CTA Service Adjustments

[BusHunter]

So if the sky is not falling, why does the RTA say that it is and why does Rauner say he is going to cut the state funding?

[jajuan]

At this point, I look at all this as political maneuvering by Rauner, the Legislature, RTA and the transit boards. Rauner's using the budget to try to force his agenda of wanting to gut unions in the state. Madigan in response is flexing his political muscle and pretty much giving his expected response of nothing happens in the state if he doesn't like the outcome. And RTA and the boards gave us this gloom and doom that drastic cuts would have to be made starting July 1, yet it's now less week shy of it being a month that the state has no budget in place and neither of the boards have yet to say they're going to cut anything. And I saw a local op ed written by a Republican lawyer stating that while Rauner is in another campaign mode rather than actually sitting down and trying to govern (his words), it's actually he who is in defiance of state law and the state constitution because he hasn't presented the legislature with a balanced budget proposal before July 1. He went on to quote directly the article of the Illinois Constitution that says that the state budget negotiating process begins when the Governor presents to the Legislature before July 1 and that after that's done the final details have to be hammered out into a final budget passed by the July 1 deadline. He pointed out that yes the Governor gave a budget proposal, but it wasn't a balanced one so the ball in this year's budget process never legally left Rauner's court in all this time. He says the bootlickers among the local media (again his words) never brought that to the public's attention and that the problem was further complicated by Madigan so far not showing political cleverness to have pointed it out and explained to the public either.

[Busjack]

At this point, I look at all this as political maneuvering by Rauner, the Legislature, RTA and the transit boards. Rauner's using the budget to try to force his agenda of wanting to gut unions in the state. Madigan in response is flexing his political muscle and pretty much giving his expected response of nothing happens in the state if he doesn't like the outcome. And RTA and the boards gave us this gloom and doom that drastic cuts would have to be made starting July 1, yet it's now less week shy of it being a month that the state has no budget in place and neither of the boards have yet to say they're going to cut anything. And I saw a local op ed written by a Republican lawyer stating that while Rauner is in another campaign mode rather than actually sitting down and trying to govern (his words), it's actually he who is in defiance of state law and the state constitution because he hasn't presented the legislature with a balanced budget proposal before July 1. He went on to quote directly the article of the Illinois Constitution that says that the state budget negotiating process begins when the Governor presents to the Legislature before July 1 and that after that's done the final details have to be hammered out into a final budget passed by the July 1 deadline. He pointed out that yes the Governor gave a budget proposal, but it wasn't a balanced one so the ball in this year's budget process never legally left Rauner's court in all this time. He says the bootlickers among the local media (again his words) never brought that to the public's attention and that the problem was further complicated by Madigan so far not showing political cleverness to have pointed it out and explained to the public either.

The constitution (Art VIII sec. 2) says that both the governor and the legislature have to certify that "Proposed expenditures shall not exceed funds estimated to be available for the fiscal year as shown in the budget.." It also says that the governor "shall prepare and submit to the General Assembly, at a time prescribed by law"--not July 1. The State Budget Law seems to set a new date each year, and there isn't any indication that Rauner didn't comply with that. Quinn rarely did.

One could argue that Rauner compiled with the Constitution by certifying that the budget he submitted would be balanced if he got the reforms he wanted. However, it is clear that the Legislature did not pass a constitutional budget, as Madigan's forces did not have the guts  to pass the tax increases needed to provide the funds estimated to be needed to pay for the proposed expenditures.

Finally, if someone had passed an unconstitutional budget, a taxpayer does have standing to enjoin the expenditures under the Disbursement of Public Moneys Act.* Can you imagine the mess if it got to that?

*http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=073500050HArt.+XI+Pt.+3&ActID=2017&ChapterID=56&SeqStart=79500000&SeqEnd=80000000 That's what was the source of Rocky Wirtz's suit against Quinn's Illinois Jobs Now bills.

[Busjack]

So if the sky is not falling, why does the RTA say that it is and why does Rauner say he is going to cut the state funding?

As jajuan pointed out, nothing has been cut yet. You still haven't refuted that the main source of funding is the RTA Sales Tax. Did you read what I posted above?

[BusHunter]

As jajuan pointed out, nothing has been cut yet. You still haven't refuted that the main source of funding is the RTA Sales Tax. Did you read what I posted above?

Well it's still too soon to feel anything from July 1st, but if it goes another month, let's see what happens. If nothing then maybe they are bluffing.

Now on your other point, can the Gov legally take money away from the sales tax funding source? I can't believe that it's really that simple a problem. There's got to be something else not mentioned here. Maybe we need to turn the clock back six months and reexplore why everyone then was so concerned.

[Busjack]

Well it's still too soon to feel anything from July 1st, but if it goes another month, let's see what happens. If nothing then maybe they are bluffing.

Now on your other point, can the Gov legally take money away from the sales tax funding source? I can't believe that it's really that simple a problem. There's got to be something else not mentioned here. Maybe we need to turn the clock back six months and reexplore why everyone then was so concerned.

Last, first, no the governor can't take away money collected by the RTA. It isn't state money.

On the other point, if you go back to 2007, when Kruesi was agitating for the RTA Sales Tax increase, the RTA was telling the service boards every month starting about now that they had to cut service within the next month, and then Blago transferred money from some other fund (such as road capital to the RTA) to stave off blame until the 2008 bill was passed. Again, you aren't seeing any of those threats here.

Other than that, fear mongering is the only thing politicians in this state do. When it comes to making cuts, Rodriguez was the only one to say the money isn't there and make the cuts. If there was a posting that Carter is shutting down the Forest Glen garage, I haven't seen it.

[BusHunter]

Reviewing some of what was said the last 6 months, mostly Rauner wants to cut the state subsidy for free and half fare. The article below says he wants to eliminate it altogether for 2016. So unless there is a structural change in how CTA funds this, it would be a repeat deficit. What i don't like is CTA is said to be taking steps to absorb the deficit, should one exist in the future. That would mean the cutting of something else out of the budget. I hope that doesn't effect the bus option. So while there may not be a cut, there might not be an option either.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-cta-board-met-0514-20150513-story.html

[Busjack]

Reviewing some of what was said the last 6 months, mostly Rauner wants to cut the state subsidy for free and half fare. The article below says he wants to eliminate it altogether for 2016. So unless there is a structural change in how CTA funds this, it would be a repeat deficit. What i don't like is CTA is said to be taking steps to absorb the deficit, should one exist in the future. That would mean the cutting of something else out of the budget. I hope that doesn't effect the bus option. So while there may not be a cut, there might not be an option either.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-cta-board-met-0514-20150513-story.html

That one was obviously before the legislature passed a budget that was vetoed. However, I did say that the main state effect would be the reduced fare reimbursement.

[BusHunter]

So technically with no state budget, there is no funding being sent now for half and free fare reimbursement. If they claim that amounts to 130 million a year, then per month they are losing roughly 11-13 million. Going back to the article above, though it sounds like that subsidy has already been reduced for the first half of the year. Probably they would have been better off if they never had a seniors ride free plan. I wonder if it's against state or federal law to abolish the half fares for students. That would help a shortfall. Why do it if you're not being reimburse?

[Busjack]

So technically with no state budget, there is no funding being sent now for half and free fare reimbursement. If they claim that amounts to 130 million a year, then per month they are losing roughly 11-13 million. Going back to the article above, though it sounds like that subsidy has already been reduced for the first half of the year. Probably they would have been better off if they never had a seniors ride free plan. I wonder if it's against state or federal law to abolish the half fares for students. That would help a shortfall. Why do it if you're not being reimburse?

The federal law is half fare for seniors and disabled only outside of peak hours (49 CFR 609.23).

The free fare business was thanks to Blago and similarly the current half fare program is state law. I suppose that the legislature could repeal that, but then they anger an identifiable voting block. But it would probably be worse if they enacted that retirement income is subject to the state income tax, which it is not now.

Student fares seem up to the transit authority, and with stuff like school trippers and U Pass must be making money. Of course, when discussed during the Blago years, CTA assumed that all riders would pay full fare, while obviously the number of rides would go down if the free rides were eliminated. Real cost would be how many vehicles would have to be added due to the free rides.

[BusHunter]

The federal law is half fare for seniors and disabled only outside of peak hours (49 CFR 609.23).

The free fare business was thanks to Blago and similarly the current half fare program is state law. I suppose that the legislature could repeal that, but then they anger an identifiable voting block. But it would probably be worse if they enacted that retirement income is subject to the state income tax, which it is not now.

Student fares seem up to the transit authority, and with stuff like school trippers and U Pass must be making money. Of course, when discussed during the Blago years, CTA assumed that all riders would pay full fare, while obviously the number of rides would go down if the free rides were eliminated. Real cost would be how many vehicles would have to be added due to the free rides.

Probably not many as older users would probably have a driving impairment or just don't feel they can drive safely. Many are bound also by their income status, which may have lowered for a middle class retired person. I think personally the students make up the highest volume of those riders. Maybe they should test a 3/4 fare and see how it does. While the Blago free ride gesture was nice, it is really an issue of can they afford to continue doing it. If the state stops supporting it, then I'd raise those riders to half fare. If someone is looking for blame, blame your state or it's Gov.

[jajuan]

The constitution (Art VIII sec. 2) says that both the governor and the legislature have to certify that "Proposed expenditures shall not exceed funds estimated to be available for the fiscal year as shown in the budget.." It also says that the governor "shall prepare and submit to the General Assembly, at a time prescribed by law"--not July 1. The State Budget Law seems to set a new date each year, and there isn't any indication that Rauner didn't comply with that. Quinn rarely did.

One could argue that Rauner compiled with the Constitution by certifying that the budget he submitted would be balanced if he got the reforms he wanted. However, it is clear that the Legislature did not pass a constitutional budget, as Madigan's forces did not have the guts  to pass the tax increases needed to provide the funds estimated to be needed to pay for the proposed expenditures.

Finally, if someone had passed an unconstitutional budget, a taxpayer does have standing to enjoin the expenditures under the Disbursement of Public Moneys Act.* Can you imagine the mess if it got to that?

*http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=073500050HArt.+XI+Pt.+3&ActID=2017&ChapterID=56&SeqStart=79500000&SeqEnd=80000000 That's what was the source of Rocky Wirtz's suit against Quinn's Illinois Jobs Now bills.

I shudder to think on this last part because the current situation is already a huge freaking mess on its own as is with all the politicians making a muck of things. The politicians on both sides of the spectrum in this state already frustrate me enough with this mess as is. Screw the freaking political agendas, and yes as far as I'm concerned both Madigan and Rauner are equally guilty on that front, and just fix the state's financial health.

[andrethebusman]

CTA is in financial trouble, everyone acknowledges that. So why have giveaways? Charge what the law allows. The "student fare" has been perverted to mean anybody going to any school, even college kids now think they get "student fare" 24/7. I fault Claypool (I pity the teachers) for having a separate "student" vs "child" fare, and then not bothering to really explain what a "student" is, namely a kid going to primary or high school, on school days. It is in the enabling ordnance, but nobody ever bothered to tell the public. Also, from person experience, somewhere the idea has gotten started that "child fare" is $1, not $1.10. Seniors will pay the buck ten without being told, but not kids, and we are talking "kids" in their 20's that are students in college. CTA is losing money hand over fist because the fare structure is too complex and nobody understands it, and realistically, it isn't worth arguing with the "kids" over it, because they are convinced they are right.

[Busjack]

CTA is in financial trouble, everyone acknowledges that. So why have giveaways? Charge what the law allows. The "student fare" has been perverted to mean anybody going to any school, even college kids now think they get "student fare" 24/7. I fault Claypool (I pity the teachers) for having a separate "student" vs "child" fare, and then not bothering to really explain what a "student" is, namely a kid going to primary or high school, on school days. It is in the enabling ordnance, but nobody ever bothered to tell the public. Also, from person experience, somewhere the idea has gotten started that "child fare" is $1, not $1.10. Seniors will pay the buck ten without being told, but not kids, and we are talking "kids" in their 20's that are students in college. CTA is losing money hand over fist because the fare structure is too complex and nobody understands it, and realistically, it isn't worth arguing with the "kids" over it, because they are convinced they are right.

The real question is whom Emanuel was trying to buy off, as the Press Releases (at least this one) say "The fare was lowered by 10 cents last year by Mayor Rahm Emanuel and CTA President Forrest Claypool to make transit even more affordable for Chicago families."

Also, as you explain, it isn't only the school trippers (about which I was thinking).

The fare structure was too complex, but after Ventra it became incomprehensible.

[jajuan]

CTA is in financial trouble, everyone acknowledges that. So why have giveaways? Charge what the law allows. The "student fare" has been perverted to mean anybody going to any school, even college kids now think they get "student fare" 24/7. I fault Claypool (I pity the teachers) for having a separate "student" vs "child" fare, and then not bothering to really explain what a "student" is, namely a kid going to primary or high school, on school days. It is in the enabling ordnance, but nobody ever bothered to tell the public. Also, from person experience, somewhere the idea has gotten started that "child fare" is $1, not $1.10. Seniors will pay the buck ten without being told, but not kids, and we are talking "kids" in their 20's that are students in college. CTA is losing money hand over fist because the fare structure is too complex and nobody understands it, and realistically, it isn't worth arguing with the "kids" over it, because they are convinced they are right.

On the college kid front, if they want to pay their particular special fare they should be tapping their U Passes on the Ventra reader. If they put in cash, then they should be putting in the $2.25, case closed no ifs, ands or buts. That part of the equation is obvious even with whatever complexities to the fare structure there may be. Beyond that, there's not much policing of fares since there are colleges with night classes and in some cases weekend sessions as well as colleges telling their students they pay their fares using their UPass whenever they use CTA. Now CTA did screw up in wording in recent years when they state student fares apply to "children ages 7-20 with valid CTA Student Riding Permit" when past years did directly specify elementary and high school kids, but the fare structure isn't that freaking complex that it can't be seen that the other part reads "on school days between 5:30 am and 8 pm". So that part of it is more on bus operators not sticking to their guns in enforcement because they don't want to waste time arguing over it as they say. Yeah there may be situations where it's not worth the argument, but at the same time not everything is management's fault either even if in a lot of cases there is a legitimate argument of incompetence. I get so annoyed with different entities that sell a service these days awarding lackluster reading comprehension skills or lack thereof because they don't want to "make a fuss" or "argue" when it's a situation where they are well within in their rights to point out to the customer at hand that that's not what the policy is and can clearly point to that policy backing up their point on said policy. 

[NewFlyerMCI]

On a separate note, when I was in Chicago the last week of June, the Blue Line was doing 6 and 8 car consists on the weekend. I came back again, this last weekend and Sunday when I rode (about 4 different times), they were using 4 car consists, that later on in the night in either direction, filled rather quickly. It also seemed that some passengers were confused as well, because at some station, namely the atrocious Chicago-Blue, Logan Sq and Damen, passengers spread out across the length of the platform. Anyone know anything?

[MetroShadow]

On a separate note, when I was in Chicago the last week of June, the Blue Line was doing 6 and 8 car consists on the weekend. I came back again, this last weekend and Sunday when I rode (about 4 different times), they were using 4 car consists, that later on in the night in either direction, filled rather quickly. It also seemed that some passengers were confused as well, because at some station, namely the atrocious Chicago-Blue, Logan Sq and Damen, passengers spread out across the length of the platform. Anyone know anything?

Neither baseball team was in town, nor was there a concert that I was aware of. Pride Weekend, maybe. 

Everyone assumes that there is an 8-car train coming; although there's no notice otherwise (it's definitely not MetroRail with their train car indicators on their trackers).

[BusHunter]

On a separate note, when I was in Chicago the last week of June, the Blue Line was doing 6 and 8 car consists on the weekend. I came back again, this last weekend and Sunday when I rode (about 4 different times), they were using 4 car consists, that later on in the night in either direction, filled rather quickly. It also seemed that some passengers were confused as well, because at some station, namely the atrocious Chicago-Blue, Logan Sq and Damen, passengers spread out across the length of the platform. Anyone know anything?

Yeah, I know when they run 4 cars it's like rush hour on the trains, there's no space for anyone and you have to fight to get on/off the trains from Logan - Loop. They probably don't want to run 8 cars cause it's a waste on the Forest Pk branch, but really if they cut enough trains at UIC maybe they need it too.

Usually you will see the 8 cars when any festival, parade or gathering like Lollapooloza is going on. They do it too when construction is going on or there's a line cut. It's those few summer weekends when nothing is happening you'll get 4 cars. Probably more likely in the winter to get 4 cars.

[andrethebusman]

On the college kid front, if they want to pay their particular special fare they should be tapping their U Passes on the Ventra reader. If they put in cash, then they should be putting in the $2.25, case closed no ifs, ands or buts. That part of the equation is obvious even with whatever complexities to the fare structure there may be. Beyond that, there's not much policing of fares since there are colleges with night classes and in some cases weekend sessions as well as colleges telling their students they pay their fares using their UPass whenever they use CTA. Now CTA did screw up in wording in recent years when they state student fares apply to "children ages 7-20 with valid CTA Student Riding Permit" when past years did directly specify elementary and high school kids, but the fare structure isn't that freaking complex that it can't be seen that the other part reads "on school days between 5:30 am and 8 pm". So that part of it is more on bus operators not sticking to their guns in enforcement because they don't want to waste time arguing over it as they say. Yeah there may be situations where it's not worth the argument, but at the same time not everything is management's fault either even if in a lot of cases there is a legitimate argument of incompetence. I get so annoyed with different entities that sell a service these days awarding lackluster reading comprehension skills or lack thereof because they don't want to "make a fuss" or "argue" when it's a situation where they are well within in their rights to point out to the customer at hand that that's not what the policy is and can clearly point to that policy backing up their point on said policy. 

It is official policy that if somebody pays a student fare who is not entitled to same (such as on weekends), they are not to be put off. So at that point why bother to say anything? It is like the reality is that on the south side, the going fare is $2. If you ask for the quarter, the answer is always "I ain't got one", So what's the point of trying to get it? You are not going to, and are risking getting punched or worse.

[andrethebusman]

On a separate note, when I was in Chicago the last week of June, the Blue Line was doing 6 and 8 car consists on the weekend. I came back again, this last weekend and Sunday when I rode (about 4 different times), they were using 4 car consists, that later on in the night in either direction, filled rather quickly. It also seemed that some passengers were confused as well, because at some station, namely the atrocious Chicago-Blue, Logan Sq and Damen, passengers spread out across the length of the platform. Anyone know anything?

The "official" weekend length is 4, with alternate trains turning at UIC all day, and has been for years. However, whenever there is any kind of special event (and there is most weekends during the summer), they run 8. This applies to all routes. Red line is probably the worst offender, as it is supposed to run 8's most of the time, but cut to 4 after midnight. However, it is so rare to cut any more, that on the few days a month they do, it really confounds everybody.

By the way, last few weekends Pink as been running 6 cars because of Taste and other festivals.

Edited July 29, 2015 by andrethebusman

[jajuan]

It is official policy that if somebody pays a student fare who is not entitled to same (such as on weekends), they are not to be put off. So at that point why bother to say anything? It is like the reality is that on the south side, the going fare is $2. If you ask for the quarter, the answer is always "I ain't got one", So what's the point of trying to get it? You are not going to, and are risking getting punched or worse.

Not every situation is that south side "I ain't got one" situation is my point or one where the risk is being punched instead of the quarter. And quite a number of south side or night car operators (nights being the other situation you would think a belligerent response may come) must not have gotten the memo on not putting up a fuss because I see operators on the south side and a few driving in what would still be considered the owl period when I have to do a predawn work start call a rider back to the farebox and say to them "Sorry fare is $2.25". And more often than not the response is "I'm sorry about that. I thought it was $2" and they drop in the extra quarter. Sometimes there's a grumble but the quarter is still coughed up in most cases I've observed. I'll grant you that you can kind of understand the assumption or thought $2 is the fare on buses if you look at how CTA for years has listed the fares paid with fare card media (at the present time Ventra), for which fare for buses is $2, listed at the top of the fare chart for those buses that actually have one visible. Looking at how small those charts have become as CTA's fare structure became more complex, it's not hard gathering that the folks would need a magnifying glass to see who the $2 fare applies, when you take out of the equation that after almost a decade mentions of transfers could act as a clue since transfers have been gone from cash fares since 2006. But what all of this does bring to mind is that the number of folks still paying directly with cash is probably still not as low a ratio as they want to believe or want the public to believe if those missed quarters are stacking up enough to have significant impact on CTA's cash woes and not be offset by those who overpay (in most of those cases when a group boards and one person pays for the group) because they didn't have coin change. 

[jajuan]

CTA has a notice up on its website that as of 9am Thursday morning #48 bus will not operate south of 87th/Damen until further notice because the 97/Western terminal is closed for the demolition of Evergreen Plaza. For the same reason, #95W buses are extended up to the 87th/Damen terminal (in this case they may mean a layover point near 87th/Damen rather than the actual off street terminal) via Western, 83rd, and Damen for westbound buses. Eastbound the indefinite detour will be via 87th, Western and back to normal routing along 95th.

[NewFlyerMCI]

CTA has a notice up on its website that as of 9am Thursday morning #48 bus will not operate south of 87th/Damen until further notice because the 97/Western terminal is closed for the demolition of Evergreen Plaza. For the same reason, #95W buses are extended up to the 87th/Damen terminal (in this case they may mean a layover point near 87th/Damen rather than the actual off street terminal) via Western, 83rd, and Damen for westbound buses. Eastbound the indefinite detour will be via 87th, Western and back to normal routing along 95th.

Just passed that place last weekend. I never knew it closed. I used to go over in the area all the time when Borders (RIP) was still open. 

I'm guessing the reason the 95W is going to 87th/Damen terminal is because its asking to much for the bus to make a u-turn if it goes to 87th/Western terminal. Is there sufficient enough transfer to warrent the 48 & 95W sharing the same terminal? (it isn't as hard for the 48 to use the 87th/Western terminal since it essentially follows the same routing as the 87, which is to left turn into terminal and then head back in the opposite direction)

[Busjack]

Just passed that place last weekend. I never knew it closed. I used to go over in the area all the time when Borders (RIP) was still open. 

I'm guessing the reason the 95W is going to 87th/Damen terminal is because its asking to much for the bus to make a u-turn if it goes to 87th/Western terminal. Is there sufficient enough transfer to warrent the 48 & 95W sharing the same terminal? (it isn't as hard for the 48 to use the 87th/Western terminal since it essentially follows the same routing as the 87, which is to left turn into terminal and then head back in the opposite direction)

Seems like too much dead mileage to be worth it. I don't know if there is an issue about a driver's toilet, but I would think they could just circle the block instead of adding 3 miles to the round trip (a mile to 87th, a half mile to Damen, and then back).

[artthouwill]

Seems like too much dead mileage to be worth it. I don't know if there is an issue about a driver's toilet, but I would think they could just circle the block instead of adding 3 miles to the round trip (a mile to 87th, a half mile to Damen, and then back).

Well there is a toilet at the turnaround just east of Western on 87th, but maybe the thought process is that there would be too many buses in there considering 87th is a heavy route and most buses terminate there instead of 87th/Cicero.  Meanwhile there is an unused ( but now open) turnaround just north of 87th on Damen, which was the original terminal for the 48,  Considering the 48 onlyy runs during rush and has a low frequency, CTA figured it would be easier to just have the 95W terminate there. From 95th Western to 87th/Damen is 1 1/2 miles each way, but to do the original 95W Evergreen Plaza loop is a little over a mile, so technically we are talking just under an additional 2 miles.  Unless there is a schedule adjustment, this means that most of the layover time at the Plaza will now be eaten up going to/from 87th.

The other thing that could've been done is shorten the 87 short turns to Damen or let the 87s layover at Damen and 95W use the 87th/Western turnaround.