Is RT Stagnant?

[al-in-chgo]

Seems that almost everywhere you look medium- to large-sized cities have been funding new LRT systems (Charlotte, Baltimore, Salt Lake City), or commuter rail (Albuquerque, Nashville, Salt Lake again). 

What's happened to RT?  BART and the Washington Metro (which can be called a subway I realize but most of its tracks are at or above-ground) seem to be doing well; I don't know about the system in Miami. 

But today, is it just too expensive to create brand-new lines like those?  Is it cheaper or now technologically considered better either to set up a clean and "spry" LRT system that can use city streets and medians and verges when it is impossible to use its own ROW; versus bilevel coaches hauled (in some systems self-propelled) on RR track, without turnstiles but with conductors? 

Is creating a brand-new RT system just too expensive?  I'm thinking in particular of brand new lines, not the costs of operating pre-existing lines like the Cleveland OH airport run.  I am certainly not predicting the demise of traditional systems like Chicago's L or the NYC subway system, but the newer kind like BART or the Miami system built from scratch and expected to run at ground level most of the time, what's going on?  .  .   .    - a.s.

 

 

[paulsafety]

But today, is it just too expensive to create brand-new lines like those?  

Is creating a brand-new RT system just too expensive?  I'm thinking in particular of brand new lines, not the costs of operating pre-existing lines like the Cleveland OH airport run. 

, what's going on?  .  .   .    - a.s.

The BART SFO Airport extention was 8.7 miles long and included new transfer station, a new terminal station at the airport and two intermediate stations.  Price tag = 1.5 billion.  Completed in 2003 (would cost more if built today), and has generated opposition to other "high price tag" extensions.

Imagine the cost of constructing the entire BART system today as opposed to building the Key System as a LRT/LRV system?  (Key ran across lower level of the Bay Bridge).

Besides cost factors, the density of riders per mile must be high enough to justify the dedicated ROW, tunneling, etc.  I'd suppose that the cost of a new medium-heavy RT line must be similar (or greater) than adding a commuter rail operation over existing or upgraded freight ROW.

Paul F.

[al-in-chgo]

But today, is it just too expensive to create brand-new lines like those?  

Is creating a brand-new RT system just too expensive?  I'm thinking in particular of brand new lines, not the costs of operating pre-existing lines like the Cleveland OH airport run. 

, what's going on?  .  .   .    - a.s.

The BART SFO Airport extention was 8.7 miles long and included new transfer station, a new terminal station at the airport and two intermediate stations.  Price tag = 1.5 billion.  Completed in 2003 (would cost more if built today), and has generated opposition to other "high price tag" extensions.

Imagine the cost of constructing the entire BART system today as opposed to building the Key System as a LRT/LRV system?  (Key ran across lower level of the Bay Bridge).

Besides cost factors, the density of riders per mile must be high enough to justify the dedicated ROW, tunneling, etc.  I'd suppose that the cost of a new medium-heavy RT line must be similar (or greater) than adding a commuter rail operation over existing or upgraded freight ROW.

Paul F.

I am delighted to hear that BART has a dedicated line to SFO.  Thirteen years ago when I was heading out to SFO from downtown, I took BART down to San Whatever, and had about four minutes to get the bus line that shuttled between that terminal and the airport.  Well, the doors closed on me without warning because I was a little too slow.  In Chgo we could "pop" the emergency door if the train is not yet moving and it won't ruin anything.  The real fat in the fire was that BART keeps its doors closed three minutes at the terminal!  Had to take a cab from the then-BART terminal to airport.  Might as well have cabbed it from downtown.  At least, the plane wasn't late. - a.s.

 

[paulsafety]

Here are links to the SFO extention:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_International_Airport_(BART_station)

http://www.sftravel.com/sfo-airport-transit-bart.html

http://www.greatpacificmaps.com/SoSanFranCA.jpg

http://derfotohof.net/transit/stations/sfo_airtrain_bart01.jpg

Paul F

[erikem]

The BART SFO Airport extention was 8.7 miles long and included new transfer station, a new terminal station at the airport and two intermediate stations.  Price tag = 1.5 billion.  Completed in 2003 (would cost more if built today), and has generated opposition to other "high price tag" extensions.

Wow! The original price tag for BART's orignal construction was 1.4 billion and that included two major tunnel projects, 75 route miles and 450 cars. 

[al-in-chgo]

The BART SFO Airport extention was 8.7 miles long and included new transfer station, a new terminal station at the airport and two intermediate stations.  Price tag = 1.5 billion.  Completed in 2003 (would cost more if built today), and has generated opposition to other "high price tag" extensions.

Wow! The original price tag for BART's orignal construction was 1.4 billion and that included two major tunnel projects, 75 route miles and 450 cars. 

I would guess easily doubled and probably tripled.  And if land acquisition is part of that, toss in a Bil or two more, housing prices not having deflated fully yet (or so the "smart money" says). 

I'll be delighted to be proved wrong -- any other estimations or guesstimations? 

 

 

[artpeterson]

Hi Al - sure, the cost for a heavy rail or rapid transit line or extension is a killer, but then you also have to have the projected density of use to warrant shelling out the bucks for the line.  FTA requires all these new start projects to meet a target new user benefit threshold.  That calculation is done as part of the alternatives analysis (assuming you follow the federal process or go for federal funds for the project).  Many projects drop off the map at that point if they can't make a reasonable cost-effectiveness index.

CTA had AAs going for four potential new lines/extensions - Circle Line ("far" outer loop essentially) and extensions to the Red (south from 95th), Orange (south from Midway) and Yellow (north from Dempster) Lines.  With the change in CTA senior management, plus all the financial travails of the last few years, those efforts were put on hold, but it looks like they will get going again before too long.  Hope this helps. Art

[daveklepper]

I gather north from Demster is rebuilding part of the old North Shore Skokie main line?   How far north do they plan?   All the way to Great Lakes Navel Station?

[artpeterson]

Hi Dave - 10-4 on use of the NSL ROW, though the clearances are not as generous as they once were (especially north of Church Street).  You might recall that the C&NW bought the NSL ROW north of Dempster and shifted its parallel track onto the NSL alignment as a defensive measure against any further extension north by the CTA.  C&NW then sold their ROW and in that section between Church Street and Golf Road (site of the NSL Harms Woods station), adjcacent homes and backyards were built where the C&NW track had once been.

At any rate, another isssue which impacts how far north any CTA extension would go is inter-suburban politics.  One of the suburbs further to the north made it clear they would vehemently object to any extension beyond the north limits of Skokie (Old Orchard Road).  That's as far as we took the study in the feasibility phase, remains to be seen if the political lay of the land has changed such that the line could go to Willow or Lake-Cook Roads.  Art

[al-in-chgo]

Hi Dave - 10-4 on use of the NSL ROW, though the clearances are not as generous as they once were (especially north of Church Street).  You might recall that the C&NW bought the NSL ROW north of Dempster and shifted its parallel track onto the NSL alignment as a defensive measure against any further extension north by the CTA.  C&NW then sold their ROW and in that section between Church Street and Golf Road (site of the NSL Harms Woods station), adjcacent homes and backyards were built where the C&NW track had once been.

At any rate, another isssue which impacts how far north any CTA extension would go is inter-suburban politics.  One of the suburbs further to the north made it clear they would vehemently object to any extension beyond the north limits of Skokie (Old Orchard Road).  That's as far as we took the study in the feasibility phase, remains to be seen if the political lay of the land has changed such that the line could go to Willow or Lake-Cook Roads.  Art

I hate to be a party pooper but the CTA is going to have to get its act together before it can embark on any ambitious exension projects.  Other than his pet project the Ravenswood line (brown), Frank Kruesi deferred maintenance on top of deferred maintenance.  That's the reason today why the blue line up to O'Hare is subject to "Penn Central" type delays and slow orders.  After a derailment last year in a tunnel, IIRC it came out that the workers knew the track was in horrible shape but their bosses would not let given the line the restoration it needed. 

 

[oltmannd]

In Atlanta, there is talk about extending the MARTA heavy rail line in a few places.  There are early plans to extend the West line a mile or two to the Six Flags park,  some longer range plans to extend the North line a good ways up to Alpharetta, and a grass roots push to get the NE line extended about 5 miles to Norcross.

So far, lots of talk - no money or engineering.

[artpeterson]

Hi Al - this is a real problem for all agencies, especially as the "newer kids" (BART, WMATA, MARTA) mature and start to face 25-30 year old infrastructure issues.  The issue is that the Federal assistance program provides for capital assistance, but not on-going operations & maintenance.  That's where Kreusi and CTA were innovative in that they got the Blue Line (Douglas) and the Brown Line classified as "New Starts" and so eligible for Federal funds.  Blue Line (O'Hare) was not part of that program and so the funding had to come from other sources.  As an aside, running time between Cumberland (where I get on every day) and downtown is much, much better today than it was even 60 days ago, let alone a year ago.  Can't speak to the shape of the railroad beyond Cumberland, though I know the weekend shutdowns to replace track, etc. are to continue through the balance of 2008.  Art

[al-in-chgo]

Hi Al - this is a real problem for all agencies, especially as the "newer kids" (BART, WMATA, MARTA) mature and start to face 25-30 year old infrastructure issues.  The issue is that the Federal assistance program provides for capital assistance, but not on-going operations & maintenance.  That's where Kreusi and CTA were innovative in that they got the Blue Line (Douglas) and the Brown Line classified as "New Starts" and so eligible for Federal funds.  Blue Line (O'Hare) was not part of that program and so the funding had to come from other sources.  As an aside, running time between Cumberland (where I get on every day) and downtown is much, much better today than it was even 60 days ago, let alone a year ago.  Can't speak to the shape of the railroad beyond Cumberland, though I know the weekend shutdowns to replace track, etc. are to continue through the balance of 2008.  Art

 

 

I can understand that.  I can understand tearing up Fullerton and Belmont station to build new stations with the subsequent delays.  I can't understand the age of CTA's stock.  I don't know for sure but have they taken any delivery of new RT (L) cars after Boeing going by Budd's specs, delivery in the 1970s?  'Cuz you don't see it on the Red Line. 

 

[MILW205]

Hi Al - this is a real problem for all agencies, especially as the "newer kids" (BART, WMATA, MARTA) mature and start to face 25-30 year old infrastructure issues.  The issue is that the Federal assistance program provides for capital assistance, but not on-going operations & maintenance.  That's where Kreusi and CTA were innovative in that they got the Blue Line (Douglas) and the Brown Line classified as "New Starts" and so eligible for Federal funds.  Blue Line (O'Hare) was not part of that program and so the funding had to come from other sources.  As an aside, running time between Cumberland (where I get on every day) and downtown is much, much better today than it was even 60 days ago, let alone a year ago.  Can't speak to the shape of the railroad beyond Cumberland, though I know the weekend shutdowns to replace track, etc. are to continue through the balance of 2008.  Art

 

 

I can understand that.  I can understand tearing up Fullerton and Belmont station to build new stations with the subsequent delays.  I can't understand the age of CTA's stock.  I don't know for sure but have they taken any delivery of new RT (L) cars after Boeing going by Budd's specs, delivery in the 1970s?  'Cuz you don't see it on the Red Line. 

 

 

Art, I agree that the O'Hare line has gotten better during the last few months, but fortunately for you, you're on the better end of the improvements: west of Cumberland, it is still pull-your-hair-out slow. 

Al, re the Belmont and Fullerton stations, I think there are 2 reasons for the rebuilds: 1) needed to get the outer tracks to 8-car capability to match the newly lengthened brown line trains (now 8 cars vs. 6 previously), and 2) ADA compliance.  Re the stock, I dunno for sure, but I think when the orange line opened, the CTA got new cars to support that service???  Perhaps someone else knows better than I.

BTW, if you want to see some old cars, the CTA has a pair of old-model cars (dunno the model) in olive paint w/ gold trim stored at the Skokie shops.

[artpeterson]

Bombardier's under contract to build 406 cars for CTA (more, if money can be found to exercise the additional options).  Prototype cars for this order are due next year.  M-K 3200-series cars (used on Brown, Orange and Yellow) are now 16 years old; 2600-series Budd cars (Blue, Pink and Red Lines) are between 28 and 22 years old; 2400s from Boeing (Green and Purple Lines) are about 31 years old; and, the 2200-series Budds (all on the Blue) are now around 39 years old.  Intent is to have cars from the Bombardier order replace the 2200 and 2400 series cars, plus accommodate some fleet expansion.  Hope this helps!  Art

[daveklepper]

Hate to see stainless cars scrapped, the Budd 2200's.  Wish they could be completely rebuilt, saving the body shells but not saving anything else.   Might be an excellent car.

Note that construction of the 2nd Avenue Subway is proceeding plus the extension of the "7" line west of Times Square to the Javitts Center.

Hope this doesn't insult anyone, and if so Begie has my permission to erase it.   But I understand the "7" line, last hangout of the Red Birds, presently Times Square  -  Fllushing Main Street, is often referred to as "The Orient Express".   I think you can guess why and don't need to reply.

I should point out there is a somewhat parallel slang for Atlanta's heavy rail rapid transit.

And Chicago's North Side, "The Golden G___o"

[artpeterson]

Hi Dave - the 2200s are an extremely lightweight car, even for the era in which they were built, and so there may be issues with trying to keep that structure intact forever.  Still the cars have given almost 40 years of service, which is very credible and well past the FTA "textbook" life for a rapid transit car.  However, Id' note that the entire CTA fleet, with the exception of the M-K cars, is either nearly at or past that life expectancy.  Art 

[MILW205]

Hi Dave - the 2200s are an extremely lightweight car, even for the era in which they were built, and so there may be issues with trying to keep that structure intact forever.  Still the cars have given almost 40 years of service, which is very credible and well past the FTA "textbook" life for a rapid transit car.  However, Id' note that the entire CTA fleet, with the exception of the M-K cars, is either nearly at or past that life expectancy.  Art 

Additionally (and yet again from the ADA angle), the 2200 series cars are not compliant since the accordian-style doors with the center post are not large enough to allow a wheelchair to pass through, which is why pure 2200-series sets are not run anymore...so I'm skeptical the CTA would want to completely rebuild them.

http://www.chicago-l.org/trains/roster/2200.html 

 

[daveklepper]

Thanks for both replies.

[artpeterson]

Hi - A couple of days ago, Milw 205 mentioned the cars that are kept outside of Skokie Shops.  Those are the last pair of 1964 P-S built 2000s on the property (2007-2008, repainted and renumbered to 1892 and 1992 for the South Side "L" centennial).  They have been promised to a Pullman museum and are being kept around until that facility can accept them.

Going back to the topic of car life, the 2000s ran for 30 years; their retirement became possible with the shut-down of the Green Line for rebuilding in 1994.  Those cars always challenged the maintenance department!  A lot of the more troublesome aspects of the cars had been worked out in the last rebuilding they got in the early 90s. Art

[al-in-chgo]

 

Thank you all for your kindness; I would have responded earlier but I was in Fostoria, OH.

So it is not without reason that the media refer to the CTA's "L" fleet, when they do mention it, as "aging." 

I often drive on Oakton Avenue from Evanston to Skokie and return and pass right by the CTA shops up there.  I've seen the green-and-olive nostalgia jobs and they do look magnificent.  Classic P-S body, based on what I've seen in the NY Subway system.