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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Obama plots huge railroad expansion
 

From Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18924.html

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.

Sweet, I hope Chicago gets most of it!

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.

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.

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

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.

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)

There is no language in the bill allocating any HSR money to any particular project. In fact it turns out that Obama himself is the one who orchestrated the thrust to get the HSR money increased to $8 billion. If there was in fact some backdoor under the table agreement between Obama and Reid in which the toy maglev train from Las Vegas to Disney World will get the bulk of the HSR money, masquerading as a fair and merit-based program that is actually outlined in the text of the bill, then my faith in this country will drop to zero and I will set sail for foreign shores out of disgust.

As it is, I think that the story of the HSR money being thrown in as an earmark for the California-Vegas maglev was a story concocted by the Republicans to stir up outrage over the stimulus bill in general.

Here is what the bill calls for:

• $8 billion
• Will be available until Sept 30, 2012
• A strategic plan for how the money will be released within 60 days
• A procedure for how the grants program will be operated and the guidance/criteria for applicants will be released within 120 days.
• Does not have to be used on projects that are already in a state's Rail Plan (this probably means that it does NOT have to be on one of the 11 designated HSR corridors)
• Does not require matching state funds (but presumably, the local commitment will play into the equation when evaluating the merit of a project)

Read the full text - the relevant section starts on page 237 of the PDF. Quoted here:

If you are able, can you disclose who or what agency briefed you? I ask because, from other analysis of this bill, your account is inaccurate. For example, from thetransportpolitic.com:

http://thetransportpolitic.com/2009/...te-on-transit/

This article is a few days out of date, and House/Senate negotiations may have changed things, but it was my understanding this was largely accurate.

^^@ Taft
It's not inaccurate. The california high speed rail, specifically the link from LA to San Fran, was the one to get the majority of the money. I never mentioned the maglev as some seem to be suggesting. The reason that California HSR is the biggest beneficiary of the money is that it is the most thought out plan and is the most likely to be able to spend such a large amount of money within two years. It is a requirement of the bill (at least for construction projects) that the money allocated be spent within two years. In the plan, amtrak was suppose to get the rest of the money, and what they were going to do with it I'm not sure. It is possible they plan to use the money on the midwest HSR, but the these plans seem to be far from being well thought out which makes it difficult for them to spend large money quickly.

Putting aside the issue of what the bill does or doesn't say, I'm not sure this point is accurate. It depends to some extent on what you mean by high speed rail, but Amtrak, the Midwest High Speed Rail Association, and individual states have done quite a lot of study of potential rail improvements in the region. My impression at least is that improvements on the Chicago-Milwaukee line and the Chicago-Springfield-St. Louis line are about as close to "shovel-ready" as passenger rail projects get. Both of those lines would get sections of 110 mph service, which isn't high-speed by European or Japanese standards but would be a big step forward in this country. There would also be the possibility of further improvements along partially upgraded track in Michigan, and analysis has been underway on "South of the Lake" routes from Chicago into Indiana. I'm assuming here that the $8 billion for high speed rail can't go to CREATE programs, many of which are also ready to go.

I suspect that whoever briefed you may have been briefing you based on speculation. Again, not that I'm an insider myself, but I see no evidence that there has been any shady behind the scenes dealing to allocate any of the money before the Secretary of Transportation and the FRA even have a chance to name their criteria. By second degree word of mouth, I heard from somebody at NCDOT that this money will probably be doled out under terms similar to the New Starts-like process outlined under Title 3 Section 301 of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. Not by sleazy-ass earmarks.

For the timeframe of spending the money for HSR, please refer to the text of the stimulus bill quoted above. The money must be used by September 30, 2012, which is actually over 3.5 years. There are plenty of HSR lines throughout the country that could turn dirt and spend money within 3.5 years. The Chicago-St Louis corridor already has a completed EIS and ROD for some of their 110mph improvements. That's as close to "shovel ready" as you're going to get. They could probably break ground in less than 6 months. The Southeast line estimates that their EIS will be completed and a ROD reached some time in early 2011, which is a similar timeframe to that of the line in California.

So, please excuse me for saying this, but unless you explain further who your source is, I do not think that they should be believed.

here's the thing, since the aims of MW HSR are so much lower, actually the network doesn't require a huge chunk of that pie to meet its goals. the St. Louis-Springfield-Chicago link needs <400 Mil for 110 mph service (from what I can gather). I don't think its unrealistic to have madison-milwaukee-chicago-springfield-st. louis in the proposed time frame for under 800 mil. that leaves a lot of cash for other projects, CA HSR rail included (though there's no way they're getting 90+% of the total)

Milwaukee/Chicago needs a HSR line about as badly as any place in the country.

110MPH is not high speed rail.

I do agree chicago/mke needs a serious rail upgrade - but since they are so close, HSR isn't required. We could get down to 60 minute service without it I think.

If President Obama wants a true HSR legacy for the Midwest, then my new terrain line to Indianapolis is the best idea. At $3-4 billion, it would provide true 200MPH high speed service between the cities with a 90 minute journey time. With expedited environmental review, I think it could be under construction before Obama's first term is up.

Is California HSR shovel ready? I can't imagine it is. Also, with the extreme state level regulation and such in Cali, I'd expect long legal battles over it.

More than one pedestrian death per week is inexcusable. I don't know what a statistical norm is for a city of our size/density, but this is really bad, IMO. I would be interested to see how this compares to other large cities, because I think that our figure is very emblematic of the car culture here. The article also highlights what has been expressed here ad nauseam: crossing LSD to get to the lake is a complete joke. Ashland does't surprise me as being a hot-bed of accidents, either, aside from the fact that it's a very long street and thus more probable to have collisions at any given segment. People treat it as a veritable expressway, and all of the car-pandering crap that has been stuffed onto it only bolsters drivers' entitlement to it. And to think that in light of all of this there is not one, but two proposed parking garages for Six Corners, both of which would occupy space on "P" (read: pedestrian [read: it doesn't really matter]) streets. Pathetic.

in the US "high speed" is a relative statement. let's just accept that and move on.

No, but it's the best first step in a lot of cases. It's the fastest allowable speed on tracks with grade crossings, it can be achieved very quickly (like one construction season, depending on what has to get done), and it can be done cheaply so that a piddly little $8 billion can be spread among projects all over the country.

Obviously what's important is average speed, not top speed, as anyone familiar with the "150 mph" Acela knows. People don't avoid Amtrak because it doesn't go 200 mph, they avoid Amtrak because it spends half its time sitting behind freight trains. Separating the traffic, fixing the slowest sections first, getting to 110 mph where possible, and getting new trains would be a good way to build some goodwill and demonstrate that passenger trains can work if we let them.

A dedicated route to Indianapolis sounds great. Building a new route south of the lake is a big priority for the Midwest High Speed Rail folks, so you're in agreement with them at least as far as Gary or so.

I don't know that people "avoid" Amtrak at all. It's pretty much at practical capacity now. The limiting factor is a shortage of equipment.

But Chicago to Gary is very unlikely to get a new alignment; they'd just use the existing Pennsy corridor next to South Chicago Avenue.

Well okay, but you know what I mean. It has a bad public image of being slow and constantly late, which contributes to it being starved of funding, which only makes things worse.

Taken together, air traffic between Chicago and Minneapolis, St. Louis, Indianapolis and Detroit account for 10% of passenger traffic in and out of Chicago. Since those routes probably fly a lot of smaller craft, there's a good chance that they account for over 10% of aircraft movement at O'Hare and Midway. The $15 billion used for the O'Hare expansion would have gone a long way toward real high speed between Chicago and the city centers of those locations (I'd start with Minneapolis - maybe via Milwaukee and Madison - and St. Louis, since they both already have lightrail), plus ties us all together even tighter which benefits everyone in the region.

Heck, if you designed it right, you could end up with service that included express rail to O'Hare from downtown using the HSR system which would come throug the Loop and then go to O'Hare for points north, maybe giving Milwaukee, Minneapolis and St. Paul each airport express runs, too.

The huffingtonpost has a graphic showing the potential high-speed rail routes that the stimulus money could fund. Find it here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_167804.html

In the article is this little gem:

Guess this was just a unfounded GOP rumor.

And before anyone gets too excited thinking about high-speed rail, here's some sobering news:

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2...ernatives.html

I'm as confused as Carole Brown. The budget figures quoted by the RTA need to have meaning. If they don't, the CTA can never count on the money allocated to them by the RTA. I appreciate the fact that the souring economy has hit their tax revenues hard, but shouldn't that impact FUTURE budgets instead of PAST budgets. This is messed up, IMO.

A good rule of thumb is to regard everything the Republicans say about Obama's/Democratic proposals as falsehoods until proven otherwise.

You must be one of the marsh mice!

I'm just curious to get everyone's opinion: if improved intercity rail becomes a reality in the next several years/decades, what do you all propose to be the best way to connect such riders to Chicago's transit system? (besides getting out and walking to the L, although you're welcome to propose that..)

^^^ Pneumatic tubes like in the Jetsons...

The article further underscores how non-motorists bear far more than their fair share of the motorists' burden. If fatal collisions were up, I imagine non-fatal ones saw a similar increase, too. Really, I don't have any sympathy for those who object to the government's attempts at leveling the playing field (even when safety isn't the express purpose).

a combination of things which basically involves the construction of the west loop transportation center.

1) clinton-larabee subway diverting the red line through the west loop,
2) build in a corresponding blue line spur
3) underground BRT station which primarily provides E-W routing along carrol transitway and madison (among others)

that basically turns the union station area into a secondary hub outside the loop from which you can access most N-S and E-W destinations.

That's an interesting question with no easy answer. For the short term, I'd say stairways from the south platforms at Union Station up to Van Buren, with signage to the Congress/Clinton Blue Line station. Problem is, HSR would probably arrive on the through tracks right next to the river, meaning someone bound for, say, Clark/Adams would walk almost as far southwest to the Blue Line to ride back to Dearborn/Adams as they would just walking from the arrival tracks straight to their Loop destination.

I also hope that an offstreet bus loading facility will soon be built on the surface lot at the SWC Canal/Jackson, with a subterranean passage from the Great Hall under Jackson. That could help reduce the psychic distance from the Great Hall to Clinton/Congress, but perhaps encouraging use of the frequent bus service into the Loop to rapid transit lines would be smarter than building long, expensive tunnels.

Over the long run, we will need to figure out whether a Clinton Street subway (West Loop Transportation Center) or a Monroe Street subway is a better option. If HSR expands enough that either the Clinton Street tracks or an Old Post Office station facility is needed, then the solution becomes more obvious.

I am guessing the best way would be to link it into MDW for trains heading to Indianapolis and St. Louis. There would need to be additional parking added to MDW, but I don’t really see that as a huge problem.

Daley’s dream plan to have an airport express shuttle could rendezvous with O’Hare, and then head up to Milwaukee. It would allow Milwaukee residents to use ORD as an access point instead of MKE, and reduce congestion between MKE and ORD.

State of the 'hood
At forum, aldermen say Wicker Park and Bucktown are ready for stimulus

By IAN FULLERTON
Contributing Reporter
Chicago Journal

Two area aldermen believe the federal stimulus package could mean upgrades for transportation infrastructure in Wicker Park and Bucktown, and the CTA more generally.

"We are ready," said 1st Ward Alderman Manny Flores, during a State of the Neighborhood address Feb. 4 at the Wicker Park-Bucktown Library.

At the forum, Flores and 32nd Ward Alderman Scott Waguespack met with neighborhood residents to discuss infrastructure, development, crime, parking and other local issues. The Wicker Park Committee hosted the gathering.

Waguespack said that he and Flores have put together a list of projects that could benefit from stimulus funding, including street, transit and sewer line renovations.

"Wicker Park and Bucktown have some of the oldest infrastructures in the city and they haven't been maintained very well," Waguespack said. "We need to sink a lot of money into this in a good way."

"The entire CTA is shovel-ready," added Flores.

Flores said at the top of his agenda is job creation and pro-environmental initiatives like the Green Exchange, a business incubator near Diversey and Campbell slated to open later this year.

Such projects, Flores said, are "not only related to environmental stewardship, but are also needed to help build the green economy in our city, especially in a time when we are facing an economic crisis and we need to expand more jobs for members of our community."

Waguespack said his office is working toward implementing building codes that will incorporate green products into the area's developments, like audits on new construction to ensure that the buildings meet Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED, certification.

"It will set a standard in the city and show how we can start transitioning into green building," he said.

Flores and Waguespack's call for stimulus funding for the Near Northwest Side came after the city and CTA lost a $153 million federal grant in January. The grant was aimed at easing congestion in the city, and would have paid for "Bus Rapid Transit" along Chicago Avenue, which cuts through both of the aldermen's wards, among other projects.

"The $153 million that was lost was a travesty," said Waguespack. Mayor Daley had blamed federal officials for the loss, saying they were inflexible in the grant's deadline.

"It's an embarrassment," said Flores. "In a time when we need to improve our transit system, we lost out on this opportunity."

Other forum panelists included executive director of the Wicker Park-Bucktown Chamber of Commerce Paula Barrington, 14th District Police commander Lucio Martinez and the newly-seated Wicker Park Post Office manager Sherman Jones.

Barrington expressed her support for some of the proposed developments in the area, including the two parking garages developers hope to build just north of the Damen, Milwaukee and North intersection.

"With this area becoming more popular, we do see that there will be a greater need for these garages," Barrington said.

If built, the two garages - one at 1616-26 N. Milwaukee and the other at 1611-1619 N. Damen - would add around 270 parking spaces to the area. But Waguespack said that he continues to oppose the garages "from an urban planning perspective."

Some residents at the meeting voiced concerns over steady crime rates in the area.

Commander Martinez acknowledged that theft remains an issue. He said Wicker Park and Bucktown had seen 31 more armed robberies than in 2007, and 56 more home burglaries.

"Many of these were financial crimes," he said, suggesting that the numbers may correlate with the economic recession. "It's all money related."

Waguespack said with stimulus money going toward infrastructure projects, more money would be freed up for the police department.

Residents at the meeting asked about the long history of shortcomings in neighborhood postal service.

"I know you have a lot of issues with the service," said Sherman Jones, the new manager of customer services at the Wicker Park Post Office. He said recognized that mail delivery in the area has suffered from job cuts and a lack of funding.

"What am I going to do about it?" he said. "I'm going to talk about talk to the leadership about making changes I deem necessary."

^^^
I'm guessing things didn't go so well on the BRT grant for Daley when he went to Washington last week. As full of hot air as he is, if there was good news he'd have shared it.

Metra rail posts its biggest year yet for ridership
 

February 19, 2009

http://www.pioneerlocal.com/glencoe/...909-s1.article


By LIZA ROCHE lroche@pioneerlocal.com
High gas prices, congested roadways and expanded train service helped make 2008 a record-setting year for annual ridership for suburban Metra rail -- its third consecutive year for making such a record.

In all, Metra reported nearly 84.5 million paid rides in 2008, a 1.4 percent increase over 2007. When including free rides for seniors, the total number of passenger trips grew to 86.8 million in 2008, a 4.2 percent increase from the previous year.

"Since reaching a low of 54.6 million passenger trips in 1983, (the year before commuter rail service was reorganized as Metra) commuter rail ridership has increased 54 percent, averaging a growth rate of two percent a year," said Metra Executive Director Phil Pagano.

This past July was Metra's most popular month in its history, when for the first time ever, the commuter rail service recorded more than 8 million passenger trips in one month. Metra also recorded seven consecutive months in 2008 with more than 7 million trips each.

July also coincided with sky-high gasoline prices, which at the time averaged $4.34 a gallon.

"With the cost of driving more expensive, Metra became a popular alternative," said Lynette Ciavarella, Metra's director of planning and analysis.

Of all the Metra lines, three lines running through north suburban communities saw the biggest growth in 2008, with officials pointing to reconstruction of the Edens Expressway as a major reason for increased use.

Metra's North Central line, which runs from Chicago to Antioch and through many suburbs including Grayslake and Vernon Hills, grew 10.7 percent in passenger trips, from 1.48 million in 2007 to 1.57 million in 2008.

The Union Pacific North line, which runs from Chicago Kenosha and through many North Shore communities including Winnetka and Lake Forest, also saw big gains.

According the suburban rail system, the line recorded more than 10 million paid passenger trips in 2008, compared to 9.2 million in 2007. When including free trips for seniors and other free riders, the total number of rides on the line rose to nearly 10.5 million.

Passenger trips for the Milwaukee North line, running from Chicago to Fox Lake, and through Glenview and Libertyville, also grew by 7.2 percent in passenger trips from 2007 to 2008.

Another ridership noted by Metra staff was the growth in intermediate travel. Trips not beginning or ending in Zone A, or downtown Chicago, on Metra increased 12 percent over those in 2007.

Edens work is completed, employment numbers are decreasing and high gasoline prices have subsided for now -- all things that could reduce pressure on the commuter train system.

But Metra Director Jack Schaffer of McHenry County said more people may consider Metra with significantly higher parking prices --including metered parking -- in downtown Chicago.

"It's something we'll have to keep our eye on," he said.

So what does everyone think on CTA raising fares for 2009, and now finding out that they're already in a $87M hole for LAST year's budget.

Add that to the 2009 deficit and we're staring at a $254,000,000 budget gap that's already hitting.

Compare this to the years we sat through "doomsdays" that tore everyone apart and caused serious fights in Springfield over amounts from $50-$80 million.

We're looking at something 3 times larger than the past doomsdays and we already "won" our fight to fix the funding sytem. No one is giving us anything now, let alone 3 times as much.

Even the CTA and RTA in their meetings today said they were at a complete loss of words, and wouldn't even know where to start fixing this budget gap.

They said the only ways were massive fare increases alongside devestating service cuts.

And now they just released a story how they're pulling over TWO HUNDRED of the rush-hour accordian buses off their routes for defects.

The report said this will have a major impact on rush hour express bus travel on the north/south sides into downtown.

:previous:

That really sucks. They've known about the issue for a long time and have sued the manufacturer.