Massive six-year plan would also include funds for Amtrak service to Quad Cities
Illinois is such a disgrace. Lincoln must be tired of turning in his grave.
Long time gone.
Illinois residents will decide.
As a lifelong resident of the sorry state of Illinois, and a supporter of high speed regional rail travel throughout the United States, I tremble at the thought of Illinois spending any amount of money at this time for such a “luxury”. And, of all places, to the Quad Cities???
Nothing against the Quad Cities, but c’mon. If you want to do that, how about to St. Louis or some other big city destination 5 to 8 hours away. The Quad Cities?
Rich
And per usual, nothing to Rockford. Largest city in Illinois outside of Chicagoland.
Rockford was on a state-supported route to Dubuque on the former IC into the early 1980’s. Several proposals have been made about reinstating this service but nothing ever came of them.
Well, since this proposal is asking for 10 billion in Federal funds, lets hope not.
Yes, I rode the Blackhawk numerous times into Chicago from Rockford back then. One of my brothers worked in the Loop not far from CUS at the time and lived in Rogers Park. Amtrak plus the subway made travel very convenient. Always liked seeing Wrigley Field. Amtrak ran 3 RDCs most of the time. I was able to get a cab view sometimes. The conductor on the run was really nice. For awhile when the RDCs were out of service, Amtrak ran a three car train, two of the cars being observation cars, one at each end. That was fun. Today, the route wouldn’t have to go all the way to Dubuque. It could end at Freeport.
Illinois residents pay in a lot more to the federal government than we get back. We are tired of subsidizing places like MS and AL.
Just out of curiosity: what would the incremental cost of adding the 2015 Black Hawk ‘revival’ into this proposed project be? And, of that, what additional percentage in dollars would derive from Federal sources?
Does not seem that Rockford is ‘that’ far beyond existing Metra end of service. The question then becomes what local 'boosting will provide actual, consistent, predictable demand between the Rockford area and Chicago.
All that needs is a coordinated shuttle to and from existing service at Carbondale. As charlie hebdo indicated, Illinois voters are the ones who should pick the priorities, and if they’re actually going to use money for actual rail construction and operation, why are we trashing it on a railfan site?
That’s been on and off, and not just because of a lack of funding. The proposal that was settled on with some work completed was using the former IC route. But CN changed its mind and did not want any passenger train interference, even though that line is not especially dense in traffic compared to pre-1971. Then a route partly using some former CNW track was chosen/explored but Gov. Rauner pulled a Walker and pulled out. It should go on to Galena (and Dubuque) for the tourist trade to maximize potential ridership.
I didn’t know you spoke for the entire state. Also, welcome to being part of a country.
Why was the route dropped?
I still do not understand why there is no movement by the state to make METRA self-sustaining instead of continuing to rely on these massive infusions of cash to keep it going. Most of this money is going to support sustainment programs vs expansion programs. That should raise a large red flag in the Illinois legislature that Chicago’s METRA cannot sustain itself via local fee / fare collections.
To me that says that METRA is either too large OR the communities it relies on to pay for it as a service are not paying enough money into the pot.
No transit authority in the United States is self-sustaining strictly from the farebox. The RTA covers the rest of its operations from a gasoline tax levied in the six-county operating area. It is not dependent on appropriations from the General Assembly to cover operations expenses. Capital improvements do tend to require grants from various state and Federal programs.
Is there any heavy-rail transit system of comparable size and capacity anywhere in the United States that ‘pays for itself as a service’ with ‘farebox’ returns? Even those with enough off-peak ridership to justify operating rush-hour-sized consists for periodic daily or nighttime service?
I had thought the particular economics of ‘commuter’ operations, including the specific fact that very expensive equipment in large numbers is often utilized for only about 4 hours a day, and directionally at that (with little better than deadhead ridership in the counter-peak direction, too). There can be plenty of apparent farebox marginal profit from, say, a double-deck car stuffed full of people, but all the costs have to be averaged over 24 hours with many if not most of the trains expensively moved to holding facilities and then taken back to origin stations twice a day. This was part of the critical argument leading to the establishment of what is now Metro North in 1966, and I don’t recall having seen any more rosy prediction of getting away from massive government subsidy ‘justified for social purposes’ since then.
Of course not. The person asking why Metra is not self-sustaining is not informed about its original purpose and its funding. Additionally he seems to have some odd grudge against Metra because it interferes with his Amtrak service to and from Milwaukee. On several occasions he has referred to Metra commuters as Joe lunch pails, as though they we
No and it doesn’t have to. However, it should pay for itself via local fees, taxes, farebox recovery without having to go to the state or feds for supplimental cash just to be used for sustainment. Otherwise, what is the benefit? How does METRA benefit someone in Northern Wisconsin that never travels to Chicago and has to pay for it via Federal Tax money? It does seem that larger cities are using this as their model though (probably following the New York City example).
Get the regional authority to secure funding to pay for sustainment entirely. Fine if they use apportioned state funds to do so (say a portion of the sales tax). However, I don’t think the model of having the local rail authority go to the state or Feds repeatedly for supplimental funds is a good funding model given how politics at the state and Federal level swing back and forth. It leads to repeated cases of deferred maintenence and then the need for a “catch up” budget that is oversized.
Seems to me that having the local authority work with the state for a ongoing and secure funding source that covers sustainment of the entire rail system would be far more preferable than the feast or famine method they are using now.
The same point of view that a slum lord uses when renting out an apartment.
However, if you rent out the infratructure as a transit medium and you continually obstruct transit on it…what does that say about the owners ability to meet the terms of the contract of providing the transit medium? You can’t use the “we own the tracks” defense in a courtroom because the court will inevitably tell you that it’s irrelevant who owns the track. What is relevant to the case is the landlord to tenant relationship. If the landlord refuses to honor the transit window it has previously rented or sold to your firm and it is impacting your business as a firm. You have a case against the landlord. Just as you would if your roof was leaking and you refused to fix the roof because you owned the building.