CAPITAL ASSET CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT

Transcription

1 December 2014 CAPITAL ASSET CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT Updated December 2014 Prepared by Department of Finance & Performance Management

2

3

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background SGR Backlog and 10-Year Needs Condition Assessment Regional Funding Capacity, Reinvestment Needs and the Investment Backlog Report Organization INTRODUCTION Background Approach to Needs Estimation RTA Condition Assessment Program Service Board Asset Management Activities CTA Metra Pace MAP 21 and TAM Policy Implications CONDITION ASSESSMENT FINDINGS Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) Metra Pace CAPITAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT FINDINGS Definitions Key Assumptions Region-Wide Results for 10-Year Needs Assessment Region-Wide Results for 20-Year Needs Assessment Comparison with 2013 Report Service Board Results for 10-Year Needs Assessment Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) Metra Pace Impact of Maintaining Current Rate of Reinvestment Regional Funding Capacity, Reinvestment Needs and the Investment backlog APPENDIX A, GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS APPENDIX B, MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS B.1 Assumptions for Inflation Factors. CTA B.1 Assumptions for Inflation Factors. Metra B.1 Assumptions for Inflation Factors. Pace ii -

5 B.2 Useful Life Assumptions, CTA B.2 Useful Life Assumptions, Metra B.2 Useful Life Assumptions, Metra (Continued) B.2 Useful Life Assumptions, Metra (Continued) B.2 Useful Life Assumptions, Metra (Continued) B.2 Useful Life Assumptions, Pace APPENDIX C, ASSET INVENTORY UPDATE C.1 Inventory Structure C.2 Baseline Assessment Inventory C.3 Condition Assessment Update Inventory 2013 and 2014 Updates C.4 Linkage to Transit Economic Requirements Model (TERM) APPENDIX D, CAPITAL OPTIMIZATION SUPPORT TOOL (COST) D.1 COST Conceptual Model D.2 COST Key Features APPENDIX E, ASSET CONDITION RATING PROCESS E.1 Background E.2 Condition Rating Levels E.3 Condition Assessment Approach E.4 FTA Asset Decay Curves E.5 On-Site Condition Assessment APPENDIX F, SAMPLING RESULTS F.1 CTA F.2 Metra F.3 Pace APPENDIX G, CAPITAL PROGRAMMING COMPARISONS G.1 Regional Performance Measures: Capital Fund Expenditures Among Peer Regions G.2 Regional Performance Measures: Total Capital Expenditures per Resident G.3 Performance Highlight: Capital Investment APPENDIX H, 10-YEAR ANNUAL REINVESTMENT DETAIL iii -

6 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Backlog and 10-Year Normal Reinvestment Needs Summary (Millions of 2013$)... 1 Figure 1-2. Distribution of Asset Conditions by Asset Category: RTA... 2 Figure 1-3. Regional Backlog Projections Assuming Historic Funding Levels ($2013 Billion)... 3 Figure 1-4. Required Annual Funding to Attain Specific Reinvestment Targets ($ Billions)... 3 Figure 2-1. Representative Service Board Resources and Transit Provided (2013)... 5 Figure 2-2. Decay Curve Relationship between Condition Rating and Useful Life... 7 Figure 2-3. Annual Updates Following Baseline Assessments... 8 Figure 2-4. Service Board Asset Types... 8 Figure 3-1. Distribution of Asset Conditions and Replacement Costs by Asset Category: RTA Figure 3-2. Distribution of Asset Conditions and Replacement Value by Asset Category - CTA Figure 3-3. Age Distribution of Assets by Category - CTA Figure 3-4. Distribution of Asset Conditions and Replacement Value by Asset Category - Metra Figure 3-5. Age Distribution of Assets by Category - Metra Figure 3-6. Distribution of Asset Conditions and Replacement Value by Asset Category - Pace Figure 3-7. Age Distribution of Assets by Category - Pace Figure 4-1. Definitions for the Types of Capital Replacement Need Figure 4-2. Definitions for the Types of Capital Replacement Need Figure 4-3. Backlog and 10-Year Normal Reinvestment Needs: Figure 4-4. Region-wide Summary 10-Year Unconstrained Needs by Year Figure 4-5. RTA Region SGR Backlog vs. Other Urbanized Areas (Over One Million in Population) Figure 4-6. Region-wide Summary 20-Year Unconstrained Needs Figure 4-7. Region-wide Summary 20-Year Needs, First Ten Years and Second Ten Years Figure 4-8. Needs Assessment Comparison 2013 and 2014 Update Reports ($Millions)* Figure 4-9. Differences Between 2013 and 2014 Reports Figure CTA Backlog and 10-Year Normal Reinvestment Needs (Millions of 2013$) Figure Summary 10-Year Unconstrained Needs by Year CTA Figure Metra Backlog and 10-Year Normal Reinvestment Needs (Millions of 2013$) Figure Summary 10-Year Unconstrained Needs by Year, METRA Figure Backlog and 10-Year Normal Reinvestment Needs (Millions of 2013$) Figure Summary 10-Year Unconstrained Needs by Year Pace Figure Regional Backlog Projections (Billions of $2013) Figure Percent of Replaceable Assets Exceeding Useful Life Figure Backlog to Replacement Value Ratio (Replaceable Assets) Figure Current and Projected Asset Age Distribution RTA Region Figure Required Funding to Attain Specific Reinvestment Targets (Millions of $2013) Figure Required Funding to Attain Specific Reinvestment Targets Figure C-1. Inventory Structure Figure C-2. Inventory Statistics Summary Figure D-2: Conceptual Model of COST Figure D-3. COST Key Features Figure E-1. Condition Rating Levels Figure E-2. Condition Approaches and Application iv -

7 Figure E-3. Asset Decay Curve Example Figure E-4. Replacement Needs Versus Asset Conditions Figure F (Year 3) Sampling Summary, CTA Figure F (Year 3) Sampling Summary, Metra Figure F (Year 3) Sampling Summary, Pace Figure H.1. CTA Detailed Asset Type Level Breakout of 10-Year Annual Reinvestment Needs ($2013 Millions) Figure H.1. CTA Detailed Asset Type Level Breakout of 10-Year Annual Reinvestment Needs ($2013 Millions), Continued Figure H.1. CTA Detailed Asset Type Level Breakout of 10-Year Annual Reinvestment Needs ($2013 Millions), Continued Figure H.2. METRA Asset Type Level Breakout of 10-Yr Annual Reinvestment Needs ($2013 Millions) Figure H-3. Pace Detailed Asset Type Level Breakout of 10-Yr Annual Reinvestment Needs ($2013 Millions) Figure H-3. Pace Detailed Asset Type Level Breakout of 10-Yr Annual Reinvestment Needs ($2013 Millions) Figure H-4. Summary for All Service Boards, 10-Yr Annual Reinvestment Needs ($2013 Millions) v -

8 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Background CAPITAL ASSET CONDITION ASSESSMENT UPDATE This report is the third annual update of the Regional Transportation Authority Capital Asset Condition Assessment (Baseline Assessment) published in As with the original Baseline Report and the first two updates, this report provides an assessment of the current physical conditions and 10-year capital reinvestment needs of the transit capital assets owned and operated by RTA and its three Service Boards, CTA, Metra and Pace. Specifically, it reflects the condition and reinvestment needs of the entire region s transit assets as of December 31, The main report findings include: State-of-Good-Repair (SGR) backlog for the region is $19.5 billion Year capital need for normal capital reinvestment is $16.6 billion 2. RTA s asset management process is consistent with the latest direction from FTA through the 2012 Transportation Legislation bill, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century (MAP-21). Specifically, the asset management process allows for: Annual asset inventory updates Condition assessments (both observed through sampling and projected through COST) Investment prioritization (i.e., projects reflecting priorities for funding and balancing agency needs). 1.2 SGR Backlog and 10-Year Needs As of December 2013, the region s total capital reinvestment needs over 10 years are estimated to be roughly $36.1 billion (Figure 1-1). This includes $19.5 billion to address the existing investment backlog (54 percent of total needs) and an additional $16.6 billion to address normal reinvestment needs expected over the next ten years (2014 to 2023), or $1.6 billion per year. Normal reinvestment includes normal asset replacement, rehabilitation, and expenditures on minor capital repairs grouped under annual capital maintenance (ACM). As considered in more detail later in the report, a significant proportion of the region s reinvestment needs (the backlog in particular) are associated with the region s older rail assets and insufficient capital reinvestment over time. The complete Capital Needs Assessment is presented in Chapter 4. Figure 1-1. Backlog and 10-Year Normal Reinvestment Needs Summary (Millions of 2013$) Service SGR Normal Reinvestment Board Backlog Replace Rehab Capital Maint. Sub-Total Total % of Total CTA $12,939 $5,507 $3,234 $494 $9,235 $22, % Metra $6,126 $4,367 $1,109 $100 $5,576 $11, % PACE $475 $1,174 $506 $109 $1,789 $2, % Total $19,540 $11,048 $4,849 $703 $16,600 $36, % % of Total 54.1% 30.6% 13.4% 1.9% 45.9% 100.0% 1 Backlog consists of deferred reinvestment in asset rehabilitation, replacement, and annual capital maintenance. 2 Normal capital reinvestment includes normal replacement, plus scheduled rehabilitation work and annual capital maintenance

9 1.3 Condition Assessment CAPITAL ASSET CONDITION ASSESSMENT UPDATE In addition to capital needs expressed in dollar terms, this report also provides findings for the general physical condition of the region s capital assets. Condition assessments are estimated (modeled) based on the asset age, the RTA and Service Board- determined useful life and decay curves. The condition rating levels established by RTA for purposes of categorizing physical condition are numbered 5 through 1 and labeled Excellent, Good, Adequate, Fair, and Worn. This five-level numbering system is consistent with that employed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Investment backlog and condition are linked. Since the backlog is comprised of deferred investment in asset replacements, rehabilitation, annual capital maintenance, worse condition assets are the most likely to make up the backlog. Figure 1-2 represents the full distribution of transit asset conditions for the region for each of the major asset types: Facilities; Guideway Elements; Stations; Systems; and Vehicles. The height of each bar represents the total value of the assets by category in billions of 2013 dollars. Figure 1-2 includes all assets, not just those needing reinvestment, so the sum of the bars has greater value than the $36.1 billion needs number. Figure 1-2. Distribution of Asset Conditions by Asset Category: RTA Billions $25 $20 $15 $10 Excellent Good Adequate Marginal Worn $5 $0 Facilities Guideway Elements Stations Systems Vehicles The figure illustrates, for instance, that Guideway Elements, Stations and Vehicles have large proportions of assets in marginal condition and may need the most attention. The complete condition assessment documentation is presented in Chapter Regional Funding Capacity, Reinvestment Needs and the Investment Backlog The needs estimates presented in Figure 1.1 indicate that a total investment of $16.6 billion would be required to address expected normal reinvestment needs over the next ten years, with an additional $19.5 billion in funding required to reduce the backlog. The range for the region s current combined rate of capital reinvestment is estimated between $563 million and $765 million annually. This is considerably less than $1.45 billion annual amount required to maintain the size of the current investment backlog or the $2.62 billion in annual funding required to eliminate that backlog over the next twenty years. This outcome implies continued growth in the region s deferred investment backlog, - 2

10 as illustrated below in Figure 1-3, and potentially increasing proportions of assets in marginal or worn condition. Figure 1-3. Regional Backlog Projections Assuming Historic Funding Levels ($2013 Billion) $40 $35 $30 Low SGR Funding ($563M Annual Avg) High SGR Funding ($765M Annual Avg) $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $ Expected annual RTA region capital funding is currently estimated to range from $0.56 to $0.77 billion per year. Figure 1-4 presents the level of investment required to attain specific investment targets and the gap between the required and expected funding (both low and high funding estimates are shown in the graphic with the dotted lines). For example, an estimated $2.62 billion in annual reinvestment is required to attain SGR in twenty years (including full elimination of the backlog). To maintain the current size of the region s investment backlog requires an estimated $1.45 billion in annual expenditures. $4.0 $3.5 $3.45 $3.0 $2.5 $2.62 $2.0 $1.5 $1.45 $1.0 $0.5 $0.0 $0.56 $0.77 Low Funding Estimate High Funding Estimate Maintain Backlog 20 Years to Full SGR 10 Years to Full SGR Figure 1-4. Required Annual Funding to Attain Specific Reinvestment Targets ($ Billions) - 3

11 1.5 Report Organization CAPITAL ASSET CONDITION ASSESSMENT UPDATE This 2014 report has been streamlined compared to the 2013 report. The summary information is contained in the Executive Summary and in the next three chapters, as follows: Section 1, Executive Summary high level summary for 2014 analysis year. Section 2, Introduction background on the effort, MAP-21, and a high-level overview of the local transit service providers (i.e., Service Boards). Section 3, Condition Assessment Findings details on the condition of major asset categories by Service Board. Section 4, Capital Needs Assessment Findings current backlog and asset capital reinvestment needs for the next 10 and 20 years, and related discussion. Reinvestment needs are presented at the regional level and by Service Board. Supporting information is contained in eight appendices: Appendix A, Glossary and Acronyms Appendix B, Major Assumptions Appendix C, Asset Inventory Update Appendix D, Capital Optimization Support Tool (COST) Appendix E, Condition Asset Rating Process Appendix F, Sampling Results Appendix G, Capital Programming Comparisons Appendix H, 10-Year Annual Reinvestment Detail - 4

12 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 Background CAPITAL ASSET CONDITION ASSESSMENT UPDATE The Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) performs financial oversight, public funding distribution, and regional policy planning in support of the three transit operators (also known as Service Boards) that provide transit services in northeastern Illinois: Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) The CTA operates the nation's second largest public transportation system and covers the City of Chicago and 40 surrounding communities. Through its bus and rail systems, it provides more than 80 percent of the public transit trips in the sixcounty Chicago metropolitan area either with direct service or connecting service to Metra and Pace. Metra the commuter rail agency serving Cook, DuPage, Will, Lake, Kane and McHenry counties. Metra serves more than 100 communities with 241 stations on 11 lines running from Chicago s downtown. Pace suburban bus and regional paratransit. Pace is the suburban transit provider for the Chicago area. Pace serves riders with fixed bus routes, vanpools and Dial-a-Ride programs covering 3,500 square miles spread over six counties - suburban Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry and Will - and 284 municipalities. Pace is also the ADA paratransit provider for the region, both for city and for suburban service. The table below highlights transit resources and the service provided by CTA, Metra and Pace by mode for calendar year 2013 (most recent data available from the Service Boards). Figure 2-1. Representative Service Board Resources and Transit Provided (2013) CTA Bus CTA Rail Metra Pace Source Revenue Vehicles 1,817 1,398 1,201 2,668* Master DB Other Vehicles Master DB Fixed Guideway Route Miles N/A SB Website Annual Revenue Miles 53.4 million 68.8 million million 36.7 million NTD Annual Revenue Hours 5.8 million 3.8 million 1.42 million 2.1 million NTD Annual Passenger Miles 729 million 1,441 million 1,665.8 million million NTD Unlinked Passenger Trips (FY) 300 million 229 million 74 million 35 million NTD Stations, Bus Stops and Transit Facilities 11,104 posted bus stops * Includes both fixed route bus and demand response/paratransit transfer centers, 9 Park-n-rides, 18 boarding/ turnaround facilities SB Website The RTA was created in 1974 by approval of a referendum by the residents of Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will counties. The RTA is a special purpose unit of local government and a municipal corporation of the State of Illinois. The three Service Boards - each led by a Board of Directors - individually handle their respective transit operations and fare responsibilities

13 The RTA regional system is the third largest in the country, covers approximately 7,200 route miles, and provides more than two million daily rides. Assets owned and operated by the Service Boards include approximately 6,150 passenger vehicles, 422 stations, and 70 maintenance facilities. The RTA s current Transit Asset Management (TAM) program consists of three main elements: An ongoing regional transit asset inventory/condition assessment program (the subject of this report) A State of Good Repair (SGR) needs assessment process that is based on the inventory A project screening and prioritization capital development process, which uses the goals and objectives set in the RTA Strategic Plan, and is linked to an ongoing performance measurement program. The RTA, in conjunction with the three Service Boards, is continuing to develop a more systematic and integrated approach to TAM including concurrent implementation of a Capital Asset Condition Assessment program and customization of the Capital Optimization Support Tool (COST). Why is This Important? Maintaining assets in State of Good Repair for public transportation is vitally important to the greater Chicago region and to the State of Illinois. Consider that: The cost of delay per auto commuter is fifth highest in the nation and the yearly delay per auto commuter is seventh in the nation (TTI) 28.9% of Chicago households do not own a vehicle. Access to transit ensures these residents have access to employers and retailers. Availability of transit reduces the need to provide additional roadway capacity and parking that would be required if these households purchased autos (US Census) An average household in 2012 spent $8,998 on transportation, 17.2 percent more than in If transit options were to dwindle, public transportation customers would face higher transportation expenditures (BLS) CTA keeps 360,000 cars off the road and without the service output, over 400 miles of new roads would be needed, equivalent of a single lane road from Chicago to Toronto (CTA) The economic impact to maintain the Metra system ($1.68 billion cost) versus disinvestment results in a net 11,400 jobs and $2.0 billion in net annual business output and household saving gain as of 2020 (EDR) Each dollar invested in transit SGR generates $ $1.90 in benefits such as direct labor effects, regional mobility effects, household savings from reduced auto usage, reduction in highway accidents and improved air quality. Additional benefits not included relate to factors that cannot be effectively measured, such as the benefits of induced physical activity and the role of transit in tourism and in shaping the global identity of Chicago. Transit contributes positively to property values and employment: Proximity to major transit corridors contributes 5-20% to property values in the region. Bringing transit into a state of good repair also provides an estimated $1.5 billion in annual benefits by giving employers access to a larger and more qualified workforce pool. Regional models show direct job gains upwards of 41,000 as a result of these improvements Historically, our region s transportation system has been a foundation of our success. But the system s infrastructure was built decades ago, with inadequate ongoing investment to keep it up to date. While transportation is still a significant strength of this region, we must modernize our system to compete with other U.S. and global economic centers. (CMAP) Asset management goals directly support the 2030 and 2040 Regional Transportation Plans for mobility and accessibility, congestion management, economic development, and safety. Travel by rail reduces Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by roughly 20% over auto and travel by bus reduces emissions by roughly 50% over auto (U.S. EPA). Sources: Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI), 2012 Annual Urban Mobility Report; U.S. Census; Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Economic News Release, Consumer Expenditures 2012; Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), GO TO 2040 Plan; Chicago Transit Authority, Day Without CTA, 1999; EDR Group; Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development (University of DePaul), 2012; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks

14 2.2 Approach to Needs Estimation CAPITAL ASSET CONDITION ASSESSMENT UPDATE This report presents estimates of the level of capital investment required to address all of the RTA region s deferred transit reinvestment needs (the investment backlog) as well as all anticipated future rehabilitation and replacement needs for the ten-year period 2014 to 2023 (Chapter 4). The needs estimates were developed using RTA s Capital Optimization Support Tool (COST), a decision support tool designed to estimate capital reinvestment needs based on the known ages, rehabilitation requirements, expected useful lives and replacement costs of the region s transit assets. Specifically, COST estimates the following types of capital reinvestment needs: Investment Backlog: The level of reinvestment required to replace all assets that currently exceed their expected useful life (e.g., the cost to replace all 40 foot buses that exceed 12 years of age, the expected service life for this vehicle type). Normal Replacement: Investments required to replace existing assets expected to reach the end of their useful life over the next ten year period (normal replacement does not include deferred replacement needs). Rehabilitation: Investments required to rehabilitate existing assets over the next ten year period. COST s estimates of rehabilitation needs do not include deferred rehabilitation needs, only those rehabilitation activities that will arise over the next ten year period. Annual Capital Maintenance: Ongoing minor capital investments as required to maintain a state of good repair over the next 10-year period. This report also provides estimates of the current physical condition of the region s transit assets (Chapter 3). As with the reinvestment needs, the condition estimates were generated by the COST model based on asset age and a set of asset decay relationships that rate asset condition on a scale of 5 (excellent) through 1 (worn). While COST s estimates of asset condition and the timing of asset replacement (useful life) are directly related, it is important to note that an asset s replacement timing within COST is entirely determined by the useful life (in years) assigned to that asset by the Service Board responsible for that asset. COST s asset decay curves are constructed such that asset condition is set to 5.0 for new assets but declines to exactly 2.5 once an asset attains it s Service Board assigned useful life (see Figure 2-2). Figure 2-2. Decay Curve Relationship between Condition Rating and Useful Life Asset Condition Rating Asset attains condition 2.5 at useful life, by definition 0.0 0% 12% 23% 35% 46% 58% 69% 81% 92% 104%115%127%138%150% Percent of Useful Life Finally, given the large magnitude of the reinvestment needs and the limitations of existing funding capacity and other factors, it should not be expected that all of these needs will or even can be addressed within the upcoming ten-year period. Rather, these estimates are intended to provide an - 7

15 understanding of the total extent of the region s reinvestment needs, to underline the value of potential funding increases to addressing that problem and to foster discussion of how to best manage the remaining investment backlog. As indicated in the Regional Transit Strategic Plan, even if a significant infusion of funding becomes available to address the backlog, having an ongoing funding commitment to maintain the transit s infrastructure is a vital element to ensuring the long term state of good repair of the transit system. It is one of RTA s goals to increase and stabilize revenue through existing and new funding sources in order to improve our system while maintaining reasonable fares. 2.3 RTA Condition Assessment Program In 2010, the RTA published the initial report on the capital asset condition assessment (herein referred to as the Baseline Assessment). The report summarized the results of an 18-month collaborative effort to identify the general condition of the region s capital assets, as well as to determine valuation, backlog, and capital needs over 10 years. The data collected reflected asset inventory and condition through December 31, In 2011 the RTA started a 5-year effort to annually update the Baseline Assessment. Figure 2-3 illustrates the update schedule with targeted dates of update efforts. The data analyzed is based on the preceding calendar year. The first report represented the 2012 Update, the Year 1 Assessment. This report represents the 2014 Update, the Year 3 Assessment. Therefore, the data collected and reported in this year update report are as of December 31, Figure 2-3. Annual Updates Following Baseline Assessments Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year /11 6/12 6/13 6/14 6/15 6/16 Baseline Assessment 2013 Assessment 2015 Assessment 2012 Assessment 2014 Assessment 2016 Assessment As such, the RTA Capital Asset Condition Update process is an annual process by which the Service Boards update their inventory data with changes from the prior year, and where capital needs and condition of all main asset types present with the three Service Boards are identified (summarized below). Figure 2-4. Service Board Asset Types Asset Type CTA Metra Pace Guideway N/A Stations Facilities Vehicles Systems - 8

16 2.4 Service Board Asset Management Activities CAPITAL ASSET CONDITION ASSESSMENT UPDATE This section provides a high level overview of recent Service Board asset management efforts and asset responsibilities. It is anticipated that as federal grantees each Service Board will submit its own individual TAM plan CTA CTA Asset Management Activities and MAP-21 Plans In 2012 CTA launched an extensive assessment and inventory of its bus garages, rail maintenance warehouses, rail stations (inventory only) and bus turnarounds. Once collected and analyzed, an asset hierarchy and structure was developed and currently serves as the asset data foundation used by CTA s Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) software system Infor EAM to manage maintenance defect and work orders. This system includes asset management functionality where condition and costs can be collected at the asset level and incorporated in system structures, thus providing for data rollup at different levels - an important functionality needed for capital planning. In a similar manner, the CTA utilizes a Maintenance Management Information System (MMIS) system to manage defects; work order assignment and accounting; and both scheduled and unscheduled maintenance programs for its revenue bus and railcar fleets. CTA is actively involved in the regional Capital Asset Condition Assessment Update process by participating in regional COST meetings and by developing an output report from their Infor EAM system which maps to COST data serving to streamline the update process. CTA is actively involved in discussions with FTA on rulemaking that addresses MAP-21 requirements. CTA is in the process of assembling a team to begin developing their TAM Plan. CTA Asset Ownership and Responsibility for Rehabs/Replacement Generally speaking, all assets in CTA s inventory are 100 percent owned, operated, and maintained by CTA. CTA carries out the rehabilitations and replacements according to its maintenance and replacement practices and funding availability. CTA has some agreements with the City of Chicago for maintenance of Non-Revenue vehicles. Of special note is the new Open Standards Fare System (OSFS) Ventra fare collection system. CTA owns the new fare collection system that came into service in September The vendor, Cubic, is responsible for operation, maintenance and upgrades (capital reinvestment replacement and rehab) to keep the system operating up to contractual standards of performance for up to 10 years after the golive date. Once the DBOM Ventra contract expires, CTA will decide whether to procure a new contract or extend this one. CTA has maintenance and operations agreements with the local municipalities (City of Chicago, Village of Skokie, etc.) for stations they build. This makes CTA responsible for ongoing capital maintenance, rehab and replacement. The City of Chicago has reconstructed some downtown CTA stations using funding that otherwise would have been shared for the City of Chicago (i.e., between CTA and CDOT). Exceptions to asset ownership by CTA are listed below. The City of Chicago owns the entire downtown subway infrastructure and associated real estate. Some subway stations were built by, and are owned by, local municipalities (e.g., Chicago, Skokie). These number about

17 2.4.2 Metra CAPITAL ASSET CONDITION ASSESSMENT UPDATE Metra Asset Management Activities and MAP-21 Plans Beginning in 2012 with field inspections, Metra has undertaken a large asset management program that includes top to bottom inventory update, and condition assessments system-wide. In 2014 most of the primary data collection was complete and Metra began sharing the results with user departments for quality control. The program will conclude with training for field staff. Inventory and condition information are combined for all major asset classes. Metra collected GIS information during the Right of Way asset field inspections. Currently, Metra uses the Maximo Enterprise Asset Management System for their Mechanical Division (other divisions use Faciligence). Ultimately, Metra plans to migrate everything to Maximo. Like other Service Boards, Metra is an active member the Capital Asset Condition Assessment and the Capital Optimization Support Tool (COST) projects. Both will provide Metra with input information for the upcoming Transit Asset Management Plans (TAMP) mandated by the FTA. Metra Asset Ownership and Responsibility for Rehabs/Replacement Vehicles (locomotives, coaches, non-revenue vehicles) are fully owned by Metra except 91 coaches which are owned by West Suburban Mass Transit District. Metra owns the Milwaukee, Rock Island/Southwest Service, and Electric Lines. The other lines are owned by the UP, BNSF, and other private carriers. What Metra owns, and pays for, on those other lines is based on their Purchase of Service agreements with those other railroads. This percentage, which can vary from 5% to 95%, also may change with the business climate (i.e., depending on level of freight traffic). This applies to track, structures, and systems assets on those lines. For stations, Metra has the responsibility for capital replacement. However, community desired upgrades are paid for by the community. Other facilities are 100% Metra owned and Metra does not lease assets Pace Pace Asset Management Activities and MAP-21 Plans As an ongoing Agency commitment to quality assurance and quality control, Pace continues to refine its asset inventory and condition assessment reporting activities consistent with the regional efforts on the Capital Asset Condition Assessment Update project. Several years ago, Pace started the process of migrating asset data into the ORACLE based Enterprise Asset Management System, meant to result in a central data business intelligence warehouse which would track assets from the time of purchase to the end of their useful life cycle. Pace s extensive involvement with the Capital Asset Condition Assessment and the Capital Optimization Support Tool (COST) projects allows Pace to ensure a workable database and an individual solution for a Transit Asset Management Plan (TAMP) Program complying with the intent of MAP-21. Lastly, COST, in addition to its own Capital Criteria, is used during the Pace annual budget process to assess, evaluate, and prioritize transit capital reinvestment needs within the parameters of regional funding and long term strategic objectives

18 Pace Asset Ownership and Responsibility for Rehabs/Replacement Pace suburban assets are largely owned, operated, and maintained by Pace. Due to lack of capital funding for regional ADA services Pace contracts with private carrier service providers for the provision of required ADA equipment, facilities, and services that cannot be met with internal efforts. Pace carries out rehabilitations and replacements of its assets in accordance with transit industry standard best practices for routine and preventative maintenance schedules. Private carriers are contractually required to adhere to Pace performance standards for vehicle asset maintenance. Pace also has agreements with communities, municipalities, and the other Service Boards to use their properties to provide passenger services. In these instances, Pace has varying responsibility for asset maintenance and replacement, outlined in the agreements. Pace also has lease agreements for off-site ADA and Vanpool offices, and a Print Shop facility. Additionally, Pace, along with CTA, has entered into a contract with Cubic regarding the new Open Standards Fare System (OSFS) Ventra fare collection system. 2.5 MAP 21 and TAM Policy Implications USDOT, through the Federal Transit Administration, has passed the 2012 Transportation Legislation bill, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century (MAP-21); which addresses asset management and safety. Specifically, the asset management process allows for: Annual asset inventory updates Condition assessments (condition both projected/modeled through COST decision tool, and observed through sampling on assets in the field) Detailed estimates of capital reinvestments over 10 and 20 years and data supporting investment prioritization. While the specific MAP-21 requirements are still uncertain (draft final rule is expected late Fall 2014, past the time of production for this report), FTA will require the submission of an annual Transit Asset Management (TAM) Plan based on analysis of asset inventories, condition assessments, investment prioritization and SGR performance targets. As FTA grantees, it is expected that CTA, Metra and Pace will each individually be responsible for submitting their individual TAM Plans to the Federal Government. It is not expected that FTA will require that RTA submit a Regional TAM Report. As the RTA provides regional policy planning in support of the three transit operators, particularly in the area of asset management through its annual capital asset condition assessment program, RTA can provide valuable support to the service boards while also benefitting the region as a whole:

19 Benefits to Service Boards Technical support (e.g., assistance in summarizing inventory data, projecting condition assessments for major asset categories, assistance with COST modeling) Policy support (e.g., understanding TAM reporting requirements, setting regional SGR measures) Funding advocate for Service Boards, both at the Regional and Federal levels. Benefits to Region Coordination and consistency in TAM Planning and regional TAM approach Economies of scale and comparable reporting performance across Service Boards Maximize SGR grant funding for region

20 3. CONDITION ASSESSMENT FINDINGS CAPITAL ASSET CONDITION ASSESSMENT UPDATE Development of the Capital Optimization Support Tool (COST), adoption of FTA s decay curves and ongoing improvements to the region s asset inventory have enhanced RTA s and each Service Board s ability to assess and monitor the condition of the region s transit assets. For a full description of the COST decision tool, refer to Appendix D. This section presents analysis results of the current physical condition and age distribution of each Service Board s transit assets based on asset inventory data as of December, The analysis uses the COST tool to derive projected (modeled) condition for all assets using a series of asset decay curves, or deterioration curves. The curves essentially predict asset physical condition as a function of age, maintenance history and other factors on a common 5 to 1 scale. RTA also conducted limited condition sampling of assets for the third year of the update. Summary results for the sampling are located in Appendix F. Figure 3-1 represents the full distribution of transit asset conditions for the entire region for each of the major asset types: Facilities; Guideway Elements; Stations; Systems; and Vehicles. This is for all assets, not just the assets needing capital reinvestment. The height of each bar represents the total estimated replacement value of the assets in billions of 2013 dollars. Figure 3-1. Distribution of Asset Conditions and Replacement Costs by Asset Category: RTA Billions $25 $20 $15 $10 Excellent Good Adequate Marginal Worn $5 $0 Facilities Guideway Elements Stations Systems Vehicles This information is based on the estimated current physical condition and age distribution of each Service Board s transit assets. The condition rating levels established by RTA for purposes of categorizing physical condition are numbered 5 through 1 and labeled Excellent, Good, Adequate, Fair, and Worn. Appendix E provides detailed background on the asset condition rating process. The figure illustrates that Guideway Elements, Stations and Vehicles have large proportions of assets in worn and marginal condition that need the most attention. This is consistent with the prior years

21 3.1 Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) CAPITAL ASSET CONDITION ASSESSMENT UPDATE Estimates of the distribution of physical conditions for CTA assets - segmented by asset category and presented based on asset replacement value - are presented in Figure 3-2 (analysis excludes subway tunnels). This is a projection produced by COST, based on age data and decay curves. Based on this analysis, roughly 43 percent of CTA s assets are estimated to be in marginal or worn condition, with most of these assets concentrated in older track and track structures, stations, and rail vehicles. Figure 3-2. Distribution of Asset Conditions and Replacement Value by Asset Category - CTA Billions $16 $14 $12 $10 $8 $6 Excellent Good Adequate Marginal Worn $4 $2 $0 Facilities Guideway Elements Stations Systems Vehicles Note the chart above represents the condition of all assets, even new assets with no reinvestment needs. The total asset value (sum of the bars) exceeds the backlog plus normal reinvestment needs

22 Figure 3-3 illustrates the age distribution of CTA s assets by asset category as of the end of 2013 (presented as a percent of useful life consumed vs. the asset s share of the total replacement value of CTA s asset holdings). This chart is helpful in assessing the span of asset ages for each asset category, the relative value of assets within each age group and specifically the types and values of asset types that currently exceed their useful life. The assets listed to the right of the 100% Useful Life Consumed represent assets in the backlog. This chart highlights initially some vehicles in the light blue color, but later the concentration of guideway elements (track and structures) and stations (red and green, respectively) among over-age assets. Figure 3-3. Age Distribution of Assets by Category - CTA 14% Share of Total Replacement Value for All CTA Assets 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Replacement Backlog Vehicles Systems Stations Guideway Elements Facilities 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130% 140% 150% 160% 170% 180% 190% 200% Percent of Useful Life Consumed

23 3.2 Metra CAPITAL ASSET CONDITION ASSESSMENT UPDATE As a direct result of a significant inventory improvement and condition assessment effort, Metra s asset data underwent a major change as compared to that used for the prior year s report. For example, Metra s inventory went from just under 5,000 records in the inventory to over 34,000. This is a major difference between the 2013 and 2014 reports. As a result, differences in needs by major asset type more likely reflect changes in data than in actual changes in the condition of Metra s assets, as compared to last year s report. Current estimates of the distribution of physical conditions for all Metra assets -- segmented by asset category and presented based on asset replacement value are presented in Figure 3-4. This is a projection produced by COST, based on age data and decay curves. Based on this analysis, roughly 40 percent of Metra assets are estimated to be in marginal or worn condition, with most of these assets concentrated in older track structures (especially bridges) and in vehicles. Figure 3-4. Distribution of Asset Conditions and Replacement Value by Asset Category - Metra Billions $8 $7 $6 $5 $4 $3 Excellent Good Adequate Marginal Worn $2 $1 $0 Facilities Guideway Elements Stations Systems Vehicles Asset condition distribution for Metra s rail vehicles declined significantly as compared to the prior year report. The share of vehicles in marginal or worn condition increased appreciably from 38% to 48% between 2012 and 2013 while the share of vehicles in excellent declined from 40% to 28%. This change is less the result of aging fleets than it is from a reduction in the useful life assumption used to assess Metra s rail car conditions and reinvestment needs. Specifically, while the 2013 report assumed a 50 year useful life for Metra rail cars, this report assumes a 25 year useful life for these vehicles, the minimum assume FTA useful life

24 Figure 3-5 illustrates the age distribution of Metra s assets by asset category as of the end of 2013 (presented as a share of total asset replacement value). This chart is helpful in assessing the span of asset ages for each asset category, and distribution of replacement value across asset types. In addition, the assets listed to the right of the 100% Useful Life Consumed represent assets in the backlog, marked by the arrow. Note the chart shows effective age, not actual age. To calculate the remaining asset useful life assets such as vehicles are given an effective built date based on its most recent overhaul or rebuild. This is not to be misinterpreted with the equipment s historic built date (i.e., original manufacture date). Figure 3-5 highlights the high proportion of guideway elements (bridges), and also significant amounts of vehicles, considered to be over-age. Figure 3-5. Age Distribution of Assets by Category - Metra 14% Share of Total Replacement Value for All Metra Assets 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Replacement Backlog Vehicles Systems Stations Guideway Elements Facilities 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130% 140% 150% 160% 170% 180% 190% 200% Percent of Useful Life Consumed

25 3.3 Pace CAPITAL ASSET CONDITION ASSESSMENT UPDATE Estimates of the distribution of physical conditions for Pace s assets - segmented by asset category and presented based on asset replacement value is presented below in Figure 3-6. This is a projection produced by COST, based on age data and decay curves. Based on this analysis, roughly 20 percent of Pace assets are estimated to be in marginal or worn condition, with most of these assets concentrated in older vehicles and, to a lesser degree, in maintenance facilities and passenger stations (i.e., transportation and transfer centers). Figure 3-6. Distribution of Asset Conditions and Replacement Value by Asset Category - Pace Millions $900 $800 $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 Excellent Good Adequate Marginal Worn $200 $100 $0 Facilities Stations Systems Vehicles Note the chart above represents the condition of all assets, even new assets with no reinvestment needs. The total asset value (sum of the bars) exceeds the backlog plus normal reinvestment needs

26 Figure 3-7 provides a graphical representation of the age distribution of Pace s assets by asset category as of the end of 2013 (presented as a share of total asset replacement value). This chart is helpful in assessing the span of asset ages for each asset category, and the relative value of assets within each age group. Also, the assets listed to the right of the 100% Useful Life Consumed represent assets in the backlog, marked by the arrow. This chart highlights some vehicle reinvestment needs and systems nearing the end of their useful life, but generally limited backlog. Figure 3-7. Age Distribution of Assets by Category - Pace 35% Share of Total Replacement Value for All Pace Assets 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Replacement Backlog Vehicles Systems Stations Facilities 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130% 140% 150% 160% 170% 180% 190% 200% Percent of Useful Life Consumed

27 4. CAPITAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT FINDINGS 4.1 Definitions CAPITAL ASSET CONDITION ASSESSMENT UPDATE The 10-Year capital needs assessment is based on the dollar value estimation for total backlog, normal replacement, rehabilitation, and annual capital maintenance of assets for the three Service Boards. Each of these activities is required to maintain a State of Good Repair. Definitions for each of these terms are provided in Figure 4-1. Figure 4-1. Definitions for the Types of Capital Replacement Need Backlog Investment to replace all assets that currently exceed their useful life (does not include deferred rehabilitation needs) Normal Replacement Rehabilitation Annual Capital Maintenance (ACM) Ongoing replacement of existing assets as they reach the end of their expected useful life. Normal replacement does not include deferred replacement needs, only those needs for assets that will reach the end of their useful life over the next ten year period. Ongoing rehabilitation needs for existing assets. Rehabilitation does not include deferred rehabilitation needs, only those rehabilitation activities that will arise over the next ten year period as required to maintain a state of good repair. Ongoing minor capital investments as required to maintain a state of good repair over the next 10-year period. The backlog can be thought of as the total amount of deferred reinvestment actions (such as overdue asset replacements). At the present time, backlog does not include deferred rehabilitation of replaceable assets. The reason for this is that deferred rehabilitation is not yet measured or included in the inventories. The RTA recognizes that this is significant, such as for facilities, which have a long useful life (60 years) and many have missed significant rehabs and annual capital maintenance in that time period, due to funding shortages. The remaining capital replacement needs elements include normal replacement of assets, rehabilitation ( rehab ) of assets, and annual capital maintenance (ACM) of assets. ACM typically represents a minor ongoing capital reinvestment required to maintain a SGR (for example, an annual painting or paving contract). These three elements represent ongoing needs that will arise over the 10-year analysis timeframe (from 2014 through 2023) and have been grouped together throughout this report under the name normal reinvestment needs. 3 Two other cost components are important in estimating total 3 Note that the definition of capital maintenance used here differs from that used in the Baseline Assessment. In that report, capital maintenance referred to all rehabilitation activities including smaller reinvestment actions not conducted as part of a major rehabilitation project. In the Update report, rehabilitation refers to major, planned rehabilitation activities likely involving multiple components of the asset being rehabilitated and a well-defined project budget. The term annual capital

28 capital maintenance needs - soft costs and contingency costs - which are applied to each asset type as appropriate, according to the assumptions delineated in Figure 4-2. These assumptions were also used during the Baseline Assessment. Figure 4-2. Definitions for the Types of Capital Replacement Need Soft Costs Contingency Costs The majority of soft costs are expended in the planning, engineering, and project management efforts. These services include in-house agency staff, government related support staff, and consultants. Project start-up expenses are also included in this category. Project financing cost and other expenses (reconciliation and unaccountable costs) comprise the full range of project development capital costs (FTA definition) Rail and Bus Infrastructure Components: Additional 22.7% of total base cost. Rail and Bus Rolling Stock and Equipment: Additional 15% of total base cost. Contingency costs are budgeted for unforeseen emergencies or design shortfalls typically identified after a project commences. The contingency is included in the budget so the project can proceed with minimal interruption for changes or cost overruns. Rail and Bus Infrastructure Components: Additional 20% of total base cost. Rail and Bus Rolling Stock and Equipment: Additional 15% of total base cost. 4.2 Key Assumptions The Update report is also based on several other assumptions: Unconstrained Needs. Capital reinvestment needs estimates presented in this report are financially unconstrained. That is, these estimates determine the level of investment to fully eliminate the current investment backlog (and attain SGR) and then to address all subsequent reinvestment needs (to maintain SGR) with the assumption there is unlimited funding capacity. However, the level of annual investment required to address these needs is in excess of the region s current rate of capital reinvestment. This unconstrained analysis also assumes that the backlog can be eliminated in a very short time period (this is not realistic when real world financial, service impacts and project management constraints are introduced). Constant Dollar Needs Estimates. All backlog and needs estimates are presented in constant, 2013 dollars (2013$). If an asset inventory cost is reported in 2010$ for example, the historic cost is inflated to 2013$. In-Kind Replacement. While some level of technological change can be expected over the 10- year period of analysis, the Update analysis assumes that all assets are replaced by new, identical assets. maintenance now refers to smaller, more routine capital expenditures on a broad variety of minor reinvestment actions (e.g., painting facilities, patching roofs) and covered by a general, multi-purpose budget source

29 Impact of Regulatory Requirements. Except for Positive Train Control (PTC), which is federally mandated to be in place by 2015, the 10-year needs estimates do not include future regulatory type costs that may impact future needs and reinvestments. 4.3 Region-Wide Results for 10-Year Needs Assessment Region-wide reinvestment needs for the 10-year projection period are presented in Figure 4-3 (expressed in year 2013 dollars). Over this time period, total reinvestment needs are estimated to be roughly $36 billion, including $19.5 billion to eliminate the current investment backlog (54 percent of needs) and an additional $16.5 billion to address normal reinvestment needs (including asset replacements, rehabilitations and capital maintenance) expected to occur over the 10-year project period. Note that rail (CTA rail and Metra) accounts for about 83 percent of the combined backlog and normal reinvestment needs. Reinvestment needs for bus (CTA and Pace) account for roughly 15 percent of regional needs while the remaining 2 percent of needs are for paratransit, vanpool and shared assets (CTA and Pace assets that serve more than one mode). Also note that the needs estimates includes some assets for which the Service Boards share funding responsibility (e.g., a small proportion of systems, stations, tracks) labeled in the chart as Shared Mode. Figure 4-3. Backlog and 10-Year Normal Reinvestment Needs: Service SGR 10-Year Normal Reinvestment Needs Board Mode Backlog Replacements Rehabs Capital Maint. Total % of Total CTA Rail $11,360 $4,131 $2,208 $478 $18, % Bus $1,564 $1,341 $1,021 $9 $3, % Shared $15 $35 $5 $7 $62 0.2% CTA $12,939 $5,507 $3,234 $494 $22, % Metra Metra $6,126 $4,367 $1,109 $100 $11, % PACE Bus $361 $604 $477 $87 $1, % Shared $114 $570 $29 $22 $ % Pace $475 $1,174 $506 $109 $2, % RTA Total $19,540 $11,048 $4,849 $703 $36, % % of Total 54.1% 30.6% 13.4% 1.9% 100.0% Note: in the table Shared represents assets independent of mode which in fact support the entire agency (examples include: administrative facilities and equipment, central revenue collection and some types of non-revenue vehicles)

30 Figure 4-4 provides a graphical presentation of these same needs; however, the normal reinvestment needs are spread out over the 2014 to 2023 time period. Figure 4-4 highlights the significant size of the investment backlog relative to the annual level of reinvestment required to cover normal needs once the backlog has been addressed. Again, the backlog represents the level of investment required to bring all of the region s transit assets (as they exist today) to SGR while normal reinvestment is the level of annual investment required to maintain SGR once attained. The ratio of these two numbers (average annual normal needs once in SGR divided by the size of the investment to attain SGR, i.e., the backlog) provides a useful measure of the relative size or severity of the backlog and is referred to as the SGR Backlog Ratio. Given an annual average normal reinvestment need of approximately $1.6 billion and a backlog of $19.5 billion, the value of this SGR Backlog Ratio for RTA is approximately 11.8, which can be interpreted as the number of years that normal reinvestment would need to be doubled up to fully eliminate the backlog. The region s recent rate of reinvestment currently on the order of $563 million to $765 million annually - is well below the estimated $1.6 billion SGR Backlog Ratio The SGR Backlog Ratio measures the size of the investment backlog relative to average annual normal investment needs (i.e., non-deferred reinvestment needs as they arise). The higher the Ratio, the more severe the backlog. For older rail agencies, the SGR ratio can range anywhere from 10 to 20. For younger rail and bus agencies the ratio can be on the order of 2. The SGR Backlog is calculated as follows: SSSSSS BBBBBBBBBBBBBB RRRRRRRRRR SSSSSS BBBBBBBBBBBBBB = AAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAA NNNNNNNNNNNN IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII NNNNNNNNNN The SGR ratio can also be interpreted as the number of years of normal reinvestment to eliminate the investment backlog required to address estimated normal reinvestment needs. This implies the backlog will continue to increase without an increase in regional SGR expenditures. Figure 4-4. Region-wide Summary 10-Year Unconstrained Needs by Year Billions $24.0 $22.0 $20.0 $18.0 $16.0 $14.0 $12.0 $10.0 Needs by Investment Type: Region Normal Replacement, PACE Backlog, PACE Normal Replacement, Metra Backlog, Metra Normal Replacement, CTA Backlog, CTA $8.0 $6.0 Normal Reinvestment Needs Assuming Backlog is Eliminated $4.0 $2.0 $0.0 Backlog

31 How Significant is the Region s SGR Backlog? The SGR backlog ratio provides a normalized measure of backlog size. This measure can therefore be compared across groups of transit agencies to access the severity of each group s SGR backlog relative to industry peers and Figure 4-5 presents this analysis for the RTA Region. Specifically, Figure 4-5 compares the SGR Backlog ratio for the RTA region (11.8) with the average ratio values for four different types of urban areas: Old Rail Cities: This group includes urbanized areas with rail system dating back to the 1950 s or earlier. In addition to Chicago, this group includes New York, Philadelphia, Boston and San Francisco. Mature Rail Cities: Urbanized areas with rail systems (mostly heavy rail) built primarily through the 1960 s through 1980 s. Examples include Washington DC, Atlanta, Baltimore and Miami. New Rail Cities: Urbanized areas with rail investments primarily in the 1990 s or later. Rail reinvestment tends to be concentrated in light rail and commuter rail lines. Examples include San Jose, Salt Lake City, Dallas and St. Louis. Bus Cities: Urbanized areas with no investment in rail (bus only). Note that this analysis was restricted to urbanized areas with population of at least 1 million. The results are based on analysis performed for the Federal Transit Administration (backlog estimates are based on deferred replacement needs and exclude deferred rehabilitations). Figure 4-5. RTA Region SGR Backlog vs. Other Urbanized Areas (Over One Million in Population) SGR Backlog Ratios: RTA Region vs Average of Other Urban Areas Over 1 Million Pop RTA Region Urban Area Type Old Rail Cities Mature Rail Cities New Rail Cities Bus Only Cities

32 Review of Figure 4-5 shows that the SGR Backlog ratio for the RTA region exceeds the average for each of the four comparison groups, including that of the old rail cities group, which represents the peer group for the Chicago region. This analysis suggests that the region s SGR backlog is more severe than that of its Old Rail City peers (on average) and certainly more severe than operators in the other three groups. RTA s Budget, Performance & Business Analysis Division has examined capital funding among peer regions and concluded that, in nominal dollars, Chicago s share of the federal pie has decreased from 20 percent in 2003 to 9 percent in In comparing Chicago-area transit operators to peers, Chicago ranked eighth out of ten for its percentage of vehicles beyond their minimum useful life. However, despite this, in 2012 Chicago operators ranked first for miles between major mechanical failures, as it has each year since This measure reflects reliability of service, and its positive result illustrates an effective use of scarce capital dollars. Appendix G summarizes recent findings made by the Budget, Performance & Business Analysis Division on this topic. The RTA will continue to examine the relationship between the SGR backlog and amount of capital reinvestment in SGR. 4.4 Region-Wide Results for 20-Year Needs Assessment While the objective of this report is the region s 10-year reinvestment needs, RTA s COST tool can be used to estimate needs over a longer time frame. Figure 4-6 and Figure 4-7 expand the analysis to cover 20 years. The 20-year analysis can help the RTA identify and plan for any large reinvestment needs not apparent over the 10-year time frame. Average annual reinvestment needs for the second 10-year period (2024 through 2033) are appreciably higher than for the 10-year period covered by this report (averaging roughly $1.6 billion for the report period vs. $2.2 billion for the subsequent ten year period). The higher needs estimates for the period are primarily driven by replacement needs for buses and other shorter lived assets that COST assumes are replaced when the backlog is eliminated (at the start of the period of analysis). Figure 4-6. Region-wide Summary 20-Year Unconstrained Needs Billions $25.0 $20.0 Unconstrained 20 Year Needs by Service Board PACE Metra CTA $15.0 $10.0 $5.0 $

33 Figure 4-7 below presents the same data in tabular form (all needs are expressed in $2013). As with most other analyses in this report, Figures 4-5 and 4-6 assume the full backlog is eliminated and allother normal reinvestment needs are addressed over the period of analysis. Figure 4-7. Region-wide Summary 20-Year Needs, First Ten Years and Second Ten Years Service SGR Normal Reinvestment 20-Year Percent Board Backlog Total of Total CTA $12,939 $9,235 $12,147 $34, % Metra $6,126 $5,576 $7,601 $19, % PACE $475 $1,789 $1,954 $4, % Total $19,540 $16,600 $21,701 $57, % 4.5 Comparison with 2013 Report A comparison of the current needs estimates for the 2014 report as compared to the 2013 report is presented in Figure 4-8. The current needs estimates including both the backlog and normal reinvestment needs are slightly higher than those presented in the prior report. Figure 4-8. Needs Assessment Comparison 2013 and 2014 Update Reports ($Millions)* Need Type 2013 Report 2013 Report 2014 Report Difference Percent ($2012) ($2013) ($2013) ($2013) Difference CTA Backlog $12,923 $13,145 $12,939 ($206) -2% Normal Reinvestment $8,540 $8,687 $9,235 $548 6% Metra Backlog $6,647 $6,761 $6,126 ($635) -9% Normal Reinvestment $3,237 $3,293 $5,576 $2,283 69% Pace Backlog $476 $484 $475 ($9) -2% Normal Reinvestment $1,663 $1,692 $1,789 $97 6% Region Backlog $20,046 $20,390 $19,540 ($850) -4% Normal Reinvestment $13,440 $13,671 $16,600 $2,929 21% Total $33,486 $34,061 $36,140 $2,079 6% * Note: The 2014 Report needs were adjusted from $2012 to $2013 using the Producer Price Index. It is important to appreciate the range of factors that drive differences in estimated needs between reports some differences are driven by actual changes in asset conditions and others are driven by changes in data quality and needs estimation assumptions

34 Variations due to changes in data quality and assumptions: RTA, the Service Boards and the region should expect ongoing variations in the region s needs estimates (including variations in the Service Boards shares of regional reinvestment needs) over time, again primarily as the result of ongoing improvements to analysis methods, assumptions (unit cost and useful life assumptions in particular) and asset inventory data. These ongoing improvements will also yield improved accuracy in the region s needs estimates over time, allowing for more meaningful comparisons of needs and backlog estimates from one period to the next. Developing these capabilities is a long-term process. Variations due to differing periods of analysis: Given that the needs assessment process is designed to cover a fixed period of time (ten or twenty years) and the lumpy nature of reinvestment needs (i.e., new reinvestment needs can be minor one year but very large the next), RTA should expect some natural variation in regional needs estimates and in each Service Board s share of those needs estimates over time. RTA and the Service Boards should to take this into account with the current backlog and needs estimates, and shares of reinvestment needs. The region should expect that regional needs can and will change from one time period to the next based on the timing of normal reinvestment needs and the growth (or decline) of the backlog. Increases due to inflation: Ongoing capital cost inflation will lead to a natural increase in the size of backlog and normal reinvestment needs over time. There are several differences between the 2013 and 2014 needs estimates, several of which are identified in the Figure below. Note the needs, increased or decreased compared to the prior year report, represent, in fact, a full ten year need. Some variation with normal replacement schedules as they related to the given ten year period, is completely normal. Figure 4-9. Differences Between 2013 and 2014 Reports Service Board Major Changes from 2013 Increased needs: Track structures, trackwork, interlockings and rail revenue cars CTA Decreased needs: Bus fleet and rail stations Metra As a direct result of a significant condition assessment effort, Metra s asset data underwent a significant changes as compared to that used for the prior year report. Hence, differences in needs by major asset type more likely reflect changes in data than in actual changes in the condition of Metra s assets as compared to last year s report. Increased needs: Vehicles, bridges, station parking, ties Decreased needs: train stations Pace Increased needs: Vehicles Suburban rolling stock, ADA rolling stock, vanpool vehicles, and ITS related equipment Decreased needs: Radio systems and infrastructure support assets

35 4.6 Service Board Results for 10-Year Needs Assessment CAPITAL ASSET CONDITION ASSESSMENT UPDATE The following provides additional analysis of the 10-year need for each Service Board Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) Figure 4-10 shows the estimates of CTA s share of the region s reinvestment needs. For the 10-year period 2014 to 2023, CTA is estimated to have $22.2 billion in unconstrained reinvestment needs, including a backlog of $12.9 billion (investment to attain SGR) and normal reinvestment needs of $9.3 billion (to maintain SGR). Note that the backlog is estimated to account for 58 percent of CTA s estimated reinvestment needs. Rail assets account for 82 percent of CTA s reinvestment needs, which are concentrated in deferred reinvestment for rail rolling stock, stations, facilities, and track and structures. Bus needs account for 18 percent of the remaining needs, and are dominated by major bus fleet replacement needs late in the 10-year analysis period. Reinvestment needs for shared assets (e.g., assets serving both bus and rail) account for the rest. A more detailed breakout by asset type can be found in Appendix H. Figure CTA Backlog and 10-Year Normal Reinvestment Needs (Millions of 2013$) Asset SGR 10-Year Normal Reinvestment Needs Mode Group Backlog Replacements Rehabs Capital Maint. Total % of Total Rail Facilities $637 $273 $126 $83 $1, % Guideway Elements $4,036 $1,565 $550 $188 $6, % Stations $2,823 $637 $448 $197 $4, % Systems $1,686 $926 $0 $10 $2, % Vehicles $2,178 $730 $1,084 $0 $3, % Rail $11,360 $4,131 $2,208 $478 $18, % Bus Facilities $893 $83 $494 $0 $1, % Guideway Elements $249 $5 $154 $9 $ % Systems $2 $14 $0 $0 $16 0.1% Vehicles $420 $1,239 $373 $0 $2, % Bus $1,564 $1,341 $1,021 $9 $3, % Shared Facilities $1 $2 $5 $7 $15 0.1% Systems $0 $1 $0 $0 $1 0.0% Vehicles $14 $32 $0 $0 $46 0.2% Shared Assets $15 $35 $5 $7 $62 0.3% CTA Total $12,939 $5,507 $3,234 $494 $22, % % of Total 58.4% 24.8% 14.6% 2.2% 100.0%

36 Figure 4-11 provides a graphical presentation of CTA s reinvestment needs, including elimination of the existing investment backlog and the level of investment to address normal reinvestment needs thereafter. Similar to the region as a whole, CTA s investment backlog is large relative to the annual level of reinvestment required to address normal needs (i.e., sustain SGR) once the backlog has been addressed. Given annual average normal reinvestment needs of roughly $0.9 billion and a backlog of $12.9 billion, the value of the SGR Backlog Ratio for CTA is roughly 14.3 (the equivalent of approximately 14 years of normal reinvestment would be required to eliminate the backlog). Figure Summary 10-Year Unconstrained Needs by Year CTA Billions $14.0 $12.0 Needs by Investment Type: CTA ACM Rehab $10.0 $8.0 Replace Backlog $6.0 $4.0 $2.0 $0.0 Backlog

37 4.6.2 Metra CAPITAL ASSET CONDITION ASSESSMENT UPDATE The current estimates of Metra s reinvestment needs are presented in Figure For the 10-year period 2014 to 2023, Metra is estimated to have $11.7 billion in unconstrained reinvestment needs, including a backlog of $6.1 billion (investment to attain SGR) and normal reinvestment needs of $5.6 billion (to maintain SGR). Note that the backlog is estimated to account for fully two-thirds of Metra s reinvestment needs and is driven primarily by deferred bridge reinvestment needs (part of guideway elements) and revenue vehicles. A more detailed, asset type-level breakout of Metra s 10-year annual reinvestment needs can be found in Appendix H. Figure Metra Backlog and 10-Year Normal Reinvestment Needs (Millions of 2013$) Asset SGR 10-Year Normal Reinvestment Needs Mode Group Backlog Replacements Rehabs Capital Maint. Total % of Total Rail Facilities $97 $232 $5 $19 $ % Guideway Elements $2,946 $1,649 $17 $71 $4, % Stations $665 $256 $192 $2 $1, % Systems $174 $159 $1 $8 $ % Vehicles $2,244 $2,071 $894 $0 $5, % Rail $6,126 $4,367 $1,109 $100 $11, % Metra Total $6,126 $4,367 $1,109 $100 $11, % % of Total 52.4% 37.3% 9.5% 0.9% 100.0% Note that the 10-year reinvestment needs for Metra s rail vehicles increased by roughly $2.7 billion as compared to the prior year report. This change is less the result of aging fleets than it is the result of reduction in the useful life assumption used to assess Metra s rail car conditions and reinvestment needs. Specifically, while the 2013 report assumed a 50 year useful life for Metra rail cars, this report assumes a 25 year useful life for these vehicles, the minimum assumed FTA useful life

38 Figure 4-13 illustrates Metra s reinvestment needs, with normal reinvestment needs distributed out over the 2014 to 2023 time period. Similar to CTA and the region as a whole, Metra s investment backlog is large relative to the annual level of reinvestment required to normal needs. Given an annual average normal reinvestment needs of roughly $0.6 billion and a backlog of 6.1 billion, the value of the SGR Backlog Ratio for Metra is roughly 10 (approximately 10 years of normal reinvestment would be required to eliminate the backlog). Figure Summary 10-Year Unconstrained Needs by Year, METRA Billions $7.0 $6.0 Needs by Investment Type: Metra ACM $5.0 Rehab $4.0 Replace $3.0 Backlog $2.0 $1.0 $0.0 Backlog

39 4.6.3 Pace Figure 4-14 shows the estimates of Pace s share of the region s reinvestment needs. For the 10-year period 2014 to 2023, Pace is estimated to have $2.3 billion in unconstrained reinvestment needs, including a backlog of $475 million (investment to attain SGR) and normal reinvestment needs of $1.8 billion (to maintain SGR). The $1.8 billion to maintain SGR over the period equates to $179 million per year, on average. A more detailed, asset type level breakout of Pace s 10-year annual reinvestment needs can be found in Appendix H. Figure Backlog and 10-Year Normal Reinvestment Needs (Millions of 2013$) Asset SGR 10-Year Normal Reinvestment Needs Mode Group Backlog Replacements Rehabs Capital Maint. Total % of Total Bus Facilities $131 $13 $206 $65 $ % Stations $57 $87 $14 $22 $ % Systems $35 $96 $0 $0 $ % Vehicles $138 $408 $257 $0 $ % Bus $361 $604 $477 $87 $1, % Paratransit Facilities $11 $12 $24 $11 $58 2.6% Stations $0 $20 $5 $11 $36 1.6% Systems $40 $101 $0 $0 $ % Vehicles $34 $298 $0 $0 $ % Patratransit $85 $431 $29 $22 $ % Vanpool Systems $0 $2 $0 $0 $2 0.1% Vehicles $27 $105 $0 $0 $ % Vanpool $27 $107 $0 $0 $ % Shared Systems $2 $27 $0 $0 $29 1.3% Vehicles $0 $5 $0 $0 $5 0.2% Shared Assets $2 $32 $0 $0 $34 1.5% Pace Total $475 $1,174 $506 $109 $2, % % of Total 21.0% 51.9% 22.3% 4.8% 100.0% Note: Shared refers to assets such as central revenue collection and non-revenue vehicles that serve multiple modes

40 Figure 4-15 provides a graphical presentation of Pace s reinvestment needs, with normal reinvestment needs distributed out over the 2014 to 2023 time period. Given annual average normal reinvestment needs of $179 million, and a SGR backlog of $475 million, the value of the SGR Backlog Ratio for Pace is roughly This means the equivalent of between two and three years of normal reinvestment level funding would be required to eliminate the backlog. Figure Summary 10-Year Unconstrained Needs by Year Pace Millions $500.0 $450.0 $400.0 $350.0 $300.0 Needs by Investment Type: Pace ACM Rehab Replace Backlog $250.0 $200.0 $150.0 $100.0 $50.0 $0.0 Backlog

41 4.7 Impact of Maintaining Current Rate of Reinvestment It is important to understand that the reinvestment needs analysis presented above are financially unconstrained (i.e., it presents the level of investment required to address all reinvestment needs without regard to existing funding capacity) and also that existing funding sources are insufficient to address those needs. Recent historical and expected future funding levels are well below that would be required to address reinvestment needs or even to control the size of the investment backlog. To help understand this better, following is an assessment of the expected impact of a range of potential future funding levels on the size of the region s investment backlog and related measures. Specifically, the assessment considers both high and low funding outcomes that are based on an assessment of past and expected future funding streams: High Funding Scenario: Assumes capital funding for reinvestment is maintained at recent levels (including the assumption that RTA and the Service Boards continues to issue bonds to cover some reinvestment needs). Average annual funding under this scenario is estimated to be $765 million. Low Funding Scenario: Assumes capital funding for reinvestment is maintained at expected levels given recent declines in some funding sources. Also assumes that RTA and the Service Board ability to issue bonds to help cover some reinvestment needs is limited. Average annual funding under this scenario is estimated to be $563 million. Figure 4-16 illustrates the impact of the High and Low levels of investment on the size of the region s investment backlog over 20 years ($2013, no inflation assumed). For both levels of reinvestment, the analysis predicts an increase in the size of the region s investment backlog increasing from roughly $20 billion in 2013 to between $30 billion and $33 billion by 2033, depending on the level of annual reinvestment. Recent historical and expected future funding levels are well below that required to address reinvestment needs or prevent continued and ongoing growth in the size of the region s reinvestment backlog, resulting in an increasing share of the region s assets requiring some level of reinvestment and with potential consequences for regional service quality and reliability. Figure Regional Backlog Projections (Billions of $2013) $40 $35 $30 Low SGR Funding ($563M Annual Avg) High SGR Funding ($765M Annual Avg) $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $

42 Figure 4-17 shows the impact of these same rates of reinvestment on the share of transit assets that exceed their useful life (i.e., assets that remain in service past their expected retirement date). Specifically, this figure shows the percent of assets that exceed their useful life as a percent of the total replacement value for all replaceable transit assets documented in the RTA s current asset inventory (excluding the value of subway tunnels, which are not considered replaceable in this analysis). Similar to the investment backlog analysis, this analysis projects the proportion of assets that exceed their useful life to increase from roughly 32 percent today to between 38 percent and 46 percent by Figure Percent of Replaceable Assets Exceeding Useful Life Assets Exceeding Useful Life as Percent of Total Replacement Value 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% Low SGR Funding ($563M Annual Avg) High SGR Funding ($765M Annual Avg)

43 Next, Figure 4-18 presents the size of the investment backlog relative to the total replacement value of the region s transit assets (again, only for replaceable assets). This measure is similar to that presented in Figure However, whereas Figure 4-17 only includes those assets that exceed their useful service life (deferred replacements), Figure 4-18 also includes the cost of deferred rehabilitations and deferred capital maintenance (in addition to deferred replacements). Therefore, this backlog- to-replacement value ratio is higher than that presented in Figure 4-17 since it includes additional deferred needs. Note: this measure only considers capital needs, there is no consideration of the increased cost to operate and maintain a stock of aging assets. Here, the level of total deferred reinvestment is estimated to increase from 33 percent currently, to between 52 to 57 percent by The implication of each of these preceding analyses is that the current level of reinvestment is insufficient to prevent continued and ongoing growth in the size of the region s investment backlog, with an increasing share of the region s assets requiring some level of reinvestment and with potential consequences for regional service quality and reliability. Figure Backlog to Replacement Value Ratio (Replaceable Assets) 60% 55% 50% Low SGR Funding ($563M Annual Avg) High SGR Funding ($765M Annual Avg) 45% 40% 35% 30%

44 Finally, Figure 4-19 provides a different view of the impact of sustaining recent rates of reinvestment on the regional asset conditions and reinvestment needs. Specifically, Figure 4-19 shows both the current and projected future age distributions of the region s transit assets (expressed as a percent of useful life consumed vs. percent share of the total replacement value of all regional transit assets). Based on this analysis, both of the future funding scenarios (i.e., $563 million and $765 million in annual reinvestment) yield asset age distributions that have the effect of shifting the 2013 distribution to the right (i.e., if you don t replace assets they become older). The shape of the projected future distributions partially reflect the reinvestment priorities used by COST to determine which assets are addressed and which are not when funding is constrained. Figure Current and Projected Asset Age Distribution RTA Region Percent of Replacement Value of All Assets 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% : $765 Million Annual Reinvestment 2033: $563 Million Annual Reinvestment 140% 160% 180% 200% Percent of Useful Life Consumed

45 4.8 Regional Funding Capacity, Reinvestment Needs and the Investment backlog As discussed above, the current rate of annual reinvestment is insufficient to address the region s normal replacement needs, leading to predicted ongoing growth in the size of the investment backlog and an associated decline in overall asset conditions. The question arises then: What level of funding would be required to stop or reverse growth in the investment backlog? The question is addressed by Service Board and for the region as a whole in Figure Specifically, this figure indicates that an estimated $1.45 billion in annual reinvestment is required to maintain the current size of the region s backlog (note that this amount is roughly double the level of expected funding for this time period). Similarly, an estimated $2.62 billion in annual reinvestment would be required to attain SGR in twenty years (including full elimination of the backlog) and $3.45 billion annually to do so in 10-years. Given the volume of infrastructure needs that would need to be addressed, it should be noted that full elimination of the backlog over a single ten year period is not considered to be either financially or physically feasible. Figure Required Funding to Attain Specific Reinvestment Targets (Millions of $2013) Service Board SGR Backlog Normal Reinvestment Maintain Backlog Attain SGR in 20 Years Attain SGR in 10 Years CTA $12,938 $9,235 $797 $1,561 $2,125 Metra $6,127 $5,577 $555 $884 $1,135 PACE $475 $1,788 $94 $172 $185 Total $19,540 $16,599 $1,446 $2,618 $3,445 This information is presented graphically in Figure The total high of the bar indicates the average annual level of investment to attain each investment target (e.g., $2.62B annually to draw down the existing backlog and attain full SGR in 20 years). The blue portion of the bar shows expected average annual funding for the next 20 years ($563M to $765M) while the red portion represents the unfunded level to each target (e.g., an additional annual amount of $2.05B would be required to attain full SGR in 20 years). Figure Required Funding to Attain Specific Reinvestment Targets $4.0 $3.5 $3.45 $3.0 $2.5 $2.62 $2.0 $1.5 $1.45 $1.0 $0.5 $0.0 $0.56 $0.77 Low Funding Estimate High Funding Estimate Maintain Backlog 20 Years to Full SGR 10 Years to Full SGR

46 APPENDIX A, GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS ACM Asset Decay Curves Asset Types/Categories Backlog BN Condition Rating Levels Contingency Costs COST Facilities FTA Guideway MAP-21 Master DB Normal Reinvestment or Normal Capital Annual Capital Maintenance Ongoing minor capital investments as required to maintain a state of good repair over the next 10-year period. FTA has developed generic transit asset decay curves for major asset types using data collected from transit agencies nationwide. An asset decay curve joins age with physical condition so the curve itself becomes the predictor of the asset s physical condition. Categories of assets making up each Service Board asset inventory. The Capital Decision Prioritization Support Tool uses five main categories of assets: Guideway; Stations; Facilities; Systems and Vehicles. Deferred reinvestment in asset rehabilitation, replacement, and annual capital maintenance. Burlington Northern Railroad Rating levels established by RTA and the Service Boards for purposes of categorizing physical condition of assets. The five levels are: 5 (excellent), 4 (good), 3 (adequate), 2 (fair), and 1 (worn). Contingency costs are budgeted for unforeseen emergencies or design shortfalls typically identified after a project commences. The contingency is included in the budget to minimize interruptions due to changes or cost overruns. Capital Optimization Support Tool - Decision support tool developed by RTA with support from the Service Boards to assess and prioritize transit capital reinvestment needs within the parameters of regional funding and the region s long-term strategic objectives. The tool was initially called Decision Tool, later renamed COST. COST is a model that can be used to demonstrate the outcome in terms of asset condition and backlog based on a given funding level. It can also help prioritize investments in specific asset types based on a preset of priorities and estimated needs. Facilities includes all assets related to maintenance and administrative facilities. Facilities represent one of five main COST asset types. Federal Transit Administration Guideway includes all assets related to the Service Board guideway elements including the track itself, the guideway for track or Bus Rapid Transit, and associated structures. Guideway is one of five main COST asset types. Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century, the 2012 Transportation Legislation bill Master Database containing combined Asset Table data from all three Service Boards. Normal replacement, plus scheduled rehabilitation work and annual capital maintenance. - Appendix A

47 Reinvestment Normal Replacement NICTD NTD Rehabilitation RTA RTU SB SCADA SGR Stations Soft Costs Systems Ongoing replacement of existing assets as they reach the end of their expected useful life. Normal replacement does not include deferred replacement needs, only those needs for assets that will reach the end of their useful life over the next ten year period. Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District National Transit Database Ongoing rehabilitation needs for existing assets, based on a defined schedule. Rehabilitation does not include deferred rehabilitation needs, only those rehabilitation activities that will arise over the next ten year period as required to maintain a state of good repair. Regional Transportation Authority of Northeastern Illinois Remote Terminal Unit Service Board (i.e., CTA, Metra or Pace) Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition State of Good Repair For RTA, SGR is used primarily as a major assumption for determining capital needs that is, assets are replaced once they reach useful life, all rehabs are performed and capital maintenance is up to date. In order to measure SGR, RTA further developed a performance measure called Percent of Assets in SGR. Definition of the Measure: The degree of attainment of SGR for a group of assets is evaluated as the total level of reinvestment required to replace all assets that exceed their useful life and address all outstanding rehabilitation and annual capital maintenance needs divided by the total replacement value of those assets. In its landmark document, Transit State of Good Repair, Beginning the Dialogue, October 2008, the FTA recognizes there is no industry accepted definition of state of good repair. FTA is working with the industry to help define what is meant by state of good repair and how best to measure it. One of five main COST asset types. Stations represent customer facing facilities, and include assets such as passenger stations, transfer terminals, and park and rides. Station assets exclude systems assets already accounted for under Systems. The majority of soft costs are expended in the planning, engineering, and project management efforts. These services include in-house agency staff, government related support staff, and the occasionally consultants. Project start-up expenses are also included in this category. Project financing cost and other expenses (reconciliation and unaccountable costs) comprise the full range of project development capital costs (FTA definition). Systems include all infrastructure support categories, such as communications, train control, traction power, and fare collection systems. Systems represent one of five main COST asset types. - Appendix A

48 TAM TAMP TERM UP Useful Life Unconstrained Needs Vehicles Transit Asset Management Transit Asset Management Plan (MAP-21 requirement) Transit Economics Requirements Model FTA-led program, which is FTA s capital needs analysis tool. FTA has also developed a regional/local version of the tool called TERM-Lite. Union Pacific Railroad Expected life of a particular asset (e.g., 12 years for a transit bus). Expected useful lives for individual assets are driven by several factors, including historical performance, manufacturer recommendations, and policy. Financially unconstrained. Unconstrained needs scenarios are typically the first run to establish total asset management needs in order to fully measure the combination of upcoming needs as well as any existing backlog. Vehicles include both revenue vehicles and non-revenue vehicles. Vehicles represent one of five main COST asset types. - Appendix A

49 APPENDIX B, MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS CAPITAL ASSET CONDITION ASSESSMENT UPDATE Period of Analysis Asset Condition Definitions Needs Projections Life Cycle Events (Rehabs and Capital Maintenance) Unit Costs Dollars of Analysis Inflation Useful Life This assessment update Report is based on December 2013 conditions. The condition assessment is of regional transit assets as of December The capital needs assessment covers the 10 year period 2014 to 2023 and the 20 year time period is Asset sampling condition results based on asset five point condition definitions for all major asset types. All needs projections are based upon Inventory Data current as of December 2013, as well as key Service Board assumptions regarding asset useful life, timing and cost of rehabilitations, and capital maintenance. RTA and the Service Boards developed improved life cycle cost assumptions for a variety of asset types, most notably passenger stations and maintenance facilities. These life cycle assumptions provide a reasonable assessment of the timing and cost of rehabilitation and capital maintenance events required to keep Service Board assets in a state of good repair. Service Boards provided updated life cycle cost assumptions for December The 2014 needs assessment was conducted in $2013. Future updates will be conducted similarly. Year-to-year projections are compared both in real terms, as well as inflation-adjusted terms. Inflation is determined based on the Producer Price Index. Inflation tables are presented below in this section. Estimated useful life assumptions attributed to individual assets. Current useful life assumptions for each Service Board are presented below in this section - Appendix B

50 B.1 Assumptions for Inflation Factors. CTA Service Board Source: Producer Price Index Asset Table Inflation Factor Group 2012-to-2013 Inflation CTA CES 1a- CTA Substations Electrical Equipment Manufacturing (33531) CTA CES1b CTA Substation Distribution Electrical Equipment Manufacturing (33531) CTA CES2 CTA ROW Traction Power Electrical Equipment Manufacturing (33531) CTA CES3 - Subway Electrical Service Electrical Equipment Manufacturing (33531) CTA CES 4 - CTA Subway fans Electrical Equipment Manufacturing (33531) CTA CES 5 - Subway Illumination Electrical Equipment Manufacturing (33531) CTA CES 6 - CTA Subway Pumps Electrical Equipment Manufacturing (33531) CTA CFS1a CTA Stations Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (236220) CTA CFS1b CTA Station Parking Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (236220) CTA CFS2 Bus Passenger Facilities Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (236220) CTA CFS3a - Bus and Rail Maintenance Facilities: Bus Garages Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (236220) CTA CFS3b - Bus and Rail Maintenance Facilities: Other Major Facilities Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (236220) CTA CFS3c - Bus and Rail Maintenance Facilities: Railcar Maintenance Shops Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (236220) CTA CFS4 CTA Yard Facilities Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (236220) CTA CRS1 CTA Rail Revenue Cars Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing (336510) CTA CRS2 CTA Buses Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing (336120) CTA CRS3 CTA Non-Revenue Vehicles Automobile and Light Duty Motor Vehicle Manufacturing (33611) CTA CRS4a CTA Work Equipment Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing (336120) CTA CRS4b CTA Work Equipment Trailers Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing (336120) CTA CRS4c CTA Work Equipment Misc Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing (336120) CTA CSCF1 CTA Interlockings Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing (336510) CTA CSCF2 Cab Signals Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (334290) CTA CSCF3 CTA GRADE CROSSINGS Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing (336510) CTA CSCF4 CTA Fare Collection - Vault Operations Processing Equipment/Peripherals Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (334290) CTA CSCF5 - CTA Bus/Rail Radio Systems Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment (334220) CTA CSCF 6 CTA GPS On-Board Bus Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment (334220) CTA CSCF7a CCTV Stations Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (334290) CTA CSCF7b CCTV Cameras Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (334290) CTA CSCF8 CTA Cable Plant Fiber Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing (334210) CTA CSCF9 CTA Fiber Optic Backbone Network Stations/Facilities Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing (334210) CTA CSCF 10a - CTA Station SCADA Systems Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (334290) CTA CSCF10b RTUs Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (334290) CTA CSCF11a CTA Public Address Audio Systems (Audio) Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (334290) CTA CSCF11b CTA Public Address VMS Systems (VMS) Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (334290) CTA CTS1 - CTA Track Structures Industrial Structures (BNIS) CTA CTS2 CTA Ties Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing (336510) CTA CTS3 CTA Rail Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing (336510) CTA CTS4 - CTA Grade Crossing Rail Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing (336510) CTA CTS 5 - CTA Special Trackwork Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing (336510) Appendix B

51 B.1 Assumptions for Inflation Factors. Metra Service Board Source: Producer Price Index Asset Table Inflation Factor Group 2012-to-2013 Inflation Factor Metra MES1 Metra Substations Electrical Equipment Manufacturing (33531) Metra MES2 Traction Power HARDWARE Electrical Equipment Manufacturing (33531) Metra MES3 Metra Catenary Industrial Structures (BNIS) Metra MFS1a Metra Train Stations Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (236220) Metra MFS1b Metra Train Station Parking Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (236220) Metra MFS2 Maintenance & Yard Facilities Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (236220) Metra MRS1a METRA Locomotives Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing (336510) Metra MRS1b METRA Coaches Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing (336510) Metra MRS1c METRA EMU's Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing (336510) Metra MRS2 Metra Non-Revenue Vehicles Automobile and Light Duty Motor Vehicle Manufacturing (33611) Metra MRS3 Work Equipment Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing (336120) Metra MSCF 1a - Metra Interlockings Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing (336510) Metra MSCF 1b - UP Interlockings Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing (336510) Metra MSCF 1c - BNSF Interlockings Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing (336510) Metra MSCF 1d - Canadian National (CN) Interlockings Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing (336510) Metra MSCF 1e - CN(NCS) Interlockings Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing (336510) Metra MSCF 2a - Metra Signal Controls Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (334290) Metra MSCF2b - UP Signal Controls Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (334290) Metra MSCF2c - BNSF Signal Controls Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (334290) Metra MSCF 2d CN (HC) Signal Controls Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (334290) Metra MSCF 2E CN (NCS) Signal Control Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (334290) Metra MSCF 3a - Metra Grade Crossing Signals Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (334290) Metra MSCF 3b - UP Grade Crossing Signals Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (334290) Metra MSCF 3C - BNSF Grade Crossing Signals Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (334290) Metra MSCF3D CN (NCS) Grade Crossing Signals Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (334290) Metra MSCF3E CN (HC) Grade Crossing Signals Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (334290) Metra MSCF4 Metra Fare Collection Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (334290) Metra MSCF 5 - Metra Radio System Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment (334220) Metra MSCF6a - Metra CCTV Vending Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (334290) Metra MSCF6b - Metra CCTV Homeland Security Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (334290) Metra MSCF7 - Metra Telephone Systems Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing (334210) Metra MSCF8 - Metra Public Address Systems Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (334290) Metra MSCF9 - Metra Cable Plant Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing (334210) Metra MSCF10 - Metra Fiber Optic Backbone Network Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing (334210) Metra MSCF11 - Metra Microwave Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment (334220) Metra MSCF12 - Metra Wireless Telephone Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment (334220) Metra MTS1 Metra Track Structures Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing (336510) Metra MTS2 Metra Ties Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing (336510) Metra MTS3 Rail Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing (336510) Metra MTS3 Grade Crossing Track Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing (336510) Metra MT 5 - Metra Special Trackwork Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing (336510) Appendix B

52 B.1 Assumptions for Inflation Factors. Pace Service Board Source: Producer Price Index Asset Table Inflation Factor Group 2012-to-2013 Inflation Factor Pace PSCF1 Fare Collection Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (334290) Pace PSCF2 Radio Systems Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment (334220) Pace PSCF3a AVL Systems Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (334290) Pace PSCF3b ITS IBS System Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (334290) Pace PSCF4 Division Security Systems Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (334290) Pace PSCF5 Transit Signal Prioritization Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (334290) Pace PFS1a Site Work (Bus Passenger Facility Pavement) Poured Concrete Foundation and Structure Contractors (238110) Pace PFS1b Building (Bus Passenger Facility Mid-Life) Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (236220) Pace PFS2a Facilities/Garages (Garages site work and interior slabs) Poured Concrete Foundation and Structure Contractors (238110) Pace PFS2b Facilities/Garages (Garages Mid-Life) Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (236220) Pace PFS3a ADA Support Facilities Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (236220) Pace PFS3b ADA Passenger Facilities Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (236220) Pace Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (334290) Pace PFS4a Infrastructure Support Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (236220) Pace PRS1a Suburban Services Rolling Stock Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing (336120) Pace PRS1b ADA Rolling Stock Automobile and Light Duty Motor Vehicle Manufacturing (33611) Pace PRS1c Paratransit Automobile and Light Duty Motor Vehicle Manufacturing (33611) Pace PRS1d Community Transit Service (CTS) Automobile and Light Duty Motor Vehicle Manufacturing (33611) Pace PRS1e Vanpool Automobile and Light Duty Motor Vehicle Manufacturing (33611) Pace PRS2 Non- Revenue Vehicles Automobile and Light Duty Motor Vehicle Manufacturing (33611) Appendix B

53 B.2 Useful Life Assumptions, CTA RTA Asset Type Type Code Category Sub-Category Element Sub-Element Useful Life Rehabs Track Structures Guideway Elements Guideway At Grade Exclusive Track Structures Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure Non Ballasted Steel or Concrete 80 0 Track Structures Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Fill Retained Embankment 80 0 Track Structures Guideway Elements Guideway Underground Tunnel - Concrete 80 0 Track Structures Guideway Elements Guideway Retained Cut Rail Guideway Elements Trackwork Direct Fixation Tangent - CTA 60 3 Rail Guideway Elements Trackwork Direct Fixation Curve - CTA 60 3 Rail Guideway Elements Trackwork Open Deck Tangent - CTA 40 1 Rail Guideway Elements Trackwork Open Deck Curve - CTA 40 3 Rail Guideway Elements Trackwork Ballasted Tangent - CTA 40 3 Rail Guideway Elements Trackwork Ballasted Curve - CTA 40 3 Grade Crossings Guideway Elements Trackwork Embedded At-Grade Crossings 20 0 Rail Guideway Elements Trackwork Special CTA Loop / High Use 25 1 Rail Guideway Elements Trackwork Special CTA Low Use 25 0 Bus Turnaround Guideway Elements Bus Guideway Turnaround CTA 20 5 Other Major Facilities Facilities Buildings Administration Other Major Facilities Facilities Buildings Maintenance CTA -- Rail 60 5 Railcar Maint Shops Facilities Buildings Maintenance CTA -- Rail 60 5 Other Major Facilities Facilities Buildings Maintenance CTA -- Warehouse 60 5 Bus Garages Facilities Storage Yard Rail Other Major Facilities Facilities Storage Yard Rail Yard Facilities Buildings Administration CTA Admin Building - 2 floor 50 5 Work Equipment Misc Facilities Equipment Maintenance Other Major Facilities Facilities Central Control Building Only Cab Signals Systems Train Control Wayside Train Control Grade Crossings Systems Train Control Roadway Crossings Interlockings Systems Train Control Communications Substations Systems Electrification Substations Substations Systems Electrification Substations SCADA RTUs Systems Electrification Substations SCADA RTUs 7 0 SCADA RTUs Systems Electrification Substations Transformer 7 0 SCADA RTUs Systems Electrification Substations Generator 7 0 Subway Electrical Serv Systems Electrification Substations Building Electrical 25 0 ROW Traction Power Systems Electrification Contact Rail Contact Rail, Chairs, Anchor and Incline 20 0 ROW Traction Power Systems Electrification Contact Rail Contact Rail, Chairs, Anchor and Incline 25 0 Substation Distribution Systems Electrification Power Cable Substation feed 30 0 Substation Distribution Systems Electrification Power Cable Substation feed 40 0 Cable Plant Fiber Systems Communications Cable Transmission System (CTS) Fiber Optic Cable Transmission System (FOCS) 20 0 Fiber Optic BB Systems Communications Cable Transmission System (CTS) Cable 10 0 Public Address Audio Systems Communications Passenger Communications Systems CCTV Stations -12_ Systems Communications Safety and Security Emergency Location System 5 0 SCCTV Cameras Systems Communications Safety and Security Emergency Location System 15 0 Bus Rail Radio Systems Systems Communications Radio Base Radio Stations 15 0 Vault Operations Systems Central Revenue Collection Subway Illumination Systems Utilities Lighting Subway 20 0 Subway Pumps Systems Utilities Sump Pumps Subway 30 0 Subway Fans - no updates Systems Utilities Ventilation - Control Systems Subway 25 0 GPS OnBoard Bus Systems ITS GPS Stations Stations Rail CTA At-Grade 60 5 Stations Stations Rail CTA At-Grade Median 60 5 Stations Stations Rail CTA Elevated 60 5 Stations Stations Rail CTA Subway 60 5 Public Address VMS Stations Platform Signage & Graphics Station Parking Stations Access Parking Garage 20 5 Station Parking Stations Access Parking Lot 20 1 Buses Vehicles Revenue Vehicles Bus Articulated bus -- Diesel 12 1 Buses Vehicles Revenue Vehicles Bus Articulated bus -- Hybrid 12 1 Buses Vehicles Revenue Vehicles Bus Large Bus (40 ft) -- Diesel 12 1 Buses Vehicles Revenue Vehicles Bus Large Bus (40 ft) -- Hybrid 12 1 Rail Revenue Cars Vehicles Revenue Vehicles Rail Heavy Rail 25 3 NonRevenue Vehicles Vehicles Non-Revenue Vehicles Car NonRevenue Vehicles Vehicles Non-Revenue Vehicles Car Work Trucks Vehicles Non-Revenue Vehicles Truck RailborneWork Equipment Vehicles Non-Revenue Vehicles Special RailborneWork Equipment Vehicles Non-Revenue Vehicles Special RailborneWork Equipment Vehicles Non-Revenue Vehicles Special RailborneWork Equipment Vehicles Non-Revenue Vehicles Special Work Equipment Trailers Vehicles Non-Revenue Vehicles Special Work Equipment Trailers Vehicles Non-Revenue Vehicles Special Work Equipment Trailers Vehicles Non-Revenue Vehicles Special Appendix B

54 B.2 Useful Life Assumptions, Metra RTA Asset Type Type Code Category Sub-Category Element Sub-Element Useful Life Rehabs Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure Bridge - Ties 25 0 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure Bridge 80 0 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure BD Ballast Deck Timber Floor 40 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure CSBF Concrete Slab ballast Floor 80 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure CTBF Concrete Trough Ballast Floor 75 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure ODSP Open Deck Steel Plate 60 2 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure STBF Steel Trough Ballast Floor 80 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure STF Steel Trough Floor 80 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure SPBF Steel Plate Ballast Floor 80 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure SFC Steel Bents /Con Pedestals 80 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure MSY Masonry 80 3 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure TPP Timber Pile Pier 60 2 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure GIP Galvanized Iron Pipe 60 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure CON Concrete 80 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure SFM Steel Bents on Masonry 80 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure TPB Timber pile Bents 40 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure TFB Timbers framed 40 3 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure CFT Concrete Pedestals 40 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure CAB Concrete Abutments 80 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure SPB Driven Steel Bents 80 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure SPP Driven Steel Piers 80 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure MSY Masonry or Stone 80 3 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure DTDRT Double Track Deck Riveted Truss 80 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure MBC Masonry Box Culvert 80 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure DTTPGTF Dble Trk TPG w/ FBMs 80 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure TPG Through Plate Girder Span 80 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure PCC Prestressed Concrete Culverts 80 3 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure DPG Deck Plate Girder 80 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure TPGTFB Through Plate Girder span w/ Transverse 80 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure DTTRT Double Trk Thru Riveted Truss 80 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure DTDPT Double Trk Deck pin Truss 80 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure TRT Through Riveted Truss 80 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure PCB Prestressed Concrete Beams 80 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure CSS Concrete Slab Span 80 3 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure RCB Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert 80 3 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure GIP Galvanized Iron Pipe 40 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure CIB Concrete Encase I-beams 80 3 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure WBM Steel Wide Flange Bm Sp 80 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure CBM Concrete Beams, Reinforced 80 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure IBM Steel I-Beam Span 80 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure TBR Timber Stringers 40 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure 3PLY Three Tim Strngrs/Rail 40 1 Rail Bridges Guideway Elements Guideway Elevated Structure CMP Corrugated Metal Pipe 40 1 Ballast Guideway Elements Trackwork Ballasted Rail - Tangent Guideway Elements Trackwork Ballasted Tangent 40 0 Rail - Curved Guideway Elements Trackwork Ballasted Curve Guideway Elements Trackwork Embedded At-Grade Crossings 20 0 Diamond Crossing Guideway Elements Trackwork Special Diamond Crossover 10 0 Turnout Guideway Elements Trackwork Special Turnout 15 0 Ties Guideway Elements Trackwork Ties Retaining Walls Guideway Elements Special Structures Retaining Walls Cast in Place Concrete < Retaining Walls Guideway Elements Special Structures Retaining Walls Cast in Place Concrete Retaining Walls Guideway Elements Special Structures Retaining Walls Cast in Place Concrete > RetainingWall Guideway Elements Special Structures Retaining Walls Pre Cast Concrete < RetainingWall Guideway Elements Special Structures Retaining Walls Pre Cast Concrete Retaining Walls Guideway Elements Special Structures Retaining Walls Masonry < Retaining Walls Guideway Elements Special Structures Retaining Walls Masonry Retaining Walls Guideway Elements Special Structures Retaining Walls Masonry > Retaining Walls Guideway Elements Special Structures Retaining Walls Steel < Retaining Walls Guideway Elements Special Structures Retaining Walls Steel > Retaining Walls Guideway Elements Special Structures Retaining Walls Timber < Retaining Walls Guideway Elements Special Structures Retaining Walls Timber > Misc Elec Equip Facilities Storage Yard Appendix B

55 B.2 Useful Life Assumptions, Metra (Continued) RTA Asset Type Type Code Category Sub-Category Element Sub-Element Useful Life Rehabs Structure Shell Facilities Major Rail Shops Mechanical Repair Shop Shell 60 1 Structure Windows Facilities Major Rail Shops Mechanical Repair Shop Windows 30 1 Structure Doors Facilities Major Rail Shops Mechanical Repair Shop Doors 30 1 Structure Electrical Facilities Major Rail Shops Mechanical Repair Shop Electrical 60 1 Structure Plumbing Facilities Major Rail Shops Mechanical Repair Shop Plumbing 60 1 Structure Shell Facilities Major Rail Shops Track Shop Shell 60 1 Structure Windows Facilities Major Rail Shops Track Shop Windows 30 1 Structure Doors Facilities Major Rail Shops Track Shop Doors 30 1 Structure Electrical Facilities Major Rail Shops Track Shop Electrical 60 1 Structure Plumbing Facilities Major Rail Shops Track Shop Plumbing 60 1 Structure Shell Facilities Major Rail Shops Crew Facility Shell 60 1 Structure Windows Facilities Major Rail Shops Crew Facility Windows 30 1 Structure Doors Facilities Major Rail Shops Crew Facility Doors 30 1 Structure Electrical Facilities Major Rail Shops Crew Facility Electrical 60 1 Structure Plumbing Facilities Major Rail Shops Crew Facility Plumbing 60 1 Structure Shell Facilities Major Rail Shops Locomotive Fueling Shell 60 1 Structure Doors Facilities Major Rail Shops Locomotive Fueling Doors 30 1 Structure Electrical Facilities Major Rail Shops Locomotive Fueling Electrical 60 1 Structure Plumbing Facilities Major Rail Shops Locomotive Fueling Plumbing 60 1 Structure Fire Protection Facilities Major Rail Shops Train Washer Shell 30 1 Structure Electrical Facilities Major Rail Shops Train Washer Electrical 60 1 Structure Plumbing Facilities Major Rail Shops Train Washer Plumbing 60 1 Structure Shell Facilities Major Rail Shops Power Equipment Shell 60 1 Structure Doors Facilities Major Rail Shops Power Equipment Doors 30 1 Structure Electrical Facilities Major Rail Shops Power Equipment Electrical 60 1 Structure Shell Facilities Major Rail Shops Maintenance of Way Shell 60 1 Structure Windows Facilities Major Rail Shops Maintenance of Way Windows 30 1 Structure Doors Facilities Major Rail Shops Maintenance of Way Doors 30 1 Structure Electrical Facilities Major Rail Shops Maintenance of Way Electrical 60 1 Structure Plumbing Facilities Major Rail Shops Maintenance of Way Plumbing 60 1 Structure Shell Facilities Major Rail Shops Storehouse Shell 40 1 Structure Doors Facilities Major Rail Shops Storehouse Doors 20 1 Structure Electrical Facilities Major Rail Shops Storehouse Electrical 40 1 Structure Plumbing Facilities Major Rail Shops Storehouse Plumbing 40 1 Structure Shell Facilities Major Rail Shops Pump Room Shell 60 1 Structure Doors Facilities Major Rail Shops Pump Room Doors 30 1 Structure Electrical Facilities Major Rail Shops Pump Room Electrical 60 1 Structure Plumbing Facilities Major Rail Shops Pump Room Plumbing 60 1 Structure Shell Facilities Major Rail Shops Admin Offices Shell 60 1 Structure Windows Facilities Major Rail Shops Admin Offices Windows 30 1 Structure Doors Facilities Major Rail Shops Admin Offices Doors 30 1 Structure Electrical Facilities Major Rail Shops Admin Offices Electrical 60 1 Structure Plumbing Facilities Major Rail Shops Admin Offices Plumbing 60 1 Structure Shell Facilities Major Rail Shops Components Shell 60 0 Structure Roof Facilities Major Rail Shops Components Roof 20 0 Structure Windows Facilities Major Rail Shops Components Window 30 0 Structure Doors Facilities Major Rail Shops Components Door 30 0 Structure Cooling Facilities Major Rail Shops Components Cooling 20 0 Structure Heat Facilities Major Rail Shops Components Heating 20 0 Structure Fire Protection Facilities Major Rail Shops Components Fire Protection 20 0 IT Assets Facilities Equipment Office Software 5 0 IT Assets Facilities Equipment Office Hardware -- computers, printers, copiers 5 0 Work Equipment Facilities Equipment Maintenance Pollution Treatment 10 0 Ross & White Drive through wash Facilities Equipment Maintenance Train Washer 50 0 Whiting Systems Inc. Drive throug Facilities Equipment Maintenance Train Washer 50 0 Binks Paint Booth Facilities Equipment Maintenance Vehicle Paint booth 25 0 Diesel Fuel System (Large) Facilities Equipment Maintenance Fuel Island 30 0 Diesel Fuel System (Emergency) Facilities Equipment Maintenance Fuel Tank 30 0 Enerpac 60 ton Facilities Equipment Maintenance Lifts - Portable 30 0 Whiting 90 ton Facilities Equipment Maintenance Lifts - Fixed 40 0 Simmons Underfloor wheel lathe Facilities Equipment Maintenance Wheel truing machines ton monorail track Facilities Equipment Maintenance Hoist 80 0 A.O. Smith Welder Facilities Equipment Maintenance Misc Equip 30 0 Structure Shell Facilities Central Control Control Tower Shell 60 1 Structure Windows Facilities Central Control Control Tower Windows Appendix B

56 B.2 Useful Life Assumptions, Metra (Continued) RTA Asset Type Type Code Category Sub-Category Element Sub-Element Useful Life Rehabs Structure Doors Facilities Major Rail Shops Components Door 30 0 Structure Cooling Facilities Major Rail Shops Components Cooling 20 0 Structure Heat Facilities Major Rail Shops Components Heating 20 0 Structure Fire Protection Facilities Major Rail Shops Components Fire Protection 20 0 IT Assets Facilities Equipment Office Software 5 0 IT Assets Facilities Equipment Office Hardware -- computers, printers, copiers 5 0 Work Equipment Facilities Equipment Maintenance Pollution Treatment 10 0 Ross & White Drive through wash Facilities Equipment Maintenance Train Washer 50 0 Whiting Systems Inc. Drive throug Facilities Equipment Maintenance Train Washer 50 0 Binks Paint Booth Facilities Equipment Maintenance Vehicle Paint booth 25 0 Diesel Fuel System (Large) Facilities Equipment Maintenance Fuel Island 30 0 Diesel Fuel System (Emergency) Facilities Equipment Maintenance Fuel Tank 30 0 Enerpac 60 ton Facilities Equipment Maintenance Lifts - Portable 30 0 Whiting 90 ton Facilities Equipment Maintenance Lifts - Fixed 40 0 Simmons Underfloor wheel lathe Facilities Equipment Maintenance Wheel truing machines ton monorail track Facilities Equipment Maintenance Hoist 80 0 A.O. Smith Welder Facilities Equipment Maintenance Misc Equip 30 0 Structure Shell Facilities Central Control Control Tower Shell 60 1 Structure Windows Facilities Central Control Control Tower Windows 30 1 Structure Doors Facilities Central Control Control Tower Doors 30 1 Structure Electrical Facilities Central Control Control Tower Electrical 60 1 Structure Plumbing Facilities Central Control Control Tower Plumbing 60 1 Structure Roof Facilities Central Control Control Tower Roof 30 0 Structure Cooling Facilities Central Control Control Tower Cooling 30 0 Structure Heat Facilities Central Control Control Tower Heating 30 0 Structure Fire Protection Facilities Central Control Control Tower Fire Protection 30 0 Impedence Bonds Systems Train Control Wayside Train Control Bonds 35 0 Signals Systems Train Control Wayside Train Control Receiver 40 0 Signals Systems Train Control Wayside Train Control Relay Cabinet 40 0 Signals Systems Train Control Wayside Train Control Relay House (Bungalow) 40 0 Signals Systems Train Control Wayside Train Control Signals 40 0 Signals Systems Train Control Wayside Train Control Signal Bridge 50 0 Signals Systems Train Control Centralized Train Control Control Room (central) 40 0 Signals Systems Train Control Roadway Crossings Signals Systems Train Control Interlocking Switch Machine 40 0 Snowmelter Systems Train Control Interlocking Switch Heaters 5 0 Misc Elec Equip Systems Electrification Misc Elec Equip Systems Electrification Substations DC Switchgear 35 0 Misc Elec Equip Systems Electrification Substations Rectifier 35 0 Misc Elec Equip Systems Electrification Substations Battery 35 0 Misc Elec Equip Systems Electrification Substations SCADA RTUs 15 0 Distribution Type Transformer Systems Electrification Substations Transformer 35 0 Misc Elec Equip Systems Electrification Substations Generator 35 0 Misc Elec Equip Systems Electrification Substations Disconnect Switch 35 0 Structure Shell Systems Electrification Substations Shell 60 1 Structure Roof Systems Electrification Substations Roof 30 0 Structure Windows Systems Electrification Substations Window 30 1 Structure Doors Systems Electrification Substations Door 15 1 Structure Doors Systems Electrification Substations Door 30 1 Structure Cooling Systems Electrification Substations Cooling 20 0 Structure Heat Systems Electrification Substations Heating 20 0 Structure Electrical Systems Electrification Substations Electrical 60 1 Structure Plumbing Systems Electrification Substations Plumbing 60 1 Structure Fire Protection Systems Electrification Substations Fire Protection 30 0 Catenary Cables Systems Electrification Overhead Catenary Trolley Wire 80 0 Catenary SubStructure Systems Electrification Overhead Catenary Poles Reinforced Concrete 80 3 Catenary SubStructure Systems Electrification Overhead Catenary Poles Pre-Cast Concrete 80 3 Catenary SubStructure Systems Electrification Overhead Catenary Poles Wood Pole 40 3 Catenary Superstructure Systems Electrification Overhead Catenary Truss 80 3 Catenary Superstructure Systems Electrification Overhead Catenary Bridge Attachment 80 3 Catenary Superstructure Systems Electrification Overhead Catenary Portal 80 3 Catenary Superstructure Systems Electrification Overhead Catenary Tube Back to Back Cantilever 80 3 Catenary Superstructure Systems Electrification Overhead Catenary Tube Single Cantilever 80 3 Catenary Superstructure Systems Electrification Overhead Catenary WF 80 3 Catenary Superstructure Systems Electrification Overhead Catenary WF Back to Back Cantilever 80 3 Catenary Superstructure Systems Electrification Overhead Catenary WF Single Cantilever 80 3 Power Cables Systems Electrification Power Cable Signal Power Systems Electrification Power Cable Misc Elec Equip Systems Electrification Power Cable Substation feed 35 0 Fiber Optic Cable Systems Communications Cable Transmission System (CTS) Fiber Optic Cable Transmission System (FOCS) 20 0 Fiber Optic Nodes Systems Communications Cable Transmission System (CTS) MIS/IT/Network Systems 15 0 Public Address Systems Communications Passenger Communications Systems Public Address (PA) 10 0 Transit Passenger Information Sy Systems Communications Passenger Communications Systems Transit Passenger Information Systems (TPIS) 7 0 Variable Message Signs Systems Communications Passenger Communications Systems Variable Message Signs (VMS) 10 0 CCTV-Fixed Systems Communications Safety and Security CCTV -- Fixed 10 0 Phone System Systems Communications Phone System Private Branch Exchange (PBX) 10 0 Telephones Systems Communications Phone System Telephones 5 0 Fax Systems Communications Phone System Fax 10 0 Base Radio Stations Systems Communications Radio Base Radio Stations 15 0 Mobile Radios Systems Communications Radio Mobile Radios 15 0 Signals Systems Communications Radio Transmitter 40 0 Mobile Radios Systems Communications Microwave Tower 50 5 Central Revenue Collection Systems Central Revenue Collection Central Revenue Collection Systems Central Revenue Collection Appendix B

57 B.2 Useful Life Assumptions, Metra (Continued) RTA Asset Type Type Code Category Sub-Category Element Sub-Element Useful Life Rehabs Central Revenue Collection Systems Central Revenue Collection Central Revenue Collection Systems Central Revenue Collection TVMs Systems Revenue Collection In-Station TVMs 5 0 Drainage Systems Utilities Drainage GPS Systems ITS GPS Structure Shell Stations Building Components Depot Shell 80 3 Structure Windows Stations Building Components Depot Windows 40 1 Structure Doors Stations Building Components Depot Doors 20 1 Structure Electrical Stations Building Components Depot Electrical 80 1 Structure Plumbing Stations Building Components Depot Plumbing 80 1 Structure Shell Stations Building Components Warminghouse Shell 60 3 Structure Windows Stations Building Components Warminghouse Windows 30 1 Structure Doors Stations Building Components Warminghouse Doors 15 1 Structure Electrical Stations Building Components Warminghouse Electrical 60 1 Structure Plumbing Stations Building Components Warminghouse Plumbing 60 3 Structure Shell Stations Building Components Headhouse Shell 60 3 Structure Windows Stations Building Components Headhouse Windows 30 1 Structure Doors Stations Building Components Headhouse Doors 20 1 Structure Electrical Stations Building Components Headhouse Electrical 60 1 Structure Plumbing Stations Building Components Headhouse Plumbing 60 1 Structure Shell Stations Building Components Circulation Shell 60 3 Structure Electrical Stations Building Components Circulation Electrical 60 1 Structure Shell Stations Building Components Canopy Shell 40 1 Structure Shell Stations Building Components Shelter Shell 40 1 Structure Shell Stations Building Components Portico Shell 40 1 Structure Shell Stations Building Components Shell 60 0 Structure Roof Stations Building Components Roof 20 0 Structure Roof Stations Building Components Roof 25 0 Structure Windows Stations Building Components Window 30 0 Structure Doors Stations Building Components Door 20 0 Structure Cooling Stations Building Components Cooling 20 0 Structure Heat Stations Building Components Heating 20 0 Structure Electrical Stations Building Components Electrical 40 0 Structure Electrical Stations Building Components Electrical 60 0 Structure Fire Protection Stations Building Components Fire Protection 30 0 Platform Lights Stations Platform Platform Surface Stations Platform Surface Center 20 1 Platform Surface Stations Platform Surface Side 20 1 Platform Structure Stations Platform Structure Center 40 1 Platform Structure Stations Platform Structure Side 40 1 Platform Lights Stations Platform Lighting Parking Lighting Stations Access Parking Garage 60 5 Parking Pavement Stations Access Parking Parking Lot Pavement 40 1 Parking Access Roadway Stations Access Parking Parking Lot Access Roadway 40 1 Parking Lighting Stations Access Parking Lot 40 1 Parking Pavement Stations Access Parking Parking Garage Pavement 60 2 Paved Walkway Stations Access Pedestrian Stair-Covered Stations Access Pedestrian Stair 60 1 Stair Heat Stations Access Pedestrian Stair Heat 60 1 Stair-Through Abutment Stations Access Pedestrian Viaduct Stair 80 1 Ramp Stations Access Pedestrian Ramp 60 1 Ramp Heat Stations Access Pedestrian Ramp Heat 60 1 Crosswalk Stations Access Pedestrian Crosswalk 20 1 Elevator Stations Access Pedestrian Elevators 20 3 Elevator Stations Access Pedestrian Escalators 20 3 Tunnel Stations Access Pedestrian Pedestrian bridge 80 0 Tunnel Stations Access Pedestrian Pedestrian tunnel Locomotives Vehicles Revenue Vehicles Rail Commuter Rail: Locomotive GMC/EMD 25 5 Locomotives Vehicles Revenue Vehicles Rail Commuter Rail: Locomotive MPI 25 5 Switchers Vehicles Revenue Vehicles Rail Commuter Rail: Switcher 30 0 Coaches Vehicles Revenue Vehicles Rail Commuter Rail: Passenger Coaches 25 5 Coaches Vehicles Revenue Vehicles Rail Commuter Rail: Passenger Access Coaches 25 5 Coaches Vehicles Revenue Vehicles Rail Commuter Rail: Passenger Cab Control Car 25 5 EMU's Vehicles Revenue Vehicles Rail Commuter Rail: Single Level Self-Propelled Coac 25 5 EMU's Vehicles Revenue Vehicles Rail Commuter Rail: Bi-Level Self-Propelled Coaches 25 5 NonRevenue Vehicles Vehicles Non-Revenue Vehicles Appendix B

58 B.2 Useful Life Assumptions, Pace RTA Asset Type Type Code Category Sub-Category Element Sub-Element Useful Life Rehabs ADA Facilities Facilities Buildings Maintenance Pace -- Bus - Small 60 5 Facilities Facilities Buildings Maintenance Pace -- Bus - Small 60 5 Facilities Facilities Buildings Maintenance Pace -- Bus - Large 60 5 Facilities Facilities Buildings Maintenance Pace -- Bus - Site Work 20 0 ADA Facilities Facilities Buildings Administration Pace Admin Building - 2 floor 60 5 Facilities Facilities Buildings Administration Pace Admin Building - 2 floor 60 5 Vanpool Drivecam Systems Communications Safety and Security On-Vehicle Video Systems 20 0 Paratransit Event Rec Systems Communications Safety and Security Emergency Location System 20 0 Suburb Event Recorders Systems Communications Safety and Security Emergency Location System 5 0 Suburb Road Recorders Systems Communications Safety and Security Emergency Location System 5 0 Radio Systems Buses Systems Communications Radio Radio Systems Buses Systems Communications Radio Radio Systems Buses Systems Communications Radio Radio Systems City Systems Communications Radio Radio Systems Sub Para Systems Communications Radio Radio Systems Sub Para Systems Communications Radio Fare Collection Systems Central Revenue Collection Fare Collection Systems Revenue Collection On-Vehicle Fareboxes 5 0 Fare Collection Systems Revenue Collection On-Vehicle Fareboxes 7 0 Fare Collection Systems Revenue Collection On-Vehicle Fareboxes 12 0 Fare Collection Systems Revenue Collection On-Vehicle Fareboxes 15 0 Fare Collection Para Systems Revenue Collection On-Vehicle Fareboxes 7 0 ITS IBS Systems Systems ITS ITS IBS Systems Systems ITS AVL Systems Systems ITS AVL ADA Call Center-other Systems ITS CAD ITS IBS Systems Systems ITS GPS ADA Pass Facilities Stations Motor Bus - Pace Bus Park & Ride 10 1 Stations Stations Motor Bus - Pace Bus Park & Ride 10 1 Stations Stations Transit Center Infrastructure Support Stations Shelter Motor Bus Infrastructure Support Stations Platform Signage & Graphics Electronic 10 0 Infrastructure Support Stations Platform Signage & Graphics Static 20 0 Suburb Rolling Stock Vehicles Revenue Vehicles Bus Large Bus (40 ft) 12 1 Paratransit Vehicles Revenue Vehicles Bus Medium Bus (35 ft) 7 1 Suburb Rolling Stock Vehicles Revenue Vehicles Bus Medium Bus (35 ft) 12 1 Paratransit Vehicles Revenue Vehicles Bus Small Bus (<30 ft) -- Hybrid 7 0 Paratransit Vehicles Revenue Vehicles Bus Over-the-Road Coach 7 0 Suburb Rolling Stock Vehicles Revenue Vehicles Bus Over-the-Road Coach 12 0 ADA Rolling Stock Vehicles Revenue Vehicles Small bus, paratransit, vans and autos Automobile 4 0 ADA Rolling Stock Vehicles Revenue Vehicles Small bus, paratransit, vans and autos Medium-Duty (14-pass) 4 0 ADA Rolling Stock Vehicles Revenue Vehicles Small bus, paratransit, vans and autos Van 4 0 CTS Vehicles Revenue Vehicles Small bus, paratransit, vans and autos Van 4 0 Paratransit Vehicles Revenue Vehicles Small bus, paratransit, vans and autos Van 4 0 Vanpool Vehicles Revenue Vehicles Small bus, paratransit, vans and autos Van 4 0 ADA Rolling Stock Vehicles Revenue Vehicles Small bus, paratransit, vans and autos Taxicab station wagon 4 0 Non-Revenue Vehicles Vehicles Non-Revenue Vehicles Non-Revenue Vehicles Vehicles Non-Revenue Vehicles Non-Revenue Vehicles Vehicles Non-Revenue Vehicles Appendix B

59 APPENDIX C, ASSET INVENTORY UPDATE CAPITAL ASSET CONDITION ASSESSMENT UPDATE The foundation of the Capital Asset Condition Assessment Update (referred to as the Update) process is a detailed asset inventory that documents the transit assets of each of the region s three Service Boards. Originally developed for the 2009 Baseline Assessment, the contents of the inventory were updated in 2012, 2013 and again in The inventories were provided originally by the Service Boards and are updated annually by the Service Boards. Updated data were used to conduct the regional asset conditions and reinvestment needs analyses present in previous chapters of this report. This Appendix provides background on RTA s regional transit asset inventory including its structure, contents, initial development, and updates and revisions for 2014 (i.e., inventory as of December 31, 2013). C.1 Inventory Structure The RTA s asset inventory uses a hierarchical asset inventory structure that groups all of the regions transit assets into five categories and related sub-categories, elements and sub-elements. The first two levels of that structure are presented in Figure C-1. This structure represents a slight modification from that used in the Baseline Assessment but is consistent with emerging industry best practices and forthcoming FTA asset reporting requirements under the 2012 Transportation Legislation bill, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century (MAP-21). All of the asset condition and reinvestment needs analyses presented in this report are founded on this asset structure. Category Facilities Guideway Elements Stations Systems Vehicles Figure C-1. Inventory Structure Sub-Category Buildings Central Control Equipment Storage Yard Bus Guideway Guideway Trackwork Motor Bus Rail Central Revenue Collection Communications Electrification ITS Revenue Collection Security/Surv Equipment Train Control Utilities Revenue Vehicles Non-Revenue Vehicles - Appendix C

60 C.2 Baseline Assessment Inventory CAPITAL ASSET CONDITION ASSESSMENT UPDATE During the Baseline Assessment ), data were provided by Service Boards for each asset type including description, location, quantity, and asset age. Useful lives and values were discussed as a group with consultants, Service Boards, and RTA. Condition estimation was calculated and added based on age-based quintile calculations (e.g., first quarter of useful life, second quarter of useful life). A total of 80 inventory asset tables were developed for the Baseline Assessment and a relational database for recording, maintaining, and reporting asset information was developed. C.3 Condition Assessment Update Inventory 2013 and 2014 Updates The existing inventory framework was maintained while the RTA and the Service Boards offered suggestions to improve and expand the inventory framework, including a data dictionary to provide consistent interpretation of terms in the inventory tables. The first update saw a big jump in the number of data tables provided from the Service Boards, from 80 to just over 120. Since that time, the number of data tables has fluctuated a little bit, with 113 for 2013 and 120 for However, the number of records within the tables has gradually expanded significantly, most notably for the 2014 report where the Metra data tables contain over 34,000 records. Note this does not directly mean an increase in the number of assets. For example, whereas CTA groups vehicles based on model and year, Metra and Pace list each vehicle individually. The Service Boards submitted a total of 120 inventory asset tables (data tables) for the 2014 Update, a slight consolidation from the prior year update. Figure C-2 summarizes the inventory statistics for the Baseline Assessment and the Update and shows the difference between the two reports. Figure C-2. Inventory Statistics Summary Baseline Assessment (2010) 2012 Update (2011 Year) 2013 Update (2012 Year) 2014 Update (2013 Year) Difference Data Tables % Individual Assets Reported 11,574 14,556 15,231 48,202* 216% *Reflects major increase from Metra inventory effort The Service Boards submitted the data tables in Microsoft Excel format and a custom program was designed to migrate the Excel data tables into a Microsoft Access database while validating formats (conversion errors, data gaps, and inconsistencies had to be manually addressed). C.4 Linkage to Transit Economic Requirements Model (TERM) As part of the conversion of the separate inventories, individual asset line items were assigned to the detailed asset type codes and related asset inventory hierarchy utilized by the Federal Transit Administration s (FTA s) Transit Economic Requirements Model (TERM). Use of this TERM based asset type mapping ensures that asset documentation and the assessment of RTA and Service Board reinvestment needs is consistent with forthcoming FTA asset reporting requirements and emerging industry asset reporting standards. - Appendix C

61 TERM is a national level transit capital investment needs analysis tool. FTA developed TERM to assess both the size of the nation s state of good repair backlog and the level of reinvestment required to address both the backlog and normal (ongoing) reinvestment needs. FTA then reports those needs to Congress via the Conditions and Performance Report, which is comparable in content to this Update report. RTA and this report benefit from TERM in several ways: Condition measures and the related asset decay curves 4 used to assess RTA regional transit asset conditions were developed for use in TERM The hierarchy of asset types used to develop this Update report s assessment of regional reinvestments needs was derived from TERM RTA s COST tool (see next section) was initially developed as a modified and customized version of TERM. While COST continues to benefit from advances in TERM s design, the reverse is also true (TERM continues to benefit from development advances of RTA s COST tool). 4 For more information on FTA decay curves, refer to Appendix E, Asset Condition Rating Process - Appendix C

62 APPENDIX D, CAPITAL OPTIMIZATION SUPPORT TOOL (COST) In April 2011, RTA and the Service Boards initiated development of the Capital Optimization Support Tool (COST). COST uses asset data collected through the Inventory Update process (Appendix C) to assess and prioritize transit capital investment needs subject to regional funding capacity and long-term strategic objectives. The estimates of regional asset conditions and reinvestment needs presented in this report were generated using COST. In addition to being able to estimate the size of the investment backlog and project future reinvestment needs, COST also has the ability to prioritize the order in which these needs might be addressed when funding is limited. Specifically, COST evaluates each reinvestment need based on five evaluation criteria (safety, ridership impact, condition, reliability, and cost effectiveness). The evaluation scores for each of these factors is then weighted and summed to arrive at a total prioritization score for that asset. COST then uses that scoring to rank reinvestment priorities (highest to lowest) and then addresses reinvestment needs based on these rankings and available funding capacity. Unaddressed needs enter (or remain in the investment backlog). At a minimum, COST's prioritization provides the tool with rules to model how limited funds are spent and which assets are consigned to the backlog. At a higher level, the prioritization capability can help the Service Boards make more informed decisions regarding real world funding decisions given existing and anticipated future needs. COST outputs are based on inventory data, not field condition assessments. As such, the outputs are dependent on the quality and completeness of the inventory input data. Over time the quality of the inventories is subject to ongoing improvement. While currently focused solely on the assessment of regional reinvestment needs (i.e., preservation of the existing stock of transit assets), COST will ultimately help the region identify an optimal balance between replacing aging infrastructure (maintain); improving the throughput, reliability, and safety of existing services (enhance); and the addition of new capacity to improve system performance (expand) all within the confines of limited financial resources. COST is not intended as a substitute for thoughtful decision-making by those closest to the management of those assets (the Service Boards). More specifically, COST will assist RTA and the region to establish priorities within each of these types of needs (for example, prioritizing between different asset replacement projects). COST is an MS Access based analysis tool that relies on asset inventory data collected through the Asset Condition Assessment process. At the start of the Condition Assessment Process the three Service Boards each submit data tables (MS Excel based) to a centralized data warehouse. These datasheets are then uploaded to the Regional Asset Inventory Database (MS Access based), where the data are reviewed and validated. The validated data are then exported to COST. - Appendix D

63 Other COST Tool Applications: In addition to its role in generating regional needs estimates, COST was also developed to help prioritize how capital funds are actually spent. As noted in section 1.4 of this report, reinvestment needs exceed the region s available funding capacity and hence RTA and the Service Boards must determine the best use of limited capital funds (i.e., which assets are first in line for reinvestment). COST is designed to assist this process by prioritizing those reinvestment actions that offer the greatest improvements to asset conditions, service reliability, safety and operating costs while also benefiting the greatest number of riders. These prioritized needs can then be used to help inform the region s annual budgeting process. Specifically, the tool s prioritized needs can be compared to the RTA and Service Board capital budget proposals. Observed differences between COST and budget priorities can be further investigated to help determine if any budget realignment is warranted (or if Tool recalibration is called for). The intention of COST in this context is to help make better informed budgeting decisions, not to drive the budgeting process. RTA s COST tool provides a unique perspective and understanding particularly as they relate to longterm reinvestment needs that other types of analyses cannot. COST is specifically designed to assess reinvestment needs and project asset conditions for all capital assets, and it does so over an extended time horizon of ten, twenty years, or longer. Detailed onsite engineering condition assessments are equally important, and complementary. Condition assessments provide an excellent understanding of reinvestment needs and asset conditions as they exist today and how those conditions will impact near term reinvestment actions (e.g., as outlined in a capital improvement plan). Condition assessments necessarily provide a picture of needs and conditions as they exist at a specific point in time (i.e., at the date of survey) and only do so for those assets included in the assessment. D.1 COST Conceptual Model A conceptual model of COST is presented in Figure D-2. As noted above, COST relies on asset inventory data collected through the Update process. This asset inventory data documents the asset type, date built, expected useful life, replacement value, rehabilitation history, and life cycle investment requirements of all assets owned and operated by RTA and the three Service Boards. Based on these assumptions regarding current age, expected useful life and other life cycle investment requirements, the tool first assesses which assets have deferred reinvestment requirements (e.g., which assets are in service past their useful life and what level of investment is required to replace those assets). This assessment provides a measure of the size of the SGR backlog (i.e., the level of reinvestment required to attain a complete state of good repair, as of December 2013). The tool next simulates the ongoing aging of these assets over the upcoming ten-year period to determine the level of reinvestment required to replace (or rehabilitate) assets that will reach the end of their useful life over this ten-year period (or longer). - Appendix D

64 Figure D-2: Conceptual Model of COST CAPITAL ASSET CONDITION ASSESSMENT UPDATE Condition Assessment Input Asset Inventory What are asset conditions? Assess Needs & Conditions What needs to be Repeat done? for next year RTA Prioritization Tool Iterate From Year 1 to Year 10 Reinvest Subject to Funding What can we afford? Score / Rank Investments What has priority? Output 10-Yr Needs Backlog Normal Investment The COST user sets the period of analysis, which can be 10 years, 20 years, or another period. FTA does require 20 years of analysis for New Starts financial plans, and several other large agencies work with 20, or more year planning horizons for their needs projections. This report produces a 10-Year Needs Analysis like the Baseline Report, however in Chapter 4, Capital Needs Analysis, a 20-Year needs assessment is also presented for comparison. The advantage of examining a 20-year period is the ability to view large reinvestment needs not apparent over the 10-year timeframe. For most analyses presented in this report, it is assumed that the level of future funding will be completely unlimited (i.e., funding is unconstrained ). This allows the tool to both fully eliminate the backlog while also addressing all other normal replacement needs (e.g., asset replacements, rehabilitations and other minor capital needs) over the ten-year period of analysis. Note, however, that as a prioritization tool COST can also be run financially constrained (i.e., with insufficient funding to address all needs) to determine (1) which assets will and will not obtain scarce funding over the ten-year period of analysis and (2) what is the impact of this constrained funding on the investment backlog and asset conditions for those assets that do not obtain any reinvestment funding. Finally, the tool output includes an assessment of both current asset conditions (estimated conditions based on decay curves) and deferred reinvestment needs as well as a forecast of future asset conditions and needs subject to the assumed level of future funding (either unconstrained or some constrained level of reinvestment). D.2 COST Key Features COST offers nine key features that will help the RTA and the Service Boards in the capital planning process, as shown in Figure D-3. - Appendix D

65 Figure D-3. COST Key Features Feature Estimate Reinvestment Needs Process Estimates the level of investment required to address the SGR backlog and ongoing needs Prioritize by Investment Type Prioritize between and within capital reinvestment, enhancement, and expansion needs (in development) Prioritize within Service Board Prioritizes Service Board needs on a stand-alone basis between categories of assets Support Scenario Analysis Re-score and Re-sequence Deferred Reinvestment Assess how changes to (1) prioritization weightings and (2) funding availability will impact: Investment allocation between asset types The future asset conditions and performance (SGR backlog, ridership capacity, service reliability Re-score, reprioritize, and re-sequence the timing of capital maintenance whenever these activities are deferred (i.e., increased deferment yields a higher prioritization score) Provide a Funding Plan Prioritize investments based on current and potential funding levels subject to eligible uses Needs-Based Capital Plan Support Provide input to development of a needs-based, prioritized, and sequenced capital plan Supports a Repeatable Process Provide RTA and the Service Boards with a tool to continually reassess and monitor conditions and needs Utilize Existing Data Sources Utilize the Capital Asset Condition Assessment updates as well the RTAMS database for ridership data by asset location. - Appendix D

66 APPENDIX E, ASSET CONDITION RATING PROCESS A primary output of the Condition Assessment Update is a current estimate of the physical conditions of the region s transit assets. This chapter provides background on the process the region has adopted to both estimate regional asset conditions (using asset decay curves ) and then to validate those curves (based on limited sampling of actual asset conditions). E.1 Background The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has established a five-level condition rating process that defines condition ratings for each level and a methodology for estimating the condition of individual assets based on asset type, age and other factors. In FTA s October 2008 report Transit State of Good Repair: Beginning the Dialogue, physical asset condition assessment is the best way to measure State of Good Repair (SGR) for individual assets and on an agency-wide basis. Asset age is a second best proxy. More significantly, the recent Federal MAP-21 legislation has made the assessment of transit asset conditions a requirement for recipients of Federal funding support. With some exceptions, the region has largely adopted FTA s five point condition rating scale, thus ensuring consistency with FTA and compliance with MAP-21 condition assessment requirements. For the original Baseline Assessment, RTA utilized a five point, age quintile based condition rating system comparable to that used by FTA. For this report, RTA has adopted FTA s decay curve based condition estimation approach. However, it is fully expected that this approach will be adapted over time to better reflect the unique conditions and life expectancies of the region s transit assets. E.2 Condition Rating Levels One of RTA s objectives for the condition assessment rating process is to ensure consistency with the FTA s condition rating levels. Figure E-1 shows the condition rating levels that were used for the Update. Figure E-1. Condition Rating Levels Condition Definition Excellent 4.8 to 5.0 Good 4.0 to 4.7 Adequate 3.0 to 3.9 Marginal 2.0 to 2.9 Worn 1.0 to 1.9 New asset No visible defects Asset showing minimal signs of wear Some (slightly) defective or deteriorated component(s) Asset has reached its mid-life (condition 3.5) Some moderately defective or deteriorated component(s) Asset reaching or just past the end of its useful life (typically reached between condition 2.75 and 2.5) Increasing number of defective or deteriorated component(s) and increasing maintenance needs Asset is past its useful life and should be prioritized for repair or replacement - Appendix E

67 E.3 Condition Assessment Approach CAPITAL ASSET CONDITION ASSESSMENT UPDATE With the Update, RTA determined to move beyond age-only as the predictor of asset condition and to adopt several strategies to move towards a regional physical asset condition assessment based on estimated conditions but ultimately supplemented with samples of actual condition observations. Towards this end, RTA adopted FTA s decay-curve based approach for asset condition estimation while establishing an asset condition sampling program (carried over from the Baseline Assessment) to help validate those decay curves. There are three potential approaches to measuring asset condition: (1) straight age-based, linear condition projection; (2) incorporating decay curves to project physical condition; and (3) physical site visits via sampling or other methods. Each approach is briefly described in Figure E-2. The current approach is focused on utilizing decay curves to the inventory data to estimate physical condition of assets, supplemented by sampling observations of assets to assist in validating condition estimates. This approach has begun in 2014, though sample sizes for decay curve application have been found to be insufficient in many cases. Sampling efforts for CTA and Pace continued during Metra conducted its own asset condition sampling as part of its asset management program. Figure E-2. Condition Approaches and Application Condition Approaches Methodology Comment 1. Age Quintile 2. Asset Condition Decay Curves 3. Sampling Observations E.4 FTA Asset Decay Curves Asset useful life divided into five quintiles Estimated asset condition based on asset type specific decay curve Physical observation by condition experts, then rated by using a scale Basis for condition used during Baseline Assessment FTA-developed curves used to estimate asset conditions for Update Report Process initiated. Will be used in future to validate / recalibrate FTA decay curves The FTA has developed generic transit asset decay curves for major asset types using condition data collected from transit agencies nationwide. These curves predict asset physical condition as a function of age, maintenance history and other factors on a common 5 to 1 rating scale. Figure E-3 illustrates a typical decay curve for a 40-foot bus. The best fit curves in red (there are three curves based on the level of preventive maintenance) predict the expected physical deterioration of a 40-foot bus over time. - Appendix E

68 Figure E-3. Asset Decay Curve Example CAPITAL ASSET CONDITION ASSESSMENT UPDATE The decay-curve approach to estimate asset condition represents a shift from the baseline approach, which relied purely on age based useful life quintiles (i.e., first quintile for first quarter of asset life, second quintile for second quarter of asset life, and so forth up to fifth quintile for assets exceeding their life). Using the decay curve approach, asset condition is estimated on an empirically derived continuum of physical condition, with asset age as starting input. There are several advantages to using decay curves: Provides more accurate predictions and distributions instead of using a life cycle proxy Provides an asset class-specific rating prediction Is consistent with on-site (field) observation condition rating criteria definitions Has no impact on asset backlog and reinvestment needs estimates. The last point is important since the use of a decay curve approach does not impact projections for agebased replacement needs. COST was set up to calculate all key metrics related to replacement needs. For example, as illustrated in Figure E-4, when an asset exceeds its useful life (left side of the figure) it is due for replacement, will no longer be in a State of Good Repair, and enters the Backlog. The right side of Figure E-4 illustrates condition ratings determined from the decay curves, which can help prioritize the order of asset replacement and develop a regional distribution of asset conditions. Figure E-4. Replacement Needs Versus Asset Conditions * The summary results of applying decay curves to the updated inventory tables are provided in Chapter 3 while sampling findings are included in Appendix F. - Appendix E

69 E.5 On-Site Condition Assessment CAPITAL ASSET CONDITION ASSESSMENT UPDATE On-site assessment of actual transit asset conditions was completed for a sampling of the region s transit assets as a part of this Update. The objective of these condition assessments (still ongoing) is to both validate and eventually recalibrate FTA s decay curves to better reflect the asset deterioration characteristics of transit assets in the Chicago region. The on-site assessments followed a similar approach used during the Baseline Assessment. Asset Condition Sampling Forms (see Figure E-5) were tailored to each asset type and used to gather information on the selected sample of assets. Figure E-5. Sample Condition Assessment Form (Generic) Asset Name and Identification Asset Location - Assessed by: Date: / / Accompanied by: Age: Yrs Last Major Maintenance: ASSET CONDITION RATINGS: 1 = WORN, 2 = MARGINAL, 3 = FAIR, 4 = GOOD, 5 = EXCELLENT ASSET CLASS COMMENT LAST RENOV. PHOTO CONDITION Roughly 203 assets within the Service Board inventories were sampled for the 2014 report. The level of detail on the forms corresponds to the specific component condition level definitions as determined by the FTA for development of its asset decay curves (also based on on-site asset conditions at a sample of US transit properties). Figure E-6. On-Site Sampling Examples Rail Car Substation Facility Roof - Appendix E

70 Revenue Bus Track Transportation Shop While Figure E-5 presents an example of a generic asset condition assessment form, asset specific forms have been developed and utilized for each of the following types of assets: Facilities Bus garages Other major (bus) facilities Railcar maintenance shops Yard facilities Guideway Elements Track structures (e.g., bridges) Ties Rail-track Grade crossings Special trackwork (e.g., interlockings) Stations Station facilities Station parking lots Bus passenger facilities (bus turnarounds) Systems Substation buildings Rail power feeder cables Third rail (within right-of-way) Catenary (where applicable) Electrical services Subway pumps Interlockings Cab signals Signal systems Fare collection Radio CCTV station (new or updated for 2014) Fiber optic (new or updated for 2014) Remote Terminal Units-RTU (new or updated for 2014) Subway Ejector Pump (new or updated for 2014) Subway Fan (new or updated for 2014) Subway Illumination (new or updated for 2014) - Appendix E

71 Vehicles Rail revenue vehicles (locomotives, railcars, EMUs) Buses and vans (including ADA rolling stock, paratransit, and vanpool) Non-revenue vehicles The on-site condition data were collected to aggregate the scores of individual components into a single, overall condition score for that asset. The aggregation methodology is based on the expected replacement cost for a particular asset. Since the condition assessments were conducted at the component level, and the inventory data in many cases were aggregated at the asset level, RTA developed weighting factors to calculate an aggregated asset-level condition based on the percent value of each component. For example, using a revenue bus as the asset, the interior, the exterior, engine compartment, and chassis are worth 28%, 28%, 16%, and 28%, respectively, of the price of a new replacement bus. These same percentages are then applied to the individual component condition scores to derive a single aggregated asset condition score. This approach was used for all major assets with components. Moving forward, the on-site condition assessment data will be used to validate or recalibrate the decay curves adopted from FTA. Since the FTA developed their decay curves based on the experience of a broad sample of U.S. transit agencies, they may not be specifically representative of RTA s experience (for example, the Service Boards operate in a harsh northern environment). Therefore, more on-site condition assessments will be performed each year to better capture the asset decay and life expectancy experiences of the CTA, Metra, and Pace. RTA has begun to map the sampled asset data collected since the beginning to create regional decay curves; this effort will continue in the next several years. A summary of on-site condition data collected during the 2013 calendar year is presented in Appendix F. - Appendix E

72 APPENDIX F, SAMPLING RESULTS For the 2014 report, approximately 203 assets within the Service Board inventories were sampled. These focused exclusively on Vehicles and Systems for CTA and Pace. RTA performed no sampling of Metra assets this year, since Metra was already conducting a full system condition assessment themselves. Cumulatively to date, RTA has sampled 3.8% of assets and 14.3% of total value (Metra excluded), or 4.3% of assets or 9.7% of total value (all Service Boards). The assessments consisted of visual examination of the asset classes, and did not include a detailed engineering condition assessment. Detailed scoring sheets for these assets and photographs representative of the conditions witnessed are located on the RTA s project SharePoint site. This Appendix presents summary results for the principal asset classes. The figures in the next several pages compare the sampling condition rating range (i.e., lowest condition rating and highest condition rating witnessed) to the average decay curve rating from COST. When comparing the numbers, it is important to note that assets to sample were chosen at random, with no pre-disposition towards worst-first assets. This means some of the assets sampled are new or virtually new assets. Given this fact, coupled with the small size of the sample, deviations from the decay curve average are to be expected. As the sampling volume increases in subsequent years, these differences are expected to diminish. Figures F-1, F-2, and F-3 on the following pages summarize sampling results for CTA, Metra and Pace, respectively. The CTA sample included Systems and Vehicles. All asset types exhibited a sampled value within the decay-curve (modeled) range. With the exception of subway fans, sampled assets tended towards the upper range of the modeled condition. The Metra sampling included all asset types and was performed by Metra and its consultants. Because of the sheer size of the number of assets surveyed, the ranges are huge (1-5). Differences with the modeled results reveal several instances where sampled condition is outside the bounds of modeled condition, for instance Facilities; grade crossings; special track; catenary; EMUs. The reason is likely the level of aggregation of the assets observed (e.g., Facilities). With Pace, the focus was Vehicles and Systems much like CTA. Without exception, the observed condition of sampled assets fell directly into the ranges from the decay curves. Since the beginning of the condition assessment initiative, thousands of photographs were taken of the assets examined; these are also posted on the project SharePoint site. This section contains a representative set for each of the Service Boards, for this year. - Appendix F

73 F.1 CTA Figure F (Year 3) Sampling Summary, CTA Asset Category Total Assets Decay - Curve Condition Range Assets Sampled Sampling Condition Rating Range Systems 1678 See below 31 See below CCTV Stations Ejector Pumps Fiber Optic Backbone SCADA RTU s Subway Illumination Subway Fans Traction Power Vehicles See 91 below Vehicles/Rail Cars Vehicles/Buses Non-Revenue Appendix F

74 Vehicles Bombardier Railcar, Systems Adams-Jackson Subway Fan, East, Red Line, State Subway Systems Remote Terminal Unit (RTU), Chicago Station Red Line, State Subway Systems CCTV, Jackson & Van Buren Red Line. State Subway Systems CCTV Camera, Chicago Station Red Line, State Subway Systems Subway Ejector Pump, Harrison &State - Appendix F

75 F.2 Metra CAPITAL ASSET CONDITION ASSESSMENT UPDATE The source data for this table is the system wide assessment performed by Metra. The only external source is COST modeled decay-curve condition ranges. Asset Category Figure F (Year 3) Sampling Summary, Metra Total Assets Decay-Curve Condition Range Assets Sampled Sampling Condition Rating Range Facilities to Guideway Bridges/Structures to Grade Crossings to Trackwork - Mainline Tangent 840.5* 1.0 to * 1-5 Curved to Special to Line Ties to Line Ballast N/A Yard - Tangent 66.6 N/A Yard - Curved 9.3 N/A Yard - Special * N/A * Yard Ties * N/A * Yard Ballast * N/A * Stations Parking to Systems Substations to Catenary to Poles & Foundations to Interlockings to Signal Control to N/A Grade Crossing to Vehicles Vehicles/Rail Cars to Vehicles/EMUs Vehicles/Locomotives to Non-Revenue Vehicles to Work Equipment to * Miles - Appendix F

76 Guideway Catenary, Electric District Stations Millennium Station Stations Van Buren Platform, Electric Line Facilities Train washer, KYD Yard, Electric Line - Appendix F

77 F.3 Pace Figure F (Year 3) Sampling Summary, Pace Asset Category Total Assets Decay-Curve Condition Range Assets Sampled Sampling Condition Rating Range Facilities PACE Owned N/A Facilities ADA Contractors N/A Stations N/A Systems 15, N/A AVL Systems Vehicles Revenue Vehicles 2, Non-Revenue Appendix F

78 Vehicles Aerotech interior Vehicles Easy Rider 2826 Vehicles Aerotech Exterior Vehicles Non Revenue Vehicle, Navistar Tow Truck 9857 Systems AVL Bus 2750 (EDN EX Rider II) Systems AVL Bus 6907 (MCI) - Appendix F

79 APPENDIX G, CAPITAL PROGRAMMING COMPARISONS RTA s Budget, Performance & Business Analysis Division has examined capital funding among peer regions and concluded that, in nominal dollars, Chicago s share of the federal pie has decreased from 20 percent in 2003 to 9 percent in In comparing Chicago-area transit operators to peers, Chicago ranked eighth out of ten for its percentage of vehicles beyond their minimum useful life. However, despite this, in 2012 Chicago operators ranked first for miles between major mechanical failures, as it has each year since This measure reflects reliability of service, and its positive result illustrates an effective use of scarce capital dollars. Appendix G summarizes recent findings made by the Budget, Performance & Business Analysis Division on this topic. The RTA will continue to examine the relationship between the SGR backlog and amount of capital reinvestment in SGR. The following statistical data summarize relevant research performed. - Appendix G

80 G.1 Regional Performance Measures: Capital Fund Expenditures Among Peer Regions Pursuant to a discussion among the Performance Measures Task Force, this report examined capital fund expenditures among peers to provide comparison data for evaluating capital expenditures by the Chicago region. The charts below show the top ten most populous US metropolitan regions and their corresponding primary transit operators -- the same regions and transit operators used in the Regional Peer Report Card and illustrate the loss of federal capital dollars to the region s transit providers over the past ten years: 2003 Federal Capital Expenditures: $2.6 Billion 20% BOSTON NEW YORK PHILADELPHIA DC MIAMI ATLANTA CHICAGO DALLAS HOUSTON LOS ANGELES In 2003, Chicago expended 20% of the $2.625 billion of federal money spent by the top ten metropolitan regions for transit capital programs Federal Capital Expenditures: $3.9 Billion BOSTON NEW YORK PHILADELPHIA DC MIAMI 9% ATLANTA CHICAGO DALLAS HOUSTON LOS ANGELES Over the following ten years, Chicago s share decreased steadily to 9% of 2012 monies, a 34% decline in nominal dollars. Across the same time period, the New York share increased to 51% of the federal capital funds, a 130% increase. Results for other legacy transit regions: Boston increased 55% while Philadelphia declined 14%. Younger systems at Dallas and Houston increased by 159% and 234%, respectively, over the same time period. - Appendix G

81 The chart below illustrates each of the ten regions and their shares of federal capital expenditures over the past ten years, Total federal transit expenditures were on a generally increasing trend through 2009, dropped significantly in 2010, then increased in each year 2011 and Through 2009, the Chicago region s transit operators consistently expended the second-largest share of federal transit program dollars, although Chicago s percentage decreased as New York s percentage increased. In 2010, Washington DC and Philadelphia each spent 10% of the total and Los Angeles spent 9%, while the Chicago region dropped to 7% and a fifth-place ranking for the year. In 2011, the Chicago region share increased to 8% and equaled Philadelphia s share, while Washington DC increased to 14% of the total federal capital expenditures, its highest percentage over the past ten years. In 2012 the Chicago region federal capital expenditures returned to second-place ranking (tied with Houston) although its share is significantly below 2003 levels. Billions $5.0 Federal Capital Expenditures $4.0 ATLANTA HOUSTON $3.0 MIAMI DALLAS $2.0 $1.0 20% 17% 14% 15% 11% 10% 12% 7% 8% 9% BOSTON PHILADELPHIA LOS ANGELES DC CHICAGO NEW YORK $ Appendix G

82 G.2 Regional Performance Measures: Total Capital Expenditures per Resident LA HOU DAL ATL MIA DC PHI NY BOS LA HOU DAL ATL MIA DC PHI NY BOS Total Capital Expenditures: 2003 (millions) $438 $293 $172 $241 $157 $424 $354 $387 $1,025 CHICAGO $3,936 FEDERAL STATE LOCAL OTHER $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 Total Capital Expenditures: 2012 (millions) $1,114 $490 $333 $610 CHICAGO $152 $122 $493 $344 $405 FEDERAL STATE LOCAL OTHER $4,762 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 Capital Expenditures per Resident The charts to the left show the total capital fund expenditures and capital expenditures expressed on a per-resident basis, using population estimates from the US Census Bureau for each metropolitan statistical area. The bars are stacked to show the relative proportions of funding by federal, state, local, and other sources. Over the ten years shown, the Chicago region has seen a drastic reduction in funding from local sources, from 39% to 18%, whereas the federal portion has increased from 52% to 58% and the state portion has increased from 7% to 22%. Other funding grew from 1% to 2%. $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $ In nominal dollars, the Chicago region has seen a 42% reduction in capital funding over the ten years represented; over that time period, the Chicago region population increased by 2%. - Appendix G

83 G.3 Performance Highlight: Capital Investment Percent of Vehicles Beyond Useful Life (2012) 27% 28% 30% 30% 31% 12% 16% 16% 21% 41% In comparing Chicago-area transit operators to its peers, Chicago ranks eighth out of the ten for its percentage of vehicles beyond their useful life. This statistic refers to the length of time vehicles are expected, at a minimum, to remain in service, and does not factor in rehabilitations or overhauls. Vehicles kept in service beyond their minimum useful life are kept in good working condition but may require more maintenance investment to keep performance optimal. 28 Miles Between Major Mechanical Failures (2012) The Chicago transit operators have ranked first for miles between major mechanical failures each year since This is a substantial achievement, given the statistic cited above. Keeping vehicles in service, reliably, beyond their useful life is a measure of effective use of scarce capital dollars. $240 Capital Expenditures per Resident (2012) $87 $85 $84 $79 $64 $57 $50 $28 $21 To normalize total capital expenditures, this chart illustrates dollars spent on a per-resident basis. The Chicagoland region expends $64 dollars per person, 21% less than the peer average and one-fourth what is expended in the New York City area. Data source: Federal Transit Administration National Transit Database - Appendix G

84 APPENDIX H, 10-YEAR ANNUAL REINVESTMENT DETAIL The asset-type level breakout of 10-Year annual reinvestment needs for the Service Boards is presented in the following pages. Note that in some cases totals for the 10-Year needs may not add completely due to rounding. - Appendix H

85 Figure H.1. CTA Detailed Asset Type Level Breakout of 10-Year Annual Reinvestment Needs ($2013 Millions) Asset Group Asset Cost Type Backlog Year Needs Facilities Guideway Elements Stations Bus Garages Other Major Facilities Railcar Maint Shops Work Equipment Misc Yard Bus Turnaround Grade Crossings Rail Track Structures Public Address VMS Station Parking Stations Note: Rail includes ties $12,937 $347 $247 $686 $476 $1,406 $2,324 $1,541 $466 $499 $1,245 $22,172 Backlog $456 $456 Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $172 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $322 $494 Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $83 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $83 Backlog $530 $530 Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $6 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $25 $7 $51 Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Backlog $0 $0 Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $16 $5 $5 $5 $8 $8 $12 $26 $8 $12 $105 Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $45 $0 $45 Backlog $1 $1 Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2 Backlog $544 $544 Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $3 $3 $3 $13 $11 $3 $7 $15 $3 $3 $65 Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $227 $0 $0 $0 $0 $227 Backlog $249 $249 Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $2 $1 $39 $2 $1 $1 $71 $2 $2 $43 $163 Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2 $2 $0 $0 $0 $5 Backlog $1 $1 Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Backlog $902 $902 Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $16 $89 $97 $2 $131 $19 $54 $76 $2 $64 $550 Replace $0 $54 $11 $148 $18 $27 $42 $929 $15 $24 $250 $1,518 Backlog $3,134 $3,134 Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $19 $19 $19 $19 $19 $19 $19 $19 $19 $19 $188 Replace $0 $4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $43 $47 Backlog $14 $14 Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Replace $0 $2 $0 $8 $0 $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14 $26 Backlog $67 $67 Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $1 $0 $0 $0 $3 $0 $0 $6 $12 Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2 $0 $0 $21 $0 $2 $25 Backlog $2,742 $2,742 Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $47 $37 $113 $43 $27 $32 $75 $63 $35 $162 $633 Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $249 $0 $42 $21 $274 $0 $587 - Appendix H

86 Figure H.1. CTA Detailed Asset Type Level Breakout of 10-Year Annual Reinvestment Needs ($2013 Millions), Continued Asset Group Asset Cost Type Backlog Year Needs $12,937 $347 $247 $686 $476 $1,406 $2,324 $1,541 $466 $499 $1,245 $22,172 Backlog $0 $0 Bus Rail Radio Systems Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6 15.0% / 15.0% Bus Rail Radio Systems Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6 Backlog $0 $0 Cable Plant Fiber Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 22.7% / 20.0% Cable Plant Fiber Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $0 $0 $0 $1 Backlog $0 $0 Fiber Optic BB Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ % / 20.0% Fiber Optic BB Replace $0 $0 $20 $0 $0 $3 $0 $0 $0 $2 $0 $25 Backlog $2 $2 GPS OnBoard Bus Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ % / 15.0% GPS OnBoard Bus Replace $0 $0 $0 $5 $0 $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2 $8 Backlog $0 $0 Grade Crossings Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 22.7% / 20.0% Grade Crossings Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Backlog $12 $12 Public Address Audio Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ % / 20.0% Public Address Audio Replace $0 $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6 $0 $0 $0 $12 $21 Backlog $220 $220 ROW Traction Power Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ % / 20.0% ROW Traction Power Replace $0 $3 $3 $13 $0 $2 $0 $0 $90 $0 $0 $111 Backlog $26 $26 SCADA RTUs Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ % / 20.0% SCADA RTUs Replace $0 $5 $7 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26 $5 $7 $0 $50 Backlog $0 $0 SCCTV Cameras Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ % / 15.0% SCCTV Cameras Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $21 $0 $0 $0 $0 $21 Backlog $24 $24 Systems Substation Distribution Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ % / 20.0% Substation Distribution Replace $0 $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10 $21 $33 Backlog $49 $49 Subway Electrical Serv Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ % / 20.0% Subway Electrical Serv Replace $0 $0 $2 $0 $0 $5 $0 $0 $3 $0 $0 $10 Backlog $553 $553 Subway Fans - no updates Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ % / 20.0% Subway Fans - no updates Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $38 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $38 Backlog $14 $14 Subway Illumination Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ % / 20.0% Subway Illumination Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Backlog $0 $0 Subway Pumps Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 22.7% / 20.0% Subway Pumps Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Backlog $0 $0 Vault Operations Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 15.0% / 15.0% Vault Operations Replace $0 $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 Backlog $189 $189 Cab Signals 11-9 Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $10 $ % / 20.0% Cab Signals 11-9 Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $5 $39 $0 $0 $33 $0 $0 $77 Backlog $11 $11 CCTV Stations -12_2 Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ % / 15.0% CCTV Stations -12_2 Replace $0 $7 $1 $25 $1 $11 $7 $1 $25 $1 $11 $90 Backlog $232 $232 Interlockings Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ % / 20.0% Interlockings Replace $0 $15 $39 $16 $29 $148 $23 $0 $49 $0 $9 $327 Backlog $355 $355 Substations 11-9 Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ % / 20.0% Substations 11-9 Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9 $19 $0 $19 $75 $ Year Total Needs Soft Costs / Contingency Asset - Appendix H

87 Figure H.1. CTA Detailed Asset Type Level Breakout of 10-Year Annual Reinvestment Needs ($2013 Millions), Continued Asset Group Asset Cost Type Backlog Year Needs $12,937 $347 $247 $686 $476 $1,406 $2,324 $1,541 $466 $499 $1,245 $22,172 Backlog $420 $420 Buses Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $139 $0 $0 $0 $24 $210 $0 $0 $0 $0 $373 $2, % / 15.0% Buses Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $48 $913 $278 $0 $0 $0 $1,239 Backlog $2 $2 NonRevenue Vehicles Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8 15.0% / 15.0% NonRevenue Vehicles Replace $0 $0 $2 $1 $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3 $7 Backlog $2,160 $2,160 Rail Revenue Cars Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $9 $43 $104 $758 $0 $0 $20 $150 $1,084 $3, % / 15.0% Rail Revenue Cars Vehicles Replace $0 $0 $0 $6 $208 $500 $8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $722 Backlog $18 $18 RailborneWork Equipment Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ % / 15.0% RailborneWork Equipment Replace $0 $1 $0 $1 $0 $1 $3 $0 $1 $1 $1 $8 Backlog $1 $1 Work Equipment Trailers Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2 15.0% / 15.0% Work Equipment Trailers Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2 Backlog $11 $11 Work Trucks Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ % / 15.0% Work Trucks Replace $0 $2 $4 $1 $2 $1 $2 $0 $0 $0 $11 $24 10-Year Total Needs Backlog $12,938 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,938 Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $249 $158 $461 $129 $329 $1,052 $244 $203 $114 $790 $3,729 CTA $22,173 Replace $0 $97 $89 $225 $347 $1,077 $1,271 $1,298 $263 $384 $455 $5,506 Total $12,938 $347 $247 $686 $476 $1,406 $2,324 $1,541 $466 $499 $1,245 $22,173 Soft Costs / Contingency Asset - Appendix H

88 Figure H.2. METRA Asset Type Level Breakout of 10-Yr Annual Reinvestment Needs ($2013 Millions) Asset Group Asset Cost Type Backlog Year Needs $6,127 $260 $366 $392 $289 $591 $543 $1,039 $687 $519 $891 $11,703 Backlog $1 $1 Central Control Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4 22.7% / 20.0% Central Control Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $0 $0 $0 $2 $0 $0 $3 Backlog $76 $ % / 20.0% and Equipment Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $163 Equipment 15.0% / 15.0% Replace $0 $1 $1 $1 $2 $7 $3 $0 $1 $2 $69 $88 Facilities Backlog $21 $21 Major Rail Shops Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $5 $2 $2 $2 $3 $23 $ % / 20.0% Major Rail Shops Replace $0 $0 $1 $0 $50 $2 $0 $0 $87 $0 $1 $141 Backlog $0 $0 Storage Yard Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $0 $0 $0 $1 $2 22.7% / 20.0% Storage Yard Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 Backlog $1,761 $1,761 Guideway Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $7 $8 $7 $9 $9 $7 $7 $8 $7 $12 $81 $1, % / 20.0% Guideway Replace $0 $8 $8 $28 $18 $6 $25 $14 $12 $5 $15 $139 Backlog $3 $3 Guideway Special Structures Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $1 $1 $0 $0 $0 $1 $3 $0 $1 $7 Elements Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2 $ % / 20.0% Special Structures Backlog $1,181 $1,181 Trackwork Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2, % / 20.0% Trackwork Replace $0 $49 $71 $114 $85 $52 $52 $663 $78 $77 $265 $1,508 Backlog $155 $155 Access Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $3 $18 $18 $4 $8 $5 $11 $13 $7 $22 $109 $ % / 20.0% Access Replace $0 $1 $5 $2 $2 $2 $12 $4 $20 $1 $19 $67 Backlog $344 $344 Stations Building Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $1 $21 $2 $1 $1 $2 $1 $2 $0 $7 $36 $ % / 20.0% Building Replace $0 $2 $16 $3 $1 $1 $1 $15 $4 $1 $6 $51 Backlog $166 $166 Platform Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $1 $4 $3 $5 $1 $0 $1 $24 $1 $9 $49 $ % / 20.0% Platform Replace $0 $2 $28 $10 $7 $20 $8 $8 $41 $3 $11 $138 Backlog $0 $0 Central Revenue Collection Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 22.7% / 20.0% Central Revenue Collection Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Backlog $9 $9 Communications Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ % / 20.0% Communications Replace $0 $10 $0 $0 $4 $6 $0 $0 $1 $0 $29 $50 Backlog $93 $93 Electrification Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $ % / 20.0% Electrification Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $14 $8 $4 $3 $5 $0 $0 $35 Backlog $0 $0 Systems ITS Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2 22.7% / 20.0% ITS Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2 $2 Backlog $2 $2 Revenue Collection Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4 22.7% / 20.0% Revenue Collection Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $0 $0 $0 $2 Backlog $70 $70 Train Control Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $8 $ % / 20.0% Train Control Replace $0 $0 $10 $23 $0 $0 $0 $11 $24 $1 $0 $70 Backlog $0 $0 Utilities Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 22.7% / 20.0% Utilities Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Backlog $79 $79 Non-Revenue Vehicles Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ % / 15.0% Non-Revenue Vehicles Vehicles Replace $0 $2 $3 $2 $0 $51 $5 $2 $0 $2 $71 $140 Backlog $2,166 $2,166 Revenue Vehicles Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $26 $31 $18 $7 $327 $294 $85 $15 $11 $81 $894 $4, % / 15.0% Revenue Vehicles Replace $0 $145 $137 $156 $75 $85 $118 $206 $345 $397 $266 $1, Year Total Needs Backlog $6,127 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,127 Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $40 $85 $51 $29 $348 $314 $110 $67 $29 $135 $1,210 Metra $11,703 Replace $0 $220 $282 $340 $260 $243 $229 $928 $620 $490 $755 $4,367 Total $6,127 $260 $366 $392 $289 $591 $543 $1,039 $687 $519 $891 $11,703 Figure H-3. Pace Detailed Asset Type Level Breakout of 10-Yr Annual Reinvestment Needs ($2013 Millions) - Appendix H Soft Costs / Contingency Asset

89 Asset Group Asset Cost Type Backlog Year Needs 10-Year Total Soft Costs / Needs Contingency Asset $475 $128 $292 $150 $164 $171 $254 $69 $236 $129 $194 $2,263 Backlog $11 $11 ADA Facilities Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $1 $1 $10 $2 $1 $5 $1 $1 $1 $2 $26 $ % / 20.0% ADA Facilities Facilities Replace $0 $0 $10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10 Backlog $131 $131 Facilities Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $43 $28 $64 $15 $56 $17 $7 $15 $19 $17 $280 $ % / 20.0% Facilities Replace $0 $7 $5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $0 $0 $14 Backlog $0 $0 ADA Pass Facilities Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $1 $1 $0 $1 $1 $1 $1 $5 $1 $1 $17 $ % / 20.0% ADA Pass Facilities Replace $0 $0 $0 $20 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20 Backlog $2 $2 Stations Infrastructure Support Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ % / 20.0% Infrastructure Support Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10 $0 $2 $12 Backlog $56 $56 Stations Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $3 $3 $3 $3 $10 $3 $3 $3 $3 $4 $36 $ % / 20.0% Stations Replace $0 $5 $16 $0 $0 $0 $8 $0 $2 $0 $45 $75 Backlog $31 $31 ADA Call Center-other Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ % / 20.0% ADA Call Center-other Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $31 $0 $0 $0 $0 $31 $63 Backlog $6 $6 AVL Systems Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ % / 20.0% AVL Systems Replace $0 $0 $0 $2 $0 $6 $0 $0 $2 $0 $6 $18 Backlog $26 $26 Fare Collection Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ % / 15.0% Fare Collection Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13 $26 Backlog $1 $1 Fare Collection Para Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5 15.0% / 15.0% Fare Collection Para Replace $0 $0 $1 $0 $1 $0 $0 $1 $0 $1 $0 $4 Backlog $1 $1 ITS IBS Systems Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ % / 20.0% ITS IBS Systems Replace $0 $13 $19 $3 $1 $0 $14 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50 Backlog $0 $0 Paratransit Event Rec Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4 15.0% / 15.0% Paratransit Event Rec Systems Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4 $0 $0 $4 Backlog $2 $2 Radio Systems Buses Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ % / 15.0% Radio Systems Buses Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20 $2 $23 Backlog $0 $0 Radio Systems City Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7 15.0% / 15.0% Radio Systems City Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7 $0 $0 $7 Backlog $1 $1 Radio Systems Sub Para Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7 15.0% / 15.0% Radio Systems Sub Para Replace $0 $0 $3 $0 $0 $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $6 Backlog $2 $2 Suburb Event Recorders Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5 15.0% / 15.0% Suburb Event Recorders Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2 $3 Backlog $6 $6 Suburb Road Recorders Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ % / 20.0% Suburb Road Recorders Replace $0 $0 $1 $0 $1 $8 $0 $1 $0 $1 $8 $20 Backlog $0 $0 Vanpool Drivecam Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2 15.0% / 15.0% Vanpool Drivecam Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2 $0 $0 $2 - Appendix H

90 Figure H-3. Pace Detailed Asset Type Level Breakout of 10-Yr Annual Reinvestment Needs ($2013 Millions) Asset Group Asset Cost Type Backlog Year Needs 10-Year Total Soft Costs / Needs Contingency Asset $475.3 $128 $292 $150 $164 $171 $254 $69 $236 $129 $194 $2,263 Backlog $5.7 $6 ADA Rolling Stock Rehab and Cap Maint $0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ % / 15.0% ADA Rolling Stock Replace $0.0 $12 $18 $16 $24 $12 $18 $16 $24 $12 $18 $171 $5.8 $0 $0 $1 $6 $0 $0 $1 $6 $0 $0 $19 Backlog $5.8 $6 CTS Rehab and Cap Maint $0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ % / 15.0% CTS Replace $0.0 $0 $0 $1 $6 $0 $0 $1 $6 $0 $0 $13 $0.9 $1 $3 $0 $0 $1 $1 $5 $0 $0 $1 $13 Backlog $0.9 $1 Non-Revenue Vehicles Rehab and Cap Maint $0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ % / 15.0% Non-Revenue Vehicles Replace $0.0 $1 $3 $0 $0 $1 $1 $5 $0 $0 $1 $12 Vehicles $27.9 $15 $12 $0 $28 $15 $9 $0 $28 $19 $9 $162 Backlog $27.9 $28 Paratransit Rehab and Cap Maint $0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ % / 15.0% Paratransit Replace $0.0 $15 $12 $0 $28 $15 $9 $0 $28 $19 $9 $134 $137.1 $21 $166 $28 $53 $8 $173 $29 $97 $47 $26 $787 Backlog $137.1 $137 Suburb Rolling Stock Rehab and Cap Maint $0.0 $15 $10 $22 $0 $8 $94 $0 $78 $3 $26 $256 $ % / 15.0% Suburb Rolling Stock Replace $0.0 $7 $156 $5 $53 $0 $79 $29 $19 $45 $0 $393 $21.6 $5 $4 $3 $29 $5 $4 $3 $29 $5 $4 $113 Backlog $21.6 $22 Vanpool Rehab and Cap Maint $0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ % / 15.0% Vanpool Replace $0.0 $5 $4 $3 $29 $5 $4 $3 $29 $5 $4 $92 Backlog $475 $475 Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $62 $43 $99 $22 $76 $121 $13 $102 $26 $51 $615 Pace $2,263 Replace $0 $65 $249 $51 $142 $95 $133 $57 $134 $103 $143 $1,173 Total $475 $128 $292 $150 $164 $171 $254 $69 $236 $129 $194 $2,263 - Appendix H

91 Figure H-4. Summary for All Service Boards, 10-Yr Annual Reinvestment Needs ($2013 Millions) Service Board Cost Type Backlog Year Needs 10-Year Total Needs Backlog $12,938 $12,938 Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $249 $158 $461 $129 $329 $1,052 $244 $203 $114 $790 $3,729 CTA $22,173 Replace $0 $97 $89 $225 $347 $1,077 $1,271 $1,298 $263 $384 $455 $5,506 Total $12,938 $347 $247 $686 $476 $1,406 $2,324 $1,541 $466 $499 $1,245 $22,173 Backlog $6,127 $6,127 Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $40 $85 $51 $29 $348 $314 $110 $67 $29 $135 $1,210 Metra $11,703 Replace $0 $220 $282 $340 $260 $243 $229 $928 $620 $490 $755 $4,367 Total $6,127 $260 $366 $392 $289 $591 $543 $1,039 $687 $519 $891 $11,703 Backlog $475 $475 Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $62 $43 $99 $22 $76 $121 $13 $102 $26 $51 $615 Pace $2,263 Replace $0 $65 $249 $51 $142 $95 $133 $57 $134 $103 $143 $1,173 Total $475 $128 $292 $150 $164 $171 $254 $69 $236 $129 $194 $2,263 Backlog $19,540 $19,540 Rehab and Cap Maint $0 $352 $285 $612 $180 $753 $1,488 $366 $372 $170 $976 $5,554 Total RTA $36,139 Replace $0 $383 $620 $616 $748 $1,415 $1,633 $2,283 $1,018 $977 $1,353 $11,046 Total $19,540 $734 $906 $1,228 $929 $2,168 $3,121 $2,649 $1,389 $1,147 $2,329 $36,139 This report was prepared by CH2M HILL, Inc., in collaboration with URS Corporation, Inc., Kristine Fallon Associates, Inc., and Raul Bravo + Associates, Inc. - Appendix H

92 175 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1650 Chicago, IL Follow us on Facebook and Twitter Chicago Transit Authority 567 W. Lake St. Chicago, IL Metra 547 W. Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL Pace 550 W. Algonquin Rd. Arlington Heights, IL