next round of service cuts?

[west towns]

Anyone know what the cuts will be from the recent RTA reductions in budgets for the service boards? Will this be the end or should we expect more cuts with next year's budgets, meaning this fall's budget hearings may get interesting.

Panic or over reacting?

Anyone want to guess?

[Busjack]

Anyone know what the cuts will be from the recent RTA reductions in budgets for the service boards? Will this be the end or should we expect more cuts with next year's budgets, meaning this fall's budget hearings may get interesting.

Panic or over reacting?

Anyone want to guess?

If there isn't any money there isn't any money. However, the question is whether they go the political route again (which would be cut Evanston and Skokie first, and not just route 200, just to put pressure on Julie Hamos) or find internal efficiencies. The latter is not very likely. Take the CTA Fuel Hedge, discussed previously. The price of diesel seems to be going up for the CTA, too, but from a much higher base than at the gas station. The Feb. Financial Report indicated that CTA paid $3.81 a gallon in 2008, but the most recent indicates that it paid $4.40* in April, while ULSD biodiesel at the pump is now about $2.89, including taxes in the city.** Of course, no one at CTA admits a mistake.

Also, the CFO, while saying that fuel is $.10 under budget isn't saying that is because of the economic depression, which has also has put sales tax receipts way under budget.

I think it is really up to Mayor Daley. Does he want to foment another transit crisis, especially since the RTA says it can't go back to the legislature again? That will have the largest impact on the scope of any cuts.

Two other things to put out there:

• Free Rides for Seniors has apparently dropped the passenger revenue per unlinked trip from $1.03 to $0.91. However, I don't see anyone lobbying the legislature to abolish that, despite the fact that the amount of money involved would offset this shortfall. If it were hurting the CTA so badly, you would think they would say something about that, at least to Mike Madigan.
  
• Bus Experrt brought up the JARCs, such as 31st. You wonder if they can cut existing service but add those, even though there are separate troughs of money.
  

There was a debate on the CtaTattler about this that got out of hand, but someone pointed out that even if the economy turned tomorrow, there are structural problems at the CTA which no one seems to want to tackle. I say unless the recovered fare goes from $0.91 to about $2.00 per unlinked trip, the crisis will be perpetual. Also, a fare at that level (probably $3.50 per initial boarding) would expose to the riders the waste CTA inflicts by stuff mentioned above, the cost of accepting defective buses, etc.

As to trying to predict the scope of any cuts, I can't do so, because of the political calculus of others, and also because I am not sure about how much cuts would get you, as opposed to a fare increase, given that it is usually assumed that cuts in service will make it so inconvenient that there would be a loss of passengers, and the loss of the subsidy per fare, so you have to cut twice as deep. Of course, they also have, in the past, threatened to cut in stupid places like rush hour expresses, because most of them don't run on Sunday.

______________

*Consider that at the pump, the highest ULSD bioldiesel was $4.99 around Sept. 2008 and that included taxes. Sure looks like CTA is paying more than that.

**They could get it for $2.69.9 down the street from the Archer barn. But I digress.

[Buslover88]

Anyone know what the cuts will be from the recent RTA reductions in budgets for the service boards? Will this be the end or should we expect more cuts with next year's budgets, meaning this fall's budget hearings may get interesting.

Panic or over reacting?

Anyone want to guess?

Over reacting, in my opinion. I'm sick and tired of seeing CTA exggerate this like they can NEVER get money. You do get money, CTA, but you always spend it on stupid things! I don't really know about Pace and Metra since I ride them on very rare occasions.

[sw4400]

Free Rides for Seniors has apparently dropped the passenger revenue per unlinked trip from $1.03 to $0.91. However, I don't see anyone lobbying the legislature to abolish that, despite the fact that the amount of money involved would offset this shortfall. If it were hurting the CTA so badly, you would think they would say something about that, at least to Mike Madigan.

Busjack, I, for one, would like to see these Seniors pay something(I look on the #11 and a good 40-60% of the time, all on board are 65+). The problem is, even if we get Mike Madigan to abolish it, the House and the Senate have to give it enough 'yes' votes to get it past Gov. Quinn, who has already said he'd veto that bill.

Blago screwed us good with this, and it'll take a miracle to undo this mess!!!

[Busjack]

... The problem is, even if we get Mike Madigan to abolish it, the House and the Senate have to give it enough 'yes' votes to get it past Gov. Quinn, who has already said he'd veto that bill.

...

I agree that those who can pay should, and half fare is fair.

However, with Quinn flopping on nearly everything lately (the only thing he seemed constant on was the tax increase, and now, even not so much), I am not convinced that if the transit authorities did make a convincing argument to repeal it, Quinn wouldn't go along. After all, I don't remember him saying that he would veto it, only that "free rides" were "good public policy." Of course, he pandered to other interest groups to get taxes raised until that didn't work.

Now, if CTA meant what it said about what free rides are costing it (and I doubt that it is that, since a certain amount of free riders wouldn't ride if they had to pay half fare), it should be revving up its PR machinery in favor of repeal. But, unlike Doomsday in 2005, it isn't running an "e-mail your legislator" campaign at the moment, and we know why.

[qwantae]

Busjack, I, for one, would like to see these Seniors pay something(I look on the #11 and a good 40-60% of the time, all on board are 65+). The problem is, even if we get Mike Madigan to abolish it, the House and the Senate have to give it enough 'yes' votes to get it past Gov. Quinn, who has already said he'd veto that bill.

Blago screwed us good with this, and it'll take a miracle to undo this mess!!!

I totally agree with SW4400, The senior citizens needs to go back and pay a fare like everyone else, I knew that this low-budget and cuttings is still going to go on when it comes to seniors paying "FREE". Maybe it would be better off that senior citizens and college students pays half.

[RIPTA42]

Are there any ridership numbers out there comparing paratransit use before and after the free rides?

[Busjack]

Are there any ridership numbers out there comparing paratransit use before and after the free rides?

In the sense that free rides might have cut down on it, I am not aware of any.

The only things I have read is that at the time CTA first complained about paratransit costs in 2005, the cost was approximately $67 million ($55 m for CTA and $12 m for Pace), and now the budget is about $107 m (per Pace 2009 budget), but since the setaside in the RTA Act is $100 m, the fare may have to rise (budgeted fares are $8 m, so technically the Pace budget does not exceed the setaside, but comes close).

Considering that in 4 years, there was a 60% increase in costs, if it would have had an effect indicated in the first paragraph, that did not hit the bottom line.

In that I had previously said free rides might be o.k. based on that rationale, apparently not.

[Busjack]

With regard to paratransit, apparently this has hit the fan, along with the RTA's inability to exercise oversight being again demonstrated. Chicago Breaking News.

Of course, nothing in that article about what was the program source of the federal funds (except that they were federal).

Maybe relevant to RIPTA's comment was the following:

About 80 percent of paratransit trips are in Chicago and if service stops, many will be forced to take the CTA, Kwasneski said.

To which my response is "what's Kwasneski's point, except with regard to a turf war, which accomplishes little?" Better a free ride on the CTA (which costs it about $4.00 if you believe recovery ratio stuff) to one on paratransit (which now must cost more than $25).

Probably more fuel for my point that paratransit will eventually become a separate service, and again Pace shouldn't have wanted what it asked for.

Update: Pace press release, saying we aren't in the business of making threats, but making one. Also, no mention about raising Chicago ADA fares, even though they are now $2.25, which matches CTA full fare, not double it, and is less than the $3 charged in suburban Cook County.

[Busjack]

More update: Moving Forward said that somehow the paratransit deficit got up to $30.5 million, they could raise the fare to $4.50 (I made a math mistake) but that wouldn't erase the deficit and "would be devastating for passengers with a limited income" and because it is an ADA mandate, they can't cut service.

But:

• How did it get up to a $30.5 million deficit, especially since the RTA Act mandates a $100 million setaside? The RTA violating the Act, or runaway costs to a greater extent than thought?
  
• While, due to the 3/4 mile of fixed route service ADA mandate, the extent of routes in the city can't be cut back, how can they threaten to cut all service October 1 and still be in compliance with the ADA? So, is it just a threat or a bargaining chip?
  

I guess you can't take any of these boards at face value. But trainman would have told me that.

[west towns]

More update: Moving Forward said that somehow the paratransit deficit got up to $30.5 million, they could raise the fare to $4.50 (I made a math mistake) but that wouldn't erase the deficit and "would be devastating for passengers with a limited income" and because it is an ADA mandate, they can't cut service.

But:

• How did it get up to a $30.5 million deficit, especially since the RTA Act mandates a $100 million setaside? The RTA violating the Act, or runaway costs to a greater extent than thought?
  
• While, due to the 3/4 mile of fixed route service ADA mandate, the extent of routes in the city can't be cut back, how can they threaten to cut all service October 1 and still be in compliance with the ADA? So, is it just a threat or a bargaining chip?
  

I guess you can't take any of these boards at face value. But trainman would have told me that.

[/quote

From what I can think is the CTA was not really investing in the paratransit service based on actaul demand but running it on life support, hands off approach. This would explain why the cost increases came about when Pace actually started running the service based on demand thus creating the increased cost of service. The problem is not what the current service costs are but what the previous service/service board was not providing.

[Busjack]

From what I can think is the CTA was not really investing in the paratransit service based on actaul demand but running it on life support, hands off approach. This would explain why the cost increases came about when Pace actually started running the service based on demand thus creating the increased cost of service. The problem is not what the current service costs are but what the previous service/service board was not providing.

Pace has had it for 3 years now. True, there were all the reports on rtachicago.com that said it needed capital to implement stuff like central dispatching to get some economy of scale. Also, Pace admitted that the CTA actually did get pretty good deals when it made the paratransit contracts Pace inherited and the next round Pace let would be more.

However, CTA had nothing to do with formulating the 2009 Pace Paratransit budget, which indicated it needed $98 million of public funding, which would come within the setaside of $100 million. Until it comes clean on whether the expenditures are now over budget and they were spending $130 million, or the RTA in fact shorted them, they are not telling the whole story. If the problem is $30.5 million, whatever the $8 million federal allocation to the RTA was would only make in difference in that it would just delay the supposed crisis until November 1.

The Pace board minutes for the past couple of months have hinted that they knew something was up, with all the references to "do we have to transfer funds from Suburban to Paratransit," but unlike recording the public presentations of the complainers nearly verbatim, nothing was said about the specifics of this until it hit Chicago Breaking News yesterday.

I sure did not get behind the CTA/RTA/Save Chicagoland Transit bandwagon just because people like Frank Kruesi, Carole Brown, and those characterized as CTA Apologists said so. Likewise, if Pace is trying to start a bandwagon with Moving Forward, I'm not getting onto it until they disclose all the financials, and explain why a balanced budget in December 2008 is at least 30% out of whack now.

My reference to 2005 was only that it appeared that the budgeted cost under Pace had risen 60%, even though Pace was given the job because it was supposedly had more expertise (and hence was assumed to be the more efficient). (In another forum, Adam Kerman disabused me of that proposition at that time.) Now, if in fact, costs have doubled in 3 or 4 years, something is really wrong. But, again, only Pace and maybe the RTA have those numbers; I and the rest of the public do not. Unlike CTA, Pace does not post a monthly CFO report, and there wasn't a chart similar to what Rodriguez posted on the CTA site this month.

Also, this (along with much else) indicates that the 2005 and 2008 RTA Acts would not and did not work. I don't think the recession is entirely to blame.

________________________________________-

BTW: Whe posting, please check that the open and close quote tags match. I know it is a nit, but I think the browser does prompt you about that. There is also the "Preview Post" button in the full editor, and you can edit your own posts, even after they are posted.

[Busjack]

The Tribune had a paratransit story that, while filled with the usual anecdotes, now indicates the dollar magnitude of the problem. Apparently the up and down with the sales tax collections point, which I only recently comprehended (the article says $89 million for this year, instead of the $100 million off the top for 2008), applies, but the article also says that the projected cost is $105 million, which would seem to indicate a $16 million problem instead of the $30.5 million problem stated earlier by Pace.

However, the point that the cost has gone up in 3 or 4 years from about $67 million to $105 million indicates that something has to be done to control it. For instance, since they quote a blind woman, it would appear that a taxi access program would be more effective than sending out a lift vehicle. There is no indication which one is used in her case.

At least the protest is targeted at the RTA, where it belongs.

[artthouwill]

The Tribune had a paratransit story that, while filled with the usual anecdotes, now indicates the dollar magnitude of the problem. Apparently the up and down with the sales tax collections point, which I only recently comprehended (the article says $89 million for this year, instead of the $100 million off the top for 2008), applies, but the article also says that the projected cost is $105 million, which would seem to indicate a $16 million problem instead of the $30.5 million problem stated earlier by Pace.

However, the point that the cost has gone up in 3 or 4 years from about $67 million to $105 million indicates that something has to be done to control it. For instance, since they quote a blind woman, it would appear that a taxi access program would be more effective than sending out a lift vehicle. There is no indication which one is used in her case.

At least the protest is targeted at the RTA, where it belongs.

Without trying to tackle all of the numbers I will give a few observations.

When CTA oversaw its own paratransit, there were three providers they contracted with, ARt's,CDT, and SCR, all which operated within CTA territory or 3/4 mile of a CTA route. Only CDT was a 24 hr operation and all 3 carriers operated all over the service area.

Since Pace took over, there are still 3 providers, CDT, MV (who is MV?), and SCR, but now Pace designated 3 primary zones for each carrier to operate AND they expanded the south zone to Sibley Blvd (although I think it does operate to River Oaks Mall). Zone 1 is from Sibley to 71st operated by SCR, zone 2 is 71st to Fullerton, operated by CDT, and zone 3 north of Fullerton operated by MV. Because of this set up, all three carriers now operate 24 hrs (there has to be a cost increase associated with this).

Also does Pace's forecast for paratransit include its own existing paratransit network with the former CTA service? I don't think Pace would have 2 separate budget items for one service, especially considering that MV operates some of its suburban paratransit service as well as the north side of the city.

What happened to Art's?

Wasn't Pace looking to possibly increase the amount of carriers for its city paratransit service?

[Busjack]

I only have a few answers.

MV Transportation is a national transit management company, sort of similar to First Transit or Veolia Transit. As they note, they are the largest U.S. based one, and I believe that they were touted as the only minority owned one. They also got the Lombard-Wheaton contract (674, 709, 711, 715).

Pace rebid the city paratransit contracts in 2008, and MV won one of them (apparently from Art's). MV news release.

The zones were to cut down on the prior process that one could call any provider, but I don't know why they extended them way into the suburbs.

The Pace paratransit budget is for consolidated regional service (i.e. Chicago and Pace territory) and on (virtual) page 33 indicates the slices of the pie going to Chicago, suburban, and taxi access programs. Suburban ADA is roughly 20% and city 71%. Of course, you can multiply these by a hundred million.

The paratransit budget is also the source for the statement that the contracts were reissued in 2008.

Thus, while the paratransit budget is consolidated, it is separate from the suburban budget, which covers fixed route, van pool, and community dial a ride.

[Busjack]

Hidden in the bowels of the Tribune site was a story that the Justice Department will be going after all of the transit providers here if paratransit is cut off, as threatened.

Apparently, most telling, for those RTA board members who claim to represent CTA and Metra is:

"There is nothing ... that absolves any public transportation provider in the Chicago region from its ADA obligations," [Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff]wrote.

I guess the FTA finally found something it could put its teeth into.

[artthouwill]

Hidden in the bowels of the Tribune site was a story that the Justice Department will be going after all of the transit providers here if paratransit is cut off, as threatened.

Apparently, most telling, for those RTA board members who claim to represent CTA and Metra is:

I guess the FTA finally found something it could put its teeth into.

Perhaps the FTA can help fund it then

[Busjack]

Perhaps the FTA can help fund it then

Nope. The classic unfunded mandate. Section 5310 only mentions capital. Private operators had to buy lift buses, although it now appears that 5310 funds are available to them.

The one out in the part of the ADA that requires paratransit service (42 USC 12143) is

(4) Undue financial burden limitation

The regulations issued under this section shall provide that, if the public entity is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the provision of paratransit and other special transportation services otherwise required under this section would impose an undue financial burden on the public entity, the public entity, notwithstanding any other provision of this section (other than paragraph (5)), shall only be required to provide such services to the extent that providing such services would not impose such a burden.

(5) Additional services

The regulations issued under this section shall establish circumstances under which the Secretary may require a public entity to provide, notwithstanding paragraph (4), paratransit and other special transportation services under this section beyond the level of paratransit and other special transportation services which would otherwise be required under paragraph (4).

If you want to figure out the DOT paratransit regulations, they are at 49 CFR 37.121 et seq. It looks though that the FTA might have overstepped if it implied that the regulations applied to Metra, as they do not apply to commuter rail. BTW, the undue hardship regulation basically deals with implementation by 1997.

Beyond this, I'm not playing lawyer.

There, was, of course, the news report about the $8 million in federal money that certain members of the RTA board wouldn't release for paratransit. Maybe the federal threat will change a couple of votes.

[Busjack]

Well, it is reported that the paratransit crisis is over for the moment. Also, a link to the official RTA announcement, which goes into a little more detail.

City paratransit fares go up, but not as much as would have been allowed.

However, those of you thinking that ICE money would be used for the intended purpose probably ought to bet again; especially, one wonders if the 655-755 are as funded as Pace thought, or there was ICE money after allocating it to that.

[west towns]

Well, it is reported that the paratransit crisis is over for the moment. Also, a link to the official RTA announcement, which goes into a little more detail.

City paratransit fares go up, but not as much as would have been allowed.

However, those of you thinking that ICE money would be used for the intended purpose probably ought to bet again; especially, one wonders if the 655-755 are as funded as Pace thought, or there was ICE money after allocating it to that.

what you saying, the new express services are not going to start?

[west towns]

Well, it is reported that the paratransit crisis is over for the moment. Also, a link to the official RTA announcement, which goes into a little more detail.

City paratransit fares go up, but not as much as would have been allowed.

However, those of you thinking that ICE money would be used for the intended purpose probably ought to bet again; especially, one wonders if the 655-755 are as funded as Pace thought, or there was ICE money after allocating it to that.

After reading the press release its sounds like are talking about this years ICE funding. There was no call for projects. Pace received their funds last year

[Busjack]

After reading the press release its sounds like are talking about this years ICE funding. There was no call for projects. Pace received their funds last year

Well the money has to come from somewhere by October 2009. 2010 money won't exist then, unless you prepay your sales tax (and no one does). It appears that from the RTA reports posted on their website, the RTA is about 3 months behind in figuring out what sales tax collections were, anyway, which might be their explanation for having approved budgets that instantly became unbalanced.

Now, if you are saying that Pace intends to spend money it received in 2008 starting in Nov. 30, 2009, that's possible, but I would like to see a link to financial reports to that extent, not that the RTA approved a list of projects, the only operating one that has been implemented so far being the Metra weekend SWS. But maybe like the DuPage Circulator projects, the money is going into interminable studies instead of providing service (or maybe the studies were completed a couple of years ago and nothing has happened despite the program approval).

BTW: I did acknowledge the possibility that this ICE money was reserved after the other ICE money was allocated. However, I also bet that we never will see an accounting, and we will actually will have to wait until a few days before Nov. 30 to see if any express bus service is implemented.

[Busjack]

Piling on this topic, I see that Pace has posted the Notice of Hearing for ADA fare increases, which goes beyond saying that Chicago and collar counties fares will be raised to $3.00, which is the current suburban Cook fare, but that fares would be increased " to the maximum allowable by law which is twice the amount of cash fares for fixed route," and also that free transfers between city and suburban zones would be eliminated.

I wonder if this is just to hold the hearing for the maximum possible and then settle for less, or whether the fare will actually double in the city.