Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Tribune ignores two-thirds of the case
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* I tend to lean strongly in favor of increasing public funding for mass transit. I have lots of reasons for this, but it probably goes back to when I lived in Europe for over two years, where the transit is superb. At one point, my family lived in a small town out in the middle of nowhere West Germany. But there was a bus stop right at the end of our driveway. I could take that bus into a bigger town, transfer to a train and go all the way across the country to Munich, where I’d take the subway and transfer to a bus which took me right to my college dorm. Waits were minimal, delays were rare, and rates were cheap. It was almost as fast as driving. Today, with Germany’s severe Autobahn traffic problems, that same trip probably is faster than driving.
But stuff like this makes it very difficult to stick out my neck for increased mass transit funding…
The massive subway station under construction at Block 37 is running as much as $150 million over budget, a shortfall that has prompted city officials to move to privatize the project.
Sources close to the matter say the city has begun discussions with Macquarie — the Australian investment bank that two years ago paid the city $1.82 billion to lease the Chicago Skyway — about buying or leasing the Chicago Transit Authority station underneath the high-profile retail and office complex now being built.
Insiders say it’s clear that completing the station, which would connect the Red Line and Blue Line subway tunnels and potentially anchor airport-express train service, will cost $100 million to $150 million more than the $213.3 million originally budgeted.
It’s not that I oppose the privatization scheme. It’s the $150 million cost overrun that makes me hot under the collar. Unforgivable.
* And then there’s this…
The region’s transit officials have spent nearly $3 million on lobbying, reports and media blitzes to convince lawmakers a sales tax hike is needed to keep the buses and trains running.
The $400 million-plus in new extra taxes could prevent major fare hikes and service cuts at the CTA, Pace and Metra.
Still, after months of ads, community hearings and rallies, there is little agreement among top lawmakers on the proposal. State House members are expected to vote on the measure today.
But as wheelchair-bound para-transit riders crowd sweaty hearings about fare hikes and commuters stress over having fewer options, not many may realize the amount of money that goes into such a campaign.
It’s almost enough to make me wish that they don’t get the money they need. Almost.
Here’s why…
As many as 100,000 commuters may lose their rides if the CTA implements huge cutbacks it’s now planning for Sept. 16, not to mention cutbacks in the suburban Pace bus system. […]
But there will be 300 fewer buses on the street and 39 fewer routes come rush hour Monday morning Sept. 17, say CTA officials, if the General Assembly fails to act by then to provide new revenues for the system.
There are more cuts coming as well. Riders shouldn’t be held completely hostage by inept leadership.
* But the governor is doing his best to scuttle the plan, without coming up with a real alternative…
A spokeswoman for the governor phoned transportation reporters late last week dismissing the claim by Hamos and the RTA that the transit funding package is limited to a regional tax increase in the six counties of northeastern Illinois.
Blagojevich spokeswoman Abby Ottenhoff said “it’s a little-known fact in the legislation” that taxpayers statewide would be on the hook for increased funding to the CTA, Metra and Pace because of the required 25 percent state match on sales taxes in the RTA transit funding formula.
The RTA proposal would increase revenue that the state provides by $150 million, said Joe Costello, RTA’s chief financial officer. It is presumed the additional money would come from the state’s general revenue fund, he said. The RTA system received $186 million in state-matching public transportation funds in 2006.
Downstate communities would also receive about $27 million in new transportation funding under the plan.
The House is expected to vote on the bailout package this afternoon. If it goes down, Blagojevich should definitely get part of the blame, but so should the House Republicans who signed onto the proposal then backed out in favor of a magic casino that never materialized. And the blame should also be shared by the inept people who run our transit systems.
What a mess.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 7:45 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Tribune ignores two-thirds of the case
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
CTA commuters are now being bombarded with messages that the impending service cuts are caused by “inadequate state funding.” I actually agree that state funding is inadequate, but I think you would have a hard time finding a single human being not on a City of Chicago or CTA payroll who believes that inadequate state funding is the sole (or likely even the primary) source of the CTA’s woes.
Comment by Gus Frerotte's Clipboard Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 8:15 am
What a mess. No truer words were ever spoken. Even though I very seldom ride mass-transit. I too believe it is a very necessary part of urban life.
But again here come Illinois corruption.
Over runs from contractors making political donations and no penalties. The taxpayers continues to pay.
Privatization doesn’t seem to be the answer. Daley is claiming the city needs to raise taxes. What happened to the billions from the Sky-way money ?
What a mess !!!
Comment by Lula May Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 8:28 am
The CTA is poorly run and fare hikes are long overdue. Asking the state and suburbanites (who are not fairly represented on the RTA Board) to bail them out is like putting a bandaid on a severed limb.
Comment by Smile Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 8:32 am
Tell me again why Chicago is considered a world-class city by some people?
Maybe I have low standards, but being on the verge of shrinking our transit system hardly says much for us.
Everyone deserves blame on this one, including Daley and the voters who keep electing all these idiots.
Excuse my language, but I am anxious about how I will get to work within a few weeks. The longer I live in Chicago, the more it becomes obvious this is among the worst “major” cities in the country, if not the world.
Comment by tom73 Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 8:32 am
tom73, have you ever been to Detroit? Yeah, it’s bad, but it could be a whole lot worse.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 8:36 am
Any solution that doesn’t eliminate the CTA as an agency and remove control by the Daley regime isn’t a solution.
With a regional population, we need ONE regional agency and the City of Chicago has proven their incompetence at running transportation.
Comment by Christine Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 8:44 am
Rich,
That is indeed an amazing price tag. The previous stations and connection, if a bit dark and smelly, seemed to function ok. For $350M, you’d think we could just go above ground and complete the 2-block walk that separates the two lines.
Comment by Greg Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 8:48 am
It’s my understanding that whether they get a huge gift of zillions from the state or not, the CTA is not planning to lay off any of the thousands of Democratic patronage employees who work in great comfort at its the CTA’s plush digs. Even if it lays off bus drivers and other frontline staff.
Remenber when Ron Huberman came in claiming he would “cut waste.” Then he laid off, like, five people, not out the door, but down the hall to other jobs.
When some of the excess patronage starts going out the door permanently, I’ll support a tax increase for the CTA. Until then, I’ll pay the higher fares. In the long run, it’s cheaper. There are lots more Democratic contributors waiting for plush government jobs out there, and Blago can’t hire all of them at the state level.
Comment by Cassandra Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 8:56 am
When you have 80 million people packed into a country the size of Montana, have thousands of years of civilization before the invention of the automobile, and no weather extremes, then you have a nice place for mass transit; high density little history of individual transportation beyond the shoe, and no 100 degree weeks or blizzard commuting days. Comparing Germany or The Netherlands, or Japan to the US doesn’t take into consideration so many dramatic differences in societies and mother nature.
I wish that people who want to compare us with Europe to look at a map. Do you see anything that compares to Orlando or Houston weather-wise? Are London’s winters similar to Chicago’s? How can anyone compare any major city in Europe to Phoenix’s or Las Vegas’ desert climate?
Do Europeans commute in 120 degree heat? Do they wait for a bus in a blizzard? Does their daily commute take them to where banks are 1 mile north, groceries five miles east, schools ten miles south and jobs twenty five miles west?
Yes, it is great to live in Europe when we are discussing mass transit systems. But we are talking about nations smaller than some of our cities, counties and states. We are talking about commuting in year-round moderate climates. We are talking about living in cities like Paris where the average “home” is 400 feet.
We don’t live like this. We don’t live in a country like this. We don’t live in neighborhoods like this. We don’t live in homes like this. This is not our lifestyle - lets stop pretending that is can be, or should be.
Mass transit in the US costs too much to maintain, has too few riders and is not flexible enough to meet our lifestyle. The more we sink into our current mass transit systems the more money we waste.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 9:11 am
3 MILLION on lobbying??? Thats a lot of salaries and services that could have been kept running.
153million cost over run? sounds like somone intentionaly sold the deal cheap to get it started. heck maybe they had a lon term plan to get it to a private company because of funding.
The State should increase funding of public transit. it should also investigate the current authority for fraud and corruption. Such a huge cost almost cries out that somone intentionaly acted in an improepr manner, either pre or psot construction.
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 9:14 am
Rich,
Two factors are leading public space construction projects to run over across the board.
First, in the wake of Katrina materials and labor have jumped in price. Construction contractors are taking the opportunity to raise their profits, at the same time that everything from timber for studs to copper for wires are costing more.
Second, the ethics regulations involved in public projects raise the base price of any construction as the contractors have to jump through more hoops filling out paperwork, etc. I’m not saying those protocols should disappear, but the time it takes to fill out those forms adds cost. I can imagine with changes in security measures after 9/11 there may be even more such baseline work to do on such a transit project.
That said, $150mil is a huge overrun given the base cost was $213mil in the first place… Ridiculous.
Comment by Rob_N Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 9:15 am
Those of us that use mass transit rarley should not have to pay for those that use it. Make it like the Tollway. Buy an express pass and for those that don’t then pay a higher fee. That way the choice is ours. I take a train to Chicago maybe once a year, the CTA is not like Education where we all must help proved. The train is a choice.
Comment by The Conservative Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 9:23 am
Vanilla Man, you make some good points, but we don’t live in Houston or Orlando, automobile-era cities that were simply built without public transit. The Chicagoland area has enough density that public transit is a necessity, and we actually have the framework of a pretty good system. Many people in the area do rely on public transit, particularly in the blizzard conditions that Chicago often faces (while the CTA doesn’t always do a great job in the snow, it’s often a quicker and safer option than the roads). Even the wealthy lakefront communities are heavily dependent on public transit, in the form of Metra.
There are many reasons, some good some bad, that public transit didn’t develop more in the United States. But that’s beside the point to the current issue, which is that the Chicagoland area has a major public transportation system on which it relies quite heavily, and the people at the state, regional, and city level who are responsible for its care and feeding have done a poor job. The consequences of their failure will be dire for everybody — from the poor people working two jobs who will now have to add significant time to their commute on an already-grueling schedule, to everybody who uses the roads now and will be joined by those people who can afford to drive in lieu of taking the CTA or other regional transit.
In addition to the day to day consequences, which will be severe, one can also imagine that the failure to support public transportation will not sit well with many of the Europeans voting on Chicago’s Olympic bid, from both a philosophical and practical standpoint.
Comment by Gus Frerotte's Clipboard Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 9:26 am
Lets see now. Millemium Park’s original estimate was someting south of 150mil…wound up near 500 mil..Ohare Airport’s estimates or runway expansion was…
It is no surprise that Chicago is unable to keep to a budget on any capital project. The percentage of the excesses in these building projects are telling us something. What it is remains unclear. Ignorance in the original budget documents.. graft, corruption, a general who cares attitude, wild labor rules? Any of these things as well as others permeate anything that the City does.
Do we need public transportation, yes,
Do the systems fairly connect all the regions that are paying for the transit, no
Is the money being spent, get the biggest bang for the buck, not likely.
Should the riders assume a lagre percentage of the cost of operations e.g. labor, fuel maintenance, yes
We also have to be very skeptical of the currently fashionable privatization. Public good is public good andthings get muddled when private interests are involved. It was just recently seen when the nascent feud started between the Illinois Toll Authority and the Indiana toll folks regarding reciprocal discounts. The private entity was not interested in the reciprocal discounts between Illinois and Indiana…..
These 99 year leases will come and bite use in the end…
Comment by plutocrat03 Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 9:26 am
1. Maybe cost overruns on government projects are related to lowballing which occurs when managers want their project to pass and they know a higher price won’t fly.
2. Maybe if we invested a small portion of the now hundreds of billions spent securing oil in the Mid-East on better public transit, we wouldn’t need that oil and would have saved lots of money and lives (and bad international “karma”).
Comment by thoughts on costs Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 9:43 am
Rich: I have been to Detroit, but I wouldn’t call it a major city anymore, not with its failed economy. I am comparing Chicago to places such as NYC, DC, SF, LA (yes, worse transit there), Berlin, Paris, Munich, Barcelona, London, Moscow, etc.
Perhaps Chicago is better off being compared to sinkholes such as Detroit, though, and not relatively thriving cities.
Comment by tom73 Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 9:48 am
VM–Take a look at the Metro system in Washington DC. This system of public transit system works just fine in all kinds of weather, therefore blowing a large hole in your argument…
The public transit system in northern IL is a victim of neglect, patronage, and last ditch funding “fixes” but this system is still vital to the economic engine that the Chicago area is, and is a quality of life issue for everyone, even those who do not use it…maybe an independant agency along with a good government group should oversee operations to ensure more transparency and accountability…
Comment by Loop Lady Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 9:56 am
How many times has Chicago’s transits systems RTA, CTA, Metra and Pace been bailed out in the last 50 years?
The problems have always been at the top, it’s where well connected individuals go to get plum jobs.
Comment by SPEND, SPEND, SPEND Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 10:00 am
Vanilla — Gus is right, and to take it a step further, a significant portion of our country was built around trains. This is particularly true of Chicago’s neighborhoods and suburbs. It’s a recent development (last 50 years) in our history that we’ve decided to sacrifice walking and trains at the altar of the automobile. And yes, of course transit is expensive, but do you think roads and highways aren’t? Do you think as someone who doesn’t drive and relies solely on walking and transit that I appreciate paying taxes for your even more expensive highways, gas, and oil wars while the state threatens to cut my trains and buses? It’s ludicrous to say transit is too expensive and then look the other way when it comes to subsidizing the automobile lifestyle. I wouldn’t mind higher fares if drivers also had to pay direct fees for their roads, and if Chicago wasn’t giving away valuable real estate as free parking. You can’t privatize transit or expect it to compete on a free market if the government is trowing heavy subsidies at drivers to encourage them to drive instead of taking the train. All I want is my fair share too.
Gus is also right that inadequate funding isn’t the only cause of the crisis. But that’s the case in every situation like this — be it transportation, education, health care, etc. And Cassandra is wrong — the CTA has been doing a lot to clean itself up since Huberman took over. The bottom line is that our state has not fulfilled its responsibility to the taxpayers to maintain their transportation system with adequate funding. Withholding funding will only make things worse — it’s not going to magically cleanse us of every little bit of corruption.
Comment by Lee Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 10:21 am
So, I actually never use the roads but my taxes pay for them. I live in an urban neighborhood as dense as many in Europe, and use transit for everywhere I go. Sure there are a few toll roads in the region, but there are countless other roads with no tolls. Why should I pay for those?
The fact is, governments provide a host of services, some that you use and some that you don’t. For example: public education. I don’t use it. But I’m glad it exists and I’m glad to pay taxes for it.
Comment by Getoverit Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 10:24 am
Once again the Republicans look stupid and uncaring; yet they wonder why they keep losing suburban Legislative seats! The Speaker has outmaneuvered them again - they will be blamed if the transit bill fails!
Comment by Legaleagle Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 10:52 am
I use the CTA nearly every day, and if you had to drive / park downtown, you would also! We are MUCH better than many other large cities, but there’s room for improvement.
1- Eliminate the 3 agencies + consolidate. Off the top of my head there’s 5 examples where CTA + Metra could share resources + stops. Fewer bureaucrats too!
2- Bring back the CTA train conductors. It would help keep the trains cleaner, safer, and the ‘bums’ from taking over the cars.
Comment by 312 Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 10:55 am
Let’s see, the Route 29 or 26 bus that takes people all up and down State street may see services cut. It takes forever today to get that bus. A working student that lives at University Center and has a job at Navy Pier may as well walk when that happens. Students cannot afford the $3 fairs from $2. Plus, $150 million over. Who’s sleeping over there?
Comment by game plan Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 11:02 am
The Conservative, the train is a choice, but so are the roads. And for many people who can’t afford a car, there’s no real choice. We live in an automobile-based country and I understand my tax dollars will subsidize roads, but if we’re going to subsidize that choice, we should subsidize the other, too. Both are necessary for the economy, which is why the business-oriented groups have shown leadership in calling attention to this problem.
Comment by Gus Frerotte's Clipboard Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 11:03 am
3- Incentives like the Location Efficient Mortgage gives homebuyers a greater debt-to-income ratio if they use public transit. CTA wouldn’t participate and help with this program, for whatever silly red tape reason.
4- Encourage downtown hotels offer CTA maps + discounted passes for tourists.
5- Build the ‘outer loop’ train that would go from Navy Pier to train stations to Museum campus. Most track right-of-way already exists, will take trolleys + cabs off the crowded streets.
Comment by 312 Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 11:07 am
The fact of the matter is that the General Assembly is passing off the hot potato of transit pension funding to the Chicago City Council - who will in turn guarantee at least $3 billion in funding until 2039. That funding, in the form of the increase in the Chicago real estate transfer tax, will increase due to natural growth when the market rebounds - and means a windfall at some point for the CTA.
The $235 million in transfer taxes the City projected will go up 40 percent in 2008 when this passed and will become the highest single source of revenue within the City – even though $100 million or so is a pass through. Based on 2007 numbers the tax would produce $109 million.
The tax would outpace 2007 receipts for Cable TV, Electric, Electricity IMF, Lease Tax, Motor Vehicle Lessor Tax, Ground Transportation Tax, Parking Tax, Vehicle Fuel Tax, Amusement Tax, Auto Amusement Tax, Boat mooring Tax, Liquor Tax, Cigarette tax, Non-Alcoholic Beverage tax, OTB Tax, Employers Expense Tax, Foreign Fire Insurance Tax, Hotel Tax, Personal Property Replacement Tax, Municipal Auto Rental Tax, and Intergovernmental Grants.
It remains very interesting to me that those who advocate for affordable housing like the MPC are advocating for sticking it to sellers now. Sellers - who will have to pay for this unfair swallowing of their equity really needed a diminishment of their investment in a down market. Great idea and great support of home ownership.
Its quite dubious to say the least - that an un-elected - appointed CTA board (so much for accountability) will get their under funded pension dollars for thirty years paid directly off the back of Chicago home sellers - and will still be able to go down to Springfield for their capital projects. Of course, the City will get their fees for the cost of collection as well. Ultimately the State is off the hook for some – but will still have to carry the bill on the big ticket items. This isnt over by a long shot.
Makes you wonder which governmental entity that finds itself in trouble next will get the benefit of a custom transfer tax increase without voter consent next…
And finally, what about the poor Aldermen who will be faced with the prospects of approving a $100 million dollar annual subsidy for the CTA from the transfer tax. That’s $3 billion over the term of the bond. Hard to say you didn’t raise taxes when this bill makes it a 40% increase.
Comment by Taylor Street Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 11:07 am
6- Simple things like making sure every bus/train stop has garbage cans. At least 3 times I’ve gotten off a train to toss my trash, only to have the doors close + train leave before I can get back.
7- The multi-year wait for parking near Metra stations is a HUGE joke. Don’t have enough surface lots? Build UP!
8- As much as Frank Kruesi was disliked, at least he USED the CTA. If more of their employees actually used it, the improvements would be quick.
Comment by 312 Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 11:16 am
If you want to see what happens when you don’t support public transit take a look at London Transport today!
Just asking, does public-private partnership in public transit really work?
Comment by Oxford Circus Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 11:19 am
How about a small issue of telling the contractors who bid those jobs that result in $150M in overruns - “Tough. You bid it and signed a contract. Eat it out of profits”. For the bureaucrats who authorized any contract that results in $150M in overruns - Time for a new job that is in touch with reality. If someone is in the construction business and has no concept of the current cost of copper, concrete, and steel and cannot project large project costs they are in the wrong business. Do the homework required. Yeah graft is there and there are surely all types of other payoffs, but still there is a limit. If Macquarie can come in a make a profit on a lease why can’t the existing operation?
Comment by zatoichi Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 11:29 am
9- Increasing the real estate transfer tax is NOT the answer. Increasing the parking tax IS. I see people everyday that drive, when they could easily take bus/train. Tax cigarettes to fund healthcare? Tax parking to fund transit!
10- On the ‘troubled’ bus lines (the #29 Express Bus to the Jerry Springer Show comes to mind…) Put either a conductor or a cop on it - problems will go away quickly.
Comment by 312 Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 11:31 am
Transit and education — (sorry to bring the second one in, but…) two areas in which we faithfully pour tons o’tax dollars into on the blind hope that the systems will improve.
And why don’t they? Because they are treated as ‘public utilities’, are granted monopoly status with a veto power over competition, and because the work structure is designed to guarantee jobs without regard to production.
Now that your hackles are raised, let’s discuss the intra-metropolitan area transportation problem. Give me not your autobahns and intercity high speed trains, that is not the short distance transpo problem.
We have decentralized shopping areas, homes and work areas. The former are distances away from the second, the second have been horizontally as opposed to vertically developed, the third are segregated as well and aside from the Loop exist in mid-rise specially zoned areas convenient for vehicle transportation. We can not bend the rails to serve this, nor do the behemoths on the road work for other than the central city.
There is scant opportunity to expand commuter rail lines. We shall wait and see whether the double tracking of the Wisconsin Central freight lines will, with additional, money losing scheduling by Metra increase substantially commuter rail usage — increase by a larger amount than the growth in new single family housing along its corridor and the additional roadway costs.
We do not incentivize reverse public transportation commuting. Nor have we tried to encourage as a matter of public policy work from home offices for every type of job from secretarial to technical to management.
But these are exogeneous changes. They do not address efficiencies in the existing public transportation systems. Just now, for instance, the CTA is finding out that their maintenance yards vary widely in cost effectiveness. Just now, they are attempting to document the local management practices which result in lower costs and extend them to other facilities. This might represent a change in the bureaucratic ennui which has prevailed. Or not.
While we probably should not encourage competition in the large road vehicle passenger movement, surely there is room for the release of the monopoly (and the routes, perhaps) on low volume routes and the invitation of companies using smaller privately owned units on those streets and at times during which the behemoths are not an economic use of CTA resources.
I earlier proposed that the CTA and PACE get out of the passenger movement business and make drivers independent entrpreneneurs bidding for the use of CTA equipment on a certain routes with certain schedules at fixed fares, with the Agencies responsible for the maintenance. Less attractive routes could be assigned by the lowest subsidy or the routes dropped and assigned to the private sector using transport as small as jitney cabs, which I suggested above.
Each automobile on the road has a cost to the City, the use of public transit reduces that cost. We must be able to quantify the cost in road maintenance and repair, police operations, etc. if we are to properly evaluate the economic cost of public transportation.
Until we do, we will continue blindly pay for what we are not getting.
Comment by Truthful James Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 11:42 am
The majority of the populace is not going to ride mass transit as they want their chariot out there in the parking lot so they can come and go as they please - we’re a society of convenience and laziness. That said, mass transit usually isn’t used as needed by potential riders, but set up as a kingdom for another agency to rule. Look at all of the empty busses running around Springfield daily. They should be replaced with smaller shuttle-type service, picking up those who need rides and taking them where they need to go, not just running the same empty route day after day. That sort of public transportation would be more useful to the populace and would be used more - but it looks better to the politicians to have larger busses running around with big billboards on the sides of them than smaller busses being used more efficiently. I guess the larger busses are supposed to represent us as a bigger city - when we’re really just a big little town.
Comment by Sahims2 Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 12:03 pm
The real estate transfer tax has nothing to do with public transportation. It should not be used, even for the pension funds which are an outgrowth of public transportation.
The City of Chicago and the State are merely hiding their general nonfeasance from the public by attaching a foreign revenue source which will be hidden from the general public.
Comment by Truthful James Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 12:05 pm
In 90% of IL, public transit is not an option and would be difficult if not impossible to effectively implement, even if it were desired. Any solution will, and should, have to be politically sold to the people who don’t use it and directly benefit. And with the bridge stories from MN, it is apparent there are road infrastructure needs in the cities as well as the rural areas. However, it is hard to imaging what a miserable place Chicago would be if transit were not available. The city literally depends on the CTA to be able to move people around. And in the suburbs, if Pace evaporated few would notice, but there would be some “unable to drive” people who would be stranded. This “roads vs. transit” thing is a zero-sum game that adds up to less than zero if it is treated as a tug of war where each side tries to win without considering the other’s needs.
Took the CTA yesterday to the Cubs game rather than driving in, as I like to support transit even though I infrequently have an opportunity to use it.
My comments:
1. Park & ride was excellent and uncrowded and a bargain at $2, but I know it was a holiday.
2. Trains were very crowded, there were a lot of $1.75 fares there. Seemingly there is a lot of money coming in at the farebox.
3. Just taking a look at the infrastructure, it is mostly very old and will be very expensive to re-do when the time comes, and will have to be done in some very tight spaces.
4. When factoring in the delays in parking, buying the tickets, walking around to catch transfers, waiting on late trains, and riding in a crowded mess, I can see why some would forego the $9 I spent in transit (for self and spouse) and try to find a spot near the ballpark in their car. Even in an environment that is not too friendly to the car.
5. If I lived in the city, I would gladly pay a half percent extra sales tax to keep the same level of service and to make improvements. I would like to know my money was being spent wisely before I supported it.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 12:15 pm
Whose idea was it to have Esther Golar sing that horrible and embarrassing song?
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 12:29 pm
Whoever that was singing, somebody call her office and tell her not to give up her day job
Comment by Lainer Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 12:32 pm
We need MORE mass transit in Chicago, not less, and anyone who disagrees should commute by car into downtown Chicago for one full week. Your mind would change.
The CTA has been a Machine cesspool for decades. Now the price tag of that is hitting home. Enjoy, all of you who routinely vote for the status quo!
Q: How can you operate a $215 mil. public works project to run a $150 mil. (i.e. 69.8%) cost overrun and NOT be investigated by the local state prosecutors?
A: Do it in Chicago! It’s a “World Class City” all right - in corruption. How about a Corruption Olympics, where Chicago can bid against cities like Istanbul, Rio, Shanghai, Palermo, Las Vegas, etc. to get the title of “Corruption Capital of the World”?
Chicago would reach the final round.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 12:37 pm
Anyone know exactly what’s happening with SB572 right now? I see there’s a new 5th amendment and it appears that today’s house session has already ended.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 1:06 pm
Oh for crying out loud!
The only altar I see folks worshipping at is the one big hypocritical one with the words “mass transportation” written all over it.
We drive cars. Our parents drove cars. Our grandparents drove cars. Our great grandparents drove cars. Our great great grandparents drove cars. But SUDDDENLY we have a bunch of people who want who sole interest seems to be driving the rest of us out of our cars. Are you people nuts?
Are you so unable to solve our current societal issues you think we have to turn back the clock in order to solve all those horrific problems you claim our cars created?
Stop blaming cars, will ya? They will not go away. We drive cars for the same reason we took trains and busses years ago - personal freedom. With each step towards personal freedom, we used whatever transportation was around to achieve it. For the past CENTURY is has been cars. Get used to it!
We worship mass transportation to make ourselves feel better, thats all. We spend millions on it yearly because we have been brow beatened by urbanites who feel morally superior to us because they take a bus. Big whoo.
We are not Europe - Thank GOD! We have the financial ability and a culture of freedom to move people into cars. Stop the hand-wringing and the guilt. This is the way it is!
We are not leaving our suburban houses to return to cities. We are not moving from our homes with gardens and yards, and moving into high rise apartments. We are not giving up our cars to sit with strangers on a bus or a train - no matter how pretty these busses or trains are. We are not going back.
So why they heck are we still worshipping at the altar of mass transportation when fewer of us yearly are using it? Stop the nonsense and start thinking like the rest of us, OK?
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 1:29 pm
VM,
You are correct that people are not leaving their suburban houses to return to the city, at least here in IL. Cook County had the 3rd largest population drop among US counties in the last estimate, and a hurricane had something to do with #1.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www
/releases/archives/population/009756.html
And even as a transit supporter where it is appropriate, I have to question how effective projects are that extend Metra into the hinterlands. While the extensions to Elburn and Manhattan are great for the communities they serve, the fact is that hundreds of millions were expended on construction and operations of these lines for the benefit of maybe taking a few hundred cars off the area’s roads each day. As I ponder those miles and miles of 100 year old elevated train tracks in Chicago where tens of thousands ride each day, and how expensive they will be to replace.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 1:52 pm
VanillaMan,
My great grandparents and grandparents didn’t own a car. They took mass transit to get to work and shop. When I lived in Chicago, I used mass transit and was able to walk to work. As other commenters have indicated, we need to develop residential and commerical areas in ways that will support more efficient mass transit systems. I shudder to think about all the resources we waste by relying so much on the car to perform basic tasks. Future generations will not be happy.
Comment by pro mass transit Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 1:58 pm
VM, I usually agree with you, but this time I think you’re way off base. Nobody’s trying to take away cars (your vitrol is akin to the NRA arguments). Those of us who live/work/play downtown appreciate the CTA, and are freaked about the cuts. We wish MORE would ride it, instead of trying to navigate clogged streets.
AND I see people everyday moving from the burbs to the city - not just recent college grads, but empty nesters. But the Chicago schools scare many parents of young kids back to the burbs.
Comment by 312 Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 2:01 pm
Then what do you propse, Vanilla Man? No more mass transit? Just let the current systems crumble? Just build more roads from now on, despite rising gas prices and construction costs, and the demonstrated willingless of more people to use mass transit, including commuter and high speed trains (see the last decade of controversy over the high speed rail project in Florida)? Do you really think nonstop sprawl based on automobile transit patterns is working so well? Do you think our current transit patterns (and the planning policies that result) are going to endure for another 50-100 years? You say “this the way it is,” ignoring that the way things are often change–look at all the cities that once had streetcar systems, for instance. You say, “We are not going back,” when, in fact, ridership has been increasing on the CTA–clearly, someone is going back. Look at the Brown Line, for instance. And look at the development around El stops as well. I can line up dozens of people for you to speak with who have based their choice of housing–both rental and owned–on where the transit is. Some of these are people who moved from car-centric communities, which seems another hole in your theory about the desirability of mass transit.
And you slam Europe–I mean, what would a good anti-mass transit tirade be without an all-American slam on Europe?–and while I agree our two societies and geographies are vastly different, I don’t see what’s wrong with having multiple and efficient means to move from one city to another without having to squeeze your car into a parking space.
Funny: You equate cars with freedom, etc. I no longer have a car and feel 100% more free than I ever did, as do many of my colleagues. Different strokes, I guess.
Tell you what, Vanilla. You can stop your help in paying for my mass transit when I can stop paying for projects that help you drive your vehicle. Deal?
Comment by tom73 Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 2:09 pm
Hard to imagine the Blaggo Fluff Machine admitting they did not know until Friday that the state give $ to CTA/RTA. Next thing they will “discover” is a former fluff machiner in a paid RTA agent.
Will they declare The World of Blaggo a no fly zone so angy commuters don’t walk on the Wiffle Ball court?
Comment by CaseyJones Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 2:10 pm
Hey VM, Just where exactly do you work and live?
This might help me understand your woeful point of view…by the way streetcars were dismantled to make way for–you guessed it automobiles—I wish gas prices went up to over $4 a gallon this summer, it would have been inteesting to watch people’s driving habits in the wake of Euro style prices–
Comment by Loop Lady Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 2:24 pm
Rob_N had a post very early in the discussion to take account for the cost over runs and discusses issues like Katrina - fair point. But there is more……….
One very key element to the cost over runs is the way that the state handles construction. We had Illinois First, which employed a lot of people and then gradually ran out. All of those construction people started to run out of work. Three of the top ten contractors went out of business. Immediately after they ran out of business, BAM - the Tollway comes out with their big program. Simple law of supply and demand, the supply (contractors) went way down and then suddenly the demand (Tollway program) went way, way up. There were huge busts between estimated costs and actual bids because there was suddenly too much work and not enough contractors. Why did the program take off so fast at the Tollway? Because our dear governor (who put his name on every Tollway sign he could find) wanted to get a big program off and running so he could show people why we needed to re-elect him. Added to that is the millions he raised from consultants because of the big Tollway program. Now that all the contractors are working feverishly constructing the Tollway program, (and don’t forget the O’Hare Expansion), we suddenly find big cost overruns for the CTA?? Hmmmmm.
I fully support a larger construction program to fix our roads and bridges, and the Tollway program was desperately needed. However, we need politicians that actually know something about supply and demand and we need a construction program that stays about the same dollar level year after year instead of yo-yoing the construction program up and down. It just leads to too much up and down with construction prices, which really hurt the taxpayers.
Comment by Trafficmatt Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 2:33 pm
Once again, the roads vs. transit vitriol comes out, and it’s a less than zero sum game.
In IL, very few new roads are being built or expanded, and we are having trouble maintaining the ones we have, but people are still driving their cars and trucks in increasing numbers. Transit is being well-used, especially in the city, but isn’t being operated or maintained at a great level in many cases.
And a lot of what we hear is a tug of war over a shrinking pie.
Re-developing the cities and building new ones to be better served by the generic “transit” looks like a project that may take, oh, a century or so to bear fruit. And who knows what options will be available then, or what people’s preferences will be? There are immediate needs out there, folks, as well as long-range ones.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 2:37 pm
I usually do not dive into this inferno more than twice, but the good folk on this thread need to propose solutions not just justify their positions and criticize others. There are enought bright people hereabouts, by my count, to do just that.
Does the Peapod idea work (mass transit for your groceries — order by phone with home delivery)? That would certainly affect traffic.
Suppose we dropped mass transit fares to zero, how much taxes would we have to raise to cover the existing and new demand? We are told that the farebox only raises 50% of the required revenue, what taxes should be raised? How can we introduce lower priced competition with no fares.
There have got to be ideas out there.
Comment by Truthful James Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 2:38 pm
Notwithstanding Van Man’s jeremiads,an adequately funded and comprehenaive mass transit system is a fundamental element of the metropolitan Chicago economy now and in the future.
Julie Hamos has spent several years working on the mass transit funding and reform package. It has bipartisan support from all the “movers and shakers” and opinion leaders in the metropolitan Chicago area. I heard a suburban Republican leader state unequivically that this was the best and the fairest mass transit funding bill that has ever been intitiated in terme of equitable funding to meet suburban needs.
There are three people who will be accountable for the defeat of the mass transit bill, if it fails: Governor Blagojevich for his philosophical rigidity and unwillingness to compromise on revenue sources; Emil Jones for enabling Blago and permitting the legislative session to go into overtime; and Tom Cross, who may refuse to support the bill despite its merits.
Cross’s obstructionism is why the Republican party will reamin a minority party in the legislature despite the colossal failure of the top Democratic leaders. Emil Jones is already political dead meat for all practical purposes. a mass transit funding defeat would simply another nail in his political column and another line is his political obituary.
Should the announced PACE and CTA service cuts materialize, the screams of agony you hear will be directly related to Blago’s skyrocketing diaapproval numbers to an unprecedented height. It will also be the kiss of death for Tom Cross’s rumored run for Attorney General.
I share Rich Miller’s concerns about the massive Block 37 cost overruns. Cost overruns are a hallmark of the Daley adminstration - e.g.,the Millenium Park episode. By replacing Kruesi with Huberman, Daley did initiate a major management change I view this capital cost overrun as an separate issue.
Comment by Captain America Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 2:47 pm
Unless I miss my guess that all those costs are going to come from tax increment dollars, which likely means less property tax money for each and every taxing body except the City, which is home rule and can raise more on its own.
Comment by Truthful James Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 2:53 pm
tom37….move then…or quite your whining.
Comment by Ike Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 3:00 pm
Vanilla Man - is probably a genius that you guys should listen to instead of bashing him.
Before you pray at the alter of transit and sacrifice Vanilla Man on it, you might want to look at some figures.
The fare box recovery ratio (amount of money that the CTA gets from passengers over the total cost to run the system) is less that 50%. That means every time someone rides a train or bus and pays $1.75, the tax payers are also shelling out $1.75 (yes, the fare recovery is slightly different for each, just looking at the overall amount). Where does that tax money come from? Largely from the gas tax that we pay at the pump. So, us folks that drive our car to work on lousy roads are helping to pay for transit. Great!!
Heavy rail (subway) also costs about 3 times as much per passenger mile than driving a car.
The CTA is lauding the fact that they had an increase in ridership last year. Woop-te-doo!! They are finally back to the levels of 1993 and getting ridership increases of 0.5%. Yeah, that warrants sending the CTA a ton of money.
Let’s get some real reform at the CTA first, and then we can talk about funding levels.
Comment by Trafficmatt Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 3:03 pm
Trafficmatt, one of the big - if not the biggest - reasons that ridership went down was…
fare hikes.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 3:17 pm
Trafficmatt, a lot of public money is spent on maintaining the free interstates that commuters use into Chicago, and there the actual users don’t pay any direct daily fee for the privilege. Mass transit does require a user fee based on actual usage, so in that sense, the users bear a more realistic sense of the actual cost than car drivers do, even if it’s a subsidized sense.
And I’m with Six Degrees. Nobody is suggesting that we get rid of cars — a lot of people use them, they’re extremely valuable, and our system is built up around them. But if you love your car, all the more reason you should support mass transit, because if mass transit buckles then using your car in the Chicagoland area during a commuting period — already a huge pain — will become an utter nightmare.
A largely regionalized tax to fund transit, coupled with reforms of how we manage the system, is probably the way to go. I’m not expert on the particulars of the Hamos proposal but it seems to me like the right idea.
Comment by Gus Frerotte's Clipboard Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 3:28 pm
Ike: Why should one have to move? Can’t one try to take part in changing what one does not like?
By the way, this is my home state, and I’d like to stay. Can you understand that? The love-it-or-leave-it attitude is tiresome.
Comment by tom73 Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 3:31 pm
Rich,
Au contraire Mon Frere!! With great hesitation, I contradict our fearless CFB leader.
From a CTA press release dated 2/9/05
““The year began with a base fare increase from $1.50 to $1.75; however, pass prices remained at 2003 levels,” said CTA President Frank Kruesi. “We anticipated that the 25 cent base fare increase would trigger a ridership loss of 1.4 percent, or 6.2 million rides, in 2004 compared to the 444 million rides provided in 2003. Not only did we not see the projected decrease, ridership actually increased slightly.”
Comment by Trafficmatt Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 3:32 pm
And, Vanillaman, the Chicago Metro region is more dense than West Germany was.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 3:37 pm
Take a look at the early 90s and 1980s, Matt. Your ‘05 example came at a time when gas prices were skyrocketing.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 3:49 pm
Hey VM, just how much freedom is there in being stuck on a Chicago highway (take your pick) going 5-10 MPH for 10 miles because everybody is driving, to enjoy their freedom?
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 4:12 pm
does the governor mean like how taxpayers subsidize his little private transportation on the state plane back and forth to Springfield
Comment by anon Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 4:18 pm
one problem of construction estimates is they underestimate the costs to make them look good to the public. There is no truth in bids law, which would cause the developers to eat at least some of those costs.
Perhaps pvt company could do better.
Can you imaging what it will be like if thew City of Chicago owns a casino - will be a hoot!
Doug Dobmeyer
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 4:53 pm
Doug –
What would your definition of ‘hoot’ be?
Comment by Truthful James Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 5:19 pm
@VanillaMan, my great-great grandparents died before the 20th century arrived. Not sure what you’re trying to say with that, since no one is even implying that the state wants to force you from your car or your suburban home. We just want to ensure that everyone in the metro area — you and me both, and all our neighbors, too — have choices about how we can live and work. Most of the government subsidies paid to transit are on the ledger books and therefore subject to public scrutiny, while the subsides paid to drivers are off the books — my asthma medication, Deep Tunnel to prevent road runoff from flooding basements, etc.
Some people have noted how expensive “L” reconstruction will be. Well, just imagine how expensive and popular (not to mention polluting, ugly, noisy, and property value destroying) triple-decking Lake Shore Drive would be, since that’s the alternative to rebuilding the North Side Main. Also, the cost of essentially demolishing the existing city to rebuild another, more car-oriented one in its place will not be cheap. Indeed, as an owner of a zero-parking apartment, my property values (like many other residents’) depend on having good transit service nearby.
Comment by pc Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 5:31 pm
pc,
You make some good points (like the asthma comment). As far as making Chicago more car-centric, about the only potential road expansion project I am aware of that has any chance of happening soon is the widening of the Ike to 4 lanes in each direction, with the inner lane a HOV (2 or more riders). It will be a very tortuous process to even get this done. In other words, a makeover of Chicago to be more car-centric “ain’t gonna happen”, just as there is very limited potential for the suburbs to be more transit-centric. Changing your entire land use to be something else to support a particular transportation mode is a decades- and even centuries-long process (as I mentioned elsewhere).
FWIW, the Eisenhower Interstate system was originally proposed to be for long distance travel, with ring roads around the cities rather than routes cut right into the hearts of neighborhoods to access downtown. It was the insistence of the CITIES themselves that led to the freeway spokes into downtowns that we have. This was much to the consternation of many of the early planners of the system, but politically necessary at the time. When exit ramps are spaced closely together as they are in Chicago, the freeway ceases to be a freeway and really becomes a wide urban street.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 5:51 pm
And as for your asthma, I am awaiting the widespread advent of the electric car. It’s gotta happen. 30 years from now, we will look back in bemusement at how we propelled ourselves, the unsavory characters we bargained with to get the propellant, and the stuff we put in the air when we used it up.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 5:55 pm
The problem is that everybody is finessing what the costs will be for any of the solutions.
That is what the rconomists and the politicians need to place in front of the voters
I.e., here is what we want the seven county (let’s include all the way out to DeKalb, since it should be part of the Metra net) to grow into.) We have a super transit hub — the Chicago Loop. We have the Western Cook County/Eastern DuPage County Hub (Schaumburg.) We have the Western Dupage/Kane Hub (Naperville/Aurora.) And we have the Lake County (Libertyville/Mundelein/Vernon Hills) Hub. plus Will County (Joliet) and smaller hubs in McHenry and in DeKalb. How do we arrange tax policy and transportation and road policy policy to take advantage of these hubs? For there is going to have to be common policies. Cook County will leak industrial and economic development a along as the combined property tax rates are three to four times what they are in the six collars. Otherwise we will continue to have piecemeal transportation solutions leading nowhere.
Comment by Truthful James Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 5:57 pm
Truthful,
It is tough to engage “the voters” on a regional transportation plan, especially to public meetings and the like before a referendum or legislation that would enact such a plan. Unless a project is in someone’s back yard, there is little interest generated. I have seen forums on regional and statewide transportation issues attended by maybe 5 or 10 people, where you can’t extrapolate a reading on what the region desires to see.
I don’t get your rationale of including DeKalb while omitting Kendall (which is part of CMAP), Kankakee, Grundy or Boone (or even Winnebago which is farther along in getting rail service to Chicago than DeKalb at this point). All in or all out. Maybe the exurban counties need their own planning authority outside the Chicago metro area because their needs and resources are somewhat different.
We do have a new regional planning agency (CMAP). However, the “operation” of the transportation is done by the Five Fiefdoms of CTA, Metra, Pace, IDOT and ISTHA in a loose relationship. Any proposed transportation “czar” will carefully be scrutinized for bias toward any of the fiefdoms. As I see it, the fiefdoms aren’t all a bad thing as they can concentrate their efforts on running their particular kingdom. Coordination and operational efficiencies from combining efforts and eliminating duplication of services seems to be the biggest opportunity for gain by a centralized transportation authority.
I do like your idea suggesting Truth in Taxation (or User Fees) where the true cost of a program, and what it means to the lay person, is well presented and the options considered. Be aware some people don’t like options, they want to vote thumbs up or down on a single package.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 7:15 pm
Too much haze on this thread already. CTA farebox recovery is 52 percent, one of the best in the US, despite having a relatively low fare. And they have a good track record of maintaining operations in horrible weather, for example. Where the CTA is a disaster isn’t in operations, it’s in capital and anything related to it — ranging from the (lack of) maintenance on the trains, to the unfolding fiasco that is Kruesi’s Kastle (AKA Red-Blue line airport connector), to procurement oopsies like the harsh-riding, structurally deficient, NABI articulated buses on the express routes.
I thought (and still think that) the British were nuts to force train operators to lease trains from separate companies and rent space on the rail network, but seeing the CTA in operation suggests to me there might be a place for such radical action right here in Illinois. Operations is obviously what they’re good at and all they’re good at, so lets find something else, let’s say a public-private partnership of some kind, to do everything else.
Comment by DB Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 7:47 pm
One caveat — CTA operations are, of course, compromized by their gross failures with regard to bus bunching. That requires forceful action — from Huberman if possible, from the state legislature through labor reform if not.
Comment by DB Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 7:49 pm
Six degrees — didn’t notice your post earlier, but I don’t expect even Eisenhower widening to be likely over the entire length of three-lane dual roadway through the suburbs. Between Austin and Harlem the right of way is simply too narrow without further demolition of surrounding buildings — or something radical like stacking the Blue Line over the CSX tracks. Indeed, as I recall, the state of Illinois seems to be more interested in a “route management strategy” of some kind. I personally think they ought to try closing the westbound ramps at Austin and the eastbound ramps at Harlem, which would remove the weaving on the highway and circulate local traffic through Oak Park. West of Harlem they at least have a chance of actually widening the road.
As for other projects — not gonna happen without a capital bill. We’ll just sit back and watch the federal matching dollars go elsewhere. Actually, a road moratorium would be good for transit; they could finally start raising fares, which are close to historically low levels. The increases now on the table will simply bump Chicago Card and monthly pass fares up to where the tokens and monthly passes were in the 1970s. (Of course, you will also note that the minimum wage could stand to go up in real terms to where it was in the 1970s as well.)
Comment by DB Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 9:43 pm
DB-
Here’s the website for what is going on with 290. Looks to be a slow moving study.
http://www.eisenhowerexpressway.com
As far as your road moratorium, isn’t that about what we’ve had for the last 10 years or so? I’ll except the tollway projects - ISTHA mostly serves a market that public transit is not in competition with and is not much affected by, such as adding lanes to the Tri-State or completing the I-355 extension. The recent projects to the Ryan, and the Stevenson and Kewnnedy several years ago, were mainly to rebuild what is there, as public infrastructure maintenance investments must be made to protect the public’s interests, whether they be roads, rail transit, or other modes. I doubt if any of the radial freeways into Chicago have much ability to steal existing transit riders at this point - they are often at capacity, and are a greater pain when under construction or when an accident happens. Transit is a far superior mode for most rush-hour downtown travellers, wherever they are coming from…the freeways are filled with trucks and, I suspect, hard-core motorists who are tough to wean off driving for whatever reason.
And where transit and roads compete - in the far reaches of suburbia - transit serves to take a few cars off the road and serve the otherwise immobile, but serves a pretty small market share. Non-investment in roads out there would likely just result in more congestion, and not much more transit use. Making development pay for a greater share of road expansion in the far suburbs is a wise strategy.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Sep 4, 07 @ 10:29 pm
DB -
Thanks much for some thought provoking comments
Comment by Truthful James Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 5:33 am
My error — I did mean to include Kendall and not DeKalb.
Comment by Truthful James Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 10:36 am