Deteriorating CTA infrastructure

[schlimm]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/traffic/ct-met-getting-around-1115-20101128,0,4637767.column

[billio]

Why the surprise?  Ever since the City of Chicago melded the remains of the Chicago, Aurora and Elgin and the Chicago, North Shore & Milwaukee into the CTA, the surviving El has been (almost) untouched by human hands.  I recall in 1980 riding the "rehabilitated" El line from Howard Street to the Loop and seeing (from Merchandise Mart to Armitage) new ties laid down with a 50 percent longer interval between them than between the wornout ties they replaced.   This, boys and girls, simply means a policy (unsated, to be sure) of systemic disinvestment in urban infrastructure.  Politicians call it being parsimonious with a buck.  Now, alas, time, zero maintenance and systemic disinvestment are finally beginning to make themselves felt. (Chicago politicians are not alone in this:  one need only look at highway bridges collapsing in Minneapolis (2007, Interstate 35 crossing the Mississippi River) and Greenwich, CT (1983, Interstate 95, the major highway of the East Coast, crossing the Mianus River) to see a discouraging -- and chilling -- parallel.

And the correction, financially speaking, is exceedingly painful.

[al-in-chgo]

It's pathetic, isn't it?  Our hundred-year-old support work and bridges, our thirty- to forty-year-old transit cars -- come to Chicago and ride the L (if you dare) for a real flash from the past!   Are they trying to economize?  The fare costs just as much as NYC's entry fare. 

 

[schlimm]

billio

Why the surprise?  Ever since the City of Chicago melded the remains of the Chicago, Aurora and Elgin and the Chicago, North Shore & Milwaukee into the CTA, the surviving El has been (almost) untouched by human hands.  I recall in 1980 riding the "rehabilitated" El line from Howard Street to the Loop and seeing (from Merchandise Mart to Armitage) new ties laid down with a 50 percent longer interval between them than between the wornout ties they replaced.   This, boys and girls, simply means a policy (unsated, to be sure) of systemic disinvestment in urban infrastructure.  Politicians call it being parsimonious with a buck.  Now, alas, time, zero maintenance and systemic disinvestment are finally beginning to make themselves felt. (Chicago politicians are not alone in this:  one need only look at highway bridges collapsing in Minneapolis (2007, Interstate 35 crossing the Mississippi River) and Greenwich, CT (1983, Interstate 95, the major highway of the East Coast, crossing the Mianus River) to see a discouraging -- and chilling -- parallel.

And the correction, financially speaking, is exceedingly painful.

Although i agree with much of your statement, neither the 3rd rail nor the North Shore were melded into the CTA except for a portion of the North Shore row that is used for the Skokie Swift.  Nothing from the CA&E is used by the CTA. 

Al commented on the age of the CTA fleet.  The oldest cars (2200 series) date from 1969 and the second oldest (2400 series) date from 1976.  All are supposed to be replaced by the new 5000 series starting in 2011, although some were already in use this summer.

[Falcon48]

Well, the basic problem is that government is more interested in funding new wiz bang things like high speed rail, rather than funding maintenance of what already exists.  The CTA rapid transit system handles many, many times the number of people per day thant would ride the projected Chicago-St. Louis high speed rail project, and is far more essential to the lives and prosperity of Illinois residents than high speed rail could ever be..  The billions that the state is planing to pour pouring into the high speed rail project is probably more than enough to deal with all of the deferred maintenance on the CTA rapid transit lines.  Go figure.      

[billio]

Falcon48

Well, the basic problem is that government is more interested in funding new wiz bang things like high speed rail, rather than funding maintenance of what already exists.  The CTA rapid transit system handles many, many times the number of people per day thant would ride the projected Chicago-St. Louis high speed rail project, and is far more essential to the lives and prosperity of Illinois residents than high speed rail could ever be..  The billions that the state is planing to pour pouring into the high speed rail project is probably more than enough to deal with all of the deferred maintenance on the CTA rapid transit lines.  Go figure.      

Thank you!  You have just justified my long-held belief that that the so-called "high-speed*" (gimme a break!) line between Chicago and St. Louis is not just a waste of money; it is tantamount to flushing our tax dollars down a sewer.

One recalls back when the former New Haven commuter service was taken over from Conrail by Metro North (c. 1981+/-), and The New York Times exulting over this:  with the service in public hands (at last), it'll be rapidly -- and finally -- upgraded.  The Times's writers (and most journalists) often overlook  (meaning they misinform us -- they lie) or haven't figured out (meaning that they are ignorant) that railway lines need to be maintained or else they will deteriorate to the point that they become no longer viable as people movers.  Look at Metro North today:  it limps along, receiving just enough capital to continue its limping, but little more.  Unfortunately, no ombudsman effectively articulated your well-taken point -- that extra service to St. Louis would come at the expense of Chicagoland's urabn infrastructure, which serves infinitely more riders than the line to St. Louis ever will --  to CTA riders.

* With a 110 mph projected speed limit, there's nothing high-speed about this service.  To call it so is to insult our collective intelligence.

[Mr. Railman]

First they report how taking Metra into the city is toxic, and now this? It's like they want us to pollute theait and drive cars!

[schlimm]

billio

 

Falcon48:

 

Well, the basic problem is that government is more interested in funding new wiz bang things like high speed rail, rather than funding maintenance of what already exists.  The CTA rapid transit system handles many, many times the number of people per day thant would ride the projected Chicago-St. Louis high speed rail project, and is far more essential to the lives and prosperity of Illinois residents than high speed rail could ever be..  The billions that the state is planing to pour pouring into the high speed rail project is probably more than enough to deal with all of the deferred maintenance on the CTA rapid transit lines.  Go figure.      

 

 

Thank you!  You have just justified my long-held belief that that the so-called "high-speed*" (gimme a break!) line between Chicago and St. Louis is not just a waste of money; it is tantamount to flushing our tax dollars down a sewer.

One recalls back when the former New Haven commuter service was taken over from Conrail by Metro North (c. 1981+/-), and The New York Times exulting over this:  with the service in public hands (at last), it'll be rapidly -- and finally -- upgraded.  The Times's writers (and most journalists) often overlook  (meaning they misinform us -- they lie) or haven't figured out (meaning that they are ignorant) that railway lines need to be maintained or else they will deteriorate to the point that they become no longer viable as people movers.  Look at Metro North today:  it limps along, receiving just enough capital to continue its limping, but little more.  Unfortunately, no ombudsman effectively articulated your well-taken point -- that extra service to St. Louis would come at the expense of Chicagoland's urabn infrastructure, which serves infinitely more riders than the line to St. Louis ever will --  to CTA riders.

* With a 110 mph projected speed limit, there's nothing high-speed about this service.  To call it so is to insult our collective intelligence.

1. Given the error you posted earlier in this thread, I think you might want to re-examine the severity of your criticism of journalists.  2. Are you contending that Metro North is worse than it was in the PC-Conrail days?  How do you figure that?  3.  The StL-CHI corridor speed of 110 mph is initial, to be incrementally increased later.  4.  That corridor and the CTA or Metra are apples and oranges.  5.  That corridor, including the metro areas of Springfield and Bloomington, has a population over 12.6 mil. people, which certainly represents a sizable market, under 300 miles, with a relatively straight, upgradable RoW, that does not have a high freight volume.  All of those are considered suitable criteria for corridor services.

[Dakguy201]

The Minneapolis bridge collapse had nothing to do with deteriorating infrastructure.  It was the result of a poorly conceived design and a critical part that was undersized for the load it was expected to carry.  Perhaps one of the engineers on the forum could elaborate on the details of this failure. 

[billio]

schlimm

billio:

 

Falcon48:

 

Well, the basic problem is that government is more interested in funding new wiz bang things like high speed rail, rather than funding maintenance of what already exists.  The CTA rapid transit system handles many, many times the number of people per day thant would ride the projected Chicago-St. Louis high speed rail project, and is far more essential to the lives and prosperity of Illinois residents than high speed rail could ever be..  The billions that the state is planing to pour pouring into the high speed rail project is probably more than enough to deal with all of the deferred maintenance on the CTA rapid transit lines.  Go figure.      

 

 

Thank you!  You have just justified my long-held belief that that the so-called "high-speed*" (gimme a break!) line between Chicago and St. Louis is not just a waste of money; it is tantamount to flushing our tax dollars down a sewer.

One recalls back when the former New Haven commuter service was taken over from Conrail by Metro North (c. 1981+/-), and The New York Times exulting over this:  with the service in public hands (at last), it'll be rapidly -- and finally -- upgraded.  The Times's writers (and most journalists) often overlook  (meaning they misinform us -- they lie) or haven't figured out (meaning that they are ignorant) that railway lines need to be maintained or else they will deteriorate to the point that they become no longer viable as people movers.  Look at Metro North today:  it limps along, receiving just enough capital to continue its limping, but little more.  Unfortunately, no ombudsman effectively articulated your well-taken point -- that extra service to St. Louis would come at the expense of Chicagoland's urabn infrastructure, which serves infinitely more riders than the line to St. Louis ever will --  to CTA riders.

* With a 110 mph projected speed limit, there's nothing high-speed about this service.  To call it so is to insult our collective intelligence.

 

1. Given the error you posted earlier in this thread, I think you might want to re-examine the severity of your criticism of journalists.  2. Are you contending that Metro North is worse than it was in the PC-Conrail days?  How do you figure that?  3.  The StL-CHI corridor speed of 110 mph is initial, to be incrementally increased later.  4.  That corridor and the CTA or Metra are apples and oranges.  5.  That corridor, including the metro areas of Springfield and Bloomington, has a population over 12.6 mil. people, which certainly represents a sizable market, under 300 miles, with a relatively straight, upgradable RoW, that does not have a high freight volume.  All of those are considered suitable criteria for corridor services.

Responding to your points in order:

1)  Nope.  Despite my error (mea culpa), my criticism of journalists stands.  Your criticism implicitly holds me to the same reporting standards that journalists are, in theory, held to, but..I'm not a journalist.  Moreover, I know that the reporting of journalists can be, shall we say, influenced by a good PR officer whose agency stands to be adversely affected by reportage.

2) I'contend that Metro North SERVICE  is about the same as it was during the PC/Conrail days.  It has been installing at a snail's pace ballast bridges, new (concrete) ties and constant-tension catenary between New Rochelle and New Haven, a process that had been ongoing for what? ten fifteen years.  This necessitates placing tracks out of service and results in unavoidable delays, delays that render Metro North Service little better than durung the dark days of PC.  Bottom line:  service, not capital improvements, no matter how sorely they may be needed, is the name of the game.  I do not know how far along Metro North is in this capital upgrade program, but I know that a good deal of work (meaning years) remains.  I will also state that I believe service provided by the former New Haven Railroad up to the point that deferred amintenance and capital starvation began to take their toll on passenger service, somewhere in the early 1960s (my guess) was considerably better than the product now provided by Metro North.

3)  So what?  My contention that relative to upgrading the CTA (or the Northeast Corridor, for that matter, each of which would deliver infinitely more bang for a buck, measured in riders benefitted, stands.

4)  Respectfully disagree.  Yes, intercity and urban/suburban service are different, but the point is that Illinios politicians implicitly feel it more important to throw money (allocate resources) into  central Illinois cornfields and dubious markets like Bloomington and Springfield than into keepng daily service on the El moving with something approaching a modicum of regularity.   Again, bang for a buck.

5)  By far the largest proportion of the population cited lies  in and around Chicagoland.  Bloomington?  Springfield?  Major markets?  Then why not Dwight or Lincoln or Pontiac?  -- they're along the way, and benefit from being "tied together" with other stations along the way.  Aside from the statehouse pols in Springfield desiring bulked-up rail service, what's the difference between these places and Springfield and Bloomington?   "Moreover, "suitable criteria for corridor services" is, to my mind, the creation of a bunch of overpaid feds who thirst to pour our money down a drain drain where it will accomplish the least benefit for the greatest expense.

Thank you for yout thought provoking query.