You're not alone. I hate the skyline tile shit too.

I don't mind the use of the skyline.

Its not so much that they use a skyline, its that they do it in this entirely cartoony manner, lacking any actual reality, and ends up looking like the box to some kind of erector set type toy. The use of mosaics to depict the skyline would be much more acceptable to me than what we have at the Roosevelt and Chicago stations with those oversized tiles and the Optima not even being letterspaced. The whole thing looks very amateur.

I guess the ultimate reason not to even attempt a skyline though is that even if they depicted it realistically, it would no doubt be inaccurate in a very short time.http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/images/smilies/tup.gif

^ It just looks tacky. Feels like something out of ESPN Zone in Time Square. Plus, these stations are supposed to last a long time. For all we know Chicago will look completely different in 50 years. They should take note of some of the stations in Europe and resort to minimalism (the quality marble, granite, steel, and glass speaks for itself) or use it as public art space.

CTA President Releases 2008 Budget
 

10/12/07
http://www.transitchicago.com/news/c...ticleid=130343

CTA PRESIDENT RELEASES 2008 BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS
Continued lack of state funding may force service reductions, fare increase, layoffs for January
In announcing the CTA’s proposed 2008 budget, Chicago Transit Authority President Ron Huberman said that unless the General Assembly reaches a transit funding solution, the CTA will have to institute deep service cuts, lay off employees and raise fares again in 2008. These actions, scheduled to take effect on January 6, are in addition to service cuts, fare increases and layoffs already scheduled for November 4th of this year.

“This budget lays out the current fiscal position of the CTA and the challenges associated with years of insufficient state funding,” said Huberman. “But what the budget does not do is tell the story of the hundreds of thousands of CTA riders and employees who will be put through great hardship if this budget becomes a reality. We at the CTA sincerely hope that we never have to implement this budget. We believe our state leaders are also aware of the harmful impact and that they will reach an agreement to provide new funding for the CTA before the budget takes effect. ”

The proposed 2008 operating budget is $1.034 billion, which is $45 million lower than 2007. The CTA expects to generate $562 million in fares and other revenue and anticipates $472 million in public funding. In order to maintain service and fares at current levels, the CTA needs an additional $158 million in public funding for 2008. This is due to shortfalls in four areas:

The CTA’s funding agency, the Regional Transportation Authority, reduced the CTA’s funding level by $14 million compared to the mark they provided in last year’s financial plan.
The CTA’s public funding is growing at a much slower rate than related expenses. Public funding levels only increased by four percent over the past five years and trailed inflation, which increased by 11.3 percent in the same time period. By comparison, CTA has also experienced substantial cost increases in fuel, materials (due to a lack of capital funds) and security.
Although CTA employees did not receive wage increases in 2007, a pending union agreement would provide a three percent increase in 2008.
Pension and healthcare reforms proposed by the CTA have not been approved by the General Assembly. Without them, the CTA will incur increasingly higher costs for providing these benefits.
(

Because additional funding has not been identified, the CTA has proposed eliminating 43 additional bus routes, laying off 1,799 additional employees and raising fares by at least 25 cents more in January. Starting next week, letters will be sent to employees whose jobs may be eliminated in January.

These actions are in addition to previously announced service reductions, fare increases and layoffs that are scheduled to take effect on November 4th if Springfield does not act. In addition, with 735 fewer buses operating due to the November and January route eliminations, CTA plans to close three of its eight garages. Service on the remaining routes will be provided by other locations.

Combined, the CTA has proposed eliminating 53 percent of all bus routes, for a total of 82 routes; laying off more than 2,400 employees including administrative and support staff; and implementing back-to-back fare increases. In order to minimize the impact on those least able to pay, fares will not be increased for reduced-fare riders (senior citizens, students or individuals with disabilities).

“We have worked diligently with Springfield all year to create a long-term solution to CTA’s structural funding deficit, but with no resolution yet, we are out of options,” said Huberman. “This is not something we want to do. We realize it will cause tremendous hardships for many people who rely on the CTA, but next year the CTA simply will not have sufficient funding to continue providing the same level of service as it does today.”

CTA has grappled with a steep decline in inflation-adjusted funding levels. CTA’s public funding for mainline bus and rail operations trailed inflation by approximately one percent every year. If funding since 1987 had kept even with inflation, the CTA would have received cumulatively $1.6 billion more to operate its buses and trains.

(

Huberman outlined a series of steps the CTA has already taken to reduce its costs and operate more efficiently including eliminating more than 75 administrative positions, deferring pay increases for non-union employees, restricting non-critical overtime and instituting a performance management program. The CTA and its unions have also agreed to an unprecedented 5-year contract—contingent on legislative action—that would enable the CTA to reduce costs and manage itself more like a business, while providing retirement and healthcare reforms to stabilize its retiree pension and healthcare costs. Not having these reforms in place yet is estimated to cost the CTA more than $11 million each month.

Huberman also announced the CTA’s proposed five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The proposed CIP totals $2.4 billion, with $2.2 billion in projects to remediate slow zones, renew CTA assets, overhaul and replace the fleet, and $0.2 billion programmed for vital system expansion, including completion of the Brown Line capacity expansion project. Unlike prior years, the proposed program does not divert scarce capital funds to balance the operating budget as CTA has no unobligated capital funding remaining.

Funding identified in this CIP will only partially meet the CTA’s needs to bring its system to a state of good repair. Of the $8.7 billion needed to reach a state of good repair, an estimated $6.3 billion remains unfunded during the five year period of this CIP and further investment will be necessary for proposed expansion projects.

CTA customers and the general public will have the opportunity to provide comments to the Chicago Transit Board on the President’s 2008 Budget Recommendations at a public hearing at 6:00 p.m. November 5th at CTA Headquarters, 567 W. Lake Street, Chicago.

The Chicago Transit Board will consider the proposed budget at a November meeting. It will also be presented to the Cook County Board in November, as required by the RTA Act. The Chicago Transit Board must submit a budget to the RTA by November 15th and the RTA must approve budgets for the service boards by year end.

Written and oral comments will be taken into consideration prior to Chicago Transit Board action. This input will be welcomed at the hearing or by correspondence addressed to Gregory P. Longhini, Assistant Secretary of the Board, Chicago Transit Authority, P.O. Box 7567, Chicago, Illinois 60680-7567. E-mail comments may be submitted through by writing to ctaboard@transitchicago.com. The deadline to submit comments is Tuesday, November 6, 2007.

The proposed budget is available for public review at the CTA's General Office, 567 W. Lake Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60661, second floor, weekdays between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Regular and large print copies are available at this location. Copies will also be available at the main office of the Regional Transportation Authority, reception desk, Suite 1550, 175 W. Jackson, Chicago, Illinois 60604. A copy of the proposed budget is also posted on the CTA's web site at www.transitchicago.com. Following is a list of libraries and additional locations where the document will be available.

This was just sent to CTA cardholders:


"Letter from CTA President Ron Huberman

Dear CTA Customer:

Today, I unveiled the CTA's proposed 2008 budget that lays out a series of painful service cuts, fare increases and lay-offs that will happen on January 6, 2008. These actions are required to meet our legal obligation to submit a balanced budget and are in addition to those service cuts and fare increases that will take effect on November 4th.

All of us at the CTA understand that these service cuts and fare increases will cause you a tremendous hardship. We know that you will face fewer travel options, less frequent service and more crowded buses and trains. To make matters worse, the drastic measures described in the 2008 budget are in addition to the service cuts, fare increases and lay-offs that will take place on November 4th if the Illinois Legislature does not enact fundamental funding reforms.

It is important for our customers to know that all of us at the CTA do not want to see this budget become reality. We remain hopeful that the Illinois General Assembly will pass a long-term funding solution.

Please know that we sought to minimize the impact of our budget deficit wherever we could. For example, we reduced our costs by over $38 million this year alone - without impacting service. The CTA and its unions have also agreed to an unprecedented five-year contract, contingent on legislative action, which would enable the CTA to reduce costs and manage itself more like a business. The Illinois Legislature, however, has yet to pass the bill that would give the CTA authority to put these reforms in place. This inaction is costing the CTA more than $11 million each month.

So, while the CTA continues to look for every opportunity to cut costs, there is simply no way we can manage our way out of a $158 million deficit in 2008.

The CTA continues to fight for sufficient transit funding and we need your help. Please contact the Governor and your state legislators and tell them how important mass transit funding is to you. In addition to calling or writing your legislators, you can go to www.transitchicago.com where a link will allow you to easily send a message.

With your support, we are hopeful that we will finally get a long-term solution to the CTA's funding shortfalls and put future "doomsdays" to rest. If the State enacts pending legislation before November 4th, these service cuts and fare increases will not go into effect.

Sincerely yours,

Ron Huberman
President
"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...i_tab01_layout

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,4058629.story

The City of Chicago should not be taking on the funding of the CTA - the CTA gets the majority of it's funding from the RTA, which also covers Metra and Pace. This makes sense, since the CTA needs to integrate with the other transit systems. Also, the CTA serves more than just Chicago (Oak Park, Evanston, Skokie, Berwyn, Cicero, Forest Park, Evergreen Park, Rosemont, and Wilmette).

The RTA gets it's funding from a sales tax in Cook county and the money is then distributed to the three agencies (CTA, Metra, Pace). When the original formula was created Chicago had a huge retail base, while the burbs did not. So some of the tax paid in Chicago is kicked out to pay for surban transit. With the rise of shopping malls the retail situation changed, but the money is still distributed based on the assumption that downtown Chicago is the center of the region's retail sales. The end result is that Chicago is subsidizing transit in suburban Cook county and the collar counties

From the RTA's 2006 budget:
http://www.hydepark.org/transit/pics/regfdg2.JPG

The RTA funding formula needs to be fixed before the City of Chicago looks to give any money to the CTA. We're already paying a tax in Chicago to pay for the CTA, but it's being used to subsidize transit in outlying areas that are paying a quarter of the taxes Cook county residents do (if they are paying any at all, some collar counties pay nothing but still benefit from Metra service)

I don't think that's a fair assessment.

Think about it: Chicago metro has roughly 10 million people. 2.5 million of them live in the city, 7.5 in the suburbs. The urbanites pay a 1% sales tax, and the suburbanites pay a 0.25% sales tax. But since the suburbanites are 3 times larger, the ratio of suburban to urban funding for the RTA is really 0.75:1, or 3:4. Of course, this assumes that the sales tax generated from an average suburbanite's purchasing is equal to that generated by an average urbanite. When you factor in the large number of low income people in the city, the urban side of the equation falls a little bit, because urbanites on the average spend less.

I think a more balanced assessment is that the contributions from suburban areas and from the city are roughly equal. Because of the population difference, however, suburbanites pay less per person to support transit.

What I would do to end all bickering is have RTA ignore county lines completely. Any Chicagoland municipality receiving CTA service is taxed at a higher rate; any municipality receiving Pace or Metra is taxed at a lower rate. Communities receiving both are taxed at the CTA rate.

Because suburban transit trips often involve some level of driving anyway, it's safe to assume that suburbs even without a Metra station or a Pace line inside their boundaries receive the benefits of those lines, so those suburbs ought to be taxed as well.

The taxing rates will be determined by whatever is needed to balance the budget. Apportionment, however, will be based on population. Of the taxes raised at the CTA rate, 75% will go to CTA and 25% to the suburban agencies. Of the taxes raised at the Metra/Pace rate, 75% will go to those agencies and 25% will go to CTA. Given those guidelines, appropriate taxing rates can be determined.

all this is on Madigan's door step since he passed the bill that all fed units have to bring pension funding in line with cost... hence major shortfalls at all public agencies...... solution....... privatize......contract out all bus routes

If these cuts go through I may seriousy consider not attending college in the city next year. It pisses me off that much. :(

So what exactly is going on with the casino issue? Is there to be a casino to help fund exclusively Chicago mass transit? I can't seem to find a straight "yay" or "nay" here.

it passed the senate, but the house won't play ball. the house could not pass a sales tax increase in september. the governor wants to close "corporate tax loopholes", but will not specify which ones

basically, we have three fucking democrats in the three highest positions in this fucking state, and they can't find a solution for an issue you would think dem's would be all over, public transportation.

the whole thing is depressing.

Tom Cross (GOP minority leader) in the Senate said the reason he didn't support the House's sales tax plan was because highway needs were un-addressed.

Now that the Senate has passed a capital spending plan that includes highway monies, they should reintroduce the sales tax plan, right? Republican Senators' concerns were satisfied. No, that's too goddam honest. Instead, they tried to tack on a bit to the capital spending plan that allows for a casino to fund transit instead. This bill won't pass the House, which is still in support of their own sales tax plan.

The casino plan is a poor idea because:
a) The casino couldn't begin operation for several years, leaving transit in the hole until then
b)Revenue from a casino would basically be just a high tax on low-income gamblers, instead of a low tax on everybody
c) Illinois' casino-gambling laws tax casino profits at an absurd rate, dramatically reducing the casinos' profits and making it very unattractive for the casino to spend in order to be classy

Complicating the issue is the fact that Blago pledges to veto ANY tax increase, including the House's sales tax plan. IIRC, the House did not muster enough votes for an override.

oh, i know who that bastard is, i have even exchanged emails with the guy. he is even more worthless than the dem's. however, we have three dem's in charge (i, myself, am a life-long democrat, but this triumvirate drive me nuts) could have done something about this without the republicans before they pulled out their rulers over the budget.

eh, blah, blah, blah ... i guess more phone calls and emails that will solve nothing.

Our state is basically being crippled by a pissing contest between Blago and Madigan. The childish crap they keep pulling has not only hit transit hard, but has also had an impact on education and healthcare. It is absolutley mindboggling what selfish, puny little shits they are. I'm pretty much a lifelong Democrat as well, and after all this crap I'm willing to break George Ryan out of jail and work to put him back in office.

(I say "pretty much" a life long Democrat because I refused to vote for Blago and Stroger in the last elections).

^ We can't seem to win in this state can we? We might as well go to Lincoln's grave, knock on his casket and ask him for advice. Repubs suck, dems suck, everyone sucks. We need a true Illinois champion to take control-any Illinois former pro wrestlers or film action heroes we could contact?:shrug:

chuck heston? heh heh

I understand your argument overall, but the problem is that service to any community gets more expensive to maintain the further out you go. Look at the chart I posted - that is RTA subsidies per ride. Per ride is an analysis that looks at the service provided, it is a much better way of looking at it than per person. Why would Chicago be taxed more for a service that costs less and communities that are receiving a service that costs MORE be taxed less? Combine that with the fact that many more suburban Metra riders transfer to the CTA than vice versa and that funding structure is even worse.

You also have to realize that people who are riding Metra are generally commuting from the suburbs to a job in the loop. This enables people with jobs in the city to have a manageable commute into the city (and not just for Metra riders, also for car commuters by reducing traffic). Looked at this way the RTA is subsidizing a service that helps city workers live in collar counties and takes away from Chicago's tax base.

It is a very complicated situation, and no solution is ideal, but the current situation is a good example of how tax policy has been subsidizing the growth of suburbs for decades in the US.

Mass-transit crisis could complicate city's Olympic prospects
Games organizers here just before cuts

By Jon Hilkevitch | Tribune transportation reporter
October 16, 2007

A national spotlight will be focused on the Chicago area's mass-transit crisis just days before the scheduled first round of CTA "doomsday" service cuts when a congressional committee holds a hearing on the city's transportation needs for the 2016 Olympic bid, it was announced Monday.

Link, Chicago Tribune

Republicans suck? NO! Alan Keyes will save the state! ....oh, um.....:haha:

I think we need to start looking at recall laws in Illinois.

If you're visiting the dead I'd stop by Paul Simon's casket and give it a knock as well.

This is all so ridiculous, I am going to register to vote in Illinois instead of Wisconsin for the next election specifically so I can vote against these baffoons...

They all suck and need to have their political careers ended right now, seriously, they get absolutely nothing done, almost as bad as in Washington.

So what are you guys predicting?

Do you think the state will work out a long-term solution this time, or that the CTA will be forced to accept another temporary bail-out...or *gasp*..that the cuts will go through?

I think that these guys in Springfield won't move until the first round of cuts goes through and they see that Huberman isn't just joking around. Once they start getting calls and letters from folks in their districts threatening to vote for someone else next time around, they'll get serious about finding some money for transit.

At least, that's how it should work.

John Cusak? John Malkovich? David Mamet? Oprah? Anyone but Ditka.

It's how it has worked so far, this is the third time in as many years that I remember a "doomsday" plan being released. Our state gov't is so screwed up it wouldn't surprise me if they don't get it together in time this year.

The problem is that the ordinary legislators don't have any leverage in the matter. It's entirely a dispute between Gov. Tinyteeth and the Four Tops.

If Doomsday comes to pass and fares raise, and the outcry then gets the State to act, will the fares come back down, or will they stay high?

I smell a protest rally :whatthefuck:

This just goes to show you that Democrats and Republicans are all the same. There's no difference. and they are not willing to work together to solve important issues. Of course there are exeptions on both sides but stll :gaah: :gaah: :gaah:

If they're so bad, why don't YOU serve.

Complaining is one theing. Calling them useless is another.

:rolleyes: ^ Yeah. because one needs to be willing to serve as a public official to be able to critique current public officials.

If you organize it, they will come.

At least I will. So far I have sent about 10 emails, a couple to the damn Gov. threatening in a nice way, and in a not so nice way, to vote for someone else. I wouldnt vote for him either way, but it doesnt seem to work that well to threaten them anyway. Also, what pisses me off is that none of the state reps in my district have contact email addresses listed. Looks like Ima have to make some phone calls

Because there are 3x more suburbanites than Chicagoans.

Their greater numbers will offset their lower tax rate, and the lower tax rate will help to stop their perpetual bitching about subsidizing the city.

Interesting commentary on the CTA from a more general blog:

http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/5266.html#more-5266

^ Nice find. The problem with the general opinion on that blog is that it makes the common argument that the CTA should operate more efficiently, like a private company, and cut its less used routes while focusing more on rush-hour commuter service.

My problem with that is really more of a philosophical one, and it's about something greater than the CTA. How should Chicago evolve as a city? Should it be a massive downtown surrounded by car-dependent suburban-style neighborhoods, or should it be a massive downtown surrounded by urban, walkable, transit-oriented neighborhoods?

If it were the former, then the pattern suggested by the bloggers makes sense. But if it were the latter, I think it is of utmost importance for the CTA to run 24 hours a day, at fairly high frequency, all over the city. What the city really needs to do is to get all of that underutilized land developed. I prefer the latter simply because it fits with my view of how a city should function.

:previous:

I agree with your philosophical view as well. Additionally, good public transit is one of the best investments a city can make. Look at the neighborhoods that have gentrified and people are predicting will gentrify - they almost all have good CTA rail service.

The blog post linked to above works under a couple false assumptions.

The first is looking at the CTA like a business that brings in all it's money through fares and then adjusts expenditures accordingly. That's wrong. For 2007 the CTA will bring in $541 million in fares, contributions from the city, and advertising etc. It will also get $537 million from public funding (RTA, tranfers from state capital funds, etc.). More than half it's budget is completely unrelated to the revenue it generates.

The second assumption is that the CTA has any say in what if offers to "subsidized" riders. The ADA dictates what service the CTA needs to provide to those with special needs, it is not their choice to make based on budget needs.

I thought the post I referred to was interesting for an outsider's perspective. You make a different point, and I don't quite agree. Do we have "walkable, transit-oriented neighborhoods" all around downtown now because of the CTA? In other words, does bad CTA service (I can think of a lot of places with that) make for the same? No, it doesn't. Paradoxically, cutting the top money losing routes and focusing on the best would actually result in a net gain of riders and spur TOD. Rebuilding the green line hasn't exactly spurred traffic or rebuilding on the south side. But rebuilding the brown line will be tremendous... We know what the problem is... recently Preckwinkle vetoed giving an honorary street name to Saul Bellow...

Okay - I'll grant you that TOD has not sprouted up around all of the CTA rail and bus lines, but to use the South Side branch of the Green Line is a poor example. That particular service was hit from 3 different sides to eliminate its ridership.

First, the neighborhood around it declined.
Second, the CTA built the Dan Ryan Red Line, and configured bus feeder lines to bring whatever limited ridership remained to Red Line stations.
Third, the CTA totally closed the Green Line several years ago for reconstruction. Anybody who still used the Green Line had to alter their commutes.

The Lake Street branch hasn't had such a hard time recouping ridership after the closure because it provides service into downtown Oak Park.

^ On top of Ardecila's point, I would add that the local leadership (Dorothy Tillman) was somewhat of a roadblock to development. The current Alderman is pretty supportive of new development in the area, but the problems that now remain are 1) crime 2) bad reputation & the legacy of public housing, and 3) a slower housing market. Nevertheless, plenty of recent initiatives have been taken to redevelop land directly around green line stops on the south side. The question is whether they will be successful.

Also, I can't fathom how Chicago will redevelop underutilized land if it cuts transit service to it. I understand your point, but Chicago's south and west sides have so much vacant land that by cutting bus/train service, you're basically giving up on it, which would only make it less desirable for future developers.

It is a silly blog....let's review but change the subject from public transportation to public roads:

From this point further all freeways and tollways will be shut down during the hours that they do not pay for themselves. Full pay only on the freeways and tollways....we don't want to subsidize them.

The city of Chicago will only pave and repair roads that have enough traffic on them to make sure they at least break out even.

Business parks and industrial areas will have to maintain the roads leading into their areas, city folk should only pay for our residential streets that we use...why would I way up in Lincoln Square want to pay for roads in the Calumet industrial area? I don't use them......besides the libertarians who love this stuff believe business should not be subsidized either...don't they?

I do believe that in this hour of CTA bull.....when the cuts are made that they are made to the bus and train routes with less use. Main reason....most of the bus routes would be cut in areas that voted for Emile Jones and his anti-public transportation stand. My reps....voted for the sales tax increase..why should we be punished equally?

One thing I object to in that blog is that he seems to treat public trans / cta as sort of social welfare, instead of what it really is...a public good. A public good is not handled the same as

Why can't we protest around Bagoftrashes house?

I'm curious how the supply of public parking spaces in the loop has changed during the boom. Has it reduced? If so, by how much, and how much more is new developemnt going to reduce supply?

The reason I ask is that as much as I love to take the train downtown and walk where I'm going, my wife refuses it. I can take a cab from Ogilvie, but right now the cost of train+cab is higher than parking garage.

I'm wondering when that balance will finally shift? As parking spaces dwindle, will loop parking ever get to $30 or $40? Such that there is finally a clear economic incentive to take the train?

Right now my argument of "Let's take the train and walk and save 2 bucks" isn't flying.

Do any of the CTA buses that run through the loop and Oglavie stop by your place of employment.

I don't think the higher parking costs will mean anyless drivers driving into the loop. If the loop continues to grow as it has been there will be more CEO's and higher management willing to pay the price to take over the parking spaces from middle income drivers. So we will still have the same amount of parking downtown...but middle income drivers will be riding the train more often.

I think the supply of parking has generally increased, since with only a few exceptions, even the buildings that replace parking lots have substantially-sized parking garages in them.

Up until the 1980s (1982 perhaps?) the city had a long-standing policy of discouraging any off-street parking facilities in the core (bounded Wacker-Congress-Michigan), but then started allowing those garages with 1st-floor retail. (incidentally, CTA ridership basically declined nonstop until the mid-late 90s when the city stopped allowing such parking facilities. Coincidence? I'm not sure).

Considering that the supply/demand for downtown off-street parking aren't out of whack, the price of parking downtown will rather be a reflection of 1) property values and 2) taxes. By 1), as property gets more and more valuable, eventually it becomes less economical to waste floor space for auto storage since the parking price to be competitive with leasing would be so high that you'd slide way down the demand curve, and 2) obviously a per-space parking tax will also increase the price of parking, affect the quantity demanded at those prices, and thus distort landowners decisions of whether to include parking and at what price.

C3rd is generally right, there will always be people of a high income who will pay to park regardless of price; basically if property values are absurdly high, that is probably just a reflection that are alot of those sorts of people working there. But the working stiff/cubicle monkeys will certainly be more inclined to take transit by then.

No, I live in the burbs. My wife and I go downtown to shows and such, and we always end up driving because the parking costs aren't high enough for me to convince my wife to give up the convinience of the car.

She's not going to go to the train station, get on a train, walk out of the train station, then hail a cab, and spend $20 bucks doing all that, if we can just drive down and valet for $20.

I'm just wondering when that parking cost will get high enough so that middle incomers like me have enough financial incentive to take the train.

The train's defiinitely cheaper if I go downtown by myself, but it's a wash if it's me and my wife.

And Mass Transit is in no way cost effective for a group. My wife went to a two day conference downtown last month with 4 coworkers. The first day they took the train, and with cabfare ended up paying basically $15 each for transit.
The next day they carpooled and payed $4 each for parking. Metra needs some sort of group discount.

I would go for higher garage parking fees specifically for people not living in Chicago. There has to be a way to do that. Would be nice to only have people who live in Chicago actually clogging up our streets and polluting our air because we don't give the outsiders enough money to take Metra...besides I am not in favor of subsidizing Metra anymore since they are already getting the most money per passenger. Was a cool chart in the Tribune last week.

Is the State Street subway closed down every weekend until the end of December? I have family coming into town this weekend and I'm trying to figure out if we can use it to get to/from the Mag Mile, or if we'll be stuck on the brown line tracks further west and hence have a longer walk? (I'm thinking it will be closed, but I wanted to double check)

^Chicago3rd,
That would require enabling legislation to be approved by the exact people who would be paying the premium, so I don't see that happening unless Chicago gets anywhere near a majority of the state's population. Also, Metra's subsidy story is more than just their high subsidy per passenger. They also receive a wildly disproportionate amount of regional capital funds (about 36% I believe), in contrast to CTA's 58%. And of course, CTA provides 80% of regional transit rides....

^OhioGuy,
Red is running over the L this weekend. I'm not sure if it will be every weekend. Ditto the Blue Line; they'll be doing line cuts between Jeff Park and Harlem most but maybe not every weekend through the end of the year. I'd advise people going to/from O'hare any weekend the rest of the year to either allow alot of extra travel time or shell out for a taxi or shared van to save the headache.

Short term pain, long term gain, etc. etc.

I don't equate a group discount with a subsidy. If it fills up a half empty train, it's free money that Metra wasn't gettting anyway. Not saying to use tax dollars whatsoever.
But I'm fine with higher parking taxes. I don't know about Chicago only, though. The Kennedy and Loop are just as congested if someone drives in from Mayfair than if they drive from Park Ridge.