Yeah, the 55% figure I mentioned earlier actually comes from that table, which compiles many different spending figures such as gas station brownfield cleanups (underground storage tank fund) which do need to be factored in as a total cost of having an auto-centric society. It also should be noted that because VMT (vehicle Miles Traveled) is still falling and because newer car models have better fuel efficiency, people are buying less gas today than in the past few years, and it is eroding the key revenue generator of the Highway Trust Fund. The fund actually went into deficit already in 2008 (4 years ahead of expectations), and congress appropriated $8 Billion in other tax revenues to cover the short fall.

I don't know where the City of New York is coming up with $2.1 billion, but I can assure you that the City of Chicago does not have that kind of money lying around. A transit taxing district does exist in the downtown area that could perhaps be tapped (it's not used right now) but tax increases are never popular, especially in a recessionary period.

NYC is gambling that the 7 Extension will help the West Side development to continue through the recession. I doubt they will succeed, but the new subway will definitely be a positive.

Here in Chicago, the only project that would interest the City would be the West Loop Transportation Center, and perhaps the Carroll Street busway. The line extensions (Red, Orange, Yellow) are not critical and would merely serve to relieve congestion on feeder bus lines. The Circle Line is... mired in complex issues and complex egos. The city is interested in the Mid-City Transitway, but not necessarily as a rail line... it could be a combination bus/truck highway, or perhaps even a full freeway once the studies are done.

Are there actually any studies underway on this?

Honestly? I don't know.

From CDOT's website:
"The city has begun some preliminary studies to assess potential demand/usership and look at some of the demographic data in the Mid-City corridor."

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not suggesting anything like hygiene laws, etc... but sanitary conditions are in fact our right. It is my right as a tax payer to demand that the public transportation system be sanitary. The real question is to what level we all consider sanitary.

To your point about elitism, why should we tolerate things if we have the means to solve the problem? isn't that just lazy?

Taxing people for driving is the last resort, it should only be done if there is absolutely nothing more you can do to increase effeciency and effectiveness of the public transit system.

I think there are a lot of people who would disagree with this statement. Whether or not you like the idea, there are a lot of laws in this country which create taxes not just for the purposes of additional revenue, but also to influence behavior. Laws targeting alcohol, tobacco, porn, etc, etc exist in an attempt to make people stop doing things that society considers "undesirable."

In the past, gas taxes and tolls were for the sole purpose of paying for the creation or maintenance of roads. Again, you may not like it, but many people consider driving to work when public transportation is an option a "sin" that should be taxed to discourage it. I'm not sure I share this view, but there is another way to look at it as well: when congestion and wear and tear due to too many people on the road becomes too burdensome for the local economy to bear, taxes to discourage driving when feasible alternatives exist help to raise the entire area's quality of life. In other words: you can argue that taxes to discourage driving work to the greater public good.

One last time: you may disagree with the viewpoints expressed above. That's fine. But you must admit that they are logical and reasonable points of view.

Taft

I suppose you and I have fundamental differences in the way we view things on multiple levels.

For one, I don’t see how it’s possible to legally block a fare paying customer because of the way he/she smells. The urination can easily be policed if they do it on the train, but I’m less sure that it’s illegal to just go in your pants…which many homeless do.

Secondly, I’d say that a “usage tax” is about the fairest tax in existence.

I agree that there are two sides to this issue and that there are valid points, especially ones you have made above. I just have a very hard time allowing the local gov. to increase taxes on drivers when I see so many ineffeciencies and wasteful spending of the tax money we already have. Which is another issue alltogether and not for this thread.;)

Snafu loses Chicago $135M grant
 

From Crain's:

^ What the flying fuck?
:shrug:

I hope Durbin and Daley (and perhaps Burris?) are able to get that money back from LaHood and Obama. Otherwise, that would be really sad and, honestly, pretty Goddamn pathetic

^ I hope so, too. The crazy thing is they were denied by an administration that favors privatization precisely because they were in the process of privatizing, according to the article.

I guess Kruesi isn't totally out of the limelight. Just like every public official in Illinois, they go into the private sector once they step down.

I'm pissed about the loss of the funds, but Daley really bungled this one. He knows the political fallout of these types of unpopular fee raises. If he wanted the transportation funds, he should have passed that ordinance first before the other fee raises, before everyone got outraged. The fault here is purely Daley's for sequencing things incorrectly.

And honestly, is there even a chance that Chicago will lose this funding for real? With Obama in the Oval Office and LaHood down at USDOT, the money is more likely to increase than to be forfeited.

I'd suggest the real reason liquor and tobacco are taxed is precisely because the taxes won't control them. That is, they have inelastic demand which means they are easy ways to raise large amounts of money, thought taxes that are highly regressive, incidentally. Also, consumers of those products qua consumers are politically uninfluential.

^ Well, there's always a chance, but you're right--I doubt Daley will lose this money

"Michael Cornicelli, executive vice-president of the Building Owners and Managers Assn., said, "To simply penalize motorists, to burden them with an additional tax without providing viable alternatives isn't helpful," adding that "the Chicago Transit Authority is in dire need of an expansion."

I couldn't agree with this statement more.

So who's going to pay for the expansion? Are Mr. Cornicelli and local businesses going to do it? Ha! Fat chance. Like always, this is going to come down to government funding. And with the state and local governments running deficits right now (and under requirements to balance their budgets), how do you expect them to pay for it except by raising taxes?

I would really love to hear an explanation of where else this money should come from. And I'm not saying that in any way sarcastically. I would really like to know.

Taft

If he's the city's lobbyist, he's not exactly in the private sector.

What, did you think Daley was actually going to get rid of him?

Oh, I know! We can just borrow it!

I'm not sure exactly where the money will come from, but the gov. of NY has a great idea, he's proposing a tax on soda, that's right, Coke, Pepsi, etc...:yes:

Perhaps Mr. Cornicelli has a point, why should the burden be placed on drivers coming into the downtown area only? Perhaps they should spread the burden to all off street parking in Cook County. Since the CTA is not only limited to the loop. just a thought.