metra budget 2006

METRA BUDGET STATEMENT November 2006
Just to show how reasonable I am, I will not be
complaining any more about the Metra security in front
of the Canal St. control center when the market is
open. That is, once I get a reason. After the regular
board meeting last month, Metra’s security chief and
his assistant explained to me that the building needed
24 hr. access, that there was no special threat from
the market, and that they worked with the market.
Someone could have explained this to me years ago,
but, as much as I am around Metra, I still had to find
the right person.
I still have yet to find the right person with my
larger question, about rebuilding the present system
in kind, without exploring any other technology. Until
then, I am opposing the big drive for more funding and
pushing a moratorium on transportation investment,
with these exceptions:
1. Mike Payne’s Gray Line proposal to allow electric
lines riders to use CTA on the same fare, unless full
fare integration is not much more difficult. At the
special Metra board meeting last month director Hill
said unity among the agencies was important. From a
rider’s standpoint, two fares for one ride is not
unity.
2. Metra might reroute the Southwest Service over the
Grand Trunk Western to a ramp down to old Panhandle
trackage near Western, then to the old GM&O, instead
of bleating for very expensive overpasses along 75th.
If pillars for the CTA southwest line preclude this,
then use a line further north. This would not
eliminate all freight interference, but the separated
crossing over the Western Ave lines would cut out a
lot. It would also allow a station at 63rd St. and
connection with the CTA line.
3. A rerouting along the Belt past Midway might also
be considered. This is an important destination in
itself and might even run through Union Station to
O’Hare. This would cost considerably less than the CTA
airport express, not only in monetary terms, but in
credibility about transit investment needs.
Metra might also use its apparent considerable
influence in the CREATE project to route much through
freight traffic over more direct, less congested
downstate lines and keep it out of Chicago altogether.
Maybe I just have not run into the right person on
that one too. So far I have only gotten "business as
usual" responses, or that there just would not be
enough business, that almost in the same breath as
statements of freight traffic exceeding predictions.
Transit culture has yet to catch up with car culture
in one important respect. When the repair shop says it
will cost $50,000 to fix the old jalopy, car culture
figures the Mercedes and Lexus dealers will be quite
happy to talk. Transit culture takes the Jerry Rubin
approach, however, just do it. Not that it always did.
Indeed, third rail rapid transit and push-pull
commuter trains were the transit Mercedes or Lexus of
their day, if a century or half a century ago. That
was under private cost/benefit comparison, something
lost under something-for- nothing state and federal
funding of transit projects. But there was the
complaint at that special board meeting about Metra
not having its own financial resources. If transit
were funded by land value capture instead, there would
be something akin to private cost/benefit comparison,
instead of pork barrel boondoggling.
Then Metra would plan a transition to new technology.
I would suggest adding cars and stations to a
heavy-duty monorail connecting the intermodal yards
and truck terminals along the Heritage Corridor, with
a detour to Clearing Yard and Midway that would be
awfully awkward with duorail. With that kind of
experience under the system’s belt, conversion of
heavy freight traffic lines might be a priority.
The Star Line will be swamped, if it works. Where is
its room for expansion? The monorail could be an
overhead high speed, high occupancy lane for express
buses, however, offering a far more effective and
flexible service.
William F. Wendt, Jr.