Newest Proposal to Close the Budget Gap

[cta_44499_FG]

I will agree with the public on on thing..."any idiot can drive a bus"...but there are actually 3 steps to being a good and valuable operator....1.Learning how to drive (again, any idiot can do that) 2. Operating...this includes knowing how to make a schedule etc. 3. Running...this includes time of day, dealing with particular ridership knowing when to lag and charge...etc.

Let the public think they know everyting. I don't see any of them running to the CTA employment office offering thier services. I would give most of them a week...when they find out that part time means you are available 24/7/365, and that includes weekends and holidays...finding out that you have to operate in the worst of neighborhoods and the worst time....dealing with traffic and downright stupid people...and finally, management teams that don't have a clue as to what they are doing in the least...they will prefer to sit on the side and just shut up. The union has the upper hand here....the question is do they know it. I think all involved felt that they would back down and got caught with their pants down when they actually had to make the cuts. I have some compassion for those laid off...even if they got let go unfairly (before the part timers)...however, I think many out there are now finding out just how important the labor is...now they can suffer too.

Saving the day again, trainman! Thank you!!!!

[rmadisonwi]

The cuts are racists. Anytime you eliminate 9x routes and 6 of them are on the south side what do you call that . When 4 of the 6 start at 95th street where the majority of riders are minorities what do you call that.

When you eliminate 3 routes in one ward going x3,x4,x55 what do you call that.

When the 144,146 are both allowed to remain when they both operate the same route what do you call that.

What do you call having 6 of the system's 9 "X" routes on the south side to begin with?

You conveniently fail to mention that three of those routes (X9, X49, X54) also serve the, :ahem:, north side. In fact, the only strictly "North Side" X route that existed was the X80. This despite a higher population density and heavier overall ridership on the north side vs. the south side.

A little searching turned up this chart on Chicago population:

Guess what the most densely populated part of Chicago is. Near North Side

Guess what the second most densely populated part of Chicago is. Edgewater

Guess what the third most densely populated part of Chicago is. Rogers Park

Guess what the fourth most densely populated part of Chicago is. Lake View

Guess what the fifth most densely populated part of Chicago is. Albany Park

Guess what the sixth most densely populated part of Chicago is. Logan Square

Guess what the seventh most densely populated part of Chicago is. Hermosa

Guess what the eighth most densely populated part of Chicago is. Avondale

Guess what the ninth most densely populated part of Chicago is. West Ridge

Guess what side of Madison Street the nine most densely populated parts of Chicago (and 15 of the top 20) are located?

If you need a little help, here's a map.

Population density is a good indicator of how effective mass transit will be in a given area. Don't like population density? Perhaps you'd rather use total population instead. Well, 13 of the top 14 most populated areas in Chicago, and 15 of the top 20, are still located on the same side of Madison Street.

Worried about the folks that lived near the X55 and the X3? Well, Washington Park might have lost two X routes, but it also ranks 54th in population density, and 64th in total population (out of a total of 77 neighborhoods on the list). So, the real question is, why should they have had that much service to begin with? Especially with an underused rail line just a few blocks away.

[jajuan]

What do you call having 6 of the system's 9 "X" routes on the south side to begin with?

You conveniently fail to mention that three of those routes (X9, X49, X54) also serve the, :ahem:, north side. In fact, the only strictly "North Side" X route that existed was the X80. This despite a higher population density and heavier overall ridership on the north side vs. the south side.

A little searching turned up this chart on Chicago population:

Guess what the most densely populated part of Chicago is. Near North Side

Guess what the second most densely populated part of Chicago is. Edgewater

Guess what the third most densely populated part of Chicago is. Rogers Park

Guess what the fourth most densely populated part of Chicago is. Lake View

Guess what the fifth most densely populated part of Chicago is. Albany Park

Guess what the sixth most densely populated part of Chicago is. Logan Square

Guess what the seventh most densely populated part of Chicago is. Hermosa

Guess what the eighth most densely populated part of Chicago is. Avondale

Guess what the ninth most densely populated part of Chicago is. West Ridge

Guess what side of Madison Street the nine most densely populated parts of Chicago (and 15 of the top 20) are located?

If you need a little help, here's a map.

Population density is a good indicator of how effective mass transit will be in a given area. Don't like population density? Perhaps you'd rather use total population instead. Well, 13 of the top 14 most populated areas in Chicago, and 15 of the top 20, are still located on the same side of Madison Street.

Worried about the folks that lived near the X55 and the X3? Well, Washington Park might have lost two X routes, but it also ranks 54th in population density, and 64th in total population (out of a total of 77 neighborhoods on the list). So, the real question is, why should they have had that much service to begin with? Especially with an underused rail line just a few blocks away.

All true. On the flip side of it you want to be careful of getting too far into thinking like a pencil pushing bureaucrat that you start using the same numbers as an excuse to underserve an area and stunt any chances of it making an economic resurrection, which with specific examples I gave outside of just looking at population density alone, can't be said to be the case here since the reductions are system wide and even handed. Population densities and total populations are useful tools but you also have to consider other factors such as how many within that population has options other than public transit and helping a particular community with economic recovery through job access and other strategies. Now I'll agree the southside wasn't hit any harder relatively speaking than anywhere else in the city, but there's only so far you can press service down (i.e. number of routes that end at 10:30 or earlier in close proximity) before you then push past a slippery slope. That means you really can't cut service on the far South and Southeast sides any further without those areas justifiably at that point crying foul.

[Busjack]

All I can conclude is that, based on a banned and extremely profane post, I predicted what the story would be, and the fallacies with it. Then jajaun explained the situation. I don't expect that someone is going to read what I posted, but sure enough, an hour after jajuan posted, someone posted what I predicted, without reading jajuan's post.

I got into this stew a couple a years ago over the unsupported rumor that the 2007 Doomsday was going to axe the 14, and don't really want to get into it again. Also, I agree that someone with that mindset isn't going to listen to any of the pencil pushing, whichever way it turns out.

I am messing around with too many other peoples' blogs (and I blame Carole Brown for that, too), but I had a debate with the Gray Line guy who said he was going to refile his discrimination complaint because of the discrimination complaint against the funding formula, but then he admitted that his first complaint was dismissed 3-1/2 years ago by the FTA. Basically, though, I argued that it can't be both racism for those complainants to claim that Metra is getting too much money, while he claims it is racism that CTA is not sending money to Metra for a service contract so that Metra would accept CTA fares. I didn't mention it, but after complaining about the Yellow Line proposal (which I said was as good as dead) he complained that the Red Line extension proposal was 4 or 40 (I don't remember which) times as expensive as his, but CTA was pushing that. However, one knows what communities would be served by an extension into Roseland and Altgeld Gardens, but he was against it.

So, I don't know how this chasm can be bridged, but so long as those saying racism can't prove a racial animus or effect, it certainly won't be. Maybe jajuan and DSorrell have a better take on it than I, but I doubt that the two of you can affect those with the entrenched view to the contrary.

[Guest]

Sorry that's not racist. For one thing the 3, 4 and 55 are still there. As are the 9, 53A and the 54. All of them got frequency INCREASES. Ok the express routes are gone, but the locals got buses that would otherwise have run on the expresses. Your 144/146 example doesn't hold much wait either because X28 is still there with the 28 for the whole stretch from 103rd to 57th Drive where it splits from the local and mirrors part of the 6, and it's there with the 26 giving that extra boost to the 6 and 14 for the downtown commuters from the south side. The south side also got to keep the 15 which mirrors the 14 for the most part south of 67th/Jeffery. You can't say it's racist when like I pointed out 146 and 147 got cut back to 10:30 while the 6 still runs till 12:30. Not to mention the 56 and the 92 both stop at 10:30 now as well. You try telling folks in Wicker Park, Jefferson Park, Uptown, Edgewater and Rogers Park that they now have more routes in their neighborhoods ending at 10:30 because the CTA is being racist. It just won't fly plain and simple. There are too many examples that can be brought up to counter that notion.

I just wish people would stop throwing in the "race card" because it isnt helping the cause much, all its doing is inciting more anger among people which in the long run wont help in resolving any issues. Lets just stop it! Throwing racial remarks around isnt going to make the situation better, all it does is makes things worse! It dosent solve anything! Im of hispanic descent, were also victims to these kinds of remarks but for me personally, I dont dwell on them, I move past it and move on.

[Guest]

The cuts are racists. Anytime you eliminate 9x routes and 6 of them are on the south side what do you call that . When 4 of the 6 start at 95th street where the majority of riders are minorities what do you call that.

When you eliminate 3 routes in one ward going x3,x4,x55 what do you call that.

When the 144,146 are both allowed to remain when they both operate the same route what do you call that.

What about the 53A Limited?? You didnt include that one.

[MetroShadow]

What about the 53A Limited?? You didnt include that one.

Wasn't that a replacement for the defunct 162 back in the mid-90's? Having that serve on the southwest side, in some minority neighborhoods and service was expanded south of 81st, doesn't justify the claim that its racist.

As long as you have some of the mindsets of the 20th century, we will not get transit (or any policy) into the 21st century.

[busfan]

I agree the union has the upper hand here but I think they are confusing the public which has been on our side. The union needs to stop calling it a "work slow down". It should be called what it is. "following CTA's S.O.P.(standard operating procedure). Going by their rules. Calling it a "work slow down" seems like the union is going to take their frustration out on the public. That is why CTA comes back and refers to the discipline guideline about "any employee can be discharged for causing a work slow down". The union keeps telling everyone not to work any overtime. There has been no overtime in Maintenance for the longest time. We were told last year "no overtime at all cause of the budget". Thats because they have been farming out our work to vendors. The operators need to get together and stop working the overtime. CTA laied people off and when Jefferson made the comment about how CTA spent $200,000 in overtime in 1 week CTA replied and said "overtime is calculated on our budget".

[Busjack]

I agree the union has the upper hand here but I think they are confusing the public which has been on our side. The union needs to stop calling it a "work slow down". It should be called what it is. "following CTA's S.O.P.(standard operating procedure). Going by their rules. Calling it a "work slow down" seems like the union is going to take their frustration out on the public. That is why CTA comes back and refers to the discipline guideline about "any employee can be discharged for causing a work slow down". The union keeps telling everyone not to work any overtime. There has been no overtime in Maintenance for the longest time. We were told last year "no overtime at all cause of the budget". Thats because they have been farming out our work to vendors. The operators need to get together and stop working the overtime. CTA laied people off and when Jefferson made the comment about how CTA spent $200,000 in overtime in 1 week CTA replied and said "overtime is calculated on our budget".

This does make sense, all the way around. Although there was the kerfuffle about whether the extra board had to be beefed up for the supposed Blue Flu, it does not make any sense to cut the staff so far that overtime becomes necessary, especially if it is to the extent reported in the press (to which I won't vouch). The only justification given in industry for overtime is that time and a half is cheaper than full time with benefits, but considering that anyone called back would be part time, that doesn't wash in the CTA's case. I also remember all the business about rostering, and if CTA wasn't willing to pay overtime then, it shouldn't pay it now.

I also agree that the way Jefferson put it made the news media do a dump in its collective pants, but most of the reaction of riders (interviewed on TV on the street, on comment boards, and even Hilkevitch on the WGN Noon News) was that sure, drivers should obey the rules. There was the dispute last year over red light cameras, so if they don't go through a "stale green," i.e. a red, they won't have the bus's picture taken, and the city doesn't get the $100 from the CTA, either directly or from them garnishing the drivers. As far as the 35 m.p.h. rule, unless it is on Lake Shore Drive, there is no way a bus is going to go that fast, and the limit on LSD is 40.

[Busjack]

Wasn't that a replacement for the defunct 162 back in the mid-90's? Having that serve on the southwest side, in some minority neighborhoods and service was expanded south of 81st, doesn't justify the claim that its racist.

As long as you have some of the mindsets of the 20th century, we will not get transit (or any policy) into the 21st century.

I think that 5750's point was that if New Flyer is saying that cutting X routes, despite beefing up the underlying locals, was racist because the 5th Ward (presumably, since I once lived there) lost some X routes, then if racism was the animus, why did the 53A get cut, which, the last I thought, served some minority neighborhoods, but not the minority to which the original poster referred? I could probably add the X80, which at one time was paid by a federal grant sponsored by current Presidential Adviser A, when he was Congressman CD.

However, since you and the others debunked the premise of the original post, I really shouldn't be going back to it.

As far as the 20th century mindset, at least I have consistently said that the big bus is not the answer on the southwest and northwest sides. I still have the weird belief that Pace style community transit would be better. Someone should have had the cajones to tell those alderpersons that, 13 years later, the CTA is going to implement Phase 4 of the Booz-Allen report, if what rmadison said about the savings foregone by not implementing the 55A/N restructuring are correct.

[New Flyer]

I didn't leave the 53L out on purpose, I just thought it was intresting that the bulk of the x routes that were cut start at 95th street. The federal government told CTA back in 1978 when Micheal Bilandic allowed CTA to run the Lake Street L from Oak Park Ave non stop to the loop by passing minority stops due to a snow storm, that they could lose federal dollars if route cuts were not equal across the board.

And these cuts were not. 1 north side route cut, 1 west side route cut, 7 south side routes cut. Where is the fairness.

[rmadisonwi]

And these cuts were not. 1 north side route cut, 1 west side route cut, 7 south side routes cut. Where is the fairness.

How are the X9, X49, and X54 "south side" routes, but not "north side" routes?

And how does it speak to the fairness of the system that the limited-stop routes were allocated so disproportionately "south side" heavy to begin with?

[jajuan]

I didn't leave the 53L out on purpose, I just thought it was intresting that the bulk of the x routes that were cut start at 95th street. The federal government told CTA back in 1978 when Micheal Bilandic allowed CTA to run the Lake Street L from Oak Park Ave non stop to the loop by passing minority stops due to a snow storm, that they could lose federal dollars if route cuts were not equal across the board.

And these cuts were not. 1 north side route cut, 1 west side route cut, 7 south side routes cut. Where is the fairness.

And how were the same said routes that rmadison mentions not also west routes considering they did pass through the west side and X9 and X54 were conceived from the result of discussions with CTA as part of the WEST Side Corridor Study in 2005? And madison, the initial concept of X9 and X54 along with the X20 was to try to increase transit options for West Side commuters to help provide improved job access that I alluded to in my earlier post about being careful not to just rely on population considerations alone in providing transit options. Parts of the south side and north side just happened to benefit from the experiment as it should be since we're all in this together. That's one reason why trivially playing the race card is a bad idea because if one part of the city improves economically then we all improve from some of the equalizing in tax burdens.

[New Flyer]

Because the North Side has always been express heavy 134,135,136,143,144,145,147,148 with those buses serving North Michigan Avenue all the way to the south loop without transferring. South side now only has 2 routes serving Michigan Ave all the way to Chicago Ave 3 and the 26.

[Busjack]

Because the North Side has always been express heavy 134,135,136,143,144,145,147,148 with those buses serving North Michigan Avenue all the way to the south loop without transferring. South side now only has 2 routes serving Michigan Ave all the way to Chicago Ave 3 and the 26.

Which just goes to prove that one can make arbitrary distinctions to prove anything. The guy makes an argument about "all the way to Chicago Ave." I guess 14 doesn't count, because it goes to Ogilvie Station? I guess X28 doesn't count, because it goes to Union Station? Mike Payne wants you to ride the IC, anyway.* That's what people from the 5th Ward did when I lived there; they didn't even recognize the CTA (or the Loop, for that matter, but the Hyde Park Coop existed then). So, I guess it is too bad if you have to make a transfer to shop at American Girl Place at the Water Tower Place.

Until you tell us why the South Side has separate Red and Green Lines 2 blocks apart,** and Green Line stations were kept open because people complained that otherwise they would have to cross rival gang territory, stop making the arbitrary distinctions. As I said previously, the proposed 2007 cuts would have discriminated against Koreans, Polish, and Vietnamese, but you southsiders didn't care about that. Furthermore, those ethnic groups at least had to crowd onto "no seat" L cars. Did anyone on the southside suffer that inconvenience?

Let me know when you are going to lead a protest march claiming discrimination against Pace riders of apparently your demographic group who were forced to drive to the ME stations, or those of the Korean and Chinese communities who won't have their Pace service on weekends. However, as DSorrell will be quick to point out, while various news media were there to get anecdotes, there certainly were not enough riders on those routes to justify service. However, I smell racial discrimination nonetheless, even though they weren't riding from 95th to Water Tower or Roscoe Village, like apparently you do.

_________________________

*As well as your State Senator (I presume), who claimed that it was racist that the South Shore did not stop to pick up ME passengers at every local stop between 115th and Millennium Station, even though some underutilized ME train does, and proposed a blatantly unconstitutional law to assuage his southside constituents.

**Plus the #1 bus, or on Jeffery, still a local and an express.

[artthouwill]

Boy, I tell you when race enters a discussion, it certainly gets very very testy. It is a very passionate topic and it does create conversation, however volatile at times. I will say that I don't think that the cuts made were racist, as in being intentional to disproportionately affect African Americans, but because of the deep seeded segregational makeup of the city, the cuts unintentionally are racial. Here are some facts pulling from other posts.

Yes, the Red and Green Lines run parallel with a short distance. The Brown Line runs parallel with the Red Line on the North Side and the Purple Line as well.

There are 4 X routes that were cut that affected the "white" community, X9, X49, X54 and X80. The "black" community lost 7 routes X3, X4, X9, X20, X49,X54,X55, with 3 overlapping the white community.

The north side of the city has a much higher population density and the usage justifies the higher level of service, though sometimes seeing 5 Brown Line trains between Green Line trains can be frustrating, especially if Brown Line trains 4 and 5 are relatively empty. But I promise that after that second Green passes, the next Brownie will be full.

I believe once (if) the recession passes, the south side neighborhood that the Green Line passes through will start to pick up in density again and return the SSM usage to Englewood-jackson Pk levels BEFORE the Dan Ryan existed. It is ripe for regentrification. The question is will those who live in the community resist it?

[Busjack]

Good points, art. Instead of dissecting each route to make a point about a couple of them, you do take a city-wide view of it.

I agree that the area around the south side Green Line should be repopulated; however, I doubt that the recession has much to do with it not happening before now (certainly not before 2007). It seems like it takes a real catalyst to start it, such as Rev. Brazier and The Woodlawn Organization around 63rd and Dorchester, or whoever is spearheading the development that is going on in North Kenwood. Supposedly, mixed use developments, financed by the feds, were to replace the projects understandably torn down along the Dan Ryan, but all I heard was that the residents were given Section 8 vouchers to move on to Auburn-Gresham, Roseland, Blue Island, or Harvey.

But I guess that this is only peripherally a housing forum.

[BusHunter]

One thing I have noticed between right after the cuts and now is that the off peak ridership seems to be falling dramatically. The day after there would be up to 10 people waiting for a bus at an intersection and now your lucky to see three. This is destroying ridership. I have to admit if you have to wait 20 minutes for one bus and 20 minutes for a connector, that's just plain inconvenient. The only time that's worth the trip is the rush hour. So even though the politicos keep the fare the same, if the service is inconvenient people will not use it. It should be interesting to see how much ridership falls in 2010. As far as X routes, if the #X80 was started by a federal grant I wonder why that service got canned (I would think It keeps running from O'Hare blue line to the lakefront.) Wouldn't they have to pay that money back?

[jajuan]

One thing I have noticed between right after the cuts and now is that the off peak ridership seems to be falling dramatically. The day after there would be up to 10 people waiting for a bus at an intersection and now your lucky to see three. This is destroying ridership. I have to admit if you have to wait 20 minutes for one bus and 20 minutes for a connector, that's just plain inconvenient. The only time that's worth the trip is the rush hour. So even though the politicos keep the fare the same, if the service is inconvenient people will not use it. It should be interesting to see how much ridership falls in 2010. As far as X routes, if the #X80 was started by a federal grant I wonder why that service got canned (I would think It keeps running from O'Hare blue line to the lakefront.) Wouldn't they have to pay that money back?

It all depends on when and where you're riding in the off peak hours Bushunter. With my job schedule I sometimes have to ride in the off peak hours, and ridership is still just as high in my neck of the woods during those hours as it was before the cuts. Then again, the routes where I am don't hit 20 minute wait times until close to the evening hours, unless it's 18, 52 and 94 with those up to 20 minute midday and weekend wait times.

[Busjack]

As far as X routes, if the #X80 was started by a federal grant I wonder why that service got canned (I would think It keeps running from O'Hare blue line to the lakefront.) Wouldn't they have to pay that money back?

Although the Congressman took credit for the grant, that was at least five years ago, and the latest grant was for one year. (Press Release) I'm sure it is like JARCs and CMAQs that run out, in which case either there is enough productivity that it runs as part of the regular system (like the Yellow Line on weekends), or it doesn't, in which case it goes up for a hearing to be discontinued (like Pace 580s, which were discontinued, or 714, which was bailed out).

[wordguy]

This does make sense, all the way around. Although there was the kerfuffle about whether the extra board had to be beefed up for the supposed Blue Flu, it does not make any sense to cut the staff so far that overtime becomes necessary, especially if it is to the extent reported in the press (to which I won't vouch). The only justification given in industry for overtime is that time and a half is cheaper than full time with benefits, but considering that anyone called back would be part time, that doesn't wash in the CTA's case. I also remember all the business about rostering, and if CTA wasn't willing to pay overtime then, it shouldn't pay it now.

I

I believe there's a potential human cost to this arrangement as well. If drivers and train operators are expected to work overtime day after day, their long-term health could be at risk. The CTA's planners might do well to consider the consequences.

[wordguy]

Here's a little item that's received no publicity at all.

Regrettably, I'm not computer-savvy enough to provide a link, but here are the details:

The president of the American Public Transit Association (APTA) sent a letter to Senators Durbin and Dorgan dated 1/28/10. (His name is William Millar, not exactly a household name). Focusing on the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) and the need to improve infrastructure and create and preserve jobs, he stressed three major themes: 1) more capital investment in transit, 2) more development of high-speed rail, and 3) ---drum-roll please --- more funding for transit operations.

The letter can be found on the APTA website under the site link, "Government Affairs & Policy".

Frankly, I was disappointed to hear President Obama propose a freeze on discretionary spending from 2011 to 2014 during his State of the Union Address. As far as I'm concerned, it was just a sop to the conservatives and totally unnecessary. There are other ways to lower the deficit without sacrificing social programs. (Think Pentagon!) But I won't stray any further off-topic. Unfortunately, that freeze could make it tougher to implement such programs, including transit, unless maybe the focus is on job preservation and environmental responsibility.

[jajuan]

Here's a little item that's received no publicity at all.

Regrettably, I'm not computer-savvy enough to provide a link, but here are the details:

The president of the American Public Transit Association (APTA) sent a letter to Senators Durbin and Dorgan dated 1/28/10. (His name is William Millar, not exactly a household name). Focusing on the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) and the need to improve infrastructure and create and preserve jobs, he stressed three major themes: 1) more capital investment in transit, 2) more development of high-speed rail, and 3) ---drum-roll please --- more funding for transit operations.

The letter can be found on the APTA website under the site link, "Government Affairs & Policy".

Frankly, I was disappointed to hear President Obama propose a freeze on discretionary spending from 2011 to 2014 during his State of the Union Address. As far as I'm concerned, it was just a sop to the conservatives and totally unnecessary. There are other ways to lower the deficit without sacrificing social programs. (Think Pentagon!) But I won't stray any further off-topic. Unfortunately, that freeze could make it tougher to implement such programs, including transit, unless maybe the focus is on job preservation and environmental responsibility.

I was disappointed as well but we're in a difficult environment these days. Everyone wants to keep benefiting from the same level of govt. programs but they don't want the govt. to take the steps to pay for it, which can either be raising taxes, which in itself is not viable because of the smaller number of working people due to the recession as well as the already strained pockets of those of us who are, or reducing funding to programs that aren't necessarily operating efficiently, which if is tried the representatives and senators, not necessarily from the Republican side, from affected states will light the fire among their constituents that President Obama and the Democratic majority is trying to take away vital programs. That leaves CTA, getting back to how this affects transit, no choice but to find better ways to live within its means. They had to implement the cuts a week and a half to make the start in that direction. So far for me anyway, it hasn't had all that much a negative effect. Hopefully, they won't have to revisit cuts in service to keep functioning anytime soon.

[Mike Payne]

On 14 Feb., 2010 Busjack said: "I am messing around with too many other peoples' blogs (and I blame Carole Brown for that, too), but I had a debate with the Gray Line guy who said he was going to refile his discrimination complaint because of the discrimination complaint against the funding formula, but then he admitted that his first complaint was dismissed 3-1/2 years ago by the FTA.

Mike Payne: read Don Quixote, I have a thing about windmills.

Busjack: Basically, though, I argued that it can't be both racism for those complainants to claim that Metra is getting too much money, while he claims it is racism that CTA is not sending money to Metra for a service contract so that Metra would accept CTA fares"

Mike Payne: Their (the lawsuit complainants) interpretation of their lack of service situation is that Metra is getting too much money vs CTA.

My Title Vi Complaint is that the S/SE Lakefront Corridor communities lack the CTA 'L' service available throughout the rest of the The City of Chicago; to their transit, economic, and jobs creation/access disadvantage.

Busjack: I didn't mention it, but after complaining about the Yellow Line proposal (which I said was as good as dead)

Mike Payne: I think the Yellow Line extension is a wonderful idea, and will create all that good economic stuff for Skokie; but what I observed is that they are spending planning, and seeking implementation monies to expand CTA 'L' service entirely outside of THE CITY OF CHICAGO, and entirely within a SUBURB - when parts of CHICAGO still do NOT have CTA 'L' service (and all of the ECONOMIC advantages that come with it). If ALL of Chicago had CTA 'L' service, hey extend 'L' service to any suburb that doesn't have it already.

Busjack: he complained that the Red Line extension proposal was 4 or 40 (I don't remember which) times as expensive as his, but CTA was

pushing that.

Mike Payne: The Red Line Extension costs approx. $600 million for 6 MILES of route with 5 stations ($100 million per mile - is that right?)

The Gray Line costs $100 million for 22 MILES of route with 37 stations ($5 million per mile - is that right?)

The $100 million PER MILE cost of the Red Line Ext. is TWENTY TIMES the $5 million PER MILE cost for the Gray Line; do the math yourself.

Busjack: However, one knows what communities would be served by an extension into Roseland and Altgeld Gardens, but he was against it.

Mike Payne: against it because serving those communities (along with the entire SE Lakefront) could be accomplished by the Gray Line for a fraction of the cost.

http://bit.ly/CTAGrayLine

[Busjack]

...

Mike Payne: read Don Quixote, I have a thing about windmills.

...Busjack: However, one knows what communities would be served by an extension into Roseland and Altgeld Gardens, but he was against it.

Mike Payne: against it because serving those communities (along with the entire SE Lakefront) could be accomplished by the Gray Line for a fraction of the cost.

http://bit.ly/CTAGrayLine

As I said, I debated this on another blog, and am not going to do it again. If Mike didn't see my response there, he can go back.

My only previous point was that the racism argument was being misused by the litigants, him, the State Senator who proposed an unconstitutional bill to have the South Shore make every local stop, and whomever was posting it here. For that matter, since I posted my list of discontinued routes since 1969, including most of the boulevard system being dismantled on the south and west sides, I'm surprised someone is still not litigating that. However, it really isn't worth going back to that, either.

However, I find it hard to conceive either that the same budget as proposed 10 years ago would work now, or how the IC would measurably reduce overloading at the 95th-Red Line terminal, which is the justification for extending the Red Line to Roseland and Altgeld. I suppose he can go down to their second stage meetings and argue with the audience members who say it is 40 years overdue.

Update: I can even get this relevant to this title, which is "Closing the Budget Gap." Mike has never said what the operating cost contribution CTA would have to make to Metra to obtain the purchase of service agreement contemplated by him. However, he did say in a Yahoo group that part of the "savings" would be taken out of the south Lake Shore Drive express routes. Mike, what do you think the reaction would be if, in announcing this plan, CTA held public hearings saying that routes 2, 6, 10, 14, 26, and X28 are being canceled? Especially when the attendees say that CTA didn't cancel the north Lake Shore routes, even though the L is 3/4 of a mile to the west? I bet that makes the internecine warfare between the Jacksons and Meeks, on the one hand, and the Shaw and Beavers families on the other tame by comparison.

So, there are even bigger windmills at which to tilt, in your own community.