Metra Board of Directors · 2016-06-07 · Salt Lake City – Front Runner 14 1 1.4 1 1 1 11 # of...

Metra Board of Directors

Board MeetingApril 13, 2012

1

Presentation for

Metra Board of DirectorsApril 13, 2012

Union Station History • The last of Chicago’s historic stations; now owned by Amtrak

• Designed primarily to serve long distance trains,including large amounts of mail and express traffic

• Trains approach from north and south but do not pass through

Original Concourse Building, demolished 1968Chuckman Collection

The original concourse interior featured open space Univ. of AZ Library/Fred Harvey Collection

During World War II 100,000 passengers per daypassed through Chicago’s Union Station

Jack Delano, 1943 – Library of Congress

The original station handled voluminousmail and express packagesJack Delano, 1943 – Library of Congress

2

Street Access issues• Conflicts between:

– Taxis

– Buses

– Automobiles

– Shuttles

– Pedestrians

– Bicycles

3

Station Congestion Issues

Concourse Level during morning rush hour

Track/Platform Issues

• Existing track layout limits both train and passenger capacity– Narrow, obstructed platforms cause

overcrowding

– Single point of access to southern platforms

– Irregular platform lengths

– Limited ability to operate trains through the station

4

High Speed Rail /Improved Intercity Passenger Rail

Midwest Regional Rail Initiative• A 3,000 mile network of fast, frequent intercity trains

• Corridors with improvements currently funded include:– Chicago-Bloomington/Normal-Springfield-St Louis

– Chicago-Kalamazoo-Battle Creek-Ann Arbor-Detroit

– Chicago-Milwaukee

– Chicago-Rockford-Dubuque

– Chicago-Quad Cities

5

Many Prior Ideas, But Most With Limited Analysis

6

Original Daniel Burnham proposal for Union Station with office tower (c. 1914)

Helmut Jahn proposal for separate high speed rail station east of old Post Office (2010)

Winner of Chicago’s Union Station 2020 Design Competition (2009)

West Loop Transportation Center proposal (2002)

Solomon Cordwell Buenz proposal (2011)

Goals of This Master Plan Study

1. Provide sufficient capacity for significant increases in Metra and intercity ridership– estimated 40% increase in trains by 2040

– possible significant further increases

2. Make the terminal more inviting for passengers

3. Provide more direct and convenient transfers to buses, CTA trains, taxis, shuttles, pick-up/drop-off

4. Create a terminal that is vibrant,a civic asset, and a catalyst for growth in the West Loop and region

7

Short Term Ideas

• Two upcoming CDOT projects can improve local street traffic flow and curb access:– Central Area East-West Bus Rapid Transit

project (improved bus lanes)

– Union Station Transportation Center (off-street bus terminal)

8

Medium Term IdeasReallocate space not currently available to passengers

• Repurpose some unused baggage platform space– Widen Metra platforms using this area

– Add direct access to/from street level

9

Existing

Possible

Unused Baggage Platform

Medium Term IdeasReallocate space not currently available to passengers

• Convert unused mail platform for higher speed intercity trains– Adds platform

capacity

– Creates new through tracks

10

Space for improved through tracks

Unused mail

platform

Medium Term Ideas

• Enhance existing station facilities– Improved

navigation and passenger flow

• Canal Street Viaduct Reconstruction– Opportunity for improved street access

11

Existing

Possible

View of Canal Street facing South from Adams Street

Long Term/Visionary Ideas

• Possible new station tracks and platforms in subway under Clinton or Canal Streets

• Coordinate larger scale station expansion/enhancement with possible future land development

12

200 block of South Canal / Riverside Plaza 300 block of South Canal / Riverside Plaza

“Placemaking” opportunities

• Transform the historic stationinto an iconic destination– Economic engine that draws people for dining,

shopping, and other activities

– Easy connections to other transit modes

• Create a new intercity rail station• Improve riverfront and nearby blocks

– Input from passengers, workers, and residents

Example: Washington, D.C. Union Station

13

Project Schedule & Next Steps

• Develop simulation models to evaluate technical alternatives for:– Street access improvements

– Tracks/platform improvements

– Station configuration improvements

• Identify agencies that will:– Seek full funding for individual projects

– Lead each project through the planning, environmental review, detailed design, and construction processes

– Explore Public/Private Partnership Opportunities

• Continued public outreach for each project

14

Thank You

Please visitwww.UnionStationMP.org

15

State of Metra Operations


Presented by George HardwidgeDeputy Executive Director – Operations

System On-Time PerformanceMarch 2012

2

Metra System On-Time Performance

March 2012

PercentOn-Time

Weekday Peak 96.9%Weekday Off-Peak 96.1%Weekend 93.3%Total 96.1%

3


%Minutes Delays Total6-10 303 44%11-15 131 19%16-20 67 10%21+ 160 23%Annulled 26 4%

687 100%

4

Mar 2012 Delays by Duration


Major Incidents in March 2012

• Freight 102 delays• Mechanical 111 delays• Track Construction 39 delays• Right-of-Way Accidents 51 delays• Signal/Switch Failure 95 delays

5


• March 21 - Power Failure CCF– Com-Ed Power Surge – Lost Uninterruptable Power Supply Units – 27 Delays

• 3/17 St. Patrick’s Day Heavy Loading– Same Service Plan as Previous Years– Unexpected Large Crowds– 49 Delays

6


PercentLine On-TimeElectric District 97.9%Rock Island District 94.8%SouthWest Service 94.8%Heritage Corridor 94.7%BNSF Railway 95.2%Union Pacific-West 95.2%Milwaukee District-West 95.2%Union Pacific-Northwest 96.4%Milwaukee District-North 94.1%North Central Service 94.4%Union Pacific-North 97.9%SYSTEM 96.1%

March 2012 OTP by Line

7


Presented by Lynnette CiavarellaSenior Division Director, Strategic Capital Planning/

Grants Development

Ridership Trends February 2012

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Rid

ersh

ip in M

illio

ns

Calendar Adjusted Including Free Trips February, 1983-2012

2

Metra System Ridership

2010 2011 2012 10 vs. 12 11 vs. 12Monthly 91,857 91,241 92,967 1.2% 1.9%Ten-ride 137,094 130,021 148,575 8.4% 14.3%

Station One-Way 307,101 307,459 357,263 16.3% 16.2%Conductor One-Way 257,862 256,929 302,913 17.5% 17.9%

Total One-Way 564,963 563,771 660,176 16.9% 17.1%

Weekend 72,795 63,625 75,578 3.8% 18.8%

February (2010 - 2012)

Ticket Sales by Type

3

Red

uced

-Far

e R

ides

*

*Includes all eligible and ineligible reduced-fare rides and does not include conductor, weekend, and group sales. Senior Ride Free Program discontinued on September 1, 2011. Metra’s grace period expired on September 6, 2011.

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

Jan-1

1

Feb Mar Apr

May Jun Jul

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan-1

2

FebJanuary 2011 – February 2012

Reduced-Fare Rides

4

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

Jan-1

1Fe

b-11

Mar-11

Apr-11

May-11

Jun-1

1Ju

l-11

Aug-11

Sep-11

Oct-11

Nov-11

Dec-11

Jan-1

2Fe

b-12

Free

Trip

s

*Senior Ride Free Program discontinued on September 1, 2011. Metra’s grace period expired on September 6, 2011.

Free Trips

5

“Circuit-Permit” & Senior Free Trips (January 2011 – February 2012)

Average Auto Gas Prices

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

$4.50

$5.00

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Ave

rage

Cos

t Per

Gal

lon

Cook County

6

Winter Weather February

Winter Statistics 2010 2011 2012 45-yr avgSnowfall (inches) 22.5 29.0 5.6 8.5Days below zero 0 3 0 2.3Average Temperature 26.7 26.2 32.9 27

Year

7

System Ridership

February 2.3% increase– Calendar adjusted -0.8% decrease

Year to date 1.8% increase– January & February 2012

Last 3 months 1.5% increase– December 2011 – February 2012

Last 12-months 1.9% increase– March 2011 – February 2012

8

2011 vs. 2012

Monthly Financial Report


Presented by Thomas FarmerChief Financial Officer

February 2012 Budget vs. Actual

22

Actual vsActual Budget Budget

Operating revenue Passenger revenue 24.3 22.3 2.0 Other revenue 2.9 3.6 (0.7) Total operating revenue 27.2 25.9 1.3

Operating expense Operations and Maintenance 39.1 40.4 1.3 Administration & Regional Services 5.6 6.4 0.8 Diesel Fuel 6.4 6.3 (0.1) Motive Power 1.0 0.8 (0.2) Claims and Insurance 2.4 1.5 (0.9) Downtown Stations 1.1 1.2 0.1 Total operating expense 55.6 56.6 1.0

Operating Deficit 28.4 30.7 2.3

Revenue Recovery Ratio 51.4% 48.6% 2.8%

In Millions

2

February 2012 Year to Date Budget vs. Actual

23

Actual vsActual Budget Budget

Operating revenue Passenger revenue 44.6 41.7 2.9 Other revenue 6.3 7.3 (1.0) Total operating revenue 50.9 49.0 1.9

Operating expense Operations and Maintenance 81.4 82.6 1.2 Administration & Regional Services 11.6 12.7 1.1 Diesel Fuel 12.8 13.1 0.3 Motive Power 1.7 1.7 0.0 Claims and Insurance 4.5 3.8 (0.7) Downtown Stations 2.3 2.4 0.1 Total operating expense 114.3 116.3 2.0

Operating Deficit 63.4 67.3 3.9

Revenue Recovery Ratio 47.1% 44.7% 2.4%

In Millions

3

Regional Fare Payment Update



Grants Development

Small Commuter Rail Peers - North America

4.0218Virginia/DC – Virginia Railway Express

10.6132San Francisco Bay-San Jose – Caltrain

12.0755Los Angeles - Metrolink

15.5552Montreal – AMT

47.3761Toronto - GO Transit

1.2113Albuquerque, New Mexico – Rail Runner

3.6118Miami – Tri-Rail

2.5210Seattle – Sounder/Sound Transit

2.4110Dallas – Trinity Railway Express

1.4114Salt Lake City – Front Runner

1

1

1

11

# of Rail Lines

0.7

1.3

2.6

82.7

Annual Ridership (in millions)

8Vancouver – West Coast Express

8San Diego – Coaster

# of StationsAgency

Metra 241

Minneapolis - Northstar 6

2

Small Commuter Rail Peers – North America• Smart card systems

–Proof of Payment systems–“Closed-loop” (proprietary) –8 of 13 have implemented already

• Contactless bank card systems–“Open payment”– 3 of 13

• Utah implemented for one-way rides, but will expand• Dallas to implement 2013 - TVMs will accept

contactless bank cards• Vancouver to implement 2013

–Remaining systems waiting/researching

3

Small Commuter Rail Peers – North America• Near Field Communication (NFC)/mobile phone

ticketing – None yet implemented– Utah will pilot mid-2012– Virginia (DC) & Dallas just released RFIs– All others interested

• Conductor handheld sale and/or validation devices– Nine currently use for validation– Utah testing contactless handheld devices – Only one (New Mexico) sells on trains

• Any new technology easier to implement on the newer systems and smaller systems

4

Draft Principles - Regional Payment System

Regional fare payment system must……• Improve fare collection and simplify overall collection

activities and reconciliation• Minimize on-train transactions and overall transaction

costs• Recognize that convenience has a value to the customer• Simplify and optimize business practices• Be cost effective• Ensure a high degree of reliability • Promote system use and be easily understood by the

customers • Have no adverse effect on train operations • Allow for effective/efficient on-train ticket validation

5

TimelineAugust 2012 Future State Plan Completed

December 2012 Demonstration projects, RFI/RFP release, on-going refinement of future state plan

June 2013 Tentative – begin design/ implementation/testing

January 2015 Contactless credit card acceptance

6



Grants Development

Strategic PlanUpdate

Elements of Strategic Planning Process• Set Context / Review Existing Conditions• Establish Mission / Vision / Values• SWOT

–Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats

• Situational Analysis–Political, economic, technological,

environmental, regulatory, and legal analysis• Establish Goals & Objectives

–to bring about Mission / Vision

Metra Board, Public, & Key Stake-

holders Involved Throughout the Process

2

Elements of Strategic Planning Process (cont.)

• Define Performance Measures–to evaluate ways to accomplish Goals &

Objectives• Define Strategies, Initiatives and Scenarios

–to accomplish Goals & Objectives• Evaluate Strategies, Initiatives, & Scenarios

–using previously developed Performance Measures

• Develop Financial Plans• Develop Final Plan, Programs & Strategic

Actions

Metra Board, Public, & Key Stake-

holders Involved Throughout the Process

3

Existing Conditions – State of the System

• Intro & chapters on each of Metra’s 11 rail lines with separate chapters on NICTD & CBD Market

• Each rail line chapter contains:– Existing Service & Conditions– Improvements Since the Start of Metra– Present and Future Demand– Station & Parking Improvements

• Presented in DRAFT form to begin the Strategic Plan conversation with an accurate picture of the existing conditions in the system

4

State of the System Example: MD-W (1 of 2) 2011 Average Trip Length 24.56 miles

2011 Average Fare Paid $3.19Source: Ridership Trends Report, December 2011

Number of Stations 22

Route Length 39.8 miles

Number of Weekday Trains 58

2011 On-Time Performance* 93.0%*On-Time Performance Report, December 2011

Station Fare Accessibility1

Zone 19832 20063

Capacity (Spaces)4

Effective Use5

Observed Use6

Shortest Trip

Longest Trip

Union Station A 0.0 Full 6,548 10,144 0 n/a n/a n/a n/aWestern Ave.7 A 2.9 Full 158 372 22 100% 100% 12 14Hermosa8 -- -- -- 101 35 -- -- -- -- --Grand / Cicero8 B 6.5 Full -- -- 0 n/a n/a 20 24Cragin8 -- -- -- 111 37 -- -- -- -- --Hanson Park B 7.7 Full 54 54 27 96% 96% 23 27Galewood B 8.6 Full 202 265 135 43% 43% 22 29Mars B 9.1 Full 75 110 63 60% 60% 27 30Mont Clare B 9.5 Full 314 361 194 41% 41% 24 32Elmwood Park C 10.2 Full 466 392 135 96% 96% 26 34River Grove9 C 11.4 Full 222 174 162 94% 86% 28 37Franklin Park C 13.2 Full 446 461 288 74% 74% 26 41Mannheim C 14.0 None 49 37 30 3% 3% 29 43Bensenville D 17.2 Full 439 450 204 58% 58% 32 48Wood Dale D 19.1 Full 497 639 466 80% 75% 36 52Itasca E 21.1 Full 444 546 341 76% 73% 40 56Medinah E 23.0 Full 194 501 397 91% 85% 43 60Roselle E 23.9 Full 1,455 1,500 1,100 89% 73% 46 62Schaumburg F 26.5 Full 480 1,698 1,584 77% 76% 43 67Hanover Park F 28.4 Full 738 1,482 1,373 90% 78% 47 71Bartlett F 30.1 Full 669 1,064 741 88% 72% 51 74National St. H 36.0 Full 132 742 573 83% 83% 60 82Elgin H 36.6 Full 390 476 147 99% 99% 62 84Big Timber Rd10 H 39.8 Full -- 803 694 87% 87% 69 90TOTAL MD-W 14,184 22,343 8,676 82% 76%

Post

Time to Chicago (mins)1Mile Station Parking (2011)Boardings

Map of Line, Stations, Municipalities Service & Ridership Characteristics

Station Characteristics

Line Level Ridership Trends

5

State of the System Example: MD-W (2 of 2)Rider Origins by Boarding Station

MD-W System

Rolling Stock $192.4 $1,856.6 Track 85.4 763.5 Structure 39.5 606.0 Signal 66.8 508.0 Electrical 1.1 74.9 Communications 2.9 36.5 Facilities 53.8 417.1 Equipment 10.1 113.4 Stations 46.7 629.5 Parking 22.0 171.4 Downtown Terminals 3.7 295.4

TOTAL $524.4 $5,472.3(in millions of dollars)

Capital Investment History

2000 2010 2040 2000 vs 2010 2010 vs 2040

Union Station, Western Ave. A 3.6 61,046 56,719 76,351 -7.1% 34.6%Grand/Cicero, Hanson Park, Galewood, Mars, Mont Clare B 11.8 189,353 177,894 208,390 -6.1% 17.1%Elmwood Park, River Grove, Franklin Park, Mannheim C 15.7 102,989 100,834 108,921 -2.1% 8.0%Bensenville, Wood Dale D 21.6 49,982 47,874 62,835 -4.2% 31.3%Itasca, Medinah, Roselle E 39.9 124,537 125,421 147,164 0.7% 17.3%Schaumburg, Hanover Park, Bartlett F 68.1 207,037 212,801 243,443 2.8% 14.4%National St, Elgin, Big Timber Rd. H 198.6 172,418 224,519 363,399 30.2% 61.9%

MD-W TOTAL 359.3 907,362 946,062 1,210,503 4.3% 28.0%REGION TOTAL 3,748.0 8,091,717 8,456,762 11,717,936 4.5% 38.6%

Percent ChangeStation

Fare Zone

Area Sq. Mi.

Population in Zone

Corridor & Station Area Population, Households & Employment Growth

6

Timeline• Today: Review evaluation of existing

conditions – DRAFT State of the System Report

• Summer: Develop draft policy statements for Board consideration

• Summer: Begin Board, public, & key stakeholder outreach regarding Strategic Plan

• Fall: Evaluation of strategies, initiatives & scenarios

• Winter: Approve final plan

7

Metra Board of Directors · 2016-06-07 · Salt Lake City – Front Runner 14 1 1.4 1 1 1 11 # of...

Documents

Transcript of Metra Board of Directors · 2016-06-07 · Salt Lake City – Front Runner 14 1 1.4 1 1 1 11 # of...