Slide 1: Infrastructure Accessibility Task Force (IATF) November 2, 2010 PowerPoint Presentation Slide 2: Today’s Agenda * Follow Up * Elevator Overview * Concept Plan (Expressway Median – Forest Park Branch) * Evaluation Criteria and Methodology * Next Steps Slide 3: Follow Up * Scrolling Marquee – tabled until December IATF meeting * Station Survey – Monday, November 8, 2010 * Other Feedback from the group Slide 4: Elevator Overview * 140 Public Use Elevators (average age is 12.3 yrs) * 76% (106 Units) Hydraulics vs. 24% (34 Units)Traction * Past 2 years – CTA had added 18 additional elevators (Brown Line and Howard Station) * Currently serviced and maintained Slide 5: Elevators Uptime – 2009 & 2010 This is a graphic representation of the average percentage of elevators uptime from January 2009 through September 2010. The total number of elevators in the system is 140. The target uptime is 97.00% January 2009 – 96.63% February 2009 – 97.64% March 2009 – 98.06% April 2009 – 98.54% May 2009 – 97.84% June 2009 – 97.12% July 2009 – 97.44% August 2009 – 97.56% September 2009 – 97.5% October 2009 – 97.02% November 2009 – 98.41% December 2009 – 97.76% January 2010 – 96.85% February 2010 – 98.7% March 2010 – 97.81% April 2010 – 97.51% May 2010 – 96.54% June 2010 – 95.6% July 2010 – 97.11% August 2010 – 97.11% September 2010 – 97.38% Slide 6: Average Number of Elevators Out of Service: September 2010 Average in 24-hour period was 3.68 elevators Slide 7: Elevator Issues * Subject to extreme weather conditions * User errors * Vandalism * Age of elevator * Door Problems * Hydraulic elevators problematic * Budgetary Constraints – reduced manpower, limited overtime and eliminated routine weekend maintenance coverage (Friday 3:30 p.m.to Monday 5:00 a.m.) Slide 8: Elevator Process * Elevator down time * Control Center * Work Orders * Inspectors/Vendors * Elevator Status Notification * Current Process – Update whiteboards at unpaid area hourly *Need to improve accurate notification of down elevators and provide detour routes *To explore with scrolling marquees/signage in our December meeting Slide 9: Elevator Standards Future Considerations * 3500 lb. capacity * Hydraulic versus Traction (preferred) – Cost, reliability, ease of maintenance * Machine room versus machine room less (proprietary issue) * Prefer machine room above the elevator (zoning requirements) * Front door vs. front and rear doors * Enclosed/protected from weather * Elevator controller located outside the pit areas * Others? Slide 10: Concept Plan (Expressway Median) Slide 11: (This is a map) Expressway Median Stations Concept Design (Blue Line) Racine (this station is highlighted because it is the one for which basic architectural drawings have been developed) The other stations on the Blue line which would use a variation of the Racine prototype for an accessible station are: Western, Pulaski, Cicero, Austin, Oak Park, and Harlem Slide 12: (This is a chart showing the pros and cons of using Scheme A at Racine (i.e., with an elevator) or Scheme B (with a ramp)) Scheme A – Elevator * Remove non-compliant ramp * Install elevator – from street to platform * Install new stairs – stationhouse modification required * Existing fare array to be revised * Relocate existing electrical room for new elevator and to accommodate new stairs * Install new walkway from elevator at platform level to train berthing area PROS of Elevator scheme: Direct access, existing platform, unchanged, track realignment not required CONS of Elevator scheme: Higher cost, high maintenance and staff required, stationhouse modifications required, long distance to train berthing area Scheme B – Ramp * Remove non-compliant ramp * Install enclosed ADA compliant ramp from street to platform * Revision to end of existing platform – remove 15 feet to accommodate new ramp * Existing fare array to be revised PROS of Ramp Scheme: Least cost, low maintenance/no staff required, no modification of stationhouse required, track realignment not required CONS of Ramp Scheme: Existing platform requires modifications, long distance from station to platform, ramp not preferred by people with disabilities Slide 13: Evaluation Criteria and Methodology Slide 14: Evaluation Methodology * Group into geographic areas * Identified list of criteria * Assign weight to each criteria * Score stations within each group by each criteria (1 low to 5 high) * Calculate weighted score * Determine top stations for each geographic area Slide 15: Geographic Regions * North Red & Purple Line Branch * Northwest (O’Hare) * West Line (Harlem/Forest Park) * South Branch (Dan Ryan) * Loop * Outer Central Business District (CBD) Slide 16: Criteria Evaluation – (Weighted Percentages) (20%) Ridership – total CTA ridership, PWD ridership, population (20%) Senior – senior housing, senior centers, hospitals, health centers (20%) Paratransit – active paratransit home addresses (15%) Connections, within ½ mile – buses, Metra, proximity to next ADA station (15%) Employment – job centers (5%) Points of Interest – schools, theatres, public facilities (5%) Pedestrian Traffic – heavily traveled pedestrian streets Slide 17: Preliminary Schedule and Deliverable Review station schemes - preliminary schedule * November 2010 – Racine (Elevator vs. Ramps) * December 2010 – 63rd (Dan Ryan) and Irving Park (O’Hare) or Addison (O’Hare) * January 2011 – Adams/Wabash (Loop Rehab) or LaSalle VanBuren (Loop Rehab), CDOT update on State/Lake or Washington/Wabash Reconstruction * February 2010 – Wilson-NML (Rehab & Reconstruction) * March 2010 – Monroe-State (Rehab), CDOT update on Clark/Division * April 2010 – Damen-Milwaukee and Austin-Lake Potential Deliverable * Results of station evaluations * Top tier station concept schemes with planning cost estimates * White paper on other policy recommendations