CTA Tattler

Cities can die if the infrastructure does not grow according to the demands of the people. They'll leave.

Its funny, this all seems to make sense. Invest in transit and the city will thrive. I know the state is generally strapped for cash, as well as this city but why is it so difficult for a world class city like Chicago to get its act together when it comes to transit funding. It just seems like a no-brainer to me.

The short answer, Alex, is that because the state constitution mandates a flat tax, the legislature's hands are tied in raising new revenue. The only way to make transit funding viable (and to get sales and property taxes under control) is to amend the constitution and implement a sharply progressive income tax. Otherwise we'll just keep expanding various regressive taxes like the sales tax or gambling revenue until nonmillionaires revolt, leave, or slip into economic oblivion.

"but why is it so difficult for a world class city like Chicago to get its act together when it comes to transit funding"

Because Daley, Madigan, Jones & Blagojevich never use the CTA!

I still don't understand why they want to spend upwards of a billion dollars on the Circle Line when for the same price they could add five times as much track and improve the rail system's reach much more by building the Mid-City Transitway (O'Hare to Midway to 87th on the Red Line). The Circle Line would save some people some time since they wouldn't have to go all the way into the Loop to change lines, but a lot of the benefits would be lost to the annoyance and waiting of an extra transfer.

The Mid-City Transitway, on the other hand, would integrate huge parts of the city into the rail network, bringing service to many dense and low-income neighborhoods for the first time, and could play an important part in revitalizing some of these areas. It's about time the mayor started paying as much attention to the rest of the city as he does to the well-off downtown areas.

The CTA definitely needs more crosstown routes. I'd never heard of the Mid-City Transitway, but it makes a lot of sense. I still think the Circle line is a good idea, and there should be more "circles" around the center of the city, but there are still huge areas that don't have any service that need attention first.

The problem is that the CTA is designed to serve commuters going in and out of downtown during rush hour. More connections are necessary so that we can use the system for everyday needs, not just getting to work.

Q. "I still don't understand why they want to spend upwards of a billion dollars on the Circle Line when for the same price they could add five times as much track and improve the rail system's reach much more by building the Mid-City Transitway"

Q. "I still don't understand why they want to spend upwards of a billion dollars on the Circle Line when for the same price they could add five times as much track and improve the rail system's reach much more by building the Mid-City Transitway"

A. It has no sex appeal!

Couldn't you do both or would that be redundant?

Just what are the Mayor's plans for all that TIF money he has squirreled away? If he's saving it for hard times I think now qualifies. I'd like to see some of it spent on improving transit, but most should go toward balancing the budget in the city so we don't have to do without city services.

The mayor's plans for the current $500 million are for the Olympics. By 2016 there will be around a billion dollars in the TIF slush fund.

For those unfamiliar with the Mid-City Transitway proposal, here are some details:
http://razetheladder.blogspot.com/2007/02/paving-over-mid-city-transitway.html

It has been mentioned in the Cook Dupage corridor transit study, but unfortunately was proposed as a busway rather than a new El line.
http://razetheladder.blogspot.com/2008/03/expanding-to-west.html

They certainly could (and eventually should) build both the MCT and the Circle Line, but given the shortage of funds from the state (at least until the flat tax is abolished) and the long process of planning and building, we have to set priorities. If we settle on the Circle Line now, the MCT probably couldn't be built for at least twenty years, and that's probably optimistic.

Screw the Olympics. We need to not lay city workers off.

Someone should start a ballot initiative in Chicago to require that the TIF money be used for CTA capital projects to expand the rail network. (There's probably still time - city elections aren't till Feb, right?) Daley can find other ways to fund his pipe dreams, should they come true.

As far as the topic of the main post, I saw it in the budget, and this is not news. The same boilerplate language about the service boards expecting something to replace Illinois First, but not until 2010, was in all 3 service boards' budgets. The same thing as the 2007 budgets containing the RTA's assurance that the state legislature would pass additional operating funding by July 2007. That turned out real well, or didn't we have doomsday threats until January 21, 2008?

What would have been more interesting is if CTA had disclosed where it got the $2.9 billion, and give a more detailed breakdown (rather than the generality "to eliminate slow zones, renew assets, overhaul and replace the fleet, and bring the system to a state of good repair") on how it would be spent. The $40 million to complete the Brown Line was foreseen as the end of the New Start grant.

Jake:
"The short answer, Alex, is that because the state constitution mandates a flat tax, the legislature's hands are tied in raising new revenue. The only way to make transit funding viable (and to get sales and property taxes under control) is to amend the constitution and implement a sharply progressive income tax. Otherwise we'll just keep expanding various regressive taxes like the sales tax or gambling revenue until nonmillionaires revolt, leave, or slip into economic oblivion."

The idea of a constitutional amendment became real feasible after con-con was voted down 2 to 1, didn't it???

Given other posts that our politicians don't ride CTA, as well as our governor promising no tax increases (and allowing the RTA one only on the condition of free rides for seniors) don't expect much from them.

Also, if there were an income tax increase, expect Meeks to say education is entitled to all of it (as, in fact, he said today, in connection with gambling money going to the racing industry if the dormant casino ever gets off the ground).

Finally, there is no assurance that a tax increase in this state would be spent in a noncorrupt manner, which thereby kills any grass roots movement for one (at least by people who would pay it).

Too many contingencies here.

"What would have been more interesting is if CTA had disclosed where it got the $2.9 billion"

Didn't CTA issue bonds after its credit rating went up as a result of pension and healthcare plan restructuring?

Did anyone see the article about the state being 4 billion dollars behind in paying the bills and that they'd be at 5 billion by spring?

Here it is!

http://ads.qctimes.com/articles/2008/11/13/news/illinois/doc491c6372ca584808673006.txt?sPos=3

Martha:
"Didn't CTA issue bonds after its credit rating went up as a result of pension and healthcare plan restructuring?"

1. It issued bonds to pay for the pension and healthcare restructuring, but payment for them was secured by the real estate transfer tax, which hasn't generated the planned revenue.

2. Which gets us to the point. While CTA has issued bonds and engaged in various lease transactions, it is not clear where the money to fund those obligations will be realized. Metra was authorized by the 2008 RTA Act to issue bonds, but can't, because there is no state capital plan to pay the obligations.

3. In any event, I would have preferred that CTA said something on the detail of "the lease of 150 hybrid buses will be retired using the proceeds of 5307 grants" or something to that effect. Traxis Financial must have demanded some sort of security (in addition to the right to repossess the buses, which I doubt is worth $120 million), and I would be interested in knowing what that was, and if CTA has overly mortgaged its future.

http://www.traxisfinancial.com/assets/pdf%20files/Traxis%20Financial%20%20Chicago%20TA%20Case%20Study%204-28-08.pdf

I should have said that Traxis must have demanded additional security, although it denies having asked for the usual kinds.

I'm hearing Carl Sagan in my head saying five BILLION. Sucks. We're not even the worst in the nation. California had to close a $15B hole in the latest budget and is looking at another $11B additional shortfall in the spring. Two-thirds of states have a significant budget shortfall. Spooky, scary, bad.

"The idea of a constitutional amendment became real feasible after con-con was voted down 2 to 1, didn't it???"

The defeat of the constitutional convention has nothing to do with amending the constitution - the legislature still has the authority to propose and pass amendments. In fact, one of the main arguments of those who opposed the constitutional convention was that the existing amendment process is adequate.

"there is no assurance that a tax increase in this state would be spent in a noncorrupt manner"

The question isn't whether there will be corruption (we do live in Illinois), it's where the tax burden will be assessed. You can either tax those least able to pay (as we do now) or implement a progressive income tax and tax those who can afford it. Ending corruption is another issue altogether.

Looking at the map that shows where the MCT would go, it seems natural to extend it past the red line at 87th all the way to the lakeshore, then create a loop that follows the lake (more or less, maybe joining the Red/Purple line on the north side) then arrive back at Jefferson park on the Blue line.

"Ending corruption is another issue altogether."

Not when you are trying to convince others to support raising taxes, which also requires showing them that the money will be spent prudently. Certainly not the case in this state.

And my comments about the politicians having other interests than helping the CTA makes it very unlikely that they would propose such a constitutional amendment to fund the cause you propose. And the problem with graft in Illinois makes it unlikely that the voters would vote for it (at least those who would have to pay the tax).

And as far as the people who are least able to pay--even at a flat rate, I doubt that they are paying much of the tax. And there are other alternatives, such as increasing the standard deduction, to make the tax more progressive.

Thanks for the info, jack. It's highly likely that CTA probably has mortgaged its (and therefore our) future, although I doubt they'd like us to know to what extent. All of this is even more frightening in light of the fact that many transit lease agreements were guaranteed by AIG and transit agencies nationwide are at risk. Toxic mortgage securities: the gift that keeps on giving!

jack: Forget what Meeks says about anything!
That guy is great about getting himself some TV time, but when the chips are down, he folds instantly at the first deal offered to him.
And every time, that deal has turned out to be a mirage.

Meeks is a sad, pathetic joke!
Both Blago & Daley have hornswoggled him & his response is to come back & get screwed again.

He may mean well, but the guy has no political smarts of any kind. He's a classic fool!

The Circle Line and MCT would both be great ways to make the rail system, and therefore development, less downtown-centric.

The Circle Line in particular would unite a lot of already developed neighborhoods with some up-and-coming areas like Pilsen -- making those areas more accessible to people from more upscale neighborhoods seems like it would be beneficial to local businesses. The Circle Line would serve a lot of areas that are objectively close together but very disconnected because of the layout of the rail system. Making the network better-connected makes the entire system more useful -- suddenly living a little further out seems doable without a car.

Multiple transfers don't seem to be a big deal to me, at least based on my experience in other cities where most trips seem to require a transfer or two -- drivers don't get frustrated and give up when they have to use more than one expressway.

I have less knowledge of the areas that the MCT would serve, but it seems like a good precedent for filling in other inner loops and creating an actual network of train lines that bring together areas other than just downtown. Surely one reason that the Brown Line area is growing isn't just because it has a train line that goes downtown -- it's also one of the few lines with appealling possibilities for connections outside of downtown.

The Circle Line and MCT would both be great ways to make the rail system, and therefore development, less downtown-centric.

The Circle Line in particular would unite a lot of already developed neighborhoods with some up-and-coming areas like Pilsen -- making those areas more accessible to people from more upscale neighborhoods seems like it would be beneficial to local businesses. The Circle Line would serve a lot of areas that are objectively close together but very disconnected because of the layout of the rail system. Making the network better-connected makes the entire system more useful -- suddenly living a little further out seems doable without a car.

Multiple transfers don't seem to be a big deal to me, at least based on my experience in other cities where most trips seem to require a transfer or two -- drivers don't get frustrated and give up when they have to use more than one expressway.

I have less knowledge of the areas that the MCT would serve, but it seems like a good precedent for filling in other inner loops and creating an actual network of train lines that bring together areas other than just downtown. Surely one reason that the Brown Line area is growing isn't just because it has a train line that goes downtown -- it's also one of the few lines with appealling possibilities for connections outside of downtown.

"The Circle Line would serve a lot of areas that are objectively close together but very disconnected because of the layout of the rail system."

Can you explain this a little more, because I don't really see the big gains here. The Circle Line would mainly duplicate the existing Ashland bus service. It would make it a bit easier for Red Line riders to get to Pilsen, but it's already pretty easy to transfer to the Pink Line in the Loop. It would help those on the Near North and West Sides heading northwest on the Blue Line, but it seems like an awful lot of money for such small gains, at least as long as more important projects like the Red, Orange, and Yellow Line extensions and the Mid-City Transitway are still unfunded.

Before consideration of scrapping the flat tax, especially in a state that's as unfriendly to businesses as Illinois, we should consider applying sales taxes to services (think haircuts, shoe repairs, taxis) in addition to goods purchased. This would allow for a significant increase in revenue, and should include a meaningful reduction in the sales and property tax rates. This will increase annual revenues by billions of $$$ per year, and won't disproportionately affect a particular class. A lower sales and property tax rate will also entice more businesses to consider locating in the city and state, further increasing tax revenues.

The gridlock in Springfield and the sagging economy will prevent any sort of substantial infusion of cash for the CTA capital budget until the legislators pony up and introduce some funding mechanisms that are politically unpopular but necessary given the times.

I disagree - the flat tax should be scrapped. People in the highest tax brackets have a lot more money left over after they've paid their taxes than, say, people who make minimum wage. As such, they have a much easier time affording things like haricuts, shoe reparis, and taxis - even in states where there is no flat tax and they pay a bigger percentage of their salaries.

Taxing things like goods and services mean poorer folk can't afford to buy as many of them, and if our economy is based on people buying stuff all of the time, we WANT poorer folk to be able to buy more goods and services. And when the economy goes sour and lots of people stop buying things (like currently), governments run out of money because their revenue streams are tied to really volatile funding sources (licensing casinos when people are losing their savings and mortagages, anyone?).

Jake, I agree that the extensions (and probably a couple in-fill stations on the Yellow Line) should come before the Circle Line -- but that seems to be the plan anyway. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) The MCT is so huge that it seems to make sense to do the Circle Line first.

The obvious benefit of the Circle Line over the Ashland bus is that trains are faster than buses -- even express buses. Plus they make the connections tighter. I'd argue that in most people's minds Logan Square and Wicker Park are connected in a much more immediate way than, say, Lincoln Square and Edgewater, even though similar distances are involved -- the difference is a train line vs. buses.

Well, there goes my theory that Adam Kotsko and Jake were clones of each other.;) Their posts seem to have indicated they engage in the same types of thought patterns that would almost always naturally result in the same opinions. But I guess that is not the case. In this particular case, I tend to agree more with Jake's position. There is no doubt that the benefits of a circle line would be very substantial to many people (and no, they certainly would not be mostly rich people as Jake has implied several times). But the reality is there are limited resources. And the people who live and work in the area already have pretty decent (if not spectacular) transit options. If somehow the money for this could just fly from the sky it would be great. But every nickel that is spent would be a nickel that could have been spent building or expanding rail lines in areas that need them a lot more and will have an even greater benefit to the economy.

I didn't notice a pattern of agreement between me and Jake.

In a rational world, work would've already begun on all of the projects we've mentioned, and then some. Creating a really great rail network in the second-biggest city in the country should be a total no-brainer -- but instead we're mentally nickel and diming ourselves, for instance, consigning people to "get by" with a local bus for trips that are too long for a local bus.

Everyone's constantly in an austerity mindset. Yet somehow we can hallucinate billions of dollars into existence to save fraudulent bankers! If we're going to be billions of dollars in debt, I'd prefer to have some actual physical benefit to show for it.

I don't think the Circle Line would mostly benefit rich people, but there's no question that of all the expansions under discussion, the people helped by the Circle Line are by far the best off. There's also the danger that the Circle Line might accelerate gentrification, which is unlikely with any of the other projects.

"the extensions (and probably a couple in-fill stations on the Yellow Line) should come before the Circle Line -- but that seems to be the plan anyway."

Unfortunately, the Circle Line is currently the most advanced project, as much as 2 years ahead of the Red Line extension, which in turn is a year ahead of the Orange and Yellow Line extensions. This page has information on the current progress of each project's alternatives analysis process:
http://www.transitchicago.com/news/whatsnew.wu?action=displaynewspostingdetail&articleid=124434

"The MCT is so huge that it seems to make sense to do the Circle Line first."

The Mid-City Transitway would certainly involve building more track - about 5 times more. But the MCT would be built along a railroad right-of-way, making it fairly easy and cheap. The Circle Line, on the other hand, not only doesn't have the benefit of an existing clear path, it also involves subway construction. So the cost and time to completion of the two projects are roughly similar.

"There's also the danger that the Circle Line might accelerate gentrification, which is unlikely with any of the other projects."

That's a danger now?

Remember this next time you think about where some of the CTA's tax money comes from - the property transfer tax - which ends up fetching more money for the CTA when a condo sells for $100k more in a gentrified neighborhood than a similar condo sells for in a neighborhood that hasn't.

It's probably not a danger right now, but in ten years time when the Circle Line is finally finished it certainly could be.

Gentrification is a social problem, and we need to find ways to channel it in better directions - regardless of whether it produces revenue for CTA. A simple requirement that all new developments include 20-30 percent affordable housing (with a realistic definition of "affordable" rather than what the city uses now) could go a long way to turning gentrification from an engine of segregation to one of integration.

Kiel, I'm not saying that a progressive income tax is a bad idea, simply that a tax on services should be implemented first. The wealthy typically expend a much larger portion of their income on services than do the poor, simply because services are typically purchased more with discretionary income relative to goods. All of the hypothetical examples I mentioned are either discretionary purchases that also may have a cheaper alternative (i.e. taxi vs. bus).

I'll rewrite that for you, Jake -

"A burdensome requirement that all new developments include 20-30 percent affordable housing (with an unrealistic definition of "affordable") could go a long way to shifting gentrification from an engine of progress to one of stagnation."

I don't understand why half of the conversations on here drift from transit to changing social issues through running a train or bus line through them.

The C.T.A. should sell carbon offsets to raise revenue.The value could be determined by how many commuters were taken from cars as a result of C.T.A. policies and improvements.The C.T.A. could also plant trees on their properties or even grace unsightly el structures with ivy.

"I don't understand why half of the conversations on here drift from transit to changing social issues through running a train or bus line through them."

Since transit is such a huge factor in urban development, it's hard to talk about it in isolation.

To avoid the Constitutional amendment process, how about doubling the income tax rate and doubling the standard deduction. (Or something along those lines.)

Seriously, raising sales and property tax is far more business-unfriendly -- it drives small and medium-sized businesses out of business or out of state -- than raising upper-bracket income taxes, which doesn't drive anyone out of state.