Looking at that budget, it is criminal what the CTA locked in as its fuel cost for 2009. $4.43 a gallon comes out to just 20 cents a gallon under the all time high in July 2008 and a full $2.00 higher than it's current rate. Why in the HELL would they negotiate a fuel contract during summer months when fuel prices are naturally higher?

When is Springfield going to get off their asses and drop this free rides bullshit. There should be a clause in there that forces these stupid politicians to personally come up with the differance that the free rides cost. After all, they're buying votes, they might as well pay for them.

Are the union payraises guaranteed by law?

Of course there's a substantial expense involved, but:

1) It's only fair that those travelling farther pay more, and

2) Capital expenses come from a different budget.

As for support, if politicians will only support rail in their own back yard, then it's being sold to them (and the public) using the wrong arguments. If a rail system that maintains a its present form and adds only in a more compact scope costs less per rider, enabling better overall transit at the periphery, then that is how you sell it. You want people to be able to reach as many places as possible in a metro area via transit. But you don't want to encourage frivilous long-distance travel through irrational pricing, either. Extra cost for express buses, and for longer rail rides, is fair to riders and just good business. Setting fares so that most trips are, say $2, short trips are $1, and long trips are up to $5 is fair and encourage good use. Regardless of the capital cost, getting transit right so that it becomes a natural part of living in Chicago is worth the investment.

About D.C.: Chicago would be refocusing an existing system, D.C. is still in their build-out phase.

Basically. It's in their contract, so it's guaranteed by contract law. Of course contracts can be rewritten with the consent of both parties.

Ok, I'm still learning about this state's messed up union contracts. I know some of the union's contracts need the state's constitution to be amended in order to change, so I wasn't sure if that included the CTA.

You're probably referring to pension benefits being guaranteed by the constitution. This provision makes sense if you think about it, since otherwise the retirement benefits would effectively be meaningless. Anything not protected constitutionally will be taken by a politician placating the mob at one point or another.

And no, a labor contract cannot be modified without the consent of both parties. If I'm not mistaken, that's actually a U.S. Constitution issue - nothing to do with Illinois in particular.

The relevant stat here is the cost per service hour, since time is the only constant between cities for practical purposes. LA has longer trip lengths, wider stop spacing, and higher average speeds than Chicago, and Chicago has higher in all of the above than does New York, a function of the built environment rather than the agency. On a per hour basis, you can see that most agencies are in the same range, except for NYCTA (where the union contracts are so cushy it makes CTA look like Dickensian London) and WMATA.

In an ironic reversal from the 1979 snowstorm debacle, people making longer CTA trips are now of lower income than those making short trips. While I don't disagree with your logic, distance-based fares are a total non-starter from a Title VI/Environmental Justice/Social Standpoint, not even getting into the tens of millions in capital costs involved before such a system could be operationalized. While you and I could make convincing arguments to each other, I doubt we'd have a good response in the papers when someone asks why we want to charge the poor working single mother traveling from 95th to O'Hare overnight $5 but only charge Old Town yuppies $1.75. Beyond that, the Feds probably wouldn't even allow it for that reason, since any change has to be considered based on it's impact on certain protected classes. Since WMATA was built with distance-based fares, it doesn't face the same burden of proof to continue an existing system versus switching to a new one.

It's in a contract, so it's legally enforcable, yes. CTA's current union agreements were made via binding arbitration, i.e. CTA management didn't agree to them but rather the terms were forced down their throats by a labor arbitrator. At the same time as the most recent contract went into effect, "doomsday" was dramatically accelerated because of an immediately skyrocketing unfunded retirement benefit liability that required ever increasing employer contributions.

Yikes. Do you guys expect these fare hikes, reductions to go through?

What about peak-period fare increases? It can be done with little to no additional capital cost, since it still only requires the farecard to be swiped once. They just need to have a clock in the farebox, which IIRC is already installed and shows up on the little LED screen.

If, as you seemed to indicate, a large percentage of low-income riders are traveling at off-peak times, then the peak-period increases would affect largely middle-class and upper-class commuters who work a 9-5. They'd grumble, of course, but it's better than an across the board raise, because the alternative options suck during AM and PM rush hour. The roads are clogged and taxis are occupied. It would also avoid the problem of decreasing the off-peak ridership, and it wouldn't discourage people from using transit for socialization or running errands any more than the current pricing does.

Although SSP posters are hardly representative of the average CTA rider, I see many of the above comments where people talk about taking a cab when they go out at night, but few people threatening to start driving to work or taking a daily cab ride to work. The only cost-effective alternative to a peak-period CTA commute to downtown is a carpool, but that means a big loss of personal freedom to arrive and leave work when one chooses.

I'm not sure how it would work regarding passes. Either pass prices would have to increase dramatically, or CTA would have to sell two different types of passes for each price level. Buses, which provide non-downtown-centric service, may have a greater proportion of low-income riders during peak periods, so the strategy would have to shift on buses.

Which brings up a point I hear absolutely every bus rider complain about. Why on earth does the CTA have so many bus stops? There is literally a bus stop every BLOCK on most routes!

IMO this whole agency needs to be shaken up.

Well, its not really protected by the clause you quoted. The clause you quoted essentially prohibits any individual state from acting in roles reserved for the federal government such as creating a currency or signing an international agreement.

The contracts are protected by one of the most over looked human rights; property rights. Contract law is almost entirely focused on protecting the rights of people to own property and make contracts. Property rights have been around so long (since the Magna Carta) that they are hardly mentioned in the constitution, but rather assumed. The only mentions of them in the constitution come when it prohibits the government from taking the property of citizens or from forcing them to house soldiers and things of that manner. From the basic right of property comes contract law where people are able to sign agreements on just about any property from their house to their work. The labor of the CTA Employees is considered their property (consideration) and thus this contract is protected indirectly by the US Constitution.

I don't know if that made sense, but that's where the protection of the contract comes from. Its mainly a long line of legal precedent that is derived from long before the US Constitution (though the US Constitution reinforced and enhanced these rights against the transgressions that the founders of our nation experienced under British rule).

All I know is this: there are going to be a lot more cars on the roads now, because $3.00 takes away cost benefit for many riders. Then, in return, the cta will lose ridership and need another fare hike to cover the loss of ridership. If your vehicle gets 20 miles/gal, why would you continue riding cta if you did in the first place because it was cheaper? Plus, you don't deal with weather, crowded public spaces, and a somewhat unreliable cta performance. How did the U.S.A go from the most productive and efficient country in history to being perhaps the most inefficient nation on earth today? Why would I pay $3.00 to walk six blocks in crap weather and spend 35 minutes on the redline when it costs $2.00 in gas and 20 minutes to get to the same place? I don't care about the environment THAT much.

Believe me, every 10 years CTA planners propose to remove ~30% of bus stops citywide, to not only speed up service, but make it more reliable (due to more consistent and manageable dwell times) and cheaper to operate due to the lowered vehicle requirement. Fun tidbit: Out of around 12,000 bus stops in the CTA system, the busiest 10% account for 75% of ridership, and the top 20% account for 85% of ridership.

Then the proposal hits the reality of politics. Turns out people like having bus stops right in front of their origin and destination, and let their elected officials know it. Not only residents, but also businesses. But beyond politics, the negatives of frequent stops are simply outweighed by the positives from a user benefit standpoint, which becomes evident in practice. In fact, in a very recent example (still ongoing, actually), CTA experimentally changed the service ratios on the 80/X80, 55/X55, and 49/X49 routes to more heavily emphasize the limited-stop services. Ridership on all corridors plummeted.

Am I missing something?

Ok, the sanctity of contracts is a Common Law tradition, but in terms of actual laws on the books, it's a US Constitution issue, no? It's definitely not a State of Illinois issue.

It varies from person to person based on the car they drive, but the IRS reimbursement rate of around $0.50 per mile for driving is a pretty good approximation of the true cost of a marginal auto trip (i.e. it includes maintenance and depreciation caused by the added mileage, in addition to fuel use).

The elasticity of transit demand would be at the mid-range of trip lengths, for trips that are a few miles in length and have free/cheap parking at both ends. Even at $2 or $2.25, transit compares unfavorably with other options for very short trips, and that won't change.

Yes, the current fare system could implement peak/off-peak pricing without much effort/investment. Previous 'doomsday' scenarios over the past few years have indeed included peak/off-peak pricing. Such pricing schemes are, as suggested, generally a good way to raise revenue, but pursuing that avenue too far begins to lose sight of the mission/purpose behind public funding of transit in the first place. Remember, someone choosing to take transit during the peak/congested periods has much more social benefit in terms of reduced congestion and air pollution than in the off-peak, and peak surcharges discourages that. It's good business, but bad public policy. If one puts the social justice considerations of providing round-the-clock regional accessibility to all out of the picture for a moment, a big part of the justification for subsidizing transit is that each person who takes transit instead of driving in the peak benefits every driver on the roads. That's an easy sell across all political stripes, as compared to pitching transit as a welfare program.

Thanks for all the feedback guys, although I was aware of general contractual obligations and their legal precedent. I was more so asking if it would require amending the state constitution in order to eliminate the pay raises.

You're making the (faulty) assumptions that 1) everyone already has a car, and 2) everyone travels to places with abundant free or nearly-free parking. Some people who already have cars and only travel to strip malls and quiet neighborhoods may drive more, although I suspect that people who already have cars and travel mostly to those destinations are already driving there.

I'm sick of all these entitlements and the general sense of entitlment in the American public. These union workers, as the general population is oh so aware of right now, have no right to a raise, or a pension, or lifetime employment, or even a job at all for that matter. They should have to earn those things. I think its time to make Illinois a right to work state and watch these union fools dissolve when they have to face competition from the 11% of Illinois who doesn't have a job and is willing to work just as hard for less. CTA (and the city of Chicago for that matter) has financial problems for many of the same reasons that GM and Chrysler have problems, too many unions with too much of a "these are our jobs and we have a right to plunder everyone elses bank account to maintain them" attitude. Tell me, what benefits do the 9 million citizens of Chicago gain from the CTA union? NONE.

Maybe I am wrong, but I think that part of the clause (you bolded) is only to prevent states from trying to make a law that would completely upend or significantly alter the common law system. In any case, I was really just trying to add clarity to the origins of the contract in our system, not so much to argue against you.

Haha - get real. I mean, I agree with you, but Illinois is one of the most union-friendly states in the US.

Honestly, organized labor was meant to give an advantage to unskilled workers, which is why it doesn't make sense for teachers and the like, who have advanced educations and don't have a right to unionize any more than I would as an architect or accountant or computer programmer.

My personal preference would be the passage of a law preventing government employees from unionizing. Low-level employees of private companies have almost no control over the management's decisions. Public employees have control over their bosses, since we live in a democracy, which means that the additional control imposed by unions creates a completely unfair inequality between public "management" and public "labor", which ends up screwing ALL of us over since WE pay their salaries.

CTA should really call out the transit unions for their role in the current budget crisis and try to curry public opinion in their favor. The fact that they don't do this indicates that they don't want the unions to air some dirty laundry. I liked Huberman - he had the balls to do that sort of thing and deal with the fallout. Rodriguez seems to have a softer approach.

^^^
Unions have outlived their useful life. Period. It used to be that when you worked for the state or federal government, you were paid less on the front end with the understanding that your retirement was secure. Now people are paid very comparably with other professions and still have that silver parachute waiting for them when they retire at 28 years.

Seriously, something needs to be done. There's a MASSIVE underfunded pension obligation coming due because of the ridiculous deals that were struk some years ago, and the result will be the crippling of entire economies as the result of it. Something needs to be fixed.

For deferred compensation (which pensions are a type of) to really make financial sense, the source of the future payments has to be a high-growth source, or at least grow faster than the the future value of money. In business, it can be perfectly reasonable to plan for growth that's faster than the future value of money. But for government to plan on their revenue stream growing faster than the future value of money basically means they're planning on raising taxes, or they're planning on just the pension portion growing faster, which means they'd have to reduce other services. Those are really your only two options with deferred compensation in the form of pension - raise taxes or reduce other services.

There's this thing called investment... it tends to make money grow faster than it otherwise would without raising taxes or cutting services.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but the flipside of the coin is... management declaring war on the unions would have two significant adverse impacts. Firstly, there would be little hope of cooperation between the two parties for a generation - every decision would end up going to binding arbitration. Secondly, morale among rank-and-file operating employees (90% of CTA's labor budget) would plummet - think of United Airlines in this regard. An unhappy and bitter operating labor force would likely not translate into stellar service quality and attitude.

I'm not advocating one position or another, just presenting reasoning for why one might play things cool, at least in public, when dealing with union labor.

Binding arbitration isn't the worst thing in the world, depending on who picks the arbitrator. And as for service quality - it's not as if the drivers and motormen and station agents are the politest people around. Although there are isolated cases of kind and helpful CTA employees, I hear far more horror stories. Most modern corporations have developed structures to reward employees when they provide good service and reprimand them when they don't, but the byzantine and adversarial world of union labor prevents such modern innovations.

Lastly, there's a difference between "declaring war" and shifting the blame to where it belongs. Everyone is cutting back, there are pay cuts, furlough days, and outright layoffs everywhere - why should the union workers get raises? The CTA would be JUSTIFIED for any statements that blame unions for the budget crisis. If management is careful in the message it sends, making SURE to indicate that their anger is motivated by the poor economy and not a general anti-union sentiment, with maybe some vague references to improvements once the economy improves, then I don't think the union can afford to bear a grudge.

Organized labor thrives on the premise that management and labor have diametrically opposed goals, and that exploitation of workers is the natural result unless labor is empowered. Maybe it's just me, but this seems awfully outdated when a new generation of business thinking has made management aware of and concerned with the fair treatment and good morale of employees.

Well, the last time CTA went to binding arbitration, the arbitrator awarded a contract that bankrupted the agency within 3 years and gave the unions everything. A few month's ago, the New York MTA went to binding arbitration, and the unions were awarded 11% in raises over the next 3 years, which management has vowed not to pay (which would be against the law) with the unions responding by gearing up for significant 'work action' (skirting the line with a strike, which would be illegal). So binding arbitration in a transit labor context doesn't seem to be batting at too high an average lately.

There are days I'd consider unhappy and bitter a signifigant upgrade from the lazy and uncaring treatment we are accustomed to.

^oh its not that bad lol I ride it everyday

Which is exactly why the whole concept of labor unions as it applies to public sector employees is completely backwards and inefficient. I still say break the union by making Illinois a right-to-work state and let those who actually want to drive a bus and be friendly to their passengers and accept only market pay-raises, not straight-line 3.5% pay raises regardless of performance, have the jobs... Oh and also kill the teachers union while we're at it so CPS can have a chance to stop sucking within the next 20 years...

The future value of money is basically the result of the cumulative investment of an entire economy. The larger your pool of funds, the harder it is to beat that, and the more important the funds are, the smaller the tolerance for risk for the investor(s) and the lower the possible return is. It's critical to remember that hindsight is always 20/20 but foresight is never certain.

Besides, investment might be part of the answer for a pension that is fully funded from day one, but the State of Illinois pensions including the CTA pensions are NOT fully funded, which means at some point they will have to be paid for from general revenues.

Finally, the pensions are, as far as I know, fixed monthly benefit, based on what the people earn at retirement, but not fixed contribution and not fixed in length. That means that regardless of what investment returns are, the state still has to pay out a certain amount. Over the long term, in theory, that could even out. However, I have my doubts that it does even out in practice for most pensions. This is why most private companies have done away with pensions. If even private companies, who one would think understand the idea of investment better than most governments do, don't think pensions can work, then I really don't see why you're grasping at straws defending "investment" as the answer. "Investment" is a nice buzzword learned in Econ 101, but in the real world even experts don't always pick winning stocks, and there are plenty of losing investments that, even in good times, partially offset the winning ones. You can't point to the results of Goldman Sachs or 2009 Citadel as what government pensions should be doing any more than you can point to Ferrari when your Ford Escort fails to dazzle you with accelleration. "Planning" on stellar performance isn't a real plan.

Motorists urged to stay off downtown expressways
October 14, 2009 3:50 PM

The public is being warned to avoid downtown Chicago expressways after pavement was damaged during construction work on the northbound Kennedy Expressway at Adams Street.

"We're advising people to stay off the downtown expressways for the next 24 hours," said Marisa Kollias, a spokeswoman for the Illinois Department of Transportation. "This is a major crisis."

Workers were pumping concrete into an underground freight tunnel this morning when "pressure made the road erupt," according to an IDOT dispatcher.

Kollias said the northbound Kennedy was reduced this afternoon to one lane of traffic around the site of the construction mishap.

The damaged pavement is just north of where the Kennedy connects to the Dan Ryan and Eisenhower expressways.

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/3200/kennedy640.jpg

Winners from the comment section:
"predictable": This wouldn't have happened IF EVERYONE ON THE ROAD HAD GUNS! The concrete would be too SCARED to collapse.

"Terry Kilpatrick": There must be a Nobel Prize in this for somebody. Nominations are now open.

"Sean Grady": Good thing those five guys are standing in a circle and talking. That looks like an effective means of road repair.

I didn't know there were any freight tunnels that far west?

Apparently...

http://shawnfoconnor.com/ChicagoTunnels/pics/Map.jpg

Those things were 6 feet wide and 7 feet tall. It's too bad they couldn't have cleared out two of them, say up Clark and Dearborn, and make them one-way pedestrian corridors through the loop. Might not be used by many people, but it would be handy in the winter. Just have an exit somewhere with an elevator every two blocks. Maybe do the same east-west on Monroe and Adams.

I know there's the Pedway - but it's such a mish-mash, doesn't go many places, and makes you wind around, up and down, etc.

Also - what was up with the Brown Line this morning? From Belmont straight to the Loop was completely backed up the entire way. Took almost 30 minutes just to go a few stops. People were getting really pissed off.

^^^ A lot of the transit system today has been completely backed up from what I've seen. LSD was much heavier traffic than normal and all the express buses were bunching. I imagine the Brown Line got backed up from more people than normal crowding the doors and doubling the time each train has to wait at each station.

Red Line trains were rerouted to the elevated south of Fullerton starting around 7am because someone fell on the tracks in the subway downtown.

I believe that the freight tunnels are quite deep - I think they're deeper than the subway although I can't cite any source for that right now.

Not to mention that they're not exactly safe places, not having been designed with any modern safety measures.

Subway
 

1920 NY Times article about putting subways in Chicago under the sidewalks instead of under the streets. Whatever happened to that plan? ;)

Sorry to jump back in the thread, but 2 pages ago nomarandee posted a circle line article

Quote:
Pitula opposes Circle Line plans that involve the Ashland corridor. Instead, he advocates for the improvement of bus services along Cicero Avenue. "It's cost-effective and flexible and allows you to provide public transportation for all," he said.
Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune

this reminded me of two things.

One the Cicero avenue line proposal I've seen in many places, sometimes proposed as a subway, sometimes proposed as a line in the rail ROW to the east. My experiences of Cicero driving made me think of this, because being stuck on a bus in traffic on Cicero is the only thing I could think of that would be more frustrating than taking the train all the way downtown to transfer to another line.

and secondly an idea that had struck me during discussions in Cincinnati about streetcars as a way of attracting development coupled with light rail transfer points along a line. Which is:

To develop a tram/streetcar line on the boulevard system.
Starting out as two 3-4mi lines,
1) Logan Square to Garfield Park (Blue to Green)
2) Science and Industry to Garfield Green Line (South Shore and Green)
eventually being expanded to one 20mi line. through the entire green belt.

I think of this, because the boulevards are greatly underutilized public spaces, with one way streets bordering them in opposing directions for most of the distance. As well as that they run through some neighborhoods that could use the investment, with minimal impact or cost. Two 3+ mile lines would cost the city around $300 million and not require utility relocation. They also exist in an area about equal in distance from the Circle Line as the Circle Line is from downtown other than the portion near UofC

anyway, looking for thoughts, I might make a map of what this would look like at some point, but only if there is actually any interest in me explaining the idea further.

First good photos of 5000 series test cars. Rumor has it the fronts you see here, which are virtually identical to the 2600 and 3200 series cars, will be updated (fingers crossed) with the production units.

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s...00BrynMarw.jpg

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s...terlocking.jpg


The rest: http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=843726

I've had this same thought since the first time I saw the Boulevards. Originally, Diversey was part of the Boulevard system, although you could hardly tell that today, and it'd be a hard sell to do the work necessary to push trams all the way to Lincoln Park, despite the fact it would be really useful.

yeah, I've been considering, if when drawing a map of this idea, I should show a final phase extending down Logan Blvd to where it meets up with what was intended to be Diversey Blvd.

The question becomes, Do you circle back and loop down on Western? or Do you go all the way down Diversey to the lake?

Diversey would be congested with trams and cars and buses, but a car less Diversey after Clybourn with only buses and trams might not be inconceivable 20yrs down the line.

No, the trains weren't very crowded actually - definitely something signal related.

I'm assuming it was the Red Line. Crazy how putting Red Lines northbound on the elevated structure can cripple the southbound brown line within an hour. I'm assuming Green, Orange and Pink had problems as well then.

..

^^
one of the tsunamis left in the wake of the Rod

also mayor, I think it would only be northbound green since everything else runs on opposite track from brown line

Anybody else less than excited to see that the new 5000 series look identical to the 3200's?

^Like was mentioned, there is still word that a more "stylish" cab end will make it into the production units. Those pics are of the test units, for all we know a final cab end "face" is still being designed. Although, I do admit that I don't see what the point of these test units not having the complete look of what will be produced is.

^^ Obviously, the new AC motors, as well as brakes and everything else, must work properly in all situations that might arise on the CTA system. Interior design and exterior design are just window dressing, so those don't really matter at this point.

It doesn't change the basic functionality of the railcar to put a different front on, so that doesn't need to be included in the testing phases. In fact, the resemblance to the 3200s is probably intentional for the early cars, so that they can be tested inconspicuously.

A new front, from a functional perspective, will only matter as much as it affects driver visibility, and how the lights and signage on the front works - relatively minor features in the grand scheme of things. Likewise, I'm sure these cars don't even have the fancy stuff inside, although they probably *do* have the longitudinal seating.

Testing compatibility with the power delivery and cab-signal track circuits throughout the entire system - particularly in winter. Apparently both systems presented major design challenges. Particularly, I heard there was a lot of concern about the new propulsion system causing interference in the cab signaling system that is transmitted through the running rails.

did you put do in stars because they won't have longitudinal seating, because from my understanding they had axed the nyc like seating do to rider complaints on the MAX trains they tested on the brown line.

I found some neat graphics of a Carroll Transitway station buried in 300 N. LaSalle's PD application. That was in 2005, so these are at least 4 years old. There appears to be a direct-ish connection to the Merchandise Mart L station, which is a big plus, and a landscaped decked plaza over Carroll that is shared by Helene Curtis Building, 300 N LaSalle and EnV, in which the CTA stairs and such would be located. Note: the drawings refer to "rails" and a "curbed busway" so I guess they are meant to be noncommittal.

The drawings do answer some questions I had about how loading-dock and parking operations would work around the transit line. Basically, there would be two grade crossings of the line, at Lower LaSalle and at a point just south of EnV. I assume there would be appropriate signaling at these crossings, depending on the technology used (bus or light rail). 300 N LaSalle's parking entrance and loading dock entrance are along the east side under LaSalle, so they don't dump traffic into Carroll. EnV itself includes a roadway on the lower level connecting Kinzie and Carroll leading to the second grade crossing. The platform is set between the two crossings.

Plaza Level
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/920...itwayupper.jpg

Track Level
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/848...itwaylower.jpg

They really should do the decking regardless of whether there's a transitway. It could function as a nice plaza in the summer and would certainly make access to the station easier on weekends when sometimes the Mart locks up their Wells doors forcing people to walk a block to the middle and a block back just to get into the station.