SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   CHICAGO: Transit Developments (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=101657)

Haworthia Feb 16, 2009 6:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChicagoChicago (Post 4091172)
The idea that capital spending from a “stimulus” package could be diverted just to pay the bills makes me want to vomit.

The state needs to secure a permanent, recession proof way to fund transit. Come on Pat, it’s been a week. Whatcha got?

I agree, it is sickening to tap that money just to keep the lights on. We've been doing it for a while which is how we got in the Slow Zone mess that's now being resolved.

But, recession proof funding? I doubt there is such a thing.

- Sales tax?
Declines with consumer spending

- Real estate transfer tax?
Sensitive to housing booms and busts, declines in a shrinking housing market

- Income tax?
Declines when wages and employment recede

- Property taxes?
Declines as property values decline

- Casino or lottery revenue?
Declines with declining consumer spending

- Windfall profits on corporations?
Declines when corporate profits turn sour like now

- Gas tax?
Declines with either high fuel prices (since people cut down on trips) or a declining economy

You'd be stuck taxing Ramen Noodles, the Nintendo Wii, iPhones, and purchases made at Walmart. Those are the few things that seem to be defying economic gravity.

Chicago3rd Feb 16, 2009 7:11 PM

The cuts proposed last year were huge. They were doomsday for those of us who love using Mass Transit and have to. Now...make short fall even larger.....it ain't just an inconvenence.

VivaLFuego Feb 16, 2009 7:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChicagoChicago (Post 4091172)
The idea that capital spending from a “stimulus” package could be diverted just to pay the bills makes me want to vomit.

The state needs to secure a permanent, recession proof way to fund transit. Come on Pat, it’s been a week. Whatcha got?

Federal money can't be diverted to cover operating costs, but local money can.

Abner Feb 16, 2009 7:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChicagoChicago (Post 4091172)
The idea that capital spending from a “stimulus” package could be diverted just to pay the bills makes me want to vomit.

The prevention of job cuts is every bit as stimulative as the creation of new jobs. Stopping the CTA from ceasing operation entirely in 2010 is significantly more stimulative than almost any other kind of spending conceivable.

The concept of a funding mechanism that requires a balanced budget every year yet does not require cuts during recessions is complete fantasy. There is simply no such thing unless you increase taxes during the recession, which is counterproductive. The federal government has the capacity to borrow against future good times to keep vital services operating during the bad, a capacity not shared by state and local governments. This is pretty straightforward.

VivaLFuego Feb 16, 2009 7:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haworthia (Post 4091245)
But, recession proof funding? I doubt there is such a thing.

Well, property taxes are recession proof, since the taxing body basically just specifies their total levy and backs into the tax rate each year. You know exactly how much money you'll be getting. Of course, in Chicago and Cook County, we've made the collective political decision that property taxes are a sacred cow and to use them to do stuff like fund a government would force granny to an unacceptable diet of cat food...

That said, part of the "logic" behind Sales Tax funding for transit is that transit ridership is somewhat correlated with economic activity; as tax receipts go down during an economic contraction, transit service would scale down accordingly. Of course, a politician is unlikely to say this outright - it's more the economist's explanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abner (Post 4091363)
The federal government has the capacity to borrow against future good times to keep vital services operating during the bad, a capacity not shared by state and local governments. This is pretty straightforward.

Of course state and local governments can borrow money. Not only can they literally take out loans or establish lines of credit, but they can also issue bonds based on future expected revenue - and those bonds are tax free. This is how Huberman paid for the rapid slow zone removal and dramatically accelerated bus purchases: bond issues against future revenue (under the premise that the annual interest expense is less than the money saved in terms of maintenance, fare revenue, etc.). They can't print money like the Treasury, but this is a pretty big distinction.

ChicagoChicago Feb 16, 2009 8:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abner (Post 4091363)
The prevention of job cuts is every bit as stimulative as the creation of new jobs. Stopping the CTA from ceasing operation entirely in 2010 is significantly more stimulative than almost any other kind of spending conceivable.

I suppose that my concern is that capital funding being used to cover operating costs is stimulating anything, instead it is just maintaining what we have.

This news ought to give Quinn the green light to scrap Blago’s free rides for granny.

ChicagoChicago Feb 16, 2009 8:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego (Post 4091359)
Federal money can't be diverted to cover operating costs, but local money can.

Everything I've seen from the stimulus package is essentially giving the states a blank check with almost zero limitations.

Abner Feb 16, 2009 8:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego (Post 4091365)
Well, property taxes are recession proof, since the taxing body basically just specifies their total levy and backs into the tax rate each year. You know exactly how much money you'll be getting. Of course, in Chicago and Cook County, we've made the collective political decision that property taxes are a sacred cow and to use them to do stuff like fund a government would force granny to an unacceptable diet of cat food...

That said, part of the "logic" behind Sales Tax funding for transit is that transit ridership is somewhat correlated with economic activity; as tax receipts go down during an economic contraction, transit service would scale down accordingly. Of course, a politician is unlikely to say this outright - it's more the economist's explanation.

Of course state and local governments can borrow money. Not only can they literally take out loans or establish lines of credit, but they can also issue bonds based on future expected revenue - and those bonds are tax free. This is how Huberman paid for the rapid slow zone removal and dramatically accelerated bus purchases: bond issues against future revenue (under the premise that the annual interest expense is less than the money saved in terms of maintenance, fare revenue, etc.). They can't print money like the Treasury, but this is a pretty big distinction.

The mechanism by which state and local governments borrow money is rather different from the mechanism by which the federal government borrows money (and I don't mean printing money). State and local governments in general have much harder times borrowing against the future, in large part because the interest rates they face are far higher (Treasury rates right now are basically zero, and if they were to shoot up, it would mean much bigger problems than CTA funding). Who is going to lend a few hundred million dollars to the CTA, and what would the price of such a loan be? And don't you think there is a pretty major difference between the CTA receiving money as aid and receiving it as a loan?

ChicagoChicago, I agree that when the CTA uses capital funds to pay for operating expenses, that is a problem. But that's not what I'm talking about. You say giving money to prevent job cuts is not stimulative. Well, in the absence of the aid money, the CTA would be cutting, apparently, thousands of jobs, and according to one startling sentence in Hilkevitch's column, might have to cease operation entirely. With the aid, they will cut far fewer and may not have to cut at all if the aid is large enough. That is stimulus.

VivaLFuego Feb 16, 2009 9:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abner (Post 4091431)
The mechanism by which state and local governments borrow money is rather different from the mechanism by which the federal government borrows money (and I don't mean printing money). State and local governments in general have much harder times borrowing against the future, in large part because the interest rates they face are far higher (Treasury rates right now are basically zero, and if they were to shoot up, it would mean much bigger problems than CTA funding). Who is going to lend a few hundred million dollars to the CTA, and what would the price of such a loan be?

Ok, but if the Treasury were being used to fund state/local governments, the added risk would be priced in. Generally speaking, the market (with of course influence from the Fed) will dictate these borrowing costs. What more should be done, exactly? Removing statutes mandating a balanced budget would put the paychecks, benefits, and retirement funds of all public workers at risk. The only longer-term solution at the federal level would be to once again have transit operating subsidies as a line item in the federal budget, but that doesn't seem to be under serious consideration at this time - last time it was tried, a body of research developed showing that the vast majority of the cash infusion was immediately absorbed as increased pay/benefits for union workers rather than to hold down fares or increase service levels. Maybe enough time has passed that people will forget that and such a program would be politically palatable again, but considering the current antipathy towards the UAW I have my doubts.

Abner Feb 16, 2009 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego (Post 4091526)
Ok, but if the Treasury were being used to fund state/local governments, the added risk would be priced in.

Not really. Federal stimulus is a grant, not a loan, so it's meaningless to speak of the riskiness of bodies receiving aid. You would be talking about the risk that the federal government would default on its debt, which is considered negligible: it will continue to pay out on treasuries no matter what, for as long as the government continues to exist. The increase in risk of the federal government going bankrupt due to providing aid to local governments is small enough to be ignored (if it weren't, as I said, people wouldn't be willing to park their money in treasuries for essentially zero return right now). This is just one of many factors that make federal borrowing fundamentally different from borrowing by any other organization.

If we keep on with this we'd better make sure to keep it transit-focused; I stay out of that "OBAMA transit" thread for a reason.

Ch.G, Ch.G Feb 17, 2009 4:30 PM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...692,full.story

Quote:

Pedestrian deaths in Chicago are up despite safety measures
Agency looking into reasons for 56 fatalities in 2008

By Tracy Swartz | RedEye
February 17, 2009

Pedestrian deaths are on the rise in Chicago, despite increased safety measures such as red-light cameras, countdown signals and crosswalk awareness initiatives.

Fifty-six pedestrian fatalities were logged last year—up from 49 deaths in 2007 and 48 deaths in 2006. Chicago Department of Transportation spokesman Brian Steele said the agency is reviewing the reasons behind the uptick but said in certain cases, problems with pavement markings, faulty signage and construction projects may be to blame.

Steele also pointed to an increase in pedestrians in Chicago—named the country's fourth most walkable large city in 2008 by Walk Score.

Still, Steele said, "One fatality is one too many. Fifty-odd pedestrian fatalities is close to an average of one a week, and that's far too many. We're committed to this, and the most difficult part of this is changing driver behavior."

A RedEye analysis of pedestrian fatality data provided by the Illinois Department of Transportation revealed deaths occurred across the city, but there were clusters of fatal crashes at intersections along Lake Shore Drive, Stony Island Avenue, Madison Street and Ashland Avenue. RedEye found problems persist at intersections that employ even the costliest safeguards.

One of these hot spots is the intersection of Chicago and Cicero Avenues. Children are constantly crossing the thoroughfare, which is near an elementary school. A nearby health clinic run by Cook County draws a fair amount of foot and motorist traffic to the area. Two major CTA routes, the No. 66-Chicago Avenue bus and the No. 54-Cicero Avenue bus, also cross paths there.

When Stormi Davis crosses the intersection, she doesn't walk—she jogs.

"You're taking a chance with that light," said Davis, 21, who lives in Austin. "It's just hectic traffic. Like being on the expressway."

But motorists shouldn't shoulder all the blame, said Jansen "John" Daoud, who runs a convenience store that faces the Chicago-Cicero intersection.

"Kids and adults cross ... illegally," said Daoud of Skokie. "Then cars come too fast."

Daoud says he sees two to three accidents there a week, including some that involve pedestrians.

Last year, there were 29 calls to 311 about the Chicago-Cicero intersection, said Jennifer Martinez, spokeswoman for the Office of Emergency Management and Communications. Residents phoned about potholes, street marking paint requests, malfunctioning traffic and street lights and traffic issues.

The city tried to address some traffic issues by installing a red-light camera there in 2007. Two pedestrians died at or near that intersection in separate cases in 2008.

In October, a motorist gunned the engine to hit a pedestrian, Steele said, citing police reports that suggested the death may have been a homicide. In June, a child was hit by a car near the intersection.

After a pedestrian death, CDOT goes to the crash site and tries to determine what caused the fatality, Steele said. In some cases, CDOT has replaced a traffic signal with a signal that has a timed countdown for pedestrians, repainted crosswalks so the lines were more visible and added signs.

On residential streets, the department plans to employ more traffic-calming measures, including traffic circles in the center of intersections, Steele said.

On busier thoroughfares, the department is looking into implementing small "pedestrian refuge islands" in the medians of roadways. Pedestrians who can't cross all the way before a light changes would be able to wait on one of these islands—which can be raised concrete or street-level partitions—until they get the right of way, Steele said.

But improving crosswalks for pedestrians doesn't come cheap.

A red-light camera costs $24,500. The city's new contract with Redflex called for more installations, which lowered the unit price of the camera from $100,000, Martinez said.

There are 133 red-light cameras across Chicago, and the city plans to install about 50 more this year, Martinez said.

"We do feel like it's creating safer intersections," she said. "We've seen a 59 percent average reduction in red-light running. That means safer motorists and safer residents."

•New signs cost $60 to $75 to manufacture and install, Steele said, and most installations require multiple signs.

•A $27,000 grant from IDOT paid for crosswalk awareness initiatives at two intersections on the Northwest Side last year. Chicago police pulled over and warned 179 motorists for failing to yield to undercover officers posing as pedestrians at the intersections of Belmont and Lawndale Avenues and Milwaukee and Lawndale Avenues.

Police Sgt. Antoinette Ursitti said 48 similar initiatives are planned for this year, but she declined to say where and when they will occur.

•Repainting a crosswalk for a 40-foot-wide street (one lane in each direction, plus parking lanes) costs $150 to $525 per crosswalk and $600 to $2,100 per intersection, Steele said. Wider arterial streets would cost more to repaint, Steele said.

The city restriped the crosswalks at Roosevelt Road and State Street in 2008, Steele said. The South Loop intersection is a hotbed for traffic. The Roosevelt train station for the CTA's Red, Green and Orange Lines is near the intersection.

A pedestrian, "apparently intoxicated," was struck by a car there last year after repeatedly running across the street, Steele said.

The intersection is set this month to get a new signal-timing device that increases the duration of the flashing "don't walk" sign, he said.

There's also a red-light camera there, but that doesn't seem to slow cars down, said Mare Deros, 24, of Berwyn, who crosses the intersection by foot three or four times a week — and drives through even more frequently—to go to work.

"That doesn't help at all," Deros said.

tswartz@tribune.com

Taft Feb 17, 2009 4:32 PM

Obama plots huge railroad expansion
 
From Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18924.html

Quote:

Obama plots huge railroad expansion

Railroads made Chicago, and now a Chicago-rich White House wants to return the favor: remaking rail with a huge new federal investment in high-speed passenger trains.

The $787.2 billion economic recovery bill — to be signed by President Barack Obama on Tuesday — dedicates $8 billion to high-speed rail, most of which was added in the final closed-door bargaining at the instigation of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

It’s a sum that far surpasses anything before attempted in the United States — and more is coming. Administration officials told Politico that when Obama outlines his 2010 budget next week, it will ask for $1 billion more for high-speed rail in each of the next five years.

...

ChicagoChicago Feb 17, 2009 4:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taft (Post 4093041)

Thank you for that article. I've got to believe Republicans will be more willing to support a bill that brings new rail line through their districts, and one has to believe that this initiative will. While the big cities might be blue, everything in between is red.

Nowhereman1280 Feb 17, 2009 5:08 PM

Sweet, I hope Chicago gets most of it!

lazar22b Feb 17, 2009 5:49 PM

Thats a poor article seeing as Chicago won't really see any of the money. $7.5 billion of that $8billion is for the california high speed rail.

schwerve Feb 17, 2009 6:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazar22b (Post 4093148)
Thats a poor article seeing as Chicago won't really see any of the money. $7.5 billion of that $8billion is for the california high speed rail.

I don't believe CA HSR is getting much if any of that money, there is some talk (and talking points) of LA-Vegas getting a large portion of that; however, I don't believe there's actually anything in the bill which would suggest that's the case.

ChicagoChicago Feb 17, 2009 6:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazar22b (Post 4093148)
Thats a poor article seeing as Chicago won't really see any of the money. $7.5 billion of that $8billion is for the california high speed rail.

Did you read the article? The transportation secretary, Ray LaHood is given 60 days to come up with a strategic plan on how to allocate the money. Republicans suspect that it will go toward Reid’s Maglev, but there is little evidence to suggest that.

Ch.G, Ch.G Feb 17, 2009 7:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taft (Post 4093041)

I like this article a lot better than the one I posted!

Abner Feb 17, 2009 8:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChicagoChicago (Post 4093183)
Did you read the article? The transportation secretary, Ray LaHood is given 60 days to come up with a strategic plan on how to allocate the money. Republicans suspect that it will go toward Reid’s Maglev, but there is little evidence to suggest that.

Right. The LA-Vegas thing is just a made-up talking point to make a sensible, beneficial program sound silly. The president was primarily responsible for the inclusion of this money, not Reid or anybody else in Nevada or California. Hopefully we'll get some word soon from LaHood about what sorts of things he has in mind.

lazar22b Feb 17, 2009 8:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChicagoChicago (Post 4093183)
Did you read the article? The transportation secretary, Ray LaHood is given 60 days to come up with a strategic plan on how to allocate the money. Republicans suspect that it will go toward Reid’s Maglev, but there is little evidence to suggest that.

According to the wording of the bill as of last friday, 7.5 billion was going to california. We were briefed on how it was estimated the money was allocated so that we had a little heads up for temporary worker hiring purposes. Maybe this was changed between then and the signing. I'm hoping more goes to Chicago / projects that benefit Chicago, but last I heard this was not the case (in terms of rail transportation funding)


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.