CTA Tattler

I don't care what Crain's or any other pols say: It's Kreusi's fault & everyone knows that!

He's poison & incompetent.
What a combination!

How is it Kreusi's fault for not convincing the alderman to vote for the parking increase by 12/31?

The "everyone" you speak of does not include me, so your statement is incorrect.

Our government needs to understand that it is transit that we want and not more cars. Raising rates on parking makes it more expensive to drive downtown hence less cars. People only respond to monetary incentives and we need to take London's lead in developing a city driving tax.

Justin, a more correct statement is "people sometimes respond to monetary incentives when they have another option". A driving tax (or is it a congestion charge? or a bullshit CO2 tax? The money-grubbers in charge of the program can't seem to make up their minds) didn't work in a city with one of the best public transit systems in the world -- it would be an absolute disaster in Chicago.

The last thing Chicago needs right now is yet another regressive tax to line Shortshanks' pockets.

I guess that when they agreed to raise parking fares for this program, they didn't foresee that they would end up also leasing all of the parking meters to a private firm who would institute a fee hike of their own. D'oh!

I say good riddance to this program. There was never any guarantee that money existed anywhere to continue to fund or expand BRT after the pilot program ended. And now that the economy's gone sour, it's even more likely that the federal DOT will let experimental BRT programs fall by the wayside, saddling the CTA with all this equipment that it doesn't have money in its regular budget to operate or maintain.

Was surfing around the trib today and found a nice transit related commercial by the mayor that you'll probably never see :)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/olympics/chi-fournier-htmlstory,0,6662255.htmlstory

For those who have never seen the animations of Joe Fournier, they are a hoot!

There are several Blago, Obama, election ones too. I about fell over laughing when I saw the Mccain one with his ode to Obama:)

Cheers,

KevinB

so apparently the business community was okay with the parking meter sellout...? but just couldn't handle the offstreet parking increases? don't get me wrong, cars do not currently pay their fair share, but city council: please don't hide behind the amorphous group you call the "business groups".

Kiel:

What you missed what that the parking meter lease was also a condition of the deal. The city met that condition in time, but apparently not also for the parking tax.

What wasn't said in the grant agreement was that meter rates would go up as a result of the lease, but that had to have been the thinking behind making that a condition.

It is sort of like the rudimentary real estate lawyer. The first thing he or she asks is "are there any contingencies remaining?" Apparently, the mayor failed to ask that in this case, and the answer was yes. But, obviously this was a competition where the various proposers were thinking up the most onerous ways to discourage driving. As Sick Transit Chicago pointed out a year ago, New York City originally won by promising a congestion fee. That wouldn't pass the New York Legislature, so the money was offered to Chicago, based on its plans. But as Kevin O. pointed out, Chicago didn't meet its deadline, either.

While this contract is dead, Kevin also properly points out that Daley may be expecting to get a better deal in two weeks. Whether he does, time will tell.

I'm also surprised that this wasn't played up in the media--a Crain's report, then a buried Sun-Times piece, and finally something on a Tribune blog (not the Tribune itself). Maybe the "press" doesn't think this is important, or maybe it is more consumed on passing on what the governor's legal flacks have to say.

I think that the whole plan was flawed from the beginnig in so many different ways. Allowing it to die because a deadline wasn't met was probably by design because there was no way to fix the whole thing in time. Sure, some money was lost, but the money was earmarked for a collection of projects that no one wanted, either.

It's like this: I'm giving out money to anyone who will eat a bug. The first guy gets ready to eat it, but decides against it. Now a second guy has been bragging that he'll eat the bug, but when it comes time to pick it up, he stalls. He wants more time, but everyone knows even with more time, he's not going to eat it. So the money I offered to eat the bug is still out there. No one lost anything, and no one had to eat a bug. Yet.

I would like to see King Richie and Uncle Frank eat a bug.

On "Get Out" (on Ion Life, Channel 38.3), Kelly said that an ant's bum tasted minty.

Great transit blog! I have just started my own for Denver's Regional Transportation District (RTD) and would love to get any advice on how I can expand it. My model is definitely this great blog. My blog is at http://rtdwatch.blogspot.com/

Thanks,
Julio

Rusty:

The real question is whether contractual commitments or expenditures were made in expectation of eating the bug, such as for ketchup or Thai hot sauce.

In the real world, the question is whether CTA entered into contracts to the buy the necessary buses without first getting the grants to pay for them. ChicagoBus.org notes that New Flyer has announced various contracts, but the CTA hasn't said anything about them, nor posted them in the contract awards spreadsheet on transitchicago.com.

http://chicagobus.org/news/cta-900-new-flyer-order

http://www.transitchicago.com/asset.aspx?AssetId=259

This may turn out to be no different than spending $250 million on the Block 37 station before determining that the airport express is not feasible.

>A driving tax (or is it a congestion charge? or a bullshit CO2 tax? The money-grubbers in charge of the program can't seem to make up their minds) didn't work in a city with one of the best public transit systems in the world

I'm not sure what you're talking about. It works phenomenally well in London. Virtually everyone is happy with it, it was expanded, and the new Mayor from the other party has not repealed it.

Meanwhile in New York, if that's what you're referring to, it didn't fail. It wasn't tried.

>A driving tax (or is it a congestion charge? or a bullshit CO2 tax? The money-grubbers in charge of the program can't seem to make up their minds) didn't work in a city with one of the best public transit systems in the world

I'm not sure what you mean. It works phenomenally well in London. Virtually everyone is happy with it, it was expanded, and the new Mayor from the other party has not repealed it. There is no substantial opposition from voters or political leaders.

Meanwhile in New York, if that's what you're referring to, it didn't fail. It wasn't tried.

The story does not even say whose fault it is, but I'm so glad that everyone can figure it is Kruesi's and not Super H's. It is definitely NOT Kruesi's since he lobbies in Washington, doesn't bring matters to the City Council for vote. It was a befuddling pick for Kruesi to be sent to DC to lobby when part of the reason he lost his CTA post was because he couldn't get along with elected officials in Springfield.

> It works phenomenally well in London.

If by "works" you mean "reduces traffic and/or congestion", then no. But instead if you mean "perpetuates a massive entitlement program with no clear purpose and Orwellian enforcement", then yes, phenomenal is the term.

Thanks for clearing that up, jack. You're right that this hasn't gotten enough media coverage. But where are you finding the details?

I had read the document on the DOT site, at http://www.crd.dot.gov/agreements/chicago_agreement.pdf

For all we know the contract could have been contingent on receiving the federal funding. Maybe the new stimulus plan can take its place and we can get more new buses.

Does anyone know when we can expect new routes on BusTracker? And no, I'm not asking about the 22, 36, etc. I'm talking about regular routes that are not on it yet. I'd love to have the 136 on there.

Funny you should ask, chris!

According to the bus tracker website:

"Additional routes that will be available starting January 26, are: 3, X3, 4, X4, 22, 36, 49B, 82, 93, 96 and 97."

While I'm sorry that doesn't include your #136, this is exciting news that the 22 and 36 will finally be bus tracker compatible in 17 days :D

The 22 and 36 on Bus Tracker? Surely this is a true sign of the apocalypse. All kidding aside, it will be great fun to watch the virtual herding on our desktops and wireless devices.

"It seemed so fortuitous, so fabulous that New York's failure to miss a deadline was the CTA's opportunity to use $153 million in federal funds for a Bus Rapid Transit Pilot."

If someone experiences a failure to miss a deadline, that means that they did not miss a deadline, which means they met the deadline.

Oh my! How much scrutiny will the Bus Tracker for those 2 routes have by the collective community here. At least they will maybe iron out the issues they have with the new data.

Maybe they couldn't add the 136 due to having some 5800 buses still on the route. Supposedly they will be phased out in early 2009.

To Windy City Mike Harris: Good point. You are correct. Hey, will you be my editor?

Obviously, the possibility that the BRTs might not go forward is very good news. I'd like to think that the federal government decided not to grant the extension because they had a change of heart as a result of reading some of my comments and others in this blog(although that is, of course, pretty unlikely). Yes, the BRTs would have quickened some people's commutes. But in doing so it would have destroyed the character of the city. Most of the businesses on the streets served by these buses would need to go out of business as a result of customers no longer being able to conveinently park. It would destroy the walkable communities that makes urban living unique andeveryone supposidely for increasing transit wants (yet, many of these people are for this for some reason). And the whole way this thing was just dumped on everyone without any discussion was truly disgraceful. The money needs to be used for a more useful purpose. A minimum requirement should be um, I don't know, something that would have a positive overall effect instead of negative. One would think that would be an obvious starting point that one should use before even considering spending federal (or any) tax dollers.

"People only respond to monetary incentives and we need to take London's lead in developing a city driving tax."

That's just ridiculous. Everyone I know who makes decisions on whether to use public transportation considers such things as convenience and which is a bigger hassle more than they consider price. And in the area and time where this is targeted, downtown during rush hour, the overwhelming majority of poeple who travel already use public transportation. There already is an enormous cost advantage to do so. I have no idea why people thinking simply increasing this a bit more will have an effect on anythinhg. As I've stated before, those few people who do drive downtown during rush hour obviously do so for good reasons, such as needing their car at work or living in certain suburban areas that don't have good public transportation. If they currently drive and park despite the much higher prices then obviously a "driving tax" is not going to matter. It is like attemting to find ways to get the 8% of Illinois residents who think Blagojevich is doing a good job (based on the latest polls) to change their mind. If those people stick to a highly unusual decision that contrasts with very strong forces to go the opposite way it is not likely that a simple stimulant here or there will change it. Of course, there is a difference in that those who park downtown are mostly making rational decisions based on their somewhat unusual circumstances while those who have a positive opinion of Blogojevich probably have strange personality characteristics that cause them to think irrationally. But it is still the same principle.

"I say good riddance to this program. There was never any guarantee that money existed anywhere to continue to fund or expand BRT after the pilot program ended. And now that the economy's gone sour, it's even more likely that the federal DOT will let experimental BRT programs fall by the wayside, saddling the CTA with all this equipment that it doesn't have money in its regular budget to operate or maintain."

Good point, Kiel. After the discussion we had the past week it is good to immedietely agree on something.

Everyone should call the Obama administration and tell them we do not want him to revisit the idea of BRTs. The money should be used for other things, such as useful transit projects.

It's Kreusi's fault because as the city's lobbyist in DC, he's also supposed to keep with this & if the city council doesn't act, he should tell them that there's a drop dead date where the money just goes away!

As for the 22 & 36 added to bus tracker.
I can't wait!
I'm going to watch it for days at a time & log as much as I can on the mess that these two bus routes are!

You don't think they already knew the deadline? You think they can't read? You think that they're that stupid?

There were a lot of people who knew, or should have known the deadline. Are we all at fault?

And that's assuming that anyone really believed this was all a good idea in the first place. If you don't think something is a good idea, you don't take the money. That's very different than just leaving unencumbered money on the table.

Exactly. This is not about missing a deadline. Somebody wised up and realized this was not something that should be implemented. The media reports indicate that some city council members were very lukeroom about the idea. If they scuttled this I say good for them. Apparently they actually got something accomplished over Daley's objections. And perhaps those in the transportation department had second thoughts about the merits to this. When something major is just shoved down people's throot without discussion, as this was, eventually people start to say "wait a minute" and ask questions. And apperently that is what occured here.

There are a couple issues under discussion here that I think are being confused:

1) congestion pricing, London model: there has not been any such concrete proposal for Chicago, but there was one for New York. In New York, it had clear majority support among city politicians and residents, but was sabotaged by suburban and parking interests in the state legislature. The London experiment has been a clear, if limited, success. But even if congestion pricing didn't reduce traffic at all, it should still be implemented as a way of making drivers pay the true costs of their driving. Currently we and future generations all subsidize the effects of their pollution, traffic jams, and damage to public health, which is both unfair and economically inefficient. Congestion pricing would partially rectify this if the revenue it generated went to improving public transit.

2) parking meters: privatizing parking meters was probably squandering public assets for short-term gain, but unfortunately it may have been the only way to raise parking rates. The price of parking really should not be used as a substitute for congestion pricing, instead it should be set so that some percentage of parking spots will always remain available, to prevent people endlessly circling looking for a spot.

3) half-assed BRT: the CTA plan was clearly shaping up as a glorified express bus service rather than real BRT. So it probably would have been incapable of fulfilling the hopes of its supporters (like me) or the apocalyptic fears of its critics (Rusty and MK). In other words, it would have been a perfect incremental experiment in improving bus service, and if we really do lose this money it represents a real blow to the possibility of transforming Chicago into a truly transit-oriented and environmentally sustainable city.

"But even if congestion pricing didn't reduce traffic at all, it should still be implemented as a way of making drivers pay the true costs of their driving. Currently we and future generations all subsidize the effects of their pollution, traffic jams, and damage to public health, which is both unfair and economically inefficient. Congestion pricing would partially rectify this if the revenue it generated went to improving public transit."

I love the fact that a socialist is complaining about something being economically inefficiant. The reality, of course, is that congestion pricing is far more economically inefficiant and will cause the opposite effect of what you think. As you know, one of the biggest factors of whether someone drives a large amount and therefore emits significant polution is where they live. Those who live in urban areas with high density generally drive the least, especially if they work nearby. So obviously it wouldn't make sense, if one has your goals, to discourage people from living in a dense city. That is what would occur with congestion pricing. The idea of paying to drive in a certain area would strike a huge amount of people as utterly absurd. So therefore they may decide not to live in a place that has such a silly practice. Many people who drive reletively rarely still want to occasionally go into these areas. And public transportation is not always practical. Additionally, businesses would decide not to locate in the area because of this cost to its employees and others it is doing business with. So there will be fewer jobs and residents. And that means fewer people to be here engaging in the benefits you love so much, living or working in an area in which people can easilly get around without driving. And then this causes lower density. Which means that we will not have quite as much of the benefits you discuss when talking about dense cities.

"In other words, it would have been a perfect incremental experiment in improving bus service, and if we really do lose this money it represents a real blow to the possibility of transforming Chicago into a truly transit-oriented and environmentally sustainable city."

No, losing the money means we get to avoid the possibility that the city would eventually lose all of the transit oriented benefits it has. One of the great characterists of many parts of Chicago, like most urban cities, is neighborhoods with walkable neighborhoods and unique businesses. There are some great advantages of that to the suburbs, especially the outer suburbs, which is mostly filled with strip malls that have almost entirely chain stores. With a bus rapid transit system, you take away the parking that allows businesses to exist. Nearly all of the storefronts on a BRT route would eventually be either vacent or consist of businesses that do not depend on people stopping as they are driving by, such as banks, currency exchanges, and doctors offices. I don't think that is what you want. It is vitally important that the next administration decides that this is not a good idea. Any notion that this is what we should be spending money on in the midst of a financial crises (or any time, for that matter) is absurd.

I definitely think Kruesi shares blame in this. Doesn't anyone remember his mouth? How the State legislature hated him because of how mean-spirited, accusatory, and just downright bitchy (and in this last one, even I can't hold a candle to him) he was? And that his mouth was part of the reason CTA funding didn't happen until he was gone?

As I noted in my Twitter feed (at http://twitter.com/chicagocarless/status/1104825396 and http://twitter.com/chicagocarless/status/1104835917) Greg Hinz in Crain's quotes the Gore-Tex wonder as saying it's "astonishing, not to give us the courtesy" of a two week application waiver since short-term waivers are granted often.

In other words, he came out and publicly castigated--in national media--the one person with the power to change their mind grant the fund request (and potentially underling allies of hers who may remain in the Transportation office when she is leaves).

Taking his rancor out on people who ought to be his political allies in public is his age-old M.O. It screwed Chicago numerous times when he was at the CTA, and I very much doubt this is the first time he's run his mouth in a back-biting way in Washington.

Sure, it was Chicago that was late in sending in the application. But I am willing to bet it is Frank Kruesi's mouth that has Mary Peters not wanting to do Chicago any favors.

I think this is one of the most interesting transit stories to come out in a while, and as is typical with the most interesting stories, only Crain's gets it. We are all speculating, so here's mine:
- Rusty's right that this was an intentional "botched" job. There's NO way the Mayor was going to have the City Council vote twice in two weeks, or even twice in two years on a major parking-pricing proposal. So when they decided to go with the privatization project, the congestion pricing was dead. The two would have been wrapped together in one, impressive package.
- Kruesi knows exactly all that; so while he blames the Bush Admin, he's covering for the fact that the choice was Chicago's--not Washington.
- Blogger is correct that this isn't completely over, though, and that the Olympics and Obama are a key components to consider.
- Guaranteed that the CTA and City did spend some of their money already on BRT--they had to. If not big purchases, yet, at least tons of staff time.
- Congestion pricing is good. The money should go to rebuild/rehab the downtown L stations, or at least meet that $6 billion unmet need CTA always complains about.
- BRT is also a good idea, but very infeasible in most of Chicago's environs--unfortunately. They should still continue to get bigger buses, exclusive lanes as much as they can, traffic signal priorities, etc., etc., but it'll never be Curitiba.

Some of what I just said may be contradictory, but that's my point: it's such an interesting story.

MK, your argument boils down to the principle of might makes right. Even tho privileged suburban residents who drive everywhere take an unfair part of the wealth created by society, and even tho their driving imposes upon society costs that they do not pay, we are expected to do whatever we can to please them so they will not cripple the city by withdrawing their wealth from it. This is not a solid ethical basis for organizing society.

But you raise important points: even if we don't agree with the unequal distribution of privilege, we have to reckon with it. Now, as usual, you are massively inflating the risks with no evidence at all - London, after all, has not become a ghost town despite years of congestion pricing. But the dangers you point out should be considered so that congestion pricing is designed right.

If designed right - e.g. charging only those who enter the city, not those who drive around within it - it could give people an incentive to relocate to the city rather than abandon it. And those jobs in the Loop are not nearly as sensitive to tax policy as you seem to think. Read some of Saskia Sassen's work on cities under globalization - the costs of locating your business in the city center are already much higher than in the suburbs, but there are strong forces that nevertheless keep those businesses where they are.

On BRT, you should go back and read the details as they emerged a couple months ago:
http://www.ctatattler.com/2008/09/recap-of-the-br.html
There is absolutely no basis for your alarmist predictions. The "BRT" plans were shaping up to be little more than improved express service, with important innovations like traffic signal priority and (never fully explained) prepaid boarding. Losing this opportunity would be a major setback.

"The idea of paying to drive in a certain area would strike a huge amount of people as utterly absurd." -- MK

I'm amazed that so many people haven't heard of toll roads.

A guest poster at Freakonomics recently wrote a really good summary on variable rate tolling. I think that has some good incites on how congestion pricing should be done in the Chicago metropolitan area. It entitled "Why you'll love paying for roads that used to be free"

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/why-youll-love-paying-for-roads-that-used-to-be-free-a-guest-post/

BRT only works where it has its own right of way.
I have ridden the Orange Line in LA & it works.
You pay at a machine & if necessary, wait for the bus. There are signs saying that you must have paid to go beyond a certain point. The driver doesn't have anything to do with the fares. People board & get off at all the doors. It's an honor system, but LA County Sheriff's deputies will board & check fares randomly, the LA subway works the same way.
Stops are approximately a half mile apart.
The Orange Line for almost all of its Route is on an abandoned railroad line at the south end of the San Fernando Valley. LA is planning several other BRT lines, also on abandoned railroad lines .

While Chicago has numerous abandoned rail ROWs, Halsted St. ain't one of them & it won't work there.

Thanks, Stephen - that's a great article.

While the author doesn't mention public transit explicitly, it occurred to me while reading that although public transit and roads are both built and maintained with public subsidies (the latter MUCH more than the former), we have to pay a not-insignificant $2.00 or $2.50 every time we ride the CTA, but with the exception of a few toll roads/expressways, driving on the roads is completely free.

Now, I'm not anti-driving in general, but that begs the question whether the tax burden on people who don't drive - one everyone, actually - could be lessened ever so slightly if drivers had to pay to use the public roads they drive on in the same way that CTA riders have to pay to ride the public transit they use.

And before someone brings up the gas tax: gasoline taxes do NOT cover the whole costs of building and maintaining the streets. While the interstate highway system IS mostly maintained by the federal gas tax, costs associated with filling potholes, curb and sidewalk maintenance, drainage, painting lane lines, salting and plowing in the winter, street lamps, traffic police, and alleys for trash collection and parking are paid for as much with local property (and other) taxes as they are with the gasoline tax.

Not to mention the many hidden costs of driving, like higher insurance rates to cover traffic accidents and kids with asthma, the public costs of dealing with car pollution (which will rise dramatically in the coming years as global warming starts to take its toll), and the costs of periodically attacking other countries to maintain control over the oil supply.

"BRT only works where it has its own right of way."

What does this mean? Would the buses in the CTA plan not run? You think that incremental improvements aren't worth making if we can't transition directly to a grade-separated busway? Who here is willing to argue that giving buses signal priority is a bad idea, or that we shouldn't buy the newest, most efficient buses?

There were clearly parts of the CTA plan that seemed shaky at best (prepaid boarding in particular), but I for one was willing to see if CTA could figure out something workable. And since the CTA plan *did not* involve real BRT - meaning that MK and Rusty's vision of BRT apocalypse was not in prospect - I can't figure out why anyone is happy we're losing millions of dollars that could have improved our bus system.

jake: BRT won't work the way the CTA plans it because the buses will be mixed into the regular traffic.
Signal priority won't help if the buses are stuck in the usual traffic messes on the streets of Chicago that have just one traffic lane in each direction, like Halsted.
Do you actually believe that all the parked cars will be gone from the lane where the buses are supposed to run?
They won't be & the buses will be stuck, just like buses are stuck on dozens of other streets by beer trucks making deliveries of double parkers just being jerks!

"occurred to me while reading that although public transit and roads are both built and maintained with public subsidies (the latter MUCH more than the former), we have to pay a not-insignificant $2.00 or $2.50 every time we ride the CTA, but with the exception of a few toll roads/expressways, driving on the roads is completely free."

That is not true at all. The $2.00 to $2.50 fare we pay to the CTA almost entirely goes to the cost of operating the service. Obviously that is not "completely free" when you drive on the roads. You pay for gas and you pay to maintain your car. The only thing that is included in the fare in which the equivalant is not completely paid directly by drivers is the cost to maintain the the transportation infrastructure. Conversely, with driving we pay for the actually vehicles directly. With public transporation the purchasing of new buses and train cars (as well as new track) is not included in the fare. That comes out of the capital budget which is paid for mostly by state and federal tax dollers. So if anything, transit users actually pay a lower share of the costs than drivers. Remember of course that only around half of the operating costs is even included in the fare. The rest comes from tax dollers. A much higher share of the operating costs for the vehicles and the roads are paid by drivers.

In my opinion, moral issues should never be involved in economic decisions. It never works to do that. The question of how such things as transit and roads are paid should be based on what operates most efficiantly. And yes, long term things such as externalities (pollution, for example) could be considered. But the word "fair" should never be used. I think that just causes people to lose focus and make these decisions based on knee jerk reactions and emotion rather than a careful analysis of what is good for everyone in the long term.

Obviously I meant "actual vehicles", not "actually vehicles".

Fair points, UCC, but the city would have a strong incentive to enforce the bus lanes because it's a great source of revenue. And if it was still a problem, a pressure campaign by the (hopefully increasing number of) riders might be effective.

But even assuming that the bus lanes were sometimes blocked, buses would still have long stretches free of traffic - which is better than nothing. And even if they sometimes got stuck in traffic, signal priority would still often speed the trip - which is also better than the nothing. The point is there are no drawbacks, and a lot of potential.

Whoa, MK, I didn't use the word "fair" and I wasn't making a moral argument about fairness.

If we spent enough tax money on the CTA, they wouldn't have to charge fares to cover operations OR capital. Building and maintaining roads, on the other hand, is almost completely subsidized to the point that it rarely occurs to anyone to pass along some of those costs to the drivers. It's just assumed (in this country anyway) that everyone drives and so the roads should all be free, which is the attitude that got us all into this situation where U.S. public transit is a mess and most people have no other option but to drive everywhere.

"You pay for gas and you pay to maintain your car."

Your car and the gas in it is your private property and you can choose to own one or not, and you can choose to only drive on private roads if you can find enough. Yeah, a car's required if you plan on driving, but it can't be included when comparing the costs of roads vs. public transit. You wouldn't include the cost of buying and tuning up your own bicycle in the cost of paving the lake front bike path, would you?

jake: The city should have that incentive now, but refuses to use it. Just ride the godawful Clark St. bus.
It's constantly blocked in the rush hours no less by delivery trucks, yuppie scum moms picking up their precious brats at Parker school & 20 other reasons.
I see cops drive right by these jerks without batting an eyelash at them.
The city will do no more for BRT lanes on Halsted or any other street.
They will of course enforce it for the first week or so of any BRT run, but after that, clout & the general laziness of the CPD will win out, & the Parker school moms have clout!
Just start thinking about who on Halsted has clout & that's where the delays will start!

fascinating how so many ron-lovers on this list gave huberman all the credit when the grant was announced (although kruesi did the work to get the opportunity), but give kruesi the blame when it went bad (although huberman dropped the ball to lose it). where's the press on that?

Hey simple -- how did "Huberman drop the ball to lose it?"

It was up to the city council to approve the parking tax. Huberman really has no control over the council.

Kruesi certainly deserves some blame here, but not all of it. He's definitely wrong to point fingers at the people he has to work with in the future as a lobbyist. As many commenters have said, he's a horrible lobbyist, and just tends to alienate people.

On the flip side, I don't think even a great lobbyist would have secured the deadline extension because of the change in administrations.

Bottom line in my mind is there's no blame here for Huberman.

[The city should have that incentive now, but refuses to use it. Just ride the godawful Clark St. bus.]

I'm going to go out on a limb and agree with UCc here - parking restrictions should be mercilessly enforced. If it's 4:01, and there's a car parked that should have been moved by 4:00, tow the bastard away.

[In my opinion, moral issues should never be involved in economic decisions.]

Never? Really? Are you sure you thought this all the way through before you typed it?

MK wrote:
>I love the fact that a socialist is ...

Sure, he's a socialist for supporting faster buses, because it would take away your subsidized on-street parking.

Some people wouldn't understand intellectual consistency if it consistently hit them in the head.