fact that the government acquired land for the tollways using eminent domain in many cases leading to far lower land acquisition costs than the market would demand.

Where was tollway ROW acquired by "the government?"

I don't care much for tollways, but they're the last component of the roadway system you can criticize for being "subsidized." Not only do their users pay the entire cost of constructing, maintaining, and expanding the system, but the ones in urban areas also throw off huge amounts of gas tax revenue to other levels of government and roads.

[Nowhereman1280]

What would be a pre-2008 example of such a massive subsidy?

Just off the top of my head is the first time Chrysler/Mopar got bailed out. Then there are all the examples of GM and other companies using the government to gut transit agencies/trolley lines in order to subsidize their bus sales. I could probably go on for pages with individual examples.


Where was tollway ROW acquired by "the government?"

Do you seriously expect me to cite individual examples of where it was used? Here's an answer for you: throughout the entire system. And guess what, it's still used on a regular basis for tollway construction projects where an individual owner might not be so hot on selling off a portion of their parking lot so the freeway ramp curve can be reduced by a few degrees. Illinois Tollway Authority has the power of eminent domain which no private enterprise ever has had:

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

I don't care much for tollways, but they're the last component of the roadway system you can criticize for being "subsidized." Not only do their users pay the entire cost of constructing, maintaining, and expanding the system, but the ones in urban areas also throw off huge amounts of gas tax revenue to other levels of government and roads.

The last thing I can criticize for being subsidized of a whole list of things that are all inherently subsidized...

[Mr Downtown]

Just off the top of my head is the first time Chrysler/Mopar got bailed out.

Except that Chrysler repaid the loan guarantees in 1983—with $350 million in interest—and gave the government millions of dollars in stock warrants.

Then there are all the examples of GM and other companies using the government to gut transit agencies/trolley lines in order to subsidize their bus sales. I could probably go on for pages with individual examples.

Except that, you know, this didn't actually happen. (http://www.cliffslateralso.com/TQOrigin.pdf) The government wasn't involved, NCL was acquitted of the "bustitution" charge, and the substition of new one-man buses for worn-out two-man streetcars saved dozens of small city systems that would have otherwise completely disappeared in the decades before public ownership. NCL/PCL was never involved with more than 40 of the nation's 900 streetcar systems.

Illinois Tollway Authority has the power of eminent domain which no private enterprise ever has had

Except for railroads, plankroads, streetcar companies, canal companies, pipeline companies, electric utilities, telephone utilities, other utilities, and various redevelopment authorities. You can look these things up before posting, you know. Illinois statutes are all online.

[Nowhereman1280]

Except that Chrysler repaid the loan guarantees in 1983—with $350 million in interest—and gave the government millions of dollars in stock warrants.

And TARP will be paid back too. Am I to believe you really think TARP wasn't a subsidy of "too big to fail" banks as well? Please.


Except for railroads, plankroads, streetcar companies, canal companies, pipeline companies, electric utilities, telephone utilities, other utilities, and various redevelopment authorities. You can look these things up before posting, you know. Illinois statutes are all online.

Source? You don't have one because you are wrong. No railroads have eminent domain powers and in the instances where eminent domain is used for a railroad they must go through the local government which actually holds such powers. The Illinois Tollway Authority has the power of eminent domain itself. They do no need the local government to take land for them as any other form of transportation does.

Finally, even if it weren't a load of shit, what you just said would be besides the point. This is second time I've had to point this out to you; this isn't a discussion about who else is guilty of being subsidized, this is about whether or not vehicle owners pay the full cost of driving. Whether or not a plank road or Metra has gotten land through eminent domain is irrelevant because we aren't talking about that. The fact is eminent domain is a form of subsidy and the Tollway has that direct power. Period. End of Debate. You lose this point whether you like it or not no matter how many additional tangential arguments you want to make.

[Nowhereman1280]

Oh, and another thing, the fact the the government has a power to collect a gas tax on all gas sold that they use to pay for infrastructure projects is a subsidy in principal as well. No private enterprise has the capability to tax everyone that uses a product in order to provide an additional venue in which consumers may use its product. The government provides this overarching ability to coerce all participants in the market to fund the construction of such a venue. This is nothing more than a mild form of a mandated monopoly which constitutes a subsidy of the entire market as the natural state of the game would mean no participant would be willing to sink so much money into the construction of an asset that is difficult/impossible to control access to and would likely benefit its competitors equally as much as themselves.

And yet another example is the hyper-inflated tax mileage tax write off for businesses supported by the IRS. Of course you are going to drive when you can write off 58.5 cents a mile of your income. If you drive 10,000 miles a year for business that's $5,850 in income you can write off for a savings of at least $1,500 a year. That's about as direct of a subsidy as you'll ever see for anything.

Or ANOTHER example. You can write of the purchase of a vehicle "for business use" in its entirety. This means that millions of small business owners a year dodge probably more than a billion dollars worth of taxes by writing off the purchase of their vehicles. This is ANOTHER direct subsidy where the government is literally paying people to drive.

Oh and let me mention again the trillions we've spent on overseas adventures over the years to keep our gas prices low.

[lawfin]

Additionally, if I recall the tollway authority received interest subsidy for build america bonds via the ARRA.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ There you go, that's another excellent example. The government can borrow at far far lower interest rates to construct such projects than a private firm would be able to.

[Mr Downtown]

Source? You don't have one because you are wrong. No railroads have eminent domain powers and in the instances where eminent domain is used for a railroad they must go through the local government which actually holds such powers.


610 ILCS 70/1
Sec. 1. Every railroad company heretofore or hereafter organized under the laws of this State . . . shall have power . . . including the power of eminent domain

[Nowhereman1280]

610 ILCS 70/1
Sec. 1. Every railroad company heretofore or hereafter organized under the laws of this State . . . shall have power . . . including the power of eminent domain

I don't think you are interpreting that correctly, but again, it's still beside the point. Let's say you are right, how does the fact that railroad companies having eminent domain powers change the fact that the Illinois Tollway Authority has eminent domain? It doesn't. Stop trying to splinter the debate off onto tangents that having nothing to do with the topic.

So tell, are tollways subsidized or are they not. You have presented absolutely nothing to refute what I'm saying and have chosen to spend your time trying to change the topic to "but sometimes railroads are subsidized as well".

[Mr Downtown]

So tell, are tollways subsidized or are they not.

In my opinion, the direct costs of tollways are not subsidized in any meaningful way. The costs of constructing, maintaining, and expanding the ISTHA network have always been paid entirely from tollbooth revenue. In fact, the tollway authority was created, like others in the East and Midwest, in the 1950s precisely because it was politically unthinkable to pay for superhighways from general taxation, and the federal gas tax had not yet been raised for the Interstate system.

The very heart of eminent domain law is that the fair market value is paid for any property taken, so it should theoretically make little difference whether the transaction is willing-seller or eminent domain. For every landowner complaining that he got too little, there will be another who quietly got more than he would have on the open market. For every farmer who loses five rows of crops because the tollway angled across his acreage, there's another whose land value immediately quintupled due to tollway frontage.

As we discussed a few weeks ago, the federal government in 2009 tried to jump-start the bond market by providing modest direct payments to bond-issuing agencies. Since the federal program didn't care if the bonds went to finance roads, buses, dams, or schools, I would consider that a cost of the financial crisis; a subsidy to the financial markets industry rather than the tollways specifically.

In 2010 Illinois tollway mileage generated $124 million in fuel excise taxes (plus another $72 million in state sales taxes assuming a price of $3.50 per gallon, and another $10 million or so in local sales taxes). None of that went to the tollway system. More than half of it went for non-road uses.

[ardecila]

In 2010 Illinois tollway mileage generated $124 million in fuel excise taxes (plus another $72 million in state sales taxes assuming a price of $3.50 per gallon, and another $10 million or so in local sales taxes). None of that went to the tollway system. More than half of it went for non-road uses.

How does tollway mileage generate fuel tax revenue? Surely you can't be talking about the modest amounts of revenue from the oasis service stations.

The self-funding nature of our tollway system is awesome, but the downside is that Chicago doesn't get anywhere near our fair share of dollars from Washington. Since our expressway needs are mostly funded locally, we should get an increased share of transit dollars, but the two Federal pots of money aren't fungible despite the fact that both pots ultimately come from the Highway Trust Fund.

I'm gonna get some Ron Paul-style eye rolling for this one, but I'm starting to think we should dramatically LOWER the federal fuel tax to a level that funds only interstate maintenance and periodic roadway reconstructions. The interstate highway network has been complete since 1992. Mission accomplished. The rationale for a huge, redistributive transportation funding source is gone.

States that want to dramatically expand their suburban expressway networks should pay for it themselves, just like we do, in whatever way they see fit. As a side effect, states could then set their own transportation policies instead of being a slave to the pet policies of road builders and Sunbelt politicians.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

In my opinion, the direct costs of tollways are not subsidized in any meaningful way.

So slippery. Ignore the "indirect" costs all you like: they're still there, they're enormous, and they're (clearly) the focus of this discussion.

[VivaLFuego]

In my opinion, the direct costs of tollways are not subsidized in any meaningful way. The costs of constructing, maintaining, and expanding the ISTHA network have always been paid entirely from tollbooth revenue.
...
In 2010 Illinois tollway mileage generated $124 million in fuel excise taxes (plus another $72 million in state sales taxes assuming a price of $3.50 per gallon, and another $10 million or so in local sales taxes). None of that went to the tollway system. More than half of it went for non-road uses.

I have to put my lot in with Mr D on this one --- the tollway system is a pretty good example of fair pricing structure for road use, with users paying the direct construction and operations costs in tolls, with external costs (air quality, etc.) being at least somewhat captured in the corresponding gas tax which at least went, in part, to programs like CMAQ or the FTA. Granted, the tolls were way too low for at least the last 15 years for purely political reasons, but the end result of that was simply a huge construction backlog and roadways in dreadfully poor condition (I-90 anyone?).

One could argue, either way, on the extent to which external costs still aren't captured by the users, but in the overall scheme of economic distortions and cross-subsidies in our daily lives (in countless ways beyond merely transportation), that has to be pretty far down the list.

[VivaLFuego]

The self-funding nature of our tollway system is awesome, but the downside is that Chicago doesn't get anywhere near our fair share of dollars from Washington. Since our expressway needs are mostly funded locally, we should get an increased share of transit dollars, but the two Federal pots of money aren't fungible despite the fact that both pots ultimately come from the Highway Trust Fund.


IDOT receives "tollway credits" that can be used in lieu of local match funds for federally-funded transportation projects (including transit projects) --- so at least there is some consideration.

[Mr Downtown]

How does tollway mileage generate fuel tax revenue?

Motorists burn fuel driving on them, and that fuel is taxed.

[ardecila]

CDOT put out an RFP for the Cermak Green Line station. It's great to know the ball is rolling on this. The RFP calls for a "staggered island platform", which I believe is a configuration similar to Loyola. Platform length will be 725 feet and designed for 8-car trains. The grade-level station house will be on the south side of Cermak with auxiliary entrances on the north side of Cermak and the north side of 23rd.

CTA seems dreadfully afraid of structural failure on their steel viaducts. To reduce the loading on the steel, they pitched a staggered side platform design for Morgan until the engineers told them it would be cheaper just to beef up the steel. That just shows that the Cermak configuration is not set in stone. It's good to see CTA noting the need for multiple access points, though.

Also, CTA released another RFP for a renovation of all the North Main stations between Jarvis and Lawrence, with the exception of Loyola. Canopies will be cleaned and spruced up, wooden platforms will be replaced with concrete, and all interior spaces will be blown out and reconfigured, with some tenant space being converted to station house space. The brick facades, doors, and windows of the station houses will also be replaced, probably with some sterile Duplo-block crap like the new North/Clybourn. Elevators are not included, but the concrete viaduct will also see structural repairs and new drainage systems.

The total budget for this project is only $57 million. CTA wants to start by this April and finish by Fall 2013.

Wilson and Loyola will be renovated in separate projects, with Wilson being completely rebuilt for $100 million and Loyola being renovated in partnership with the university. No word on Sheridan, possibly the rattiest station on the North Main. Any project there will have to tackle the curves as well and probably take out a good swath of the neighborhood as the tracks are realigned.

[Mr Downtown]

Any project [at Sheridan] will have to tackle the curves as well and probably take out a good swath of the neighborhood as the tracks are realigned.

Why would that be necessary?