2009 CTA Budget problems

[Busjack]

Since not relevant to 4000s appearing, I'll move the following here:

Maybe, but then I heard tonight on the news that much bus, platform and rail car rehab is

being put on hold because they are (yup) broke (again). I guess someone forgot to tell

Mr Rodriguez.

No. If you look at the Budget Report, page 19 of 19, there is under "Proposed Revenue Increases" "Preventative Maintenance From Capital: $128.6 M." Certainly a backhanded way of saying cutting maintenance by most of the projected deficit.

Also, since this says deferred maintenance, it isn't like "were saving $6 million by getting the NABIs off the street," and hence not good. Also, they seem to have picked up on Pace terminology, in that Pace has had a history of using a similar item to say it met the recovery ratio, until, of course, there was no money left for capital until the stimulus.

The stimulus money for the 58 buses is of course separate.

____________________

Now to a related point. There were reports that Mike Madigan wanted to abolish the RTA Board. Now, if the reason was that the RTA Board found that the CTA budget was balanced, and then said retroactively that the money was not available, and especially if now the RTA says that the money to fix the 2008 deficit was only a loan and a grant, I would tend to agree with him. However, I think he has other political axes to grind with respect to the RTA Board (and he wields the biggest political axe).

Nonetheless, I have said that the current RTA Board is useless, and giving it more supposed power in the 2008 legislation to oversee the service boards was a farce. But I have also said the same about the CTA Board. I still say abolish all 4 boards, and establish one board of directors representative of the 6 county area, enforce a requirement that all board members be persons of demonstrated managerial ability, and then maybe, along the NY MTA model, have operating subsidiaries (without boards), for city transit, suburban bus, commuter rail, and paratransit, respectively. In this type of structure, I wouldn't mind an advisory board for each subsidiary to get consumer feedback, but as trainman indicates, not let it purport to run the show.

Nevertheless, with Illinois's love of patronage, I don't see the approximately 27 superfluous directors giving up their $15,000 to $25,000 stipends nor directing their operations in a businesslike manner.

[trainman8119]

Nonetheless, I have said that the current RTA Board is useless, and giving it more supposed power in the 2008 legislation to oversee the service boards was a farce. But I have also said the same about the CTA Board. I still say abolish all 4 boards, and establish one board of directors representative of the 6 county area, enforce a requirement that all board members be persons of demonstrated managerial ability, and then maybe, along the NY MTA model, have operating subsidiaries (without boards), for city transit, suburban bus, commuter rail, and paratransit, respectively. In this type of structure, I wouldn't mind an advisory board for each subsidiary to get consumer feedback, but as trainman indicates, not let it purport to run the show.

I'll drink to that Well said.

[jcmellencamp78]

I'll drink to that Well said.

Well said Busjack. Illinois/Chicago politics is running (and ruining) Public Transportation. Cities like NYC and Washington DC have great public transit systems...maybe we should take a page from their books.

But if we get rid of the RTA, Metra, CTA, and PACE boards, where will Daley place his friends and family? <_<

[Busjack]

But if we get rid of the RTA, Metra, CTA, and PACE boards, where will Daley place his friends and family?

Exactly. And we had the fight last year over Stroger getting seats on the RTA and Metra boards. And I believe that Daley and his father are the main reason why there is still a CTA, although his father took more seriously the requirement that board members be people of business ability and the Executive Director have transit experience.

I know that you didn't want a answer such as the Water Reclamation District, Park District, Olympics ......... :lol:

[Busjack]

From the Press Release, I might have misconstrued Page 19, in that the Press Release says that Capital Funds will be diverted into Preventative Maintenance. However, that still doesn't sound like income, and doesn't say what capital projects are being cut. This may also be in anticipation of a capital bill, or to put the arm on Quinn to sign the papers needed to issue bonds for capital funds.

[jajuan]

From the Press Release, I might have misconstrued Page 19, in that the Press Release says that Capital Funds will be diverted into Preventative Maintenance. However, that still doesn't sound like income, and doesn't say what capital projects are being cut. This may also be in anticipation of a capital bill, or to put the arm on Quinn to sing the papers needed to issue bonds for capital funds.

Yesterday's RedEye mentions that among the things to be put on the back burner by this diversion of funds are acquisition of new buses and rail station reconstruction projects. I surmise that the article is referring to the up to 900 articulateds from NF in the RFP since the extra 58 hybrids are already slated to start coming in June due to the federal stimulus money.

[MVTArider]

But if we get rid of the RTA, Metra, CTA, and PACE boards, where will Daley place his friends and family?

How about on one of these. :P

[Busjack]

Yesterday's RedEye mentions that among the things to be put on the back burner by this diversion of funds are acquisition of new buses and rail station reconstruction projects. I surmise that the article is referring to the up to 900 articulateds from NF in the RFP since the extra 58 hybrids are already slated to start coming in June due to the federal stimulus money.

The up to 900 is anyone's guess. Supposedly there was the state mini capital bill that was to fund $172 million worth, but then there was the talk that Quinn wasn't signing off on the bonds, etc.

Also, the RedEye article seems to be a reprint of the Tribune one, which mentioned that the RTA advance for 2008 had to be repaid.

How about on one of these.

But the question was (for those of you in Minnesota who may not know how Chicago politics works) where to park the friends in a paying, nonproductive job. Sort of like the RTA trying to recreate Google Transit yesterday. Now, if you were saying that some 8th, 11th, 33rd and 40th ward heelers were being assigned (on other than the CTA's dime) to strip and inspect them, fix them, and send them to Botswana, that might be an idea.

[sw4400]

Does this avert the "Doomsday" that might be forthcoming in the future?

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/cta-tattle...l-spending.html

[Busjack]

Does this avert the "Doomsday" that might be forthcoming in the future?

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/cta-tattle...l-spending.html

Generally no, because it is just capital, while the shortfall is in operating.

There might be slight mitigation in that it may free up some funds that might otherwise be used for maintenance (or in the lingo, diverting capital to operating). Cf. around this post.

It isn't clear for what the $900 million will be used. I had noted on the CTA Tattler that Kevin O'Neil had confused this capital bill with the earlier one giving about $400 million to the CTA (out of about $900 million for transit in the RTA area), and he amended his post to reflect that.

It also isn't clear that with the RTA crying that it has $10 billion in unmet capital needs, whether $2.7 billion total allocation to this region in both bills is enough (see this Daily Herald article). However, the RTA doesn't prioritize its need, and no matter how much is spent on capital, the unmet need just grows, and, of course, stuff like the New Starts would entail additional federal money.

On the Metra side, the money is probably enough to take care of replacing the cars on the Electric District and fleet addition, but not much else.

[Busjack]

BTW, if you want the citations of the two capital bills, they are:

• Public Act 096-0004 Mini-Capital Bill
  
• Public Act 096-0035 Capital Bill.
  

For the CTA portion, you have to search the PDF for "Chicago Transit Authority." Basically on page 87 of 123 in PA 96-4; 70 of 255 for PA 96-35.

You might want to note that all get approximated amounts for the same purposes, although Pace doesn't have rapid transit trains and Metra doesn't have buses.

[west towns]

Generally no, because it is just capital, while the shortfall is in operating.

let's take a pole, what cuts are predicted in next years budgets for CTA and Pace? Bragging rights for the winners

[Busjack]

Anyway, WGN Radio says that Doomsday is off for the year. So, the contest is deferred.

[west towns]

Anyway, WGN Radio says that Doomsday is off for the year. So, the contest is deferred.

That's only half of the bet, what will happen with Pace?

[Busjack]

That's only half of the bet, what will happen with Pace?

No, that's (buswise speaking) 79% of it. Since Metra says it doesn't engage in service cuts, 87% (based on the funding formula at the margin).

Anyway, the scenario will probably be similar--an announcement that with $200 million of state capital funding in the next 5 years, Capt. Kirk taking the hold (if any) off the ARRA money, replacing fuel hogs, saving money because Pace, unlike CTA, did not get on the wrong end of a fuel hedge (Pace already said that due to lower diesel prices it has some reserves), and the RTA mandating a hike in the paratransit fare, which legally could go as high as $5.50, but won't, business will be pretty much as usual, although you may see a few more public hearings for nonproductive routes.

It is obvious (especially since Rodriguez was apparently able to cut out 25% of the subsidy, or probably 10% of the total budget) that, unlike 2005-2007, the transit authorities do not see political hay in threatening Armageddon this time. Especially Pace, which at least until 2007, had very little clout.

Also, the CTA Board Presentation doesn't indicate how much of the shortfall is based on the Real Estate Transfer Tax, which only is collected on behalf of the CTA pension and health plans, and thus doesn't affect Pace or Metra.

[jajuan]

The SunTimes also reports that we may not be out of the woods quite yet in terms of another possible fair hike if tax revenues don't pick up later this year. It also has a pullout graphic in today's editions that shows how much CTA spends to get us where we need to go. It has numbers for such things as total cost of tires, the cost of one articulated hybrid bus, one standard 40-foot hybrid, one rail car, el viaducts, rail station elevators, rail station auxiliary entrances/exits, those turnstile gates found on elevated auxiliary entrances/exits, bus transmission replacement parts, rail car motor blowers, rail substation replacement, grade track repair per mile, elevated track maintenance per mile, and hourly pay for bus and rail operators, rail lineman and iron workers, and trackmen.

[Busjack]

The online link to the article jajuan mentioned is here. I didn't see it at first, because the link is an image at the top of the Sun-Times home page. It is in Flash, and the line items jajuan mentions are mouseover popups.

The hybrid articulated bus seem in accordance with prior reports at $848,000, but it seems like the L car went up from a reported $1.4 m to $1.8. I wonder about the $2.2 million tire, but I guess that is aggregate, while the couplers are probably individual.

[jajuan]

The online link to the article jajuan mentioned is here. I didn't see it at first, because the link is an image at the top of the Sun-Times home page. It is in Flash, and the line items jajuan mentions are mouseover popups.

The hybrid articulated bus seem in accordance with prior reports at $848,000, but it seems like the L car went up from a reported $1.4 m to $1.8. I wonder about the $2.2 million tire, but I guess that is aggregate, while the couplers are probably individual.

I wondered about the tire price too but made a guess that the SunTimes was giving the total cost which I alluded to in my post but the paper didn't explicitly say was the case. It made a lot more sense in that regard.