According to a memo signed by CTA Chairman Milton Pikarsky we RTA opponents found in 1974, the RTA was needed so the CTA could continue overnight service.
The CTA needed suburban money.
If the CTA needs still more money, I would suggest a property tax on land only served by the CTA.
I'm inspired by Henry George, who was the first noted American economist. He advocated taxing land and not buildings. (It encourages building, because they are not taxed at all--just the underlying land.)
The argument I would make is that land in Chicago is most valuable near the mass transit lines, so those benefiting the most would pay the most.
Some might suggest without mass transit Chicago would not operate as well. If you agree, then taxing all the land in Chicago is logical.
Anon
· 2 years ago
Rich, I agree with your feeling that riders should pony up to help bail this thing out. Its a shame, and many will feel the pain when fares are raised, but the willingness of the Mayor and Ron Huberman to place the burden on the state to solve the city's problems is unacceptable. Why should downstaters be on the hook for the CTA when they dont use the system?
I like Mayor Daley, but his press conferences where he scolds Springfield leadership are getting a bit old. If he is so concerned about education funding in the state, why did he build a massive (and massively overbudget) Millenium Park (which many of his contractor friends got rich on) rather than using that oney to improve Chicago schools? What about the money wasted with the Hired Truck Scandal and other tax eating scandal's in city hall? Why is he allowed to pin the tail on Springfield and get away with the fraud and misplaced priorities in Chicago?
I honestly dont want to see Chicago riders pay more for fewer services, but its not hte states problem. The Mayor needs to drop his rhetoric and get to work on the city that works.
JJ
· 2 years ago
Isn't this the same concept as Toll Roads? Those who use them pay for them? Why should my tax money (live in BLM) go to that? I have use CTA 4 times in the last 8 years. The state should provide a base and the rest is made up from usage fees from those using it.
Tiger
· 2 years ago
Easy to say when you don't live in Chicago anymore.
Anonymous
· 2 years ago
The State is not blameless in this mess. The General Assembly has repeated passed laws that jack up the costs to the CTA - giveaways to the unions and pension mandates, all over the objection of CTA leadership. These were easy votes for downstaters - cost them nothing and probably were traded for downstate benefits. Now the costs of these GA mandates have come home to roost, and the downstaters are saying - you're on your own! If you helped break it, help fix it!
zatoichi
· 2 years ago
As chair of the ZTA, I am concerned that the General Assembly has not made my transit system a priority. Without money from Springfield I may have to make changes in the routes I use on a daily basis. My White Van line needs extensive renovation after 10 years of wear and tear to get me to work everyday. You use it, pay for it.
Leroy
· 2 years ago
The people who benefit the most from the CTA should pay the most for it.
That being said, I believe the City of Chicago is the biggest beneficiary of the CTA. Because of the CTA, the city is more livable, resulting in a very high property tax base.
Suppose the CTA disappears...quality of life in the city plummets, as does the property tax base. From the city's point of view, the CTA should be considered an excellent investment, on the order of say, a Millenium Park or a Navy Pier.
Now the question: how much $$ does the CTA get every year from the City of Chicago? How much did Millenium Park get? Compare / contrast expenditures on each over the last 10 years.
Nickname
· 2 years ago
CTA should not get a penny from the state until their pension "mess" is addressed. The CTA and ATU colectively bargain benefits and both are guilty of running that fund to the ground. The ATU's multiplier is 2.1, .1 shy of teachers' formula. However, ATU is social security coordinated, teachers are not. Teachers' contribute 9.4% of payroll, ATU only 3%. The ATU formula is the richest in the state, but since 1993 the total contribution to the system has only been 9% of payroll. That was collectively bargained. That must stop.
Still an Idealist
· 2 years ago
I'm a downstater, and I agree that CTA got themselves in to this mess; however, it's worth pointing out that Chicago is the economic engine of the state. Without decent transportation networks in Chicago, we will all go down together in the end.
annoyed all the time
· 2 years ago
I am a daily user of the cta and have been for 10 years. I have not complained when the fares went up and up because I use it, and it's still cheaper than parking and driving. But this mess is a result of years and years of mismanagment, ridiculously inflated positions and salaries, and continual disregard for the conditions of the tracks.I was glad to see the cuts Huberman made internally when he first arrived - imagine had that been done years ago. THe CTA has dug intself into this mess and continues to seek help outside for $$. It's a problem, one that can be fixed with huge $$$ but the responsibility lies internally for bad management and bad planning for YEARS! Such a shame a world class city has a shabby public transit system and I hope it only gets better because if it gets worse? it may be worth paying for parking than to continue paying higher fares, for late trains, bad service and smelly cars to get me to work.
Just Saying
· 2 years ago
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but there are a few things that come to mind: 1) How does having a dilapidated, slow and pricey public transit system affect a Chicago Olympic bid and 2) what happens to suburban sprawl if public transit in Chicago and the 'burbs continues to suffer?
5 Day Man
· 2 years ago
Whatever you do, do not blame me I will not raise taxes on people How about slots on the trains? Tee Hee Wheels up @ 11:30 a.m. --- if Wyma and I are done with da run.
BLAH
· 2 years ago
It is sad that a state with the FIFTH largest economy in the nation cannot come up with $110 million for a transit system that benefits the most populous region of the state. Let's not forget where most of the economic activity rests in this state, hence where most of the tax dollars come from.
I'm sick of everyone always saying "Chicago gets everything - education money will just go to Chicago" - blah, blah, blah. It's where most of the people are. A quarter of all the people in the state live in the City of Chicago - and that does not even count the rest of Cook County or the suburbs.
The state has NEVER funded mass transit. Look at Europe and Asia; those places have great transit systems because they are funded by the government.
The comment about "glitzy renovations†- come on, I don't know if you have been on the CTA lately, but glitzy it is not.
I do agree, management at CTA is a complete mess, but Huberman seems to actually be doing something about that. But honestly, fares at $3.25, why would anyone bother to take the CTA when you could park downtown for roughly the same price. This just leads to more congestion and pollution - both reasons the CTA is good for the state.
Also, don't forget, how many tourists use the CTA daily!
Anonymous
· 2 years ago
Have you been to Chicago lately, BLAH? Parking downtown is closer to $20
Rich Miller
· 2 years ago
"Blah," I agree with much of what you said, but where the heck can you park downtown for $6.50 a day?
Rich Miller
· 2 years ago
Except for early-bird rates and areas in the South Loop, I think you might be hard-pressed to find parking at $20 a day.
BLAH
· 2 years ago
Parking near me is $14 - I can pick up my co-worker on the way and the CTA loses two customers.
Rob_N
· 2 years ago
Rich, for the longest time there was a parking garage on Plymouth near printer's row that was about $7 a day (fits into your South Loop exception). Haven't worked in that area for a while so I don't know if it's still there. It was kinda hidden so not a lot of folks outside the neighborhood knew about it.
--
JJ asks, "Isn’t this the same concept as Toll Roads? Those who use them pay for them? Why should my tax money (live in BLM) go to that? I have use CTA 4 times in the last 8 years. The state should provide a base and the rest is made up from usage fees from those using it."
JJ, the entire state benefits from an efficient transportation system (not just public transit, but the whole system) because as Chicagoland goes so goes Illinois. If the Chicago area can't work efficiently, it drags down the entire state economy. That said, why should high income earners living near Chicago "pay for" anything the state does near you? (The answer is easy: we're all in this together.)
Transit Supporter
· 2 years ago
Rich, you are a little off base and unfair. The RTA is aksing for permission to raise taxes within the RTA region only. So in effect, those who benefit from the system will pay for the system. The transit system is not seeking a bailout from the state budget - they are seeking permission to raise revenue locally to address the issue.
gg
· 2 years ago
Chicago is the cash cow.
Everyone knows it. The money for transit should come from gasoline tax and parking tax from the 6 counties. The pols do not see any short term gain from giving transit money. The pols want casinos to make there friends rich. Do we really want Chicago to go the way of Detroit or Saint Louis? Daley is the only one with any vision.
Transit Supporter
· 2 years ago
Also, to broaden the debate.... Pace and Metra are facing very serious shortfalls as well. Compared to the size of their budgets, Pace is in worse shape than the CTA and Metra preparing to defer over $50 million in capital maintenance. This is not just a CTA problem, and the Auditor General confirmed that in his audit.
Yellow Dog Democrat
· 2 years ago
Before anyone complains about the state providing $110 million to shore up the CTA, you should ask where the majority of sales taxes and income taxes Illinois collects come from.
It's also important to note that the majority of Chicagoans don't benefit from state spending on state highways because the majority of Chicagoans don't drive on them. In effect, Chicagoans are subsidizing the state road budget, it's only fair to expect some mass transit money in return.
Maybe we just change the distribution of gasoline taxes collected in Cook County to achieve that?
Just Saying
· 2 years ago
And if the downstaters are going to say they shouldn't pay for CTA because they don't use it, what about all the state roads going through central and southern Illinois that the citydwellers never use either?
VanillaMan
· 2 years ago
Mass transit systems are sacred cows. Our devotion to them are partly due to the guilt heaped on us by goo-goos claiming we are wasteful. We are "supposed" to have them, because, we are supposed to have them, right?
What would happen if we didn't? Oh. We'd be like PHOENIX. We all know how poorly Phoenix is doing economically, right? Ghost town. Everyone is bailing because there are no subways to ride. Poor people can't get to work because there are no trains to take them to work. Wow. How much longer can Phoenix survive? What is the population down to - 2 million? About the same as Chicago's? Uh-huh.
But unlike Chicago's slow death since 1950, Phoenix keeps on booming. Wonder how that could be, without a subway?
Wake up people. Time to kill the sacred cows from the past that are sucking our life blood from us and living off our guilt. Stop apologizing for driving your car. Stop pretending we should care about mass transit as we currently know it, and start imagining what it should be for tomorrow.
Bet it wouldn't be remotely similar to Metra and the RTA, would it? REFORM.
cermak_rd
· 2 years ago
When I was in DC I was very impressed with the transit system. It was pricier, but much nicer as far as cleanliness and maintenance. I would be willing to pay more if CTA would simply clean up their vehicles and make sure the AC, heat etc. work. Going to a fee based on distance traveled instead of the price fixe plan they have now might help too.
ChampaignDweller
· 2 years ago
Presumably Chicago "the cash cow" benefits from all of the trucks, etc that use the roads here in central and southern Illinois that ultimately end up in the City.
Six Degrees of Separation
· 2 years ago
Cal Skinner gets 10 bonus points for mentioning Henry George. FWIW, I think that land around freeway interchanges as well as transit stops should be taxed at an incremental rate for maintenance and improvements to the trasportation system from which the property owners reap the most direct benefits. Of course, that easy for me to say since I don't own land near either.
The transportation funding split between the 6-county RTA service area and downstate has long been an issue of contention. More highway dollars go downstate in proportion to the population than go to the 6 counties, however 90% of the state's transit dollars go to the 6 counties. Since the 6 counties are most in need of public transit, and since downstate can't practically be served by transit except in very small pockets and has many more miles of roads that need maintenance, it seems like a fair trade. As long as the 102 counties are all in the same state, we're all in this together.
With the expense of gas and parking continuing to go up, and congestion still being a factor, a modest fare increase will still leave transit competitive in the areas where it already is. I'd suggest that some of those Metra extensions to the hinterlands, which cost tens of millions to build and operate and only draw a few hundered passengers each day, are questionable investments. And CTA's aging infrastructure is gonna need a Brown Line-like makeover on the rest of the system sometime soon, and it's not going to be pretty.
Six Degrees of Separation
· 2 years ago
Champaign Dweller, your CUMTD transit system is the envy of medium-sized cities across the US. Being a college town helps.
vise77
· 2 years ago
As a daily CTA user who can afford a car, I don't mind a modest fare increase, and for the city to pony up more, and for more pressure to get the CTA to work more efficiently.
That said, the state funding formula needs to be revised; the state (and feds) need to pony up more cash for mass transit, and more people need to realize that a failing or even failed CTA will not only hurt Chicago, but this state's entire economy.
Guess what? I don't like paying for roads I never use, either. That's life. Were it up to me, I'd raise the gas tax even more and cut back on new road construction to pay for more mass transit, Metra, Pace and other agencies included.
This is just another attempt by shortsighted suburban and downstate lawmakers to say, 'Go to hell, Chicago.' I grew up downstate, so I understand the emotion, but the logic makes little sense.
Cal Skinner
· 2 years ago
If you don't like paying for roads, don't drive.
The tolls are obviously user taxes, as were Motor Fuel Taxes, before the Democrats started ripping them off.
And, yes, I am still disturbed that motor fuel used on the tollway does not go to the Tollway Authority. I don't like paying twice for governmental services.
Phoenix?
· 2 years ago
Actually, Phoenix is desperately trying to retrofit its landscape with transit and more density, because the growth and traffic are not sustainable.
And by the way, the region's taxpayers subsidize 75% of the bus fare in Phoenix and over 80% of the rail fare. In the RTA area it's only 50%.
i d
· 2 years ago
Chicago has multiple public transit systems and Springfield cannot even provide bus service for second shift workers much less third shift workers unless the workers can find a taxi. How can people who cannot afford cars, pay for taxi service to get to and from work? Who is worse off, Chicago or Springfield? Springfield has so little employment opportunities except for service jobs so much of the city is sliding swiftly towards penury.
Truthful James
· 2 years ago
Why are we still trying to solve the problem, blindfolded in the same old box?
This is a Public Transportation problem, not a CTA problem. It is not going to be solved until all forms of public transportation are placed in the mix. That would include elevated and subway transportation, large vehicle public transportation (busses and rolley busses) small vehicle transportation (taxi cabs and jitney cabs) as well as the net financial support to part time vehicle storage. Include as well maintenance and epair of such vehicles.
Instead, we attempt to solve it as within the major constratint of union satisfaction -- don't disturb the worker voters.
The net effect5 is seen in the pension fund debacle, but discussion of that hides the fact that we must review the bidding for a public-private system. We already have private but regulated taxicabs.
With what should the City as regulator be concerned: Safety and movement of people. Beyond that warps the system.
The first step is the return of the jitney cabs as a means by which, small group (down to one person), multiple destination service can be provided.
The next step is the bidding by qualified drivers for specific routes and schedule times. (Routes with little or no passenger usage might initially be negatively bid -- a subsidy. Fare collections would be split in accordance with the bidding instructions.
Just like there is a need for tandem and triplex trailers in interstate trucking, there is a ned for articulated vehicles on the CTA. Running these behemoths on all lines at all times is silly. On some routes at some schedule times mini-busses and vans would do.
But first we have to properly define the Public Transportation problem.
fedup dem
· 2 years ago
We need something comprehensive to fix public transit in the Chicagoland area. That probably means additional state funding in exchange for fixing the pension mess at the CTA; mandating an increase in the $3 million contribution by the City of Chicago (which is an absolute disgrace; I would mention my true feelings about Mayor Daley on this issue, except that listing them would likely get me banned from this site); and forcing the CTA to dump all of the nutty plans Kruesi came up with (like the separate express line from O'Hare to the Loop or the Circle Line) and concentrate on fixing the crappy service riders now have to endure. If that means firing half or more of the bureaucrats there, so be it (their political scalps will provide Downstate lawmakers with the cover that they may need to vote for the overall plan).
Good Grief
· 2 years ago
Do like the Illinois Tollway does, throw mega amounts of money on it and at it. Problem solved, at least till next year.
Tweed
· 2 years ago
VanillaMan,
If you want to use another city to prove all of your points, Phoenix is possibly the worst city you could have picked. First of all, Phoenix's population is about 1.4 million while Chicago is about 2.8 million. Instead of the populations being equal, Chicago is actually twice the size of Phoenix. That's somewhat of a big difference if you ask me.
When it comes to physical size, Phoenix has 515 square miles whereas Chicago has 227 square miles. The growth of Phoenix has much more to do with the natural development that has taken place in cities all over America than any edge Phoenix has over Chicago. For example, if you look at population growth in DuPage County and compare it to Phoenix, the percentage in growth is similar and the population is similar once you take into consideration that DuPage County has less square miles than Phoenix.
In fact you might want to write a letter to Phoenix's elected officials because in 2008, their light rail system, Valley Metro Rail, will be up and running.
If you took the RTA away, 2 million people would have to find an additional way to get to work. Tell me, how is that just an individual problem where a couple of people are going to have to buy cars to go to work. Where are all of these people going to park? How is the road system going to absorb all of these new drivers?
Public transportation means that many people don't have to own cars so they don't have to put money into monthly car payments, car insurance, gas, and all of the other burdens of owning a car. Instead that money can be spent on other things where the profits are closer to home (When buying gas, who do you think is getting most of the profit? The gas station owner or the gas company itself?). Not only does this help local business, but having less drivers means shorter commute times for all, more productivity at work, and less road maintenance cost on Illinois highways. If you take all of those factors into the big picture, you realize that funding Chicago public transportation is a wise investment that can benefit everyone statewide.
Captain America
· 2 years ago
I disagree complete with Rich Miller on this issue.
I thought the 1/4 per cent sales tax increase levied in the RTA/CTA service/Chicago metropolitan area, passed by the House Committee last week with bipartisan support,was an entirely appropriate way to deal with the mass transit funding problem.
Funding mass transit makes sense in the Chicago metropolitan area - mass transit benefits everyone who lives in the metro area by reducing the number of cars on the road. Modest fare increases each year also make sense.
Draconian fare increases and service cuts make absolutely no sense politically or economically.
Brian
· 2 years ago
The arguement in favor of paying for roads and transit with user fees strikes me as a bit odd. The benefits of transportation infrastructure are broad and widely dispersed. It makes sense for taxes to suibstantially cover the cost of each. This is also true for other services with broad benefits -- Should I pay full freight to send my kids to public school? Should I pay a user fee to call 911 when I have a fire at my house?
However: It does so happen that by many calculations, road transportation is more heavily subsidized than transit. And it so happens that driving generates discernable negative externalities.
Finally, as an urban economist I'm alarmed by the suggestion that Phoenix is successful in spite of (and perhaps because of) its paucity of transit. Last time I checked, Phoenix was in a region experiencing tremendous secular growth related to population inmigration and overflow from costly Southern California. By contrast, we are in the Midwest... Chicago is a lone bright (but somewhat flickering) spot amidst a sea of states in long-term decline. We need transit to fuel the Chicago CBD, the engine of Illinois' professional and business services industry, the potential savior of our otherwise doomed economy.
michael_k
· 2 years ago
You're arguing your own point, Rich. The RTA bill calls for taxes, coming from our own region, to pay for our own transit. No one is asking the rest of the state to pay. And as a poster said above, we here in the Chicago region provide the state with most of it's budget. It's time we're treated like it.
Anonymous
· 2 years ago
Operating expenses of the CTA, like every other transit agency in the world (including Pace and Metra), are subsidized by their state or local government. Revenues from fares only cover approximately 50% of operating expenses. The government subsidy should cover the rest. The CTA's subsidy has not kept up with the rate of inflation. In real dollars, we are getting less money than we received in 1983 (when adjusted for inflation). The Illinois Auditor General recently completed an independent audit of the finances and management of the CTA and concluded that our current financial situation is not one that we can manage our way out of -- our problem is structural and needs to be addressed by the General Assembly.
Dooley Dudright
· 2 years ago
Skip the 0.25 percent sales tax increase for the RTA.
Instead (y'all correct me if I'm wrong) -- but -- using home rule powers, Daley could levy a penny-per-gallon gasoline tax, couldn't he?, and fund the CTA with that, no? Or if the CTA is so great for tourists (really?), tack a fraction onto the hotel/motel tax? (Yeah, I know, drive away McCormick/convention traffic even faster.)
A related note. RTA chair Jim Reilly really is in no position to posture just now. If memory serves, he and Jim Thompson completely balkanized mass transit in the 1980s by carving the RTA into fiefdoms -- i.e., CTA, Metra and Pace. So with that, we got four executive directors, four planning directors, four chief financial officers, four press officers, four personnel officers, blah, blah, which has been another patently stupid waste.
As part of transit reform, reunify the agencies and slim down staff. (Yeah, I know, like putting toothpaste back into the tube.)
And IMHO, Reilly is at this point another Frank Kruesi: politically way overdue for retirement.
Cal Skinner
· 2 years ago
How many cents of Motor Fuel Tax in Cook County goes to finance the completely unrelated function of the Cook County Jail?
Is it 4 cents?
Truthful James
· 2 years ago
"...The Illinois Auditor General recently completed an independent audit of the finances and management of the CTA and concluded that our current financial situation is not one that we can manage our way out of -- our problem is structural and needs to be addressed by the General Assembly...."
Of course that is so. The AG's results presupposed the same management structure and the same revenue sources spent in the same way. It will ever be so.
We have got to adjust our thinking regarding management and service and costs and build a new capital, labor and management system which which best matches the supply of PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION assets and the demand for services on a schedule basis.
Anything less continues the folly.
Anonymous
· 2 years ago
To develop a new capital, labor and managament structure for public transportation in Northeastern Illinois would require leadership in Springfield.
There's a thought.
Truthful James
· 2 years ago
Anonymous --
Even a blind pig finds an acorn on the ground from time to time.
This is not politics, it is sound economics. I agree, it is easy to be ironic.
We have a lot of smart, elected people in Springfield who are safe in their seats. For many of them the essential constituencies are not the voters, but those that provide campaign lubrication. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, they say We need some squeakers -- some problem solvers.
Where is Pat Quinn? If we add the increased cost daily of public transportation, I would almost bet that the burden on the working stiff is greater than the utility rate increase for a one BR apartment.
Where is a successful business owner like Dick Mell?
NIEVA
· 2 years ago
How about some research to find out how much of the state transportation budget is spent in the collar counties and Chicago.
cleanairguy
· 2 years ago
CLEANING UP CTA/PACE BUSES SHOULD BE MANDATED BY THE STATE! At a time when metro Chicago STILL doesn't meet minimal federal air quality standards for particle "soot" pollution, CTA and Pace's bus fleets are among the dirtiest in the nation. A simple device called a particulate filter (looks like a muffler) can eliminate 90% or more of the soot from a diesel transit bus, for a cost of under 10 grand. Particle soot is nasty -triggers asthma attacks, strokes, heart attacks and can kill you dead.
NYC and Boston have already retrofit thier existing diesel transit bus fleets with these devices, and in fact, if you buy a brand new transit bus in 2007 or later years, it has to have one of these devices on it.
Less than 15% of CTA's fleet now has these devices, and none of Pace's buses do. If you've ever been on, behind or around CTA and Pace buses, you know the smell. Surprise - the air on a bus 4X more polluted that outside the bus. CTA bought HUNDREDS of brand new buses last year (sorely needed to replace ancient 1991-era buses), but got them WITHOUT the devices that would make them 90% cleaner.
Keeping transit viable has to be done, but when the state attempts to fix this financial problem, it ought to require that these devices be added - pronto. There are about 1500 buses less than 7 years old (including hundreds from 2006) that should be retrofit and the equipment to do so would cost
cleanairguy
· 2 years ago
(cut off mid sentence)
Illini CanDo
· 2 years ago
Why is public transportation the exclusive purview of the state? It used to be privately run. Why not remove the laws limiting private sector participation and allow anyone to run on those same bus routes? Might that not end the problem at least for those who use public transportation?
Six Degrees of Separation
· 2 years ago
Reality check, y'all.
Phoenix works as an auto-centric city because it is so spread out and they have room to expand the highways. The rail system that will be put in will be a nice little amenity, but will barely carry a percent or two of the total passenger traffic when it is all built out.
Chicago on the other hand has a dense urban core that grew up around the existing transit lines, and the freeways really can't be expanded without major expense until you get about 20-30 miles out or more. This area has the US's second most extensive public transit system (NY is #1) which city dwellers make use of for maybe 20% of their trips. Most US suburban cities would die for a service as regular as Metra Electric, whose riders complain about the service and amenities on a regular basis (albeit with some validity). And many planners in Phoenix would love to have a dense core with 200,000 jobs in the CBD like Chicago that could support a more-than-token transit system, but it *ain't* gonna happen. The Chicago area doesn't get down to 2% transit usage until you hit the fringes of the collars.
The grass is always greener on the other side. All things said and done, Chicago can only play the hand it's dealt, and that hand depends on the transit system that brung it to the dance...or preferably, an improved version thereof.
All Comments
The CTA needed suburban money.
If the CTA needs still more money, I would suggest a property tax on land only served by the CTA.
I'm inspired by Henry George, who was the first noted American economist. He advocated taxing land and not buildings. (It encourages building, because they are not taxed at all--just the underlying land.)
The argument I would make is that land in Chicago is most valuable near the mass transit lines, so those benefiting the most would pay the most.
Some might suggest without mass transit Chicago would not operate as well. If you agree, then taxing all the land in Chicago is logical.
I like Mayor Daley, but his press conferences where he scolds Springfield leadership are getting a bit old. If he is so concerned about education funding in the state, why did he build a massive (and massively overbudget) Millenium Park (which many of his contractor friends got rich on) rather than using that oney to improve Chicago schools? What about the money wasted with the Hired Truck Scandal and other tax eating scandal's in city hall? Why is he allowed to pin the tail on Springfield and get away with the fraud and misplaced priorities in Chicago?
I honestly dont want to see Chicago riders pay more for fewer services, but its not hte states problem. The Mayor needs to drop his rhetoric and get to work on the city that works.
The state should provide a base and the rest is made up from usage fees from those using it.
That being said, I believe the City of Chicago is the biggest beneficiary of the CTA. Because of the CTA, the city is more livable, resulting in a very high property tax base.
Suppose the CTA disappears...quality of life in the city plummets, as does the property tax base. From the city's point of view, the CTA should be considered an excellent investment, on the order of say, a Millenium Park or a Navy Pier.
Now the question: how much $$ does the CTA get every year from the City of Chicago? How much did Millenium Park get? Compare / contrast expenditures on each over the last 10 years.
I will not raise taxes on people
How about slots on the trains?
Tee Hee
Wheels up @ 11:30 a.m. --- if Wyma and I are done with da run.
I'm sick of everyone always saying "Chicago gets everything - education money will just go to Chicago" - blah, blah, blah. It's where most of the people are. A quarter of all the people in the state live in the City of Chicago - and that does not even count the rest of Cook County or the suburbs.
The state has NEVER funded mass transit. Look at Europe and Asia; those places have great transit systems because they are funded by the government.
The comment about "glitzy renovations†- come on, I don't know if you have been on the CTA lately, but glitzy it is not.
I do agree, management at CTA is a complete mess, but Huberman seems to actually be doing something about that. But honestly, fares at $3.25, why would anyone bother to take the CTA when you could park downtown for roughly the same price. This just leads to more congestion and pollution - both reasons the CTA is good for the state.
Also, don't forget, how many tourists use the CTA daily!
--
JJ asks, "Isn’t this the same concept as Toll Roads? Those who use them pay for them? Why should my tax money (live in BLM) go to that? I have use CTA 4 times in the last 8 years. The state should provide a base and the rest is made up from usage fees from those using it."
JJ, the entire state benefits from an efficient transportation system (not just public transit, but the whole system) because as Chicagoland goes so goes Illinois. If the Chicago area can't work efficiently, it drags down the entire state economy. That said, why should high income earners living near Chicago "pay for" anything the state does near you? (The answer is easy: we're all in this together.)
Everyone knows it.
The money for transit should come from
gasoline tax and parking tax from the 6 counties.
The pols do not see any short term gain from
giving transit money. The pols want casinos to make there friends rich.
Do we really want Chicago to go the way of Detroit or Saint Louis? Daley is the only one with any vision.
It's also important to note that the majority of Chicagoans don't benefit from state spending on state highways because the majority of Chicagoans don't drive on them. In effect, Chicagoans are subsidizing the state road budget, it's only fair to expect some mass transit money in return.
Maybe we just change the distribution of gasoline taxes collected in Cook County to achieve that?
What would happen if we didn't? Oh. We'd be like PHOENIX. We all know how poorly Phoenix is doing economically, right? Ghost town. Everyone is bailing because there are no subways to ride. Poor people can't get to work because there are no trains to take them to work. Wow. How much longer can Phoenix survive? What is the population down to - 2 million? About the same as Chicago's? Uh-huh.
But unlike Chicago's slow death since 1950, Phoenix keeps on booming. Wonder how that could be, without a subway?
Wake up people. Time to kill the sacred cows from the past that are sucking our life blood from us and living off our guilt. Stop apologizing for driving your car. Stop pretending we should care about mass transit as we currently know it, and start imagining what it should be for tomorrow.
Bet it wouldn't be remotely similar to Metra and the RTA, would it? REFORM.
The transportation funding split between the 6-county RTA service area and downstate has long been an issue of contention. More highway dollars go downstate in proportion to the population than go to the 6 counties, however 90% of the state's transit dollars go to the 6 counties. Since the 6 counties are most in need of public transit, and since downstate can't practically be served by transit except in very small pockets and has many more miles of roads that need maintenance, it seems like a fair trade. As long as the 102 counties are all in the same state, we're all in this together.
With the expense of gas and parking continuing to go up, and congestion still being a factor, a modest fare increase will still leave transit competitive in the areas where it already is. I'd suggest that some of those Metra extensions to the hinterlands, which cost tens of millions to build and operate and only draw a few hundered passengers each day, are questionable investments. And CTA's aging infrastructure is gonna need a Brown Line-like makeover on the rest of the system sometime soon, and it's not going to be pretty.
That said, the state funding formula needs to be revised; the state (and feds) need to pony up more cash for mass transit, and more people need to realize that a failing or even failed CTA will not only hurt Chicago, but this state's entire economy.
Guess what? I don't like paying for roads I never use, either. That's life. Were it up to me, I'd raise the gas tax even more and cut back on new road construction to pay for more mass transit, Metra, Pace and other agencies included.
This is just another attempt by shortsighted suburban and downstate lawmakers to say, 'Go to hell, Chicago.' I grew up downstate, so I understand the emotion, but the logic makes little sense.
The tolls are obviously user taxes, as were Motor Fuel Taxes, before the Democrats started ripping them off.
And, yes, I am still disturbed that motor fuel used on the tollway does not go to the Tollway Authority. I don't like paying twice for governmental services.
http://www.valleymetro.org/METRO_light_rail/Fut...
And by the way, the region's taxpayers subsidize 75% of the bus fare in Phoenix and over 80% of the rail fare. In the RTA area it's only 50%.
This is a Public Transportation problem, not a CTA problem. It is not going to be solved until all forms of public transportation are placed in the mix. That would include elevated and subway transportation, large vehicle public transportation (busses and rolley busses) small vehicle transportation (taxi cabs and jitney cabs) as well as the net financial support to part time vehicle storage. Include as well maintenance and epair of such vehicles.
Instead, we attempt to solve it as within the major constratint of union satisfaction -- don't disturb the worker voters.
The net effect5 is seen in the pension fund debacle, but discussion of that hides the fact that we must review the bidding for a public-private system. We already have private but regulated taxicabs.
With what should the City as regulator be concerned: Safety and movement of people. Beyond that warps the system.
The first step is the return of the jitney cabs as a means by which, small group (down to one person), multiple destination service can be provided.
The next step is the bidding by qualified drivers for specific routes and schedule times. (Routes with little or no passenger usage might initially be negatively bid -- a subsidy. Fare collections would be split in accordance with the bidding instructions.
Just like there is a need for tandem and triplex trailers in interstate trucking, there is a ned for articulated vehicles on the CTA. Running these behemoths on all lines at all times is silly. On some routes at some schedule times mini-busses and vans would do.
But first we have to properly define the Public Transportation problem.
If you want to use another city to prove all of your points, Phoenix is possibly the worst city you could have picked. First of all, Phoenix's population is about 1.4 million while Chicago is about 2.8 million. Instead of the populations being equal, Chicago is actually twice the size of Phoenix. That's somewhat of a big difference if you ask me.
When it comes to physical size, Phoenix has 515 square miles whereas Chicago has 227 square miles. The growth of Phoenix has much more to do with the natural development that has taken place in cities all over America than any edge Phoenix has over Chicago. For example, if you look at population growth in DuPage County and compare it to Phoenix, the percentage in growth is similar and the population is similar once you take into consideration that DuPage County has less square miles than Phoenix.
In fact you might want to write a letter to Phoenix's elected officials because in 2008, their light rail system, Valley Metro Rail, will be up and running.
If you took the RTA away, 2 million people would have to find an additional way to get to work. Tell me, how is that just an individual problem where a couple of people are going to have to buy cars to go to work. Where are all of these people going to park? How is the road system going to absorb all of these new drivers?
Public transportation means that many people don't have to own cars so they don't have to put money into monthly car payments, car insurance, gas, and all of the other burdens of owning a car. Instead that money can be spent on other things where the profits are closer to home (When buying gas, who do you think is getting most of the profit? The gas station owner or the gas company itself?). Not only does this help local business, but having less drivers means shorter commute times for all, more productivity at work, and less road maintenance cost on Illinois highways. If you take all of those factors into the big picture, you realize that funding Chicago public transportation is a wise investment that can benefit everyone statewide.
I thought the 1/4 per cent sales tax increase levied in the RTA/CTA service/Chicago metropolitan area, passed by the House Committee last week with bipartisan support,was an entirely appropriate way to deal with the mass transit funding problem.
Funding mass transit makes sense in the Chicago metropolitan area - mass transit benefits everyone who lives in the metro area by reducing the number of cars on the road. Modest fare increases each year also make sense.
Draconian fare increases and service cuts make absolutely no sense politically or economically.
However: It does so happen that by many calculations, road transportation is more heavily subsidized than transit. And it so happens that driving generates discernable negative externalities.
Finally, as an urban economist I'm alarmed by the suggestion that Phoenix is successful in spite of (and perhaps because of) its paucity of transit. Last time I checked, Phoenix was in a region experiencing tremendous secular growth related to population inmigration and overflow from costly Southern California. By contrast, we are in the Midwest... Chicago is a lone bright (but somewhat flickering) spot amidst a sea of states in long-term decline. We need transit to fuel the Chicago CBD, the engine of Illinois' professional and business services industry, the potential savior of our otherwise doomed economy.
Instead (y'all correct me if I'm wrong) -- but -- using home rule powers, Daley could levy a penny-per-gallon gasoline tax, couldn't he?, and fund the CTA with that, no? Or if the CTA is so great for tourists (really?), tack a fraction onto the hotel/motel tax? (Yeah, I know, drive away McCormick/convention traffic even faster.)
A related note. RTA chair Jim Reilly really is in no position to posture just now. If memory serves, he and Jim Thompson completely balkanized mass transit in the 1980s by carving the RTA into fiefdoms -- i.e., CTA, Metra and Pace. So with that, we got four executive directors, four planning directors, four chief financial officers, four press officers, four personnel officers, blah, blah, which has been another patently stupid waste.
As part of transit reform, reunify the agencies and slim down staff. (Yeah, I know, like putting toothpaste back into the tube.)
And IMHO, Reilly is at this point another Frank Kruesi: politically way overdue for retirement.
Is it 4 cents?
Of course that is so. The AG's results presupposed the same management structure and the same revenue sources spent in the same way. It will ever be so.
We have got to adjust our thinking regarding management and service and costs and build a new capital, labor and management system which which best matches the supply of PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION assets and the demand for services on a schedule basis.
Anything less continues the folly.
There's a thought.
Even a blind pig finds an acorn on the ground from time to time.
This is not politics, it is sound economics. I agree, it is easy to be ironic.
We have a lot of smart, elected people in Springfield who are safe in their seats. For many of them the essential constituencies are not the voters, but those that provide campaign lubrication. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, they say We need some squeakers -- some problem solvers.
Where is Pat Quinn? If we add the increased cost daily of public transportation, I would almost bet that the burden on the working stiff is greater than the utility rate increase for a one BR apartment.
Where is a successful business owner like Dick Mell?
At a time when metro Chicago STILL doesn't meet minimal federal air quality standards for particle "soot" pollution, CTA and Pace's bus fleets are among the dirtiest in the nation. A simple device called a particulate filter (looks like a muffler) can eliminate 90% or more of the soot from a diesel transit bus, for a cost of under 10 grand. Particle soot is nasty -triggers asthma attacks, strokes, heart attacks and can kill you dead.
NYC and Boston have already retrofit thier existing diesel transit bus fleets with these devices, and in fact, if you buy a brand new transit bus in 2007 or later years, it has to have one of these devices on it.
Less than 15% of CTA's fleet now has these devices, and none of Pace's buses do. If you've ever been on, behind or around CTA and Pace buses, you know the smell. Surprise - the air on a bus 4X more polluted that outside the bus. CTA bought HUNDREDS of brand new buses last year (sorely needed to replace ancient 1991-era buses), but got them WITHOUT the devices that would make them 90% cleaner.
Keeping transit viable has to be done, but when the state attempts to fix this financial problem, it ought to require that these devices be added - pronto. There are about 1500 buses less than 7 years old (including hundreds from 2006) that should be retrofit and the equipment to do so would cost
Phoenix works as an auto-centric city because it is so spread out and they have room to expand the highways. The rail system that will be put in will be a nice little amenity, but will barely carry a percent or two of the total passenger traffic when it is all built out.
Chicago on the other hand has a dense urban core that grew up around the existing transit lines, and the freeways really can't be expanded without major expense until you get about 20-30 miles out or more. This area has the US's second most extensive public transit system (NY is #1) which city dwellers make use of for maybe 20% of their trips. Most US suburban cities would die for a service as regular as Metra Electric, whose riders complain about the service and amenities on a regular basis (albeit with some validity). And many planners in Phoenix would love to have a dense core with 200,000 jobs in the CBD like Chicago that could support a more-than-token transit system, but it *ain't* gonna happen. The Chicago area doesn't get down to 2% transit usage until you hit the fringes of the collars.
The grass is always greener on the other side. All things said and done, Chicago can only play the hand it's dealt, and that hand depends on the transit system that brung it to the dance...or preferably, an improved version thereof.