20 Comments - Anonymous - Tuesday, Aug 21, 07 @ 8:23 am: The Mayor is sitting on a huge pot of money from the Skyway deal. I don’t understand why it isn’t his obligation to devout this to the CTA, rather than the State coming up with a solution. It even makes sense, since they’re both transportation related. - Ghost - Tuesday, Aug 21, 07 @ 8:24 am: Scene: Capitol Security guarding the bridge to the capitol. Present are the Gov, seeking to use the bridge and its guardian. Capitol Security: “What is your quest?” Gov: “To seek the holy veto of line item transfer.” Capitol Security: “What is your favorite line item?” Gov: “Pork spending! No wait I’m now opposed to Pork Spending…AIEEEEEEEE Scene ends: Gov hurtling through the air. - John Bambenek - Tuesday, Aug 21, 07 @ 8:39 am: I’d like to konw why in the hell people in Cairo, Navoo, Rantoul and Effingham need to have their pockets raided to fund Chicago transit. If Chicago wants transit, let them pay for it themselves. - DeepFriedOnAStick - Tuesday, Aug 21, 07 @ 8:49 am: I hear Blagojevich will author the next edition of “How to Win Friends and Influence People.” Oh wait, that couldn’t be. With each day, he makes clear to yet another constituency that he is thoroughly self-centered and incompetent. This time it’s school officials. - Ghost - Tuesday, Aug 21, 07 @ 8:54 am: John, keep in mind the state funds all kinds of projects in local communities using state money, sometimes referred to as pork spending. I am not sure an isolationist view is helpful, after all why should people in X city/county pay for roads and schools in Cairo. No city/county operates solely on the funds raised in that county. The more interesting questing is how did the mass transit system fall into such a horrible state? and if we bail it out maybe there needs to be real fare increases and plans put in place to keep this from happening again. - Cassandra - Tuesday, Aug 21, 07 @ 9:06 am: I know a lot of people who live in Chicago and I never hear them complaining about their property taxes, which I believe are lower than property taxes for equivalent property in the Greater Chicago suburbs. If Chicagoans really felt that an increase would be unduly burdensome there would be a great hue and cry and the pols would back off. I think Daley has read the situation correctly. The votes will be there. Don’t cry for Chicago. They can afford it. I don’t think the mass transit system is in a horrible state. These systems are expensive to maintain. My concern is that despite all the hype, the CTA, like Cook County government remains a huge political pork farm with exorbitant free health and pension benefits and way above market salaries to dozing lifer employees. There is no indication that the reforms young Ron Huberman says he will implement will actually go through. In fact, they probably won’t go through. So the CTA bureacracy will remain a huge and lavish welfare state for the politically connected–with the expectation that the entire state, not just Chicago, will pick up the tab. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Aug 21, 07 @ 9:27 am: John, the transit bill includes funding for Downstate projects paid for by taxes on the Chicago area alone. You’re completely backwards on this one. - plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Aug 21, 07 @ 9:30 am: Boo hoo, my (insert bureacracy here) cannot make it with the money we have……. we will have chaos and/or deprive the children/seniors/commuters…… of what they need. Sounds like a hostage situation to me. Poliical enteties as well as corporate ones are happiest when maintaining the status quo. Businesses of course have a prime directive of making money for the owner(s). When profits are below expectations, action is take to pare the overhead and improve productivity of the remaining workers. Government does not exercize that discipline in its operations. If fact, whenever an essential governmental service budget is threatened, the reaction is to promise as large a negative impact to the user base as possible. This is designed to produce a ‘groundswell’ of citizen support which is then used to increase taxes. If there was backbone and willpower, the state and other governmental enteties would be able to make at least a one time substantial cut in their operational budgets and learn how to live on smaller annual increases. Candidates…… anyone? - Southern Illinois iPhone - Tuesday, Aug 21, 07 @ 9:47 am: Let’s see, Blago raids our transportation money to fund Chicago transport, yet, we can’t even go 60 with our big trucks. What a joke. I’m beginning to think we should have two separate set of laws - one for Cook County and another for the rest of us. - ArchPundit - Tuesday, Aug 21, 07 @ 10:13 am: The general rule is that public dollars tend to flow more towards rural areas especially in transportation. The complaints from downstaters about CTA are a bit silly when they get a disproportionate share of the road dollars. - Gish - Tuesday, Aug 21, 07 @ 10:24 am: If you want to lump downstate as a whole then yes they receive a disproportionate share of road moneys. However no individual county likely receives more road money then Cook and/or one of the collar counties. I also firmly believe that could one do a study of all traffic on Interstate roads one would find a disproportionate share of traffic in any one downstate county with an interstate which is to/from the Chicago area. How much of the CTA traffic is disproportionately to/from downstate? - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Aug 21, 07 @ 10:27 am: Gish, that’s a blatant misuse of numbers. How many counties have the population of Cook? None. Try again. Also, as noted elsewhere, Downstate is getting money from the mass transit proposal without putting money in. And, the CTA doesn’t travel downstate. That was just weird. Plus, we’re not talking purely about Interstates here. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Aug 21, 07 @ 10:27 am: I would just like to make an observation regarding Blagojevich that I have been noticing since he started his term… He really seems to enjoy reigning in people. You would have to go back to the Pilgrims to find a leader who seemed so delighted in backing laws that restrict citizens from driving, playing, working, smoking, drinking, phoning, text-messaging, and the list goes on, doesn’t it? We have often painted Republicans as some kind of moral snoops who are quick to deny citizens from pursuing happiness, but Blagojevich isn’t GOP, is he? Is Blagojevich’s pugalistic nature so dominant he welcomes a fight even if it is with bar owners or pharmacists? Blagojevich needs to remove his belt buckle from his black hat and place it back on his belt. Maybe this will help keep his pants from falling down in public. - Milorad - Tuesday, Aug 21, 07 @ 12:00 pm: The truck driver speed limit is the only thing I have ever agreedd with Blago on. Some of these truck drivers are a real menace. Doesn’t really matter though they never obey the limit now. - John Bambenek - Tuesday, Aug 21, 07 @ 12:19 pm: Rich, et. al.- Sure, some downstate projects get some cash, but I would bet money, per capita, the largess is showered on Chicago. More importantly, even assuming the largess is distributed evenly, that doesn’t account for the gross inefficiency of sending the money to Chicago Springfield, them taking a healthy chunk out for waste, and then sending the scraps back and calling it a net gain. It’s kinda like giving someone a five dollar bill and asking for singles… and they give you $3 back. And that’s the BEST prospect for this. All transit projects are disproportionately paid for by communities who will never have nor want a transit system. And yes, why the system has fallen into disrepair is a good question… one easy to answer, because these systems are always chronically “underfunded”. They don’t have to tailor services according to efficiency or need so they end up wasteful, and when it finally catches up to them, they whine. Just look at Amtrak. - John Bambenek - Tuesday, Aug 21, 07 @ 12:23 pm: And to be fair, Chicago and the rest of the state shouldn’t have to pay for Champaign’s famed desire for a light rail system (for who knows what reason). Local projects should be funded locally. Transit is a local project. Roads aren’t local, particularly highways, because nothing gets to Chicago unless it drives on a highway to get there. So yeah, maybe those moneys go more downstate because there are more miles of road, but it’s not like you could only build highways in Chicago and expect you’d ever get any commerical products. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Aug 21, 07 @ 12:29 pm: Per capita, the “largesse” is “showered” on downstate. They get half the money, with about a third of the people. And not all transit is “local.” The electric line runs from Chicago all the way to the University of Notre Dame, for instance. Metra is hardly “local” when the line runs from deep in McHenry downtown, and another runs from Joliet (which used to be considered downstate) downtown. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Aug 21, 07 @ 12:39 pm: ===All transit projects are disproportionately paid for by communities who will never have nor want a transit system.=== Where do you get that? Since most of the people in this state live in the Chicago area, and since the vast majority of that area is within reasonable proximity to mass transit, your statement makes absolutely no sense. Before commenting here, get your facts straight. You’re wrong about per capita spending, you’re wrong about transit spending, you’re wrong about how the transit package has been constructed, you’re wrong about whether transit is local or not, and you’re even wrong about highway spending. Sure, Interstates probably carry a lot of traffic to and from Chicagoland, but some little highway between one small downstate town and another (and if you’ve ever been Downstate or glanced at a map you’d know there are a lot of those) has very little if anything to do with Chicago. I can’t fathom how you can be so certain of your opinions when you are so wrong about even simple facts. - ArchPundit - Tuesday, Aug 21, 07 @ 2:08 pm: ==Sure, some downstate projects get some cash, but I would bet money, per capita, the largess is showered on Chicago. As was pointed out above, not only does Chicago and the suburbs get less per capita, that is standard in nearly all states that urban areas do less well per capita. There are some good reasons for that given land to person ratios, but even controlling for that, downstate does much better especially in terms of who provides the most tax dollars and who gets returns on those tax dollars. Downstate gets a much better return on its tax dollar than Chicago. Having grown up downstate and heard the whining for years, I understand that reality has little to do with the complaints about the big evil city, but reality is inconsistent with the complaints. Beyond that CTA has significant economic benefits as a whole to the region and the state–it allows for much of the economic engine to get relatively low wage and in the City higher wage workers to their jobs. CTA could improve certainly, but it’s a rather remarkable job they pull off getting the numbers of people to work everyday. - NoGiftsPlease - Tuesday, Aug 21, 07 @ 8:54 pm: 1) To be fair, northeastern illinois is not asking for a bailout for the state. They’d like to see a sales tax increase UP HERE to fund our troubled public transit system UP HERE. 2) Northeastern illinois generates more than 1/2 of the motor fuel tax the state gives back to the communities, but it gets about 45% back. We are a “donor region” similar to the “donor state” federal argument. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.