CTA Tattler

I don't understand the commitment to a third airport at this economic juncture. It's clear that when the economy comes back, fuel prices are going up again, probably higher than we saw last year.

We're going to see fewer flights in the US and less exurban development. Both of those things should kill the idea of adding flight capacity in farmland 60 miles from downtown.

That was semi-relevant because it's another thing that Quinn proposed in his budget, and it's transportation-related. I guess I just didn't have anywhere else to vent. Please resume CTA discussion and don't mind me.

All right - circle line!

Now ... seriously, what is the circle line going to be? Last time i paid attention, it seemed it could be a subway under Ashland from Lake to North & Clybourn, and new elevated from the pink to the orange line. But is that what they plan to think about wanting to build? Or something much less?

I don't like taxes who does? We pay the some of the highest taxes in the country here in the city. That being said I do realize that we need taxes. We depend on city/state/federal services that we would not have otherwise. What is a city if it isn't its projects, infrastrucure and otherwise. I just wish that the government spent its tax dollars wisely. If we knew that money would be spent to better the state than we can at least appreciate that. The thing is we don't and I believe we cannot trust the goverment to spend out tax dollars wisely. Someone in the goverment will pillage the funds. I am tired of our tax dollars being wasted.

I agree with ryanwc regarding the third airport. I am not sure how much benefit any one would get from it. I for one would not use it if I could avoid it. There is an airport in Gary that should be improved to make a third regional airport. I mean Illinois and Indiana can't get together on this and decide what is best for he region? Obviously not.

I know a city is more than its projects, it is of course the people. Now please stop stealing and wasting our money Daley,Stroger and now Quinn. We will hold you accountable if it is wasted.

Somewhat related, I love the top story on the feed right now about the increase in slow zones. From October 2007 to December 2008, slowzones went down drastically, from 23% to 7% of the system. And now, after a particularly harsh winter where track work had to be cancelled very frequently, it's shot up to.... 8%. I'm having a hard time getting worked up about that.

The Circle Line is not needed. Nor do I belive it's an "if you build it they will come" project.

Third airport, on the other hand, is a good idea. It *will* be needed by the time it will be completed. It doesn't have to be an "if you build it they will come" project because it's an "if you don't build it, you're going to have problems" project.

No to third airport in the sticks, upgrade Gary instead. It's even close to public trans (South Shore Railroad).

Rusty, is the circle line really for the residents though? It makes the most sense for metra riders, I know several people at my uni who would make use of it for sure to get to/from home in the suburbs.

The third airport idea is deranged. It's a waste of good farmland, and as fuel becomes more expensive, air will be on the way out, and most short to medium-distance trips in the future will be rail-based. Far better to improve connections from all over the city to Midway and O'Hare, with new high-speed rail transit such as along the proposed Crosstown Expressway route.

The Circle Line idea . . .it all depends. The most critical problem with the CTA in terms of serving as a component of a truly regional transportation alternative to driving is its horrible connections with Metra and Amtrak. But where the Circle Line crosses existing Metra and Amtrak routes, will they actually stop at those stations, just a mile or so out from Union and Ogilvie? I rather doubt it. My question is why we are no longer considering the "West Loop Transportation Center", the linking of Ogilvie and Union with the Blue and Green lines and provision of through tracks by opening up several new levels under Clinton Street. That seems to me to be a far more likely solution to the problem than the Circle Line. But the Circle Line will be very nice indeed if Amtrak and Metra play ball, and if the service is frequent enough. Ultimately, I'd wager that we need both a better direct connection downtown AND the Circle Line.

"It's clear that when the economy comes back, fuel prices are going up again, probably higher than we saw last year."

How is that clear? Everything I have heard indicates that the enormous fuel prices last year had very little, if anything, to do with genuine supply and demand. It was the result of speculators. It was an aberration, just like the housing bubble. There was a 60 Minutes report several months ago that went into this in detail: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/08/60minutes/main4707770.shtml There is no way that the downturn in the economy since September could alone explain a drop in the price of such huge proportions. Especially considering it occured almost overnight. Demand certainly didn't decrease more than 50%, as the price did. I don't think that the price of gas will get anywhere remotely close to the level it did last year for at least a decade.

That said, obviously I agree with you that it doesn't make sense to build a third airport. It never did and it certainly doesn't in these economic times.

The main benefit of the Circle Line for me is that it provides a much easier way to get from Uptown and Lakeview to Wicker Park, West Town and Pilsen. And I'm sure it will also be useful for people from Hyde Park and Bronzeville to do the same.

All of these neighborhoods are served by transit but to get from one to the other it takes atleast 2 buses or a trip to the Loop and back out again.

I live in the South Loop and it will definitely make getting to West Town, Pilsen, and United Center (assuming the Madison Station is (re)built) much easier for me.

So what is the subway alignment plan? Last I heard Western was (unfortunately) ruled out. Damen was iffy, so its Ashland?? Really? That strikes me as a kind of small circle, but I'll take it! Will that make Division a transfer station?

[That said, obviously I agree with you that it doesn't make sense to build a third airport. It never did and it certainly doesn't in these economic times.]

I don't think a third airport is appealing either, but I can't see why "these economic times" are a factor agaist it. So we're in a recession - big deal. It's a short- to medium-term condition. Economic conditions change, and we either will or won't need the airport in the future regardless of what things are like right now.

In the meantime, though, insofar as we need a new airport, now's the perfect time to build it. There's a recession, and demand is low, and interest rates are literally as low as they get. Building stuff now is cheaper than it will be when times are better. Plus, construction projects provide a stimulative benefit.

If anything, we should be MORE willing to build an airport in these economic times than we would be otherwise ... though I still am skeptical that it's a good idea.

O'Hare and Midway don't have any capacity for growth. On the surface, updating Gary sounds interesting, but I don't think there's enough room there, either.

With the NIMBY folks that'll come out of the wall if you try to build anywhere other than sparsely populated farm land, the choices of locations drops considerably. You just can't build it where it would be convinient, but it still needs to be built somewhere.

And as strannix notes, the time to build isn't once things get good again, and the builders are competing for resources. The time to build is when things are down.

Big publics works projects are a great way to turn a recession around. That's been proven before.

Can we afford to pay for it now? Of course not. Was there money to pay for all the public works projects during FDR's era? Of course not. And unlike personal finances, government can't build-up savings during good times by taking money out of the economy. The only way these projects get done is by pushing their costs into the future.

You've got to put people to work before they can become taxpayers. You can't wait for them to become taxpayers before putting them to work!

As for the circle line connecting the inner neighborhoods mentioned... Is there really enough inter-neighborhood traffic to justify a rail line? I don't think you could scrap-up enough ridership to run a circle bus route, let alone a rail line.

So why do I want to put people to work building an airport, but not the circle line? Because after they're done building, the asset needs to be operated. A third airport will pay for it's own operation. The circle line won't. It'll be a drain on the CTA's operating budget, sucking money from projects that have more utility.

The idea isn't to have lines connecting all the points to all the other points. The idea is to have lines connecting the points that people want to travel between in practice, not in pipe-dream world.

>Demand certainly didn't decrease more than 50%, as the price did.

I'm not sure whether this was meant as a serious statement. If so, it's a sign of someone who shouldn't be arguing about economics.

>If anything, we should be MORE willing to build an airport in these economic times than we would be otherwise ... though I still am skeptical that it's a good idea.

You may be replying to someone else, but I didn't say "in the economic times", meaning "we're in a recession". I said at this economic juncture, meaning, important things have changed in the relationship between the American economy and the global economy.

I believe we've reached a reckoning point. Not that we'll turn into a poor country or anything. But we'll no longer have the scale of economic dominance we've had since the second world war, and so cost will once again be a factor. Given the inelasticity of supply of oil, and demand rising around the world, we'll have to make due with a smaller share of the world's oil.

One of the ways that's going to happen is that there will be fewer domestic flights, though the scale of international trade, and therefore of international air travel, will increase (as measured in dollars, though it won't lead to a huge in demand for airport slots. The decrease in domestic flights will more than keep up with demand).

One way in which our decline will be measured is in a weakened dollar, which will make it tougher to buy fuel. And don't be fooled by reports like those this afternoon that suggested that because oil is traded primarily in dollars, the weaker dollar makes oil more expensive everywhere. This is silly. The weakened dollar means a barrel of oil costs more dollars, but you can buy more dollars with a single euro, yuan or rupee than you could before, so oil is just as cheap or cheaper in other countries than it was before the decline of the dollar.

Therefore, naturally, I'd love for the Rusty's of the world to bet on 90's like suburban development, because it'll make it easier for me to corner more valuable assets in the city. But I don't want him wasting my tax dollars on a third airport like the boondoggle 10 miles outside Denver, that will never see enough use to justify it.

"The main benefit of the Circle Line for me is that it provides a much easier way to get from Uptown and Lakeview to Wicker Park, West Town and Pilsen. And I'm sure it will also be useful for people from Hyde Park and Bronzeville to do the same."

I just don't see it. To get to the West Side and Pilsen, the Circle Line would save you less than a mile, maybe 5 minutes. To get to the heart of Wicker Park, I think even if the Circle Line were there it would still make more sense to catch the #72 off North/Clyborn rather than transfer to the Circle Line and then transfer again for one stop on the Blue Line. Almost every other benefit of the Circle Line is already provided by the #9 Ashland. The benefits just don't justify billions of dollars of investment.

A new El line on the Mid-City Transitway route (Jefferson Park to Midway paralleling Cicero, then east to the Red Line at 87th) still makes way more sense - especially since we'd get five times as much new track for the same price as the Circle Line - and would open up huge new parts of the city to transit-oriented development. Not to mention the Red, Yellow, and Orange Line extensions. And then there's the real dream: a Western Ave subway.

"You may be replying to someone else"

Of course he was replying to someone else, idiot. He f---ing quoted my post before replying to it! Jesus. Why is it so hard for you to comprehend things? This is the second time that I have needed to explain to you how you carelessly misinterpretated a post.

"I'm not sure whether this was meant as a serious statement. If so, it's a sign of someone who shouldn't be arguing about economics."

I am completely at a loss. What about my statement causes you not to take it seriously? Do you think maybe you can be bothered to expain that? Did you watch the 60 Minutes story I linked to? That wasn't even my statement. It came from a person interviewed in that report who had analyzed the situation. I was simply repeating it (or something close to it). The huge decline in the price of oil occured right after Lehman Brothers failed and the financial markets imploding quickly and severly. Do you remember the day that the dow dropped 800 points (or whatever it was). One of the things that resulted from these events was the obvious realization that it no longer was a very good idea to be speculating that the price of oil would go up. So the speculators pulled out of the market and the price declined dramatically. That is what the 60 Minutes story argues. The conventional wisdom had largely been that the price decline was the result of the downturn in the economy causing reduced demand. But, as was pointed out in that report, demand only decreased around 5% during that time while the price of oil swiftly fell around 50%. And there wasn't a decrease in supply.

So it seems rather convincing to me that the price of oil last summer was indeed (at least overwhelmingly) an aberration caused by speculators. If you have any evidence to support arguments to the contrary then I suggest you mention them instead of simply stating that you cannot take me seriously. That's juvinille. It's also ironic for you to tell me my arguments are not to be taken seriously when around a week ago you complained because the newspapers didn't mention that a bus route was changing its routing for a few blocks in a little used portion of its run (and for which the CTA had signs at these bus stops informing riders of the change).

Obviously I meant to say there wasn't an increase in supply, not a decrease.

MK - To begin with, speculators are simply not that powerful. And a 50% drop in demand does not and would not correlate to a 50% drop in price. Oil is very price sensitive to slight changes in demand/supply. If the two are near a theoretical equilibreum (lets say around $50 barrel) and demand increases 7%, the price will increase at least as much, probably much more. The thing about oil is that its one of those things in which many people are buyers with no other alternative, so if supply doesn't increase and demand increases 7%, those 7% may end up doubling the price of oil.

Also, keep in mind that speculators have to actually take delivery on spot oil, sure the futures might be bid up a little bit higher (and there was a very profitable contango for a while if you could take delivery and find storage and sell futures) but spot is what you're paying for at the pump and there is really no way for speculators to significantly impact that price.

Basically, for speculators to manipulate spot prices you'd be implying that traders in New York are taking delivery on billions of barrels of oil and hiding them somewhere off the market. Sure some very large firms try to find out-of-use tankers and store oil in them to profit from the above mentioned contango, but to suggest that this could be responsible for a doubling in the cost of such a liquid commodity is naive at best.

The last thing I want is to see my money wasted on a greenfield airport in the middle of nowhere. Especially since the Governor is talking about raising my incoming taxes by 50%.

If money is to be spent on airports in the Chicago Land area, it would be best spent at GYY. It already have excellent infrastructure (interstate and rail) adjacent to the field. Not mention a long term plan for an expanded Terminal ( http://www.scb.com/?mainpage=2&paget...cture&p=98&firstlevel=6&seclevel=2 ). I believe they also have plans for a third runway (future 12L-30R) on the other side of the existing terminal. Why waste tax dollars on a greenfield airport, when one closer, further along and has a better chance of succeeding.

From downtown Chicago in a car it is 27 miles (give or take), compared with 44 miles for Peotone airport. When the planned High Speed Rail between Chicago, Detroit and Indianapolis finally gets built. The GYY airport will be able to use adjacent rails to feed traffic to/from itself like many of the airports in Europe do. Plus it has a connection to downtown chicago.

As for the circle line, I think it would be a good idea. Hopefully, it would allow for some further urban population densities and bring more people back into the city.

For the long term, I would love to see a subway or elevated along western ave. I think we have a better / cheaper option with the midcity transitway though.

Just some thoughts.

Can someone explain something to me? Governor Ryan and the General Assembly raised the fees for driver's licenses, license plate stickers and vehicle titles back in the late 90's to fund Illinois FIRST. I don't recall those fees ever going back down. Where does the money generated by those increased fees go now that Illinois FIRST has expired? To the general fund?

Instead of raising those fees again, we should dedicate the last fee increase to capital spending permanently instead of sending it to the general fund if that is where it is going. It makes sense that the last increase in vehicle fees should be going to capital construction projects. We talk about "user fees" and people paying for what they use. Let's not take away those users fees and spend them on something else.

Thoughts?

MK,

Look, cyberstalker, last week, you were bringing up my posts from another forum, asking me for specific details of how I use a 4 block of a bus route. This week, you're again bringing up extraneous details from previous posts, as if you're trying summarize your knowledge of me to keep it fresh in your mind. I'm changing my username and limiting my posting to avoid your stalking.

I had offered the option that you hadn't meant that as a serious statement of economics because I thought maybe you had simply written something quickly in an inaccurate mental shorthand, something we all sometimes do. By saying you might not have meant it seriously, I also gave you the out of looking up some basic economics and then saying you didn't mean it seriously to save face. Instead, you've chosen to belligerently restate your ignorance. Stephen gave you a pretty good summary of some of the basic price laws of economics. If you want more, you should go to an intro to economics text and read up on the slope of supply curves and demand curves. They'll show you why saying "but demand didn't go down 50%" is inane.

As to the question of who strannix was replying to you, which also seems to have infuriated you for some reason, strannix was replying directly to your response to me. He was also replying to the concept of using the economic situation as a context for building the airport, which is a concept used in both my post and your response. His post could easily be interpreted as disagreeing with me that the macroeconomic situation, meaning the cyclical recession, had a bearing on the building of an airport. I wanted to clarify that I was relying on a different meaning, not the cyclical recession, but the secular change in the relation of the American economy to the global economy.

Thanks again for your reasoned contribution to the discussion of these issues, MK. You're still a great American.

Marcus writes:
"Can someone explain something to me? Governor Ryan and the General Assembly raised the fees for driver's licenses, license plate stickers and vehicle titles back in the late 90's to fund Illinois FIRST. I don't recall those fees ever going back down. Where does the money generated by those increased fees go now that Illinois FIRST has expired? To the general fund?"

The marginal increase in the fees pay the debt service on the billions of $ worth of bonds that were issued to pay for construction. You institute the fee increase permanently so that you can borrow money to pay for construction now. Obviously raising the license fee by $10/annually doesn't give the state a windfall of billions of dollars to spend - that money has to be borrowed, and some sort of ongoing new revenue stream has to be dedicated to pay for it.

I want to agree that MK's repeated tendency to bring up old arguments in new discussions is a problem. As ryanwc points out, these are inherently personal attacks; whatever was said last week about newspaper coverage of bus route changes is hardly relevant to the Circle Line or a new airport.

Honestly, I think MK's general belligerence is getting to be enough of an issue that Kevin may need to step in.

To all:

I do believe I have said a few times that I don't like personal attacks and the name-calling in particular -- even something somewhat mild as MK here: "Of course he was replying to someone else, idiot."

I am reluctant to outright ban people/IP addresses, though I have in the past.

We all need to be a little more considerate of each other. I don't want this blog to turn into a commenter's free-for-all.

Thank you.

Kevin

What say you, strannix? MK is a loyal Tattler contributor, dedicating dozens of hours per week to reading this blog and arguing with people. That MK refers back to previous posts -- taking the time to dig through them and locate that one particular commentmade by some 'idiot' a week ago -- is merely proof of his profound deication to Chicago transit, and his unending quest to make all right in Chicagoland by combining the 151 and the 36.

Thank you, Mike. If people want to critisize me for using the word "idiot", fine. I did do so as a result of being told that a comment I made was "sign of someone who shouldn't be arguing about economics" without any explanation as to why. One could make the argument that this is actually the equivalant of being called an idiot. But nevertheless, I respect that other people dislike it when there is name-callling so I will try to avoid doing so in the future. I normally try to critisize people's comments without calling them names but in this case I was unusually frustrated because I had very nicely offered the poster a link (and went through a few minutes of searching to do) that I felt respectfully disagreed with his view about the price of oil. Again, I wasn't simply stating my views about the effect of speculation of the price of oil. I was providing a news report that made the case, based on interviews with people who have studied these things, that speculation was the major cause of the high prices. And I said that I found it convincing. Instead of arguing with me as to how he felt this view wasn't correct (or even showing any evidence he looked at the link I provided), the poster just stated I wasn't to be taken seriously. And this combined with the fact that he misinterpreted who Strannix was responding to made be unusually annoyed. (His recent explanation for thinking Strannix may have been talking to him doesn't make sense since the comments he refers to specifically makes reference to a phrase I stated in my post: "In these economic times". I mention this not to prolong the argument but just because I might be accused of ignoring his explanation if I didn't.)

So I will attempt to avoid name-calling in the future. I'm a bit less sympathetic to the arguments that it is somehow not polite to bring up previous discussions. I only do that when I feel it adds something to the current discussion. In this case, I felt that after being told my statement wasn't to be taken seriously (even though it wasn't my statement as I was just repeating what someone stated in a news report) it wouldn't be unfair to bring up what I felt were statements by that person that, in my opinion, really should not be taken seriuosly. I wouldn't just bring something old up out of the blue just to attack someone. But since I had been attacked, I felt it was well within reason to call the person out as, at minimum, a hypocrite. At other times I have brought up previous discussions because I felt it illustrated a point I was making in a current one. I know perhaps with what Strannix is referring to maybe my motivations could be misinterpreted. I happened to bring up that discussion a few times within a week or two just because I thought it was relavant to what had come up during that time. It was just a coincidence that it did so that often in such a short period of time. But I have been sensitive to the fact that he expressed annoyence about that and haven't directly mentioned it since. And since Ryan has let it be known that he doesn't like previous discussions being brought up, I will take that to heart and not do so with him from now on (of course, that might be difficult if does change his username like he said).

Obviously, I must have skimmed Mike's post too quickly as I didn't notice it was sarcastic. Nevertheless, my thank you still stands. Satire, even when directed at me, can be very refreshing. Needless to say, I don't spend dozens of hours per week on the tattler.

For the record, I have no problem with calling someone an "idiot" or even terms stronger than that. Sometimes people are idiots, and while obviously impolite and usually a discredit to the person doing the name-calling, on a fundamental level, it is usually still a response to what has actually been said, and not who's saying it.

But I do agree with ryanwc's assessment of MK's behavior as a form of cyber-stalking. In the past, MK has gone after Jake in a similar fashion, by calling him out on this blog for something he had written on another site. I find it much more personal - and typically designed to intimidate - than simple name-calling.

I think that if you're going to engage in that kind of behavior, it had better be DIRECTLY relevant. And "don't call me stupid, because last week you wrote this other stupid thing" doesn't fit the bill - there's no definition of the word "relevant" that is loose enough to include that kind of thing.

Again, when I refer to something that someone else here stated previously (either on this blog or somewhere else) it is always to make a point about what I am talking about. When I am attempting to argue with someone's point, I often find it relevant and productive to mention things that person may have stated in the past that I feel comes closer to supporting my view. It's not meant to be personal. I know that has occured with me many times. People will say things like "but wouldn't what you said earlier about x dispute what you are saying now about y". I don't mind that at all. That's all I was attempting to do with my reference to Ryan's posts on another blog. I'm sorry he took it to be an insult. It wasn't meant that way. It occurs quite often on the internet that people mistake comments as insults when they are not meant as such. Perhaps in the future I will be extra careful that I am clear I am not being insulting with those types of posts.

I have done similar things with Jake. I'll make a point about something he once said that I feel argues against what he may be stating currently. I think that is just a healthy back-and-forth. At other times, I admit I just like to tease him about his views. I don't think he minds. But if he does and tells me such I will be glad to stop. I doubt that he will as I generally tend to think that most people who are as outspoken as him welcome critisism of their views (harsh or otherwise). I know I am very happy to receive strong critisism of my opinions. Heated arguments about issues are often very productive.

And just to further clarify, when I say that "I am very happy to receive strong critisism of my opinions" I am, of course, assuming that the opinions are actually being critisized. This does not refer to occasions when someone tells me my opinion is not to be taken seriously and does not even specifically argue with what I stated, which is what started this whole dispute.

I should also mention, since I sense there might be some confusion, that my comment in which Strannix summerizes (probably correctly) as "don't call me stupid, because last week you wrote this other stupid thing" was referencing something that was stated around a week ago on this blog. My comment about Ryan's posts on another blog were made in that same thread and, as I mentioned, was not intended to be an insult.

Ryan's use of the word "Cyberstalking" also gives me some sense that perhaps he thinks that I googled his username after reading his comments and that is how I stumbled on his comments elsewhere. I really hope he doesn't believe that. I came across his posts as one normally would, reading that blog. I have made one or two comments on that blog myself (though using another username).

Yeah I don't care if MK wants to red-bait me. If (s)he thinks that's an effective rhetorical strategy in the middle of a global crisis of capitalism, then I won't stand in the way. I would much rather see MK stop the habit of making up baseless statistics to justify whatever anecdotal impression (s)he is defending.

Let me get back to what we were originally talking about because I just rewatched that 60 Minutes story for the first time since it originally aired and need to respond to some comments upthread.

"Also, keep in mind that speculators have to actually take delivery on spot oil."

I'm sorry but that is explitly contradicted by the story I linked to: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/08/60minutes/main4707770.shtml Take a look at the eighth paragraph:

"[Dan] Gilligan, [president of the Petroleum Marketers Association,] said these investors don't actually take delivery of the oil. 'All they do is buy the paper, and hope that they can sell it for more than they paid for it. Before they have to take delivery.'"

Also, take a look farther down on the page:

"In a five year period, Masters said the amount of money institutional investors, hedge funds, and the big Wall Street banks had placed in the commodities markets went from $13 billion to $300 billion. Last year, 27 barrels of crude were being traded every day on the New York Mercantile Exchange for every one barrel of oil that was actually being consumed in the United States."

You will also notice that the report mentions that a study from MIT came to a conclusion that speculation caused most of the spike in the price of oil. In addition, there was around a half dozen other very credible people in the report who stated the same thing. I strongly urge everyone (most importantly, Ryan) to click on my link and watch the story (it is only around fifteen minutes long) or read the article. I do appreciate, Stephen, that you decided to argue with me on the merits rather than make a personal attack like Ryan. But it does appear that you are wrong.

"Instead, you've chosen to belligerently restate your ignorance. Stephen gave you a pretty good summary of some of the basic price laws of economics. If you want more, you should go to an intro to economics text and read up on the slope of supply curves and demand curves. "

Ryan,

I really don't appreciate being told I am being ignorant. Again, please watch that 60 Minutes story or read the accomonying article. Then feel free to argue with the merits. What I also find rather rude and misleading is that you are accusing me of being ignorant when, even if the speculation argument was wrong (which it certainly doesn't look like), it WASN'T EVEN MY ARGUMENT. I was just mentioning that it was an argument made in this 60 Minutes story. So even putting aside that you are wrong about it being ignorant, the fact is you are also even wrong about who you are attributing the argument to. So if you do continue to state (in my opinion, against the evidence) that the idea that speculation caused the spike in fuel prices, could you please attribute the ignorance to the appropriate people? It would be those interviewed in the report, not me.

Hooray for the Circle Line...Boo to people saying buses are a good alternative. Buses. Are. Slooow. PERIOD.

I don't think anyone's saying that buses are better than rail. The question is what we do with our scarce capital dollars: pour them into a project of limited utility that would primarily benefit people who already have many transit options, or devote them to projects that would expand the system more, help low-income neighborhoods more, and maximize the possibilities for transit-oriented development. In order, major expansion projects should include the Red, Yellow, and Orange Line extensions, the Crosstown El (Mid-City Transitway), and a Western Ave subway. Only after these are complete should we turn our attention to the Circle Line.

It's interesting that during the Circle Line alternatives analysis, CTA found that a Western alignment would actually generate significantly higher ridership than the Ashland alignment. The reason Western was eliminated was that the costs of building and operating it made the cost per passenger higher.
http://www.transitchicago.com/news_initiatives/planning/circle.aspx (see esp steps 2 and 3)

Of course one thing keeping the Ashland costs down is the subsidy effectively given it by the creation of the Pink Line, which arguably wouldn't have happened if not for the Circle Line planning. But the real question should not be so narrowly conceptualized.

A Western Ave subway could have a hugely transformative impact on the city, especially if it extended north and south beyond the unambitious Circle Line boundaries (where it would probably be elevated rather than underground). The Western subway would not just be a more convenient way to connect existing El lines. Transit-oriented development would flock to the now car-dominated corridor, giving Chicago the opportunity to create a huge swathe of vibrant urban development where cars are almost unnecessary. As global warming and traffic congestion make auto-dependent lifestyles less and less viable, this kind of (admittedly massive) investment will look increasingly attractive.

I read quite a ways into the CBS piece, and they still hadn't found a better source than the head of the Petroleum Marketers Association, so I gave up. Gee, he doesn't have any reason to try to bluff a tv reporter into thinking it's all the fault of those speculators, does he? (Not that the oil price is the fault of gas station owners and home heating oil providers, but they were getting the brunt of naive public anger, and looking for a target to deflect it.)

TV is a waste of time. Here's a better article for anyone who is interested in the question of oil prices.:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11670357

By the way, I happen to live in the little area where the 145 bus no longer travels. There's a reason people over here wouldn't have seen signs about the change, if there were any. The bus circles north, then comes back south two blocks to the end of the line. If you catch the bus over here, you'd have to wait for 10 minutes at the end of the route, sometimes watching an earlier bus pull out as your bus pulls in for the driver's break. And some drivers would be sticklers and tell you you couldn't ride around without paying a second fare.

So we either walk over to Ravenswood and get on while the bus is stopped. Or we take the el south and then the bus north, where, like right-thinking and considerate bus patrons everywhere, we exit using the rear door. We wouldn't always see signs, if there were any.

Notably, there were no signs on any of the buses I took mentioning the change. It's a rude awakening to be dumped from your bus a few blocks from where you expected to be dropped off, even if it's not a huge deal to walk those few blocks.

MK

You do not have to take delivery on forward future months, but if you are trading spot (the nearest month of delivery) you do have to take delivery if you hold that position at the time of expiration. So lets say it is all speculators as you say and everyone is long ths spot month and begins to "roll" (sell spot and buy the next month) their position as expiration approaches, that would hammer spot prices into the ground and inflate the futures price.

Point is, you must take delivery on spot at expiration. You can't just speculate as easily as you or this (misleading) report have suggested.

Banks investing more heavily in commodities doesn't cause the rules of supply and demand to be suspended. Also, the 60 minutes report seems to gloss over very important details regarding its insinuations. Okay there is $300 billion more invested in commodities, where does that number come from? Are they including commodity based exchange traded funds (cash settled, need for delivery not necessary)? options on oil futures? Swap agreements? Purchases of mines, oil fields, farms, et cetera?? Bottom line, there are dozens of ways to "invest" in commodities, but none undermine the basic law of supply and demand.

And yes a Goldman analyst predicted oil would go to $200, but shortly after that prediction Goldman Sachs announced they would stop making forecasts because they conceded it was too difficult to predict oil prices (something that 60 minutes report neglected to mention).

The report was exactly right when it said that supply was increasing during the runup, but the fall in demand didn't fall until about 2 months later after the shock of high prices. This coupled with the beginning of a global recession left the market with an oversupply of oil and too little demand to sustain price levels.

I could easily find dozens of highly regarded economists who would echo my sentiments, the most obvious is last year's Nobel Prize winner in economics: Paul Krugman.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/more-on-oil-and-speculation/

Jake,

I couldn't agree more. A Western Avenue Subway would really Change the way people live in Chicago.

Well, having lived within a block of Western Avenue for nearly 30 years now, I certainly agree. Transformative would certainly be the word; it would be quite possibly the best single thing that could happen to neighborhoods like mine, a great thing for the city as a whole, and exactly the kind of project American cities should be planning for given the changes we're facing in energy and the environment.

The Peotone airport, by contrast, is exactly the kind of planning we should be abandoning. DBX's term is sopt on--"deranged."

No doubt, unfortunately, as to which one will actually happen.

Some of these comments on the Circle Line remind me of the adage "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Of course a Western Avenue subway would be a great boon for transit in Chicago -- but for a small fraction of the cost, the Circle Line can provide several of the same key links (especially for Metra-CTA network integration).

The other thing that gets me are the unsubstianted assertions about how much cheaper the 20-mile Mid-City line would be than the 5-mile Circle Line! Say what? Show me the cost estimate! And even at 20-miles the Mid-City still wouldn't connect every CTA and Metra line in the city.

Finally, let's keep in mind (as some on this blog have recognized) that the Circle Line not only serves network travel demands that exist today, but also will allow much more intensive development of the Ashland corridor than the #9 bus alone will ever do. This is really important. The Medical District already represents a key center of activity in the region, but with woeful transit access (especially Metra connections). The whole Ashland corrodor from Archer to North could one day be a vital high-density spine -- a much more realistic vision than thinking that someday the Mid-City (or even Western) corridors will be likewise...