President’s Report January 2008
ChicagoChicago TransitTransit AuthorityAuthority ThisThis ReportReport • H.B. 656 • 2007 Ridership • Slow Zones • New Trains ChicagoChicago TransitTransit AuthorityAuthority Under HB656 CTA Funding ’08’08 FundingFunding UnderUnder HBHB 656:656: RevenueRevenue ** Sales Tax Increase = $210 Mil. RegionalRegional ¼% Chicago ¼% Sub. Cook ¼% Collar Cos. RevenueRevenue $43.9 M. $75.1 M. $91.0 M. ++ Addl. 5% State 25% State Match for StateState Match ++ Paratransit RevenueRevenue $0A $41.2 M. TotalTotal = $251.2$251.2 M.M. RevenueRevenue
A. No state match in ‘08 12.5% state match in ‘09 25% state match in ‘10 * Pro-rated at 75% for 2008 ’08’08 DistributionDistribution ofof $251.2$251.2 MillionMillion 78% of* *trips serve Chgo. Off the Top residents Suburban RTA Para- $251.2$251.2 M.M. Mobility Innovation Transit 97.597.5 M.M. Fund $15.0 M. $7.5 M. $75.0 M.
$153.7$153.7 M.M. $153.7 M. Formula Distribution CTA Metra Pace (48%) (39%) (13%) $73.7 M. $59.9 M. $20.0 M. $73.8$73.8 M.M. $79.9 M. + 63.063.0 M.M. .3% Chgo. RETT 25% State $136.8 M. + Match CTA Share $63.0 M. $0 * Pro-rated at 75% for 2008 Est.Est. Funding/RevenuesFunding/Revenues 20082008 -- 2010 2010 $??? $???? $???? 1,293.1 1,245.3 1,158.7
544.8 552.8 536.5
500.9 516.0 485.4 Million Dollars
224.3 136.8 199.6 2008 2009 2010
HB 656 Existing Public System Generated Operating Funding Funding Revenues Expenses ChicagoChicago TransitTransit AuthorityAuthority Ridership 2007 20072007 RidershipRidership upup 1.2%1.2% (4.7(4.7 MillionMillion Rides)Rides) • Highest since 1992 and 4th year increase in a row • 499.5 million rides last year 499.5 492.4 494.8 484.8 485.2 479.6 474.7 475.0 466.7
445.3
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 BusBus RidesRides Up/TrainUp/Train RidesRides DownDown LastLast YearYear • 309.3 million bus rides • 190.2 million train rides
303.2 298.4 309.3 3.6% 2.5%
186.8 195.2 190.2 Millions
2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007 BUS TRAIN ChicagoChicago TransitTransit AuthorityAuthority Zones Slow SlowSlow ZoneZone RemovalRemoval • System slow zone feet eliminated
22.2% 22.3% 20.5% 20.2% 21.2% 19.3% 17.0% 16.9% 261,728 263,526 16.4% 250,057 242,575 238,827 227,790 200,250 199,392 194,458 FEET Jul.Jun. Aug.Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Mar. (to date) BlueBlue LineLine –– OO’Hare’Hare TieTie ReplacementReplacement • Phase 2 & 3: Remaining areas Cumberland Rosemont Harle O’Hare
m Jefferson Park
• Target: 88,500 ft. Montrose • Timeline: Irving Park • Phase 2: July, 2008 Addison • Phase 3: Oct., 2008 RedRed LineLine -- SStatetate StreetStreet SubwaySubway • Harrison to North/Clybourn
North/Clybourn
Clark/Division Chicago • Targeted: 43,000 ft. Grand • Contract awarded: Nov. ‘07 Lake Monroe • Timeline: Jan. – Dec. ‘08 Jackson Harrison Roosevelt Red,Red, PurplePurple andand BrownBrown LinesLines • Diversey to Wellington, Tracks 1 - 4
• Target: 8,700 ft. Belmont • Scope: Selected Tie Wellington Replacement Diversey • Timeline: Mar. – Dec. ‘08
Fullerton
Armitage January 25, 2008 BrownBrown LineLine -- Ravenswood Ravenswood • Western to Southport • Target: 19,000 ft. l l • Scope: Tie/Tie/rrailail replacement,replacement, tracktrack upgrade,upgrade, abandonedabandoned tracktrack removalremoval onon Damen Francisco Kimball kedzie Western Rockwe RavenswoodRavenswood LoopLoop • Timeline: Mar. – Dec. ’08 Montrose
Irving Park
Addison
Paulina 15 Southport January 25, 2008 RedRed LineLine • Phase 1: Addison to Lawrence,Tracks 2 & 3
Argyle Lawrence • Target: 9,900 ft. • Timeline: Jan. – Dec. ’08 Wilson Sheridan Addison
16 ChicagoChicago TransitTransit AuthorityAuthority New Trains NextNext Steps:Steps: ModernizingModernizing thethe “L”“L” • New Trains (modern control systems) • Modernizing track standards -- increasing speed to 70 MPH • Eliminating slow zones
263,728 261,728
242,575 238,827 20%
199,392 FEET
July August September October Jan. (To Date) BombardierBombardier ContractContract ChangeChange • Current contract for manufacture/purchase of 406 rail cars • Incorporates technology enhancements • Adds wireless connectivity to electronic systems • Train operators to view live video from any railcar when the passenger intercom unit is activated • Suitably equipped emergency vehicles could also access video • Diagnostic information available in real-time to shop personnel for quick assessment AdditionalAdditional RailRail CarCar ChangesChanges • Adds cellular modems so Control Center can communicate directly with customers in real- time • Upgrades seat fabric to an anti-stain/anti- microbial fabric newly available in the industry • Asks for industrial design assessment • Additional enhancements to improve functionality and appearance without affecting production and delivery • Examples of features to be evaluated: • Seat design • Flat panel information screens • Windscreen and lighting design AdjustedAdjusted ContractContract CostCost
Current Contract for 206 $577.0 Mil. Cars + Option for Additional 200 Cars Proposed Changes + 26.6 Mil. Revised Contract $603.6 Mil. RailRail FleetFleet • CTA has 1190 rail cars • 12% of fleet purchased in 1969/70 (37 years) • 16% more purchased in 1976/77 (31 Years) • Federal standard for rail car useful life is 25 years • 28% of fleet (336 cars) exceeds 25 years • Fleet average age is 24 years
• 225,419 miles traveled a day 37+ Yrs. • 640,000 riders daily 12% • 142 cars are not ADA 29+ Yrs. 1616%% accessible 7272%% 14 - 26 Yrs. Option:Option: HeavyHeavy RailRail • High capacity, high speed urban transit solution • Requires exclusive right-of-way • Can be elevated, at-grade, or subway • Most durable and longest life expectancy
• Realistic, appropriate solution. • Replacing existing system with other option Example Cities: could cost as much $30 • Paris billion. • Hong Kong • Improving some core • Madrid features can have a • NYC substantial impact on the • London quality of service. • Vancouver RailRail Option:Option: LightLight RailRail • Lower construction costs than heavy rail • Mid-range capacity and durability • Runs in shared right-of-way, incl. street level • Often selected for city-friendly attributes, such as easy boarding from street level • Ideal technology for downtown circulator – Lake Example Cities: shore corridor • Portland • Use of low-floor cars & Denver overhead power lines would • require new elevated • Los Angeles stations and extension construction on every line. • Running at street level would require extensive acquisition of property and traffic disruption. Option:Option: MonorailMonorail • Comparable capacity to light rail • System components may be more costly • Track/platform costs are reduced due to smaller beam profile • All systems have Automatic Train Operation (ATO) capability
To handle the number of riders CTA has on a daily Example Cities: basis, we'd need to • Las Vegas implement twice as many • Tama, Japan lines. • Osaka, Japan Cost estimates to • Newark AirTrain implement a city-wide monorail could be as much as $30 billion. Option:Option: “Urban“Urban Maglev”Maglev” • Runs at 100 m.p.h. • Designed for shorter station spacing • Still experimental and relatively untested • Costs are very difficult to estimate
• MagLev, averages 150+ MPH. Typically stations must be more than 10 Example Cities: miles apart due to • Nagoya Japan acceleration/ • Shanghai, China deceleration needs. • Berlin, Germany HeavyHeavy railrail wouldwould meetmeet futurefuture demandsdemands
Paris Meteor (Line 14) Madrid Line 10 Extension CTA North Corridor Hong Kong Tseung Kwan O Line (extension) Vancouver Millennium Line Extension Hong Kong Ma On Shan Railway CTA Northwest Corridor San Francisco, SFO Airport Extension CTA South Corridor Heavy Madrid MetroSur Extension Rail Boston, MBTA Southwest Transit (Orange Line) Vancouver Expo Line - Base System 40,000 Los Angeles, CA Red Line San Juan Tren Urbano CTA West Corridor Washington, DC Dulles Extension Washington, DC Largo Extension (Blue Line) Hong Kong Airport Railway CTA Southwest Corridor Copenhagen Metro Phase 1 Tama Monorail Las Vegas Monorail Kuala Lumpur Monorail Monorail 7,500 Newark Monorail New York, JFK Airport PeopleMover Portland Westside/Hillsboro Denver, Central Corridor Light Rail Los Angeles, Green Line Transit CTA 2030 Corridor Demand New Jersey Hudson Bergen 7,500 Curitiba, Brazil Linhas Expresso Biarticulado Los Angeles, Orange Line, San Fernando Valley Bus Rapid Theoretical BRT Miami, FL Transit 15,000 Pittsburgh, PA West Busway 7,500 Houston, TX Northwest (US 290) 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 Passengers per hour NewNew traintrain FeaturesFeatures • 406 Rail Cars at $1.4 Million per car • Total = $577 Million • Test car delivery – Beginning of 2009 • Features of new car • Smoother, quieter ride • Fully computerized internet-based controls • Reduced Maintenance costs • Additional Safety Features DoorDoor design:design: ScenarioScenario 11 Door design: Scenario 2 NewNew interiorinterior design:design: SchemeScheme 11 NewNew interiorinterior design:design: SchemeScheme 1a1a NewNew interiorinterior design:design: SchemeScheme 22 FrontFront EndEnd DesignDesign –– Current Current designdesign HeadlightsHeadlights andand colorscolors changechange HeadlightsHeadlights andand colorscolors changechange President’s Report
January 2008
ChicagoChicago TransitTransit AuthorityAuthority