[Southsider2k12]

As an everyday commuter, let me just say "Yes. Yes it is."

http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs....35/1062/Opinion

South Shore worth the cost
OUR OPINION

If the price of gasoline isn't reason enough to ride the South Shore, then the price of gasoline together with the cost of using the Toll Road probably is.

The South Shore Railroad is a bargain. As it marks 100 years of operation, the last of the Chicago interurbans also is a genuine antique. And, with demand at nearly an all-time high, it's worth every bit of effort to keep the train line up to date, efficient and comfortable.

In 1957, South Shore ridership peaked at 4.2 million. Today, even though we live in a country that has a passenger vehicle for every person older than 16, rail is looking ever better. South Shore ridership topped 4 million last year.

certificateGood towards any salon service. Must call for appointment - 299-CUTS. No cash value, Not valid on retail purchases. One certifi ...

Retail value: $50.00
Buy it now for $25.00
You save: $25.00 (50%)
The rail line is a welcome way around the high cost of driving and crowded highways for both daily commuters and occasional Chicago visitors.

That is why it is more important than ever that the South Shore keep up with public demand.

A July 6 Associated Press story about the surge in ridership noted that average weekday traffic now tops 14,000 and the trains are at capacity. In the words of U.S. Rep Peter Visclosky, a Democrat representing Indiana's 1st District, "They're so packed it's impossible to pack any more people on there."

Not only is there strong demand for the South Shore now, but there is an opportunity to build loyalty among commuters and weekend city visitors.

The Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District, which runs the railroad, wants to expand the line to reach Lowell and Valparaiso. That's fine. We think Valparaiso residents especially would embrace South Shore access. Most important, though, is improving the existing route.

Critical to improving the route is shortening the trip from South Bend, the easternmost stop, to Chicago. The way to do that is for the railroad to approach the South Bend Regional Airport from the west side, and for the route to bypass residential Michigan City. That would cut more than 20 minutes off the trip to Randolph Street Station.

More cars clearly are needed. The 14 brand new double-deckers coming yet this year will be very welcome.

Improvements, especially those that involve laying rail, are costly. But they will be very beneficial in the long run — to the environment, to the economy and to commuters' peace of mind.

EDITORIAL BOARD

DAVID C. RAY, Editor and Publisher

Tim Harmon, Managing Editor

[Dave]

Critical to improving the route is shortening the trip from South Bend, the easternmost stop, to Chicago. The way to do that is for the railroad to approach the South Bend Regional Airport from the west side, and for the route to bypass residential Michigan City. That would cut more than 20 minutes off the trip to Randolph Street Station.

First, I suspect the validity of that 20 minute savings.

Second, shaving 20 minutes off that 2 hour and 20 minute ride is not going to increase ridership.

Third, even if there was some minimal time saving that increased ridership from South Bend, how long do you suppose the revenue generated from that increased ridership would take to pay the $100 million dollar pricetag to move the railroad to Ames Field from 11th street? My guess would be sometime after the heat death of the freakin' universe.

Fourth, moving the train away from 11th street runs contrary to every plan for redevelopement of the North End.

Fifth, the main objection the South Shore has to running their tracks down 11th street has nothing to do with the passenger service there -- their problem with service on 11th has to do with their freight traffic. Personally, I don't care where the heck they run their freight traffic, as long as the passenger service stays right where it is.

[Southsider2k12]

First, I suspect the validity of that 20 minute savings.

Second, shaving 20 minutes off that 2 hour and 20 minute ride is not going to increase ridership.

Third, even if there was some minimal time saving that increased ridership from South Bend, how long do you suppose the revenue generated from that increased ridership would take to pay the $100 million dollar pricetag to move the railroad to Ames Field from 11th street? My guess would be sometime after the heat death of the freakin' universe.

Fourth, moving the train away from 11th street runs contrary to every plan for redevelopement of the North End.

Fifth, the main objection the South Shore has to running their tracks down 11th street has nothing to do with the passenger service there -- their problem with service on 11th has to do with their freight traffic. Personally, I don't care where the heck they run their freight traffic, as long as the passenger service stays right where it is.

I looked at the samething a while back and came to pretty much the same conclusion on the passenger side. I didn't even think about the freight side of things. The relocation of the tracks makes much more sense in that respect, coupled with the fact that they actually make a profit in those operations.

[Roger Kaputnik]

Following the thinking of the people in the article, MC should be bypassed entirely in the interest of efficiency. It is a real waste of time having to stop and pick up all those people!

[jb9152]

First, I suspect the validity of that 20 minute savings.

It will take studies, such as train performance calculations, to establish the exact savings, BUT not requiring trains to go past the airport to come back east to access it will be a significant savings, as will just about any reasonable re-route that gets trains off city streets and onto their own private rights of way.

Second, shaving 20 minutes off that 2 hour and 20 minute ride is not going to increase ridership.

If you read the article, it doesn't suggest that these improvements are needed to increase ridership. They are to keep up with increasing demand, and to enhance the reliability of the existing route. In addition, time savings = cost savings. Decreasing crew and equipment cycle times could also result in better utilization of current equipment, meaning more seats to meet the growing demand.

Third, even if there was some minimal time saving that increased ridership from South Bend, how long do you suppose the revenue generated from that increased ridership would take to pay the $100 million dollar pricetag to move the railroad to Ames Field from 11th street? My guess would be sometime after the heat death of the freakin' universe.

Again, it's not about increasing ridership from South Bend - ridership is *already* increasing from South Bend. The goal of the improvements, including getting out of the streets, is mainly to enhance reliability and improve performance, plus decreasing cycle times.

Fourth, moving the train away from 11th street runs contrary to every plan for redevelopement of the North End.

I saw nothing in the article to suggest that the trains would be moved out of the north end. Taking them out of the street and placing them on their own private right of way does not ipso facto mean that they're leaving the north end.

Fifth, the main objection the South Shore has to running their tracks down 11th street has nothing to do with the passenger service there -- their problem with service on 11th has to do with their freight traffic. Personally, I don't care where the heck they run their freight traffic, as long as the passenger service stays right where it is.

No, that's incorrect. The problem with running in the street is much more complicated - that section of the railroad is the hardest and costliest to maintain, to begin with, because the track and related substructure are encased in asphalt. It is also routinely subject to signal problems, especially in the winter when salt interferes with the track circuits. There are a host of problems associated with street running that have nothing at all to do with running freight service, and everything to do with the fact that the track and substructure deteriorate more quickly in the wet conditions under the asphalt surface, and any maintenance beyond routine requires street closures and excavation.

[Dave]

Welcome to the boards, jb.

It will take studies, such as train performance calculations, to establish the exact savings, BUT not requiring trains to go past the airport to come back east to access it will be a significant savings, as will just about any reasonable re-route that gets trains off city streets and onto their own private rights of way.

Michigan City recently kicked in $50K (or was it $75K?) to assist NICTD with a study regarding rerouting the rail lines. As for how the train is routed east of Carroll Street, I can honestly say I don't care. Can they save time and money by changing the route through South Bend? Great.

If you read the article, it doesn't suggest that these improvements are needed to increase ridership. They are to keep up with increasing demand, and to enhance the reliability of the existing route. In addition, time savings = cost savings. Decreasing crew and equipment cycle times could also result in better utilization of current equipment, meaning more seats to meet the growing demand.

You know, I read the article, then I conflated it with all the "let's move the train station to Ames Field" stuff that's been coming from NICTD and some faction at City Hall. My apologies to everyone on that -- I have a hair trigger on this subject.

Again, it's not about increasing ridership from South Bend - ridership is *already* increasing from South Bend. The goal of the improvements, including getting out of the streets, is mainly to enhance reliability and improve performance, plus decreasing cycle times.

And I have no problem with any proposed changes in South Bend -- the way the railline loops around to get to the airport (I just looked it up on google earth) does look like a serious time waster. On the other hand, avoiding the residential areas of Michigan City? As Roger said, they could probably save even more time by bypassing MC altogether -- would that be a good thing?

I saw nothing in the article to suggest that the trains would be moved out of the north end. Taking them out of the street and placing them on their own private right of way does not ipso facto mean that they're leaving the north end.

Here's a hint -- the north end is residential.

No, that's incorrect. The problem with running in the street is much more complicated - that section of the railroad is the hardest and costliest to maintain, to begin with, because the track and related substructure are encased in asphalt. It is also routinely subject to signal problems, especially in the winter when salt interferes with the track circuits. There are a host of problems associated with street running that have nothing at all to do with running freight service, and everything to do with the fact that the track and substructure deteriorate more quickly in the wet conditions under the asphalt surface, and any maintenance beyond routine requires street closures and excavation.

And the reason the asphalt encased portion of the line is hard to maintain is due not to lightweight passenger cars, but due to heavy freight cars. While running the rails in the street may create some maintainance issues such as those you have mentioned, unless you can show me an engineering study stating otherwise, I'm going to believe the issues are due to running freight cars with 250,000 pounds of coal or steel coils in them rather than running passenger cars that weigh one fifth as much.

Again courtesy of google earth, I measured the length of the run of the rails in the street at just under two miles, from Michigan Blvd on the east to Sheridan Ave. on the west. And according to the NICTD website, that two miles is the most expensive to maintain. But I'd be willing to bet that if NICTD was a privately owned company considering laying out stockholders money, their answers would be different from these folks trying to figure out how to blow taxpayers dollars that they are never going to recover.

[Southsider2k12]

It will take studies, such as train performance calculations, to establish the exact savings, BUT not requiring trains to go past the airport to come back east to access it will be a significant savings, as will just about any reasonable re-route that gets trains off city streets and onto their own private rights of way.
If you read the article, it doesn't suggest that these improvements are needed to increase ridership. They are to keep up with increasing demand, and to enhance the reliability of the existing route. In addition, time savings = cost savings. Decreasing crew and equipment cycle times could also result in better utilization of current equipment, meaning more seats to meet the growing demand.
Again, it's not about increasing ridership from South Bend - ridership is *already* increasing from South Bend. The goal of the improvements, including getting out of the streets, is mainly to enhance reliability and improve performance, plus decreasing cycle times.
I saw nothing in the article to suggest that the trains would be moved out of the north end. Taking them out of the street and placing them on their own private right of way does not ipso facto mean that they're leaving the north end.
No, that's incorrect. The problem with running in the street is much more complicated - that section of the railroad is the hardest and costliest to maintain, to begin with, because the track and related substructure are encased in asphalt. It is also routinely subject to signal problems, especially in the winter when salt interferes with the track circuits. There are a host of problems associated with street running that have nothing at all to do with running freight service, and everything to do with the fact that the track and substructure deteriorate more quickly in the wet conditions under the asphalt surface, and any maintenance beyond routine requires street closures and excavation.

Welcome to the site!

I am guessing for the information you have, you are either close to the NICTD, or the City... I wonder if you could give a little more information on the claim that 20 minutes could be shaved off of the trip with this move?

[Dave]

Welcome to the site!

I am guessing for the information you have, you are either close to the NICTD, or the City... I wonder if you could give a little more information on the claim that 20 minutes could be shaved off of the trip with this move?

In addition, I'd like to know how much of the time savings would be due to rerouting the run in to the South Bend Airport, and how much of the time savings would be due to rerouting the run through Michigan City. It seems to me that these two separate things somehow get lumped together all the time.

[Roger Kaputnik]

I don't see any discussion of any lost business from rerouting.

[jb9152]

Welcome to the boards, jb.

Thanks! This is a great place.

Michigan City recently kicked in $50K (or was it $75K?) to assist NICTD with a study regarding rerouting the rail lines. As for how the train is routed east of Carroll Street, I can honestly say I don't care. Can they save time and money by changing the route through South Bend? Great.

I'm not sure that an actual train performance calculation, wherein data on alignment, grades, curves, speed restrictions, station platforms, signal locations, and equipment performance are input and out pops a run time. So I don't know if that study included such a beast, but that would have either confirmed that 20 minute number or come up with a more accurate one.

You know, I read the article, then I conflated it with all the "let's move the train station to Ames Field" stuff that's been coming from NICTD and some faction at City Hall. My apologies to everyone on that -- I have a hair trigger on this subject.

I understand. I don't think the southern route is a serious contender, due to the back up movement trains would have to make coming out of and going into the yard at Carroll Avenue.

And I have no problem with any proposed changes in South Bend -- the way the railline loops around to get to the airport (I just looked it up on google earth) does look like a serious time waster. On the other hand, avoiding the residential areas of Michigan City? As Roger said, they could probably save even more time by bypassing MC altogether -- would that be a good thing?

Of course not, but getting the train out of the asphalt doesn't necessarily mean having it avoid residential areas. It just means providing the train its own exclusive right of way, and that can be done in a number of different ways.

Here's a hint -- the north end is residential.

Yes, but that's inconsequential to the goal of breaking the tracks out of the asphalt and giving the trains an exclusive right of way to run on.

And the reason the asphalt encased portion of the line is hard to maintain is due not to lightweight passenger cars, but due to heavy freight cars. While running the rails in the street may create some maintainance issues such as those you have mentioned, unless you can show me an engineering study stating otherwise, I'm going to believe the issues are due to running freight cars with 250,000 pounds of coal or steel coils in them rather than running passenger cars that weigh one fifth as much.

Sorry, but that's got nothing at all to do with it. The issues with maintaining track that is encased 24/7/365 in asphalt are the same for light rail systems as they are for the heaviest freight. The very fact that the track is in asphalt makes it incredibly expensive and difficult to maintain. It's nothing like other parts of the line, where maintenance can be simply performed outright. Maintenance on the street-running portion requires street closures and excavation of the asphalt.

Plus, the wetness of the trackbed, not being able to properly drain through a ballast system, is notorious for causing red signals and problems for the signal system as a whole. Not to mention the deleterious effects that constant wetness has on ties, rails, and rail fasteners.

Again courtesy of google earth, I measured the length of the run of the rails in the street at just under two miles, from Michigan Blvd on the east to Sheridan Ave. on the west. And according to the NICTD website, that two miles is the most expensive to maintain. But I'd be willing to bet that if NICTD was a privately owned company considering laying out stockholders money, their answers would be different from these folks trying to figure out how to blow taxpayers dollars that they are never going to recover.

Hmmm, can't agree with you there. Moving the tracks out of the asphalt will dramatically lower maintenance costs on that 2 mile stretch, and allow the track maintenance and signal maintenance forces to be much more efficient in their efforts across the entire line. An inordinate amount of time is spent in maintaining and fixing problems and issues in the street running portion of the line.

[jb9152]

Welcome to the site!

I am guessing for the information you have, you are either close to the NICTD, or the City... I wonder if you could give a little more information on the claim that 20 minutes could be shaved off of the trip with this move?

Thanks! It's good to be here. As I said previously, it would take a train performance calculation (basically, a model train set in software) to accurately predict what the alignment changes would save NICTD trains in end-to-end run time. I suspect the 20 minute figure, which is deceptively 'round', is an estimate based on average speed, distance shaved off at South Bend, and the time difference between operating at the current slow speed in the streets, and a new, higher speed that could be possible if the tracks were re-routed to an exclusive right of way.

[jb9152]

In addition, I'd like to know how much of the time savings would be due to rerouting the run in to the South Bend Airport, and how much of the time savings would be due to rerouting the run through Michigan City. It seems to me that these two separate things somehow get lumped together all the time.

Not sure how much can be attributed to either. Train performance calculation, that's the only way to be accurate about the run time savings without actually building the thing, running it, and timing it.

[Dave]

Hmmm, can't agree with you there. Moving the tracks out of the asphalt will dramatically lower maintenance costs on that 2 mile stretch, and allow the track maintenance and signal maintenance forces to be much more efficient in their efforts across the entire line. An inordinate amount of time is spent in maintaining and fixing problems and issues in the street running portion of the line.

Any idea how long it would take for maintainance costs of that two mile stretch to go through $100 million?

As for exclusive right of way through the north end of Michigan City, how exactly does that happen? Close 11th street to automobile traffic and tear up the asphalt (except at the intersections)? Honestly, I'd prefer that to the Ames Field plan. Move the rails out of the street? That would require knocking down a lot of houses. Put in an elevated railway? Shoot, the cost of that would probably make $100 million look like chump change.

The way I see this issue is, the status quo appears to have been working for the past 100 years. Unless there is a compelling reason to change (and by "compelling" I mean something like maintainance issues for those two miles of track cost NICTD well over $10 million annually), I see no reason to disrupt the north end by making any major changes.

I am guessing for the information you have, you are either close to the NICTD, or the City...

jb, you seem to bring knowledge to the boards, which is a good thing, but I have to wonder about this as well. If you're an engineer that works on this sort of thing and you're bringing your informed opinion, my knowing that helps me weigh what you're saying. On the other hand, if you work for the Public Relations department of NICTD, well, then I might weigh your comments differently. On the gripping hand, you could be a well informed layman with a really cool model train layout in his basement (which very well could be make you more credible than either of the previously mentioned alternatives!) Care to enlighten us?

This post has been edited by Dave: Aug 5 2008, 09:53 PM

[jb9152]

Any idea how long it would take for maintainance costs of that two mile stretch to go through $100 million?

As for exclusive right of way through the north end of Michigan City, how exactly does that happen? Close 11th street to automobile traffic and tear up the asphalt (except at the intersections)? Honestly, I'd prefer that to the Ames Field plan. Move the rails out of the street? That would require knocking down a lot of houses. Put in an elevated railway? Shoot, the cost of that would probably make $100 million look like chump change.

The way I see this issue is, the status quo appears to have been working for the past 100 years. Unless there is a compelling reason to change (and by "compelling" I mean something like maintainance issues for those two miles of track cost NICTD well over $10 million annually), I see no reason to disrupt the north end by making any major changes.

I don't know what the annual maintenance costs are for that stretch of road, but based on my own past experience, it's likely a whole lot. In the end, though, I don't believe that it's a zero-sum game. Take a look at capacity, for example. All of the reports are that the South Shore Line is at capacity. NICTD could sure use more cars, and a better connection to the Metra Electric tracks, to help with that. Should they play this "how long will it take to recoup the money we'd spend to buy more cars and improve Kensington" game, or should there be other considerations as well, such as improving service reliability, increasing capacity, and lowering crew and equipment cycle times?

When you boil it down to just dollars, you over-simplify, IMHO. NICTD will never make money - commuter rail never has and never will. *But* if you view it as an essential public service, especially given the price of oil (which, while dropping now, is never reaching the $1.39 level again) and so on, then you have to look at other benefits to making improvements.

I wouldn't discount the possibility of turning 11th Street into some sort of pedestrian mall with the tracks running down the middle, or something like that. There are several good examples of light rail lines running down the middle of the street. NJ TRANSIT's RiverLine does that, and has been very successful.

jb, you seem to bring knowledge to the boards, which is a good thing, but I have to wonder about this as well. If you're an engineer that works on this sort of thing and you're bringing your informed opinion, my knowing that helps me weigh what you're saying. On the other hand, if you work for the Public Relations department of NICTD, well, then I might weigh your comments differently. On the gripping hand, you could be a well informed layman with a really cool model train layout in his basement (which very well could be make you more credible than either of the previously mentioned alternatives!) Care to enlighten us?

I'm a transportation expert, who has worked in passenger rail for over two decades. I've done many projects for a variety of passenger rail clients. I'm not an engineer, but I work with engineers frequently. And I like the South Shore Line! :-)

[Roger Kaputnik]

[Gripping hand: Very good! I am gonna introduce this into my day-to-day vocabulary.]

[Ang]

Welcome to the board JB.

My grandpa was an engineer for the South Shore. He drove that train every day. He would get his train at Carroll Ave, go empty to SB and run the full route to Chicago and back to SB. Then he would ride someone else's train and get off at Carroll Ave at the end of the day. When I was but a wee little girl, he used to pick me up at 11th St. and I got to ride into Chicago and back in the front of the train with him. So much fun!!

(and yes, I know you guys are talking about a different type of engineer, but I just had to throw that in. )

[Dave]

When you boil it down to just dollars, you over-simplify, IMHO. NICTD will never make money - commuter rail never has and never will. *But* if you view it as an essential public service, especially given the price of oil (which, while dropping now, is never reaching the $1.39 level again) and so on, then you have to look at other benefits to making improvements.

I DO consider it to be an essential service -- right where it is. I don't have a problem with improvements, or even with the pricetag, to tell the truth. I do have a problem with moving it, because I see the 11th street station one of the few things that keeps the north end from drying up and blowing away.

I wouldn't discount the possibility of turning 11th Street into some sort of pedestrian mall with the tracks running down the middle, or something like that. There are several good examples of light rail lines running down the middle of the street. NJ TRANSIT's RiverLine does that, and has been very successful.

To quote myself from the Marquette plan discussed thread...

I can believe that the maintainance of 11th street is the highest for any two miles of NICTD track (though I'd still like to see the actual numbers), but I have to wonder how many years is it going to take NICTD to save $60 million by making this move. Does anyone think they spend a million bucks a year on 11th street? Give me $60 million, I can give you a million a year return on that by buying savings bonds, for crying out loud. Heck, take the $60 million, buy every house along 11th street clear though town, close the street, build a train level platform, close half the grade crossings, repurchase the old train station and rehab it, build a parking garage on the same block as the station, and give me the $30 million that's left over.

So I don't think your view and mine is necessarily very far apart.

I'm a transportation expert, who has worked in passenger rail for over two decades. I've done many projects for a variety of passenger rail clients. I'm not an engineer, but I work with engineers frequently. And I like the South Shore Line! :-)

I love the South Shore -- it's one of the major reasons we moved here (see my avatar for the other). And one of the things I love about it is how it runs down the street. Seeing the train go by is just cool!

[Ang]

People are in awe when I tell them my home town has a passeger train that runs down the middle of the street. I have to show them pictures sometimes for them to believe me and they are always amazed. I am too.

[jb9152]

I DO consider it to be an essential service -- right where it is. I don't have a problem with improvements, or even with the pricetag, to tell the truth. I do have a problem with moving it, because I see the 11th street station one of the few things that keeps the north end from drying up and blowing away.

Fair enough, but I don't think it has to be moved necessarily to come out of the asphalt.

So I don't think your view and mine is necessarily very far apart.

Probably not, it sounds like!

I love the South Shore -- it's one of the major reasons we moved here (see my avatar for the other). And one of the things I love about it is how it runs down the street. Seeing the train go by is just cool!

I'd agree with that, and I guarantee the first day of bi-level operation, you'll see the railbuffs out in droves in the streets of Michigan City. BUT, that being said, I don't think the fact that it's cool, or interesting, or unique, is a good enough reason to keep it running down the middle of a city street. Here's another interesting fact I found out today - the state of the trackbed precludes NICTD from ever installing cab signals there (cab signals are what I view as a nearly essential safety feature, and I'm surprised that NICTD hasn't installed them yet).

[Dave]

What exactly is a cab signal, and why does the state of the trackbed effect it?

If a cab signal is a device to advise the driver/engineer how fast to go on a particular stretch or to advise of the presence of other trains (ok, I wikied "cab signal"), given such things as GPS and wireless technology, what precludes NICTD from using non-track-reliant cab signals on the 11th street run (and everyhere else, for that matter)?

This post has been edited by Dave: Aug 7 2008, 01:36 AM