CTA Tattler

The union agreement was extended to January 20th, 2008. Too bad it seems like our state reps aren't getting this thing passed while the last opportunity presents itself.

If they don't, there will be a blizzard of a political storm this year.

A sales tax increase agreement to fund transit was in place many months ago between the Senate and the House. Blago made Emil Jones break his word on the deal and then Jones blamed Madigan. For Blago to now say he single-handedly averted doomsday twice is hypocrisy on steroids.

Jim, that was what Blago planned all along. You could see as soon as he nixed the bill last year that he was planning to swoop in later and play savior.

My suggestion? In the interest of improving air quality everywhere, institute much higher registration and parking sticker fees for SUVs. Obviously that won't bridge the whole gap, but it makes more sense to me than the new cigarette tax they're proposing. Oh, and every time Blago flies between Chicago and Springfield on the taxpayer's dime, make him pay those millions out of pocket to the CTA.

lol... I agree with you Trish, that raising fees for SUVs would be decent, but it's funny that you said "in the interest of improving air quality everywhere" when talking about SUVs, but then you say it makes more sense than the cigarette tax. wouldn't the possibility of raising taxes on SUVs and raising taxes on cigarettes BOTH be in the interest of improving air quality?

Daily is right that it is inappropriate to use capital funds to finance operating deficits.

But there is an additonal objection to using Skyway funds. If such funds were used they would have to be strictly limited to supporting CTA operations within the city limits. This would still leave the CTA operations in the suburbs, especially the rapid transit lines, without the needed funding. And it would do nothing about the funding shortfalls facing PACE and Metra. The funding crisis facing PACE is at least as serious as that of the CTA, and if it is not resolved, will lead to drastic cutbacks in bus service in the suburbs.

It again needs to be emphasized: This is not about bailing out the CTA. This is about adequately funding RTA, and all of its three components.

OOps that should be Daley.

Well, adam, yes, but I thought it was silly to count on increasing a tax on a product whose usage is expected to decline to fund the ever-increasing needs of the CTA. And listening to self-righteous nonsmokers complain about the smoke in bars before speeding away in SUVs is a pet peeve of mine. (I'm not a smoker, by the way.)

My point was more that legislating carbon monoxide et al out of bars really doesn't do much good if the guzzlers are still out on the streets.

Q. So then why doesn't Daley use the Skyway funds to improve the infrastructure of the CTA?

A. Because he wants the money from the Skyway & the TIF's to be used for the Olympics.

Um, any legislating carbon monoxide out of the air is a good thing. And if you've spent any time in bars, you know the concentration of pollutants is high enough to compete with the aftermath of volcanic eruptions in some cases (such as Jimmy's Woodlawn Tap and the Long Room, according to the EPA). Every bit of progress on that issue is good.

Would an omnibus bill outlawing everything that puts an unhealthy amount of carbon monoxide into the air have passed when the anticigarette bill passed? No, and a significant health problem would be continuing.

(And since I've never even had a driver's license, I'm going to one-up any holier-than-thou speeches and say that if one isn't part of a car-sharing group like iGo, you're the problem, not the solution.)

As for the CTA, Blago, the legislature, and funding, this is a week when no one's reasonably going to expect anything to happen. A little too soon to start the "no news is bad news" chatter for me.

I don't go to bars much; most of my CO intake comes from standing outside, waiting for the CTA. And if legislators are so concerned about public health, why don't they move towards limiting instead of expanding commercial polluters' rights? Smoke-free bars won't do much good if there's mercury in the drinking water.

such as Jimmy's Woodlawn Tap and the Long Room, according to the EPA).

Where can you get stats like that? I'd really love to see my favorite bars EPA standards...

Anybody who disliked smoke in bars and restaurants could always have easilly avoided it by doing something simple. They could have gone to the overwhelming majority of places that choose on their own to prohibit smoking. I think it was horrific that the government got involved in this. They knew very well that this was not something that was a problem. Anybody who wanted to avoid cigerrate smoke easilly could. But both the city and state politicians wanted to pretend that they are saviors and passed those patronizing laws that prohibit behavior that they don't engage in (and many of their constituants look down on). An increase in the already absurdly high cigarrete tax would be similar. And it drives smokers away from living in the area, which is not very good economic policy. I don't smoke but I despise the anti-smoking zealots that have pushed these things through in the past few years.

"Anybody who disliked smoke in bars and restaurants could always have easilly avoided it by doing something simple. They could have gone to the overwhelming majority of places that choose on their own to prohibit smoking."

Really? What bars? I can't think of 1.

MK has it right. I too am sick of government getting itself involved in all these "health" issues. What right does the government have regulating the hygiene of restaurant employees? It should be the business owner's decision whether kitchen workers wash their hands after using the restroom. Same goes for refrigerating meat. If people want to go to a restaurant where employees wash their hands and refrigeration is the norm, then they can choose that. But it shouldn't be up to the government to FORCE private business owners to follow all these RULES.

Umm, what exactly about refrigeration and washing hands do you find equivalant to smoking? A customer would be unlikely to have knowledge about employees not washing their hands or the food not being properly refrigerated. At least they wouldn't until it would be too late. Therefore, the government has to enforce that. But it is easy to find out if smoking is allowed. If someone chooses to go into a restuarant or bar where there is smoke than that person has decided (usually correctly) that the risks of the secondhand smoke from the hour or so they are there are outweighed by the enjoyment they receive at that place. Therefore, the government, by passing these laws, is taking the choice away from individual people. And very few, if any, people get sick from secondhand smoke. That, despite the rheteric, is not what these laws were about. They were about certain people despising smoking and wanting to punish people for doing something that they feel is not within their views of proper behavior. In many ways, it is a snobbish attitude akin to many things that occured hundreds of years ago. It is the same thing with the cigarrete tax, which would be the absolute worst thing that the legislature could come up with to help public transportation. For one thing, cigerrete usage is declining. So the revenues would just get smaller every year (and this tax will accelarate that) and you would therefore need to come up with another solution eventually.

There's mercury in the drinking water? The wisdom I've always heard is that Chicago has some of the best tap water in the country.

The info on the Woodlawn Tap and the Long Room came from the Sun-Times. Their article went into significantly more detail if you care to Google for it.

I agree to an extent that funding infrastructure with sin taxes isn't a good idea. But that has nothing to do with the fact that anything and everything that improves air quality, no matter how small or limited the space, is a good thing. Can you people get into your time machines, go back to 1968, and whine that the airlines will go out of business if people can't smoke during flights, please? Thanks.

Googled, couldn't find the article, but thanks anyway.

For as many people that hate it, there are more people that love it. Heck, I've had SMOKERS who told me they were thrilled about the no smoking in bars thing. There are hardly any non-smoking bars before this ban. Certainly it would have kept me from all my favorite bars and clubs if I chose to stay away from the smoke that I am indeed allergic to. LOVE the smoking ban, thanks, Chicago! =)

I think the idea is still to dedicate the gas tax money to the RTA, but to fill the resulting gap in the rest of the state budget with a cigarette tax. So if revenue from the latter declines, that won't directly affect the RTA. It'll just be part of the continual ups and downs of general state revenue.

Besides, as cigarette usage declines, they can always just increase the amount of the tax to compensate. In the long run if this eliminates smoking altogether, then we will have accomplished a miracle and should congratulate ourselves.

So do you think infinite raising of cigarette taxes will:

a. stop everyone from smoking

or

b. create a viable market for the easy job of smuggling cigarettes into the state

Politicians like sin taxes because they're like free money. Raise revenue on the backs of people who "deserve" it for being dirty. There's little to no political cost. But as pretty much everyone has said, it's not a viable long term strategy to fund public transit. In Elizabeth's ideal world income tax rates would be raised, not the sales tax, but hey that's just me.

It was nice to go out to eat tonight, and have the option to stop by a nearby beer bar without suffering through the smoke just to enjoy a couple of drinks. I love the fact that the local state government has given the freedom of choice back to all of the people it's been denied to for years..

Here's one more on smoking.
There's going to be a decline in cigarette consumption over the next six months or so.
Illinois now requires self-extinguishing cigarettes, the so-called fire safe ones.
They go out after a short time in an ashtray or on your clothes if you fall asleep with it.
That means fewer will be used up, so fewer will be sold.
As a non-smoker, I've heard they're harder to smoke, but I have no first hand knowledge & it's going to take a while until that's all that are smoked around here except for those brought in from other states.
But that won't last long when fire departments in the surrounding states see that there is a decrease in both fires & fire deaths in Chicago, just like the decrease in NYC that started a couple of years ago when they required self-extinguishing smokes.