Newest Proposal to Close the Budget Gap

[jajuan]

Getting out of the south side was overserved vs other areas argument which I don't buy having had to use CTA service in that part of the city, another sign that these cuts were not going anywhere any time soon, despite the posturing on CTA's part that the unions could help reverse some of that, is that new bus stop signs were put up early Monday afternoon on Western at Roosevelt that removes mention of the X49's prior existence up to the beginning of last month. The signs now only list 49 and 157.

[Busjack]

... new bus stop signs were put up early Monday afternoon on Western at Roosevelt that removes mention of the X49's prior existence up to the beginning of last month. The signs now only list 49 and 157.

I always wondered how much putting up the signs cost. In the old day, they would just tape them over. I understand that they can now use computers to make up the sign faces, but in tight times one would think that it would cost a lot of money to change, for instance, I guess about 80 signs for x49 (considering the length of the route and a sign on each side at least every 1/2 mile).

[jajuan]

I always wondered how much putting up the signs cost. In the old day, they would just tape them over. I understand that they can now use computers to make up the sign faces, but in tight times one would think that it would cost a lot of money to change, for instance, I guess about 80 signs for x49 (considering the length of the route and a sign on each side at least every 1/2 mile).

Most of the X49's stops like the other eliminated expresses had separate signs from the locals that could just easily be removed after elimination. They were rarely listed on the same sign all that much from what I saw. The exceptions were X3 and X4 mostly north of 35th/King Drive.

[cta_44499_FG]

Latest Info and Press Release from Local 241(pdf) :

*

*

The Library of Congress > THOMAS Home > Bills, Resolutions > Search Results

THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO

Next Hit Forward New Bills Search

Prev Hit Back HomePage

Hit List Best Sections Help

Contents Display

Print Subscribe Share/Save

Bill PDF XML

[Help]

Printer Friendly[Help] Congressional Record References Bill Summary & Status

To amend title 49, United States Code, to allow for additional transportation assistance grants. (Introduced in House)

HR 2746 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2746

To amend title 49, United States Code, to allow for additional transportation assistance grants.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 8, 2009

Mr. CARNAHAN (for himself and Ms. MATSUI) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To amend title 49, United States Code, to allow for additional transportation assistance grants.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF TRANSIT OPERATING ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM.

Section 5307( of title 49, United States Code, is amended as follows:

(1) In paragraph (1)--

(A) in subparagraph (D), by inserting `, or an urbanized area with a population of at least 200,000 if the State or regional authority providing public transportation for the area operates less than 100 buses in fixed-route service in the area during peak service hours' after `200,000';

( by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as subparagraphs (J) and (K), respectively; and

© by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new subparagraphs:

`(E) operating costs of equipment and facilities for use in public transportation in an urbanized area with a population of 200,000 or more, but not more than 400,000, if the State or regional authority providing public transportation for the area operates at least 100 buses in fixed-route service in the area during peak service hours;

`(F) operating costs of equipment and facilities for use in public transportation in an urbanized area with a population of 400,000 or more, but not more than 600,000;

`(G) operating costs of equipment and facilities for use in public transportation in an urbanized area with a population of 600,000 or more, but not more than 800,000;

`(H) operating costs of equipment and facilities for use in public transportation in an urbanized area with a population of 800,000 or more, but not more than 1,000,000;

`(I) operating costs of equipment and facilities for use in public transportation in an urbanized area with a population of 1,000,000 or more;'.

(2) By redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3).

(3) By inserting the following new paragraph:

`(2) LIMITATIONS ON CERTAIN GRANTS ESTABLISHED UNDER PARAGRAPH (1)-

`(A) With respect to a grant made under paragraph (1)(E), not more than 50 percent of the funds available to carry out this section shall be made available for such grant.

`( With respect to a grant made under paragraph (1)(F), not more than 45 percent of the funds available to carry out this section shall be made available for such grant.

`© With respect to a grant made under paragraph (1)(G), not more than 40 percent of the funds available to carry out this section shall be made available for such grant.

`(D) With respect to a grant made under paragraph (1)(H), not more than 35 percent of the funds available to carry out this section shall be made available for such grant.

`(E) With respect to a grant made under paragraph (1)(I), not more than 30 percent of the funds available to carry out this section shall be made available for such grant.'.

(4) By amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:

`(3) CONDITIONAL USE OF FUNDS IN AN URBANIZED AREA WITH A POPULATION OF AT LEAST 200,000-

`(A) In addition to the grants available under subparagraphs (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (I), (J), and (K) of paragraph (1), the Secretary may award grants, from funds made available to carry out this section for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2015, to finance the operating cost of equipment and facilities for use in public transportation in an urbanized area with a population of at least 200,000, if the designated recipient's percentage of revenue for the operating cost of equipment and facilities for use in public transportation from non-Federal sources, excluding farebox revenue, is greater than such revenue from the previous fiscal year. The amount available for a grant under this paragraph shall not exceed the percentage of such increase.

`( In addition to the grants made available under subparagraphs (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (I), (J), and (K) of paragraph (1) and subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, the Secretary may award grants, from funds made available to carry out this section for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2015, to finance the operating cost of equipment and facilities for use in public transportation in an urbanized area with a population of 200,000 or more, if the designated recipient was awarded a grant under the Transit Investments for Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction program, authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-105; 123 Stat. 209), and demonstrates that such recipient has achieved--

`(i) a minimum 10 percent total energy savings as a result of the project funded by the Transit Investments for Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction grant;

`(ii) a minimum 10 percent energy savings as a percentage of the total energy usage of the public transit agency as a result of the project; or

`(iii) a minimum 10 percent total greenhouse gas emission reduction as a result of the project.

`© Not less than 10 percent of the funds available to carry out this section shall be made available for the grants under subparagraph (.'.

THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO

Next Hit Forward New Bills Search

Prev Hit Back HomePage

Hit List Best Sections Help

Contents Display

THOMAS Home | Contact | Accessibility | Legal | USA.gov

Please click here to give us feedback.Comments?

20100318073539147-1.pdf

[Busjack]

Please click here to give us feedback.Comments?

Suffice it to say, you aren't paying me for a thorough analysis of this bureaucratese.

The best I can make out is that someone introduced a bill to say that the feds can provide operating assistance as part of the existing section 5307 funding formula. Of course, introducing it is not the same as passing it. Also, it says that the Secretary of Transportation is authorized to make the grants, not that money has been appropriated for them (obviously, the appropriation for section 5307 programs would have to be increased to fund operating as well as capital).

As far as public policy, I think it is a good idea for the feds to subsidize operating, if they are really serious about an energy and congestion policy, and because of the unfunded paratransit mandate in the ADA. As previously mentioned, they would have to get the senators from states that don't have much transit to go along.

One would wonder, though, whether the FTA would impose performance standards in return for the money (I think they should).

BTW: The "click here" at least states on its face that the union is using a press agent, even though it is on the union's letterhead. Personally, I don't think that any news is not being manipulated by flacks, these days.

Even further BTW: I see that the autosmiley function of the software made hash of the subsection numbers, but that is expected.

[cta_44499_FG]

http://www.atu.org/content/atu_news/white_house_joins_push_for_transit_spending_change/

[Busjack]

http://www.atu.org/c...pending_change/

This, maybe unsatisfactorily, answers the question in my prior post about whether they would be appropriating more 5307 funds so that operating gets some, instead of a diversion from capital being authorized. As the CTA Tattler complains, Illinois has already done enough in diverting capital funds, thereby putting such projects as fixing the North Side Main in jeopardy.

[cta_44499_FG]

This, maybe unsatisfactorily, answers the question in my prior post about whether they would be appropriating more 5307 funds so that operating gets some, instead of a diversion from capital being authorized. As the CTA Tattler complains, Illinois has already done enough in diverting capital funds, thereby putting such projects as fixing the North Side Main in jeopardy.

Well if they don't figure something out soon....fixing the North Side Main won't matter...there won't be anyone to operate the equipment!

[Busjack]

Well if they don't figure something out soon....fixing the North Side Main won't matter...there won't be anyone to operate the equipment!

But as the Tattler Kevin points out, no one will be able to operate the equipment over a collapsed Berwyn Ave. overpass, nor be able to get from the Howard yard to the steel portion south of Wilson.

[cta_44499_FG]

But as the Tattler Kevin points out, no one will be able to operate the equipment over a collapsed Berwyn Ave. overpass, nor be able to get from the Howard yard to the steel portion south of Wilson.

No arguement there.

[busaddictdm]

If you want a surprise, here's one:

The 5 year capital plan basically only talks about the replacement of the Novas near the end of it. No need for the contract for up to 900 articulated buses, nor the base order for 140?

Also, the X28 isn't killed.

X98 too!

[Busjack]

X98 too!

In my view, that doesn't count, because it is a subsidized route. It was not an X overlaid on a local.

BTW, I was looking for the opening and here it is. On a related topic, CTA announced a hearing on the possible elimination of 168 to UPS. Add that to the various Pace routes UPS has or wants killed (391, 393, 394, 556) and apparently the shipping business isn't so good anymore, either. However, CTA, in the PowerPoint, didn't recognize that 392 was still around and would be the better alternative. Of course, CTA doesn't recognize Pace.

On the other hand, The Times reports that the Indiana Regional Development Authority wants to fund the 891-892. So, I guess it isn't a charter any more.

[Busjack]

An APTA survey that things are rough all over, with regard to the economic downturn resulting in transit agencies having to cut back.

The source was Pace Moving Forward, although one had to click around to find where they meant, ant it apparently was early for Good Friday.

[artthouwill]

But as the Tattler Kevin points out, no one will be able to operate the equipment over a collapsed Berwyn Ave. overpass, nor be able to get from the Howard yard to the steel portion south of Wilson.

When that happens, people will complain why didn't they do something sooner? Then when they are reminded that they did try something (raise taxes, raise fares, raise income taxes), people will forget they always want convenience at someone else's expense.

[Busjack]

When that happens, people will complain why didn't they do something sooner? Then when they are reminded that they did try something (raise taxes, raise fares, raise income taxes), people will forget they always want convenience at someone else's expense.

Well, supposedly Quinn signed a capital bill that hasn't been bonded out a year later. Your license plate sticker went up $21 and liquor taxes apparently went up, however.

[Busjack]

Since the latter point is more relevant here:

... Probably if CTA decides to cut more bus routes for late 2010 or early 2011, they will next take some of the double service away. I can't help but wonder if that would mean a #97 only service north of the Swift now. Only time will tell.

The rationale of the 97 (according to Krambles) was to provide local distributor service where the Skokie Swift doesn't stop. At least until the proposed Dodge and Oakton stations open, that rationale is still there.

However, your thought brings up the obvious question that if this type of cutback were instituted, should either portion (Oakton between Dodge and downtown Skokie, or Dempster to Old Orchard) be a Pace route. One could argue whether one should be able to transfer from CTA (Yellow Line) to CTA (54A or 97) to get to Old Orchard, or just whether the connector should be run by Pace with both sides honoring each other's transfers (at least Pace would outbound).

[sw4400]

Well, Seniors get to ride free regardless of income... If I can help get Sen. Hendon, the ___-hole, out of office this year, I will!!! Here's his comment... [rant is embedded]

“It’s outrageous that in these tough economic times that we would allow anybody — CTA, RTA, the rest of them — to come and try to take this one… itty bitty little thing away from our dear, poor, struggling senior citizens at a time of economic crisis,” said Sen. Rickey Hendon (D-Chicago), reported the Sun-Times.

Full article here

I bet he went to all the Dems. and talked them out of voting for the repeal to just those under a certain income. Here's my response to what he had to say...

"It's outrageous that in these tough economic times that we would allow anybody - CTA, RTA, poor excuses for Senators - to take this one... itty bitty little ounce of hope for a transit future away from our citizens, who, by the way, can vote you OUT of office, just so our dear, poor, struggling Senior Citizens who can afford the Cadillacs and Cruises and Expensive Bingo Halls/Casinos can get to that Cadillac Dealer, or O'Hare or Midway to fly off for their Cruise, or to Vegas for a Casino Roadtrip with a free bus or train they don't even need."

Sen. Hendon, if I have anything to say... start packing your belongings! You'll be out of office by Election Day! I encourage any of my fellow ChicagoBus.org members that think this should've gone through to consider voting for a replacement for Sen. Hendon!!!

Rant aside... I wish to apologize to Kevin for going outside the guidelines, but the RTA is talking more doomsday for all Transit Agencies this year. Now how will this mistake affect our future as transit passengers???

[Busjack]

Well, Seniors get to ride free regardless of income... If I can help get Sen. Hendon, the ___-hole, out of office this year, I will!!! Here's his comment... [rant is embedded]

Well, if you want to get all hot and lathered, here's a Tribune Editorial on how Cullerton used Hendon so that Cullerton could be on both sides, while assuring that the bill went down.

Now, IIRC, you are in Cullerton's district, not Hendon's, so maybe there is where you can do something about it, although I'm sure nothing effective, given the current state of Illinois politics. After all, one of the commenters indicated that Cullerton's son already gets a free ride.

[jajuan]

Well, if you want to get all hot and lathered, here's a Tribune Editorial on how Cullerton used Hendon so that Cullerton could be on both sides, while assuring that the bill went down.

Now, IIRC, you are in Cullerton's district, not Hendon's, so maybe there is where you can do something about it, although I'm sure nothing effective, given the current state of Illinois politics. After all, one of the commenters indicated that Cullerton's son already gets a free ride.

I'm in Hendon's district and I can say even if sw were in the district there's nothing that can be done this year about Hendon since he's not up for reelection until 2012 when the Presidential elections come up again. That's the reason he was able to make a try at lt. governor with no worries. He knew that if he lost that primary, which indeed he did, he would still have his state senate seat. Regardless of party affiliation, which we don't need to get into on here, until voters really start sticking it to these guys and make them feel there are consequences to not sitting down and making some really tough choices on how to fix the budget mess, it's going to be more of the same with things getting continually worse for all of us as a whole. We really need to start realizing that part of it completely and come out of this what's in it for me thinking that doesn't help any of us. Like it or not, there just can't continue to be only looking at making budget cuts or only looking at raising taxes by a small amount. There's going to have to be a really serious look at a combination of both. And we really have to let go of the regionalism that's been going on for years: city vs. suburbs, Chicago vs. downstate, etc. We're all one state and we've got to get things in order together. Period. Otherwise things, and more particularly transit since that's the topic of these forums, will just continue to suffer in dire straits. It's frustrating when people in this state, especially our elected officials, don't broaden their thinking enough to realize things are more interlinked than they appear on the surface. In this case a truly stable transit funding source can lead to more people getting to work, leading to more revenues from income taxes. More people working also leads to more money generated in local economies from those people buying more goods, which in turn can lead to more tax revenues for the state and local budgets from the sales taxes generated from those goods and services purchased. Yes it's a simplified view of how these things work, but we should be able to see part of that broader view just from even the most basic understanding of how an economy works and how it links with other local economies and expands to fit in a broader economy as you extend the focus outward.

[Busjack]

If you want to limit it to transit, there basically are two problems:

• State politicians, lumping Blago, Quinn, and Hendon at least, think transit is a free good, while the February cutbacks prove that it is not. The only "solution" [in Quinn's mind, not mine] was Quinn making the RTA borrow more to stave off the fare increase. RTA also apparently has to borrow even more, since the state can't afford to make its subsidy payments.

• You are right that regionalism is dead, but I think I made my point about that in response to the banned guy who asked why not one transit system for the whole region (which was the right question) but then he answered that by saying that the CTA take over and the suburbs could (you remember what he said). I remember someone (maybe it was Adam Kerman) who said that the RTA was a do nothing agency and was so designed, and that sure was right.

Of course, this garbage is endemic among Illinois politics, but the transit one was what prompted me to ask sw if he was going to vote for Quinn's opponent, as well as implying voting for Cullerton's opponent. The first might have a chance at changing things; the second probably doesn't have a chance.

The least the state could do is use an actuarial method of accruing its liabilities so that it could determine what things actually cost, and then make a case for streamlining (in this case, doing away with the 4 transit boards and starting over), and then, once it is determined what the cost of an efficient operation is, make a case for raising taxes or fares to support it, instead of the reflexive bleat for "more funding." Surprisingly, only Daley seems to understand that. No one in state government does.At least Todd Stroger got voted out for not realizing, among other things, how a regional economy works and how he was destroying the one in Cook County.

[jajuan]

If you want to limit it to transit, there basically are two problems:

• State politicians, lumping Blago, Quinn, and Hendon at least, think transit is a free good, while the February cutbacks prove that it is not. The only "solution" [in Quinn's mind, not mine] was Quinn making the RTA borrow more to stave off the fare increase. RTA also apparently has to borrow even more, since the state can't afford to make its subsidy payments.

• You are right that regionalism is dead, but I think I made my point about that in response to the banned guy who asked why not one transit system for the whole region (which was the right question) but then he answered that by saying that the CTA take over and the suburbs could (you remember what he said). I remember someone (maybe it was Adam Kerman) who said that the RTA was a do nothing agency and was so designed, and that sure was right.

Of course, this garbage is endemic among Illinois politics, but the transit one was what prompted me to ask sw if he was going to vote for Quinn's opponent, as well as implying voting for Cullerton's opponent. The first might have a chance at changing things; the second probably doesn't have a chance.

The least the state could do is use an actuarial method of accruing its liabilities so that it could determine what things actually cost, and then make a case for streamlining (in this case, doing away with the 4 transit boards and starting over), and then, once it is determined what the cost of an efficient operation is, make a case for raising taxes or fares to support it, instead of the reflexive bleat for "more funding." Surprisingly, only Daley seems to understand that. No one in state government does.At least Todd Stroger got voted out for not realizing, among other things, how a regional economy works and how he was destroying the one in Cook County.

I can agree with you for the most part. It would be interesting to know the reaction to those who have a low opinion of Chicago, some of that deservedly so, to Mayor Daley being the one local politician who actually pays attention and shows some understanding to these very issues with a lot of valid points.

[sw4400]

Looks like someone or some people in Springfield finally had their eyes opened... if I read this right.

Now it doesn't mention if it's offical though. I'm presuming it is, based on the first paragraph. How this slipped passed Ricky "I'm for Seniors Only" Hendon, I don't know... and don't give a shitake.

The minimum incomes are a little higher than before, but I think it's still a good plan that I'd support... after all, who can't afford Senior Fares if you make over those minimums?

[Busjack]

Looks like someone or some people in Springfield finally had their eyes opened... if I read this right.

The main thing I can figure out from the very incomplete article is that after Cullerton put Hendon on a committee to vote down the house bill, some committee voted out another bill on the same subject.

However, given that the legislature wants to get out of town this week and the changed bill would have to go to the House, I wouldn't count this chicken yet

[BusExpert32]

Today the CTA Tattler is reporting a new bill that could restore the CTA's 2-7-10 service cuts. Maybe....

[sw4400]

Today the CTA Tattler is reporting a new bill that could restore the CTA's 2-7-10 service cuts. Maybe....

Not likely... service may be restored, but I think it's too little, too late for the Flxibles... 6293 is converted to a Work Bus now... there are probably more already converted and some from Archer that are probably in the scrap lines or soon will be at 77th/Perry. The re-hired Operators will probably just use the current stock, unless the CTA gets some Illinois First money(like this'll happen) to put in a small order for about 150-200 40' buses.