RTA Governance

[mkohut]

That one sure summed it up, including Jourdan's comments, and Coulson noting that RTA still had a statutory duty. I guess CTA doesn't want any funds in 2014.

I think the plan might be is to get the RTA dissolve.But,i have my doubts its going to happen this year.

[Busjack]

I think the plan might be is to get the RTA dissolve.But,i have my doubts its going to happen this year.

It would take legislation in any event; Emanuel can't do it on his own.

Like I said, Jourdan summed it up. The only question is whether enough legislators see it Jourdan's way, which I doubt, but as I mentioned that the CTA is legislatively dependent on the suburbs, I don't think Emanuel is going to get his way, either.

Update: As implied by the articles, all the boards have bonding authority, and the legislature would have to sort out who would be liable on the bonds if it started abolishing agencies.

[jajuan]

That column coalesces what I have said for a long time--the suburbs pay for the CTA, and Emanuel's goal is to abolish the RTA. Then you have the usual b.s. "Spokesmen for both the city and CTA denied any involvement, but said they had been briefed in advance of its contents. A spokesman for the mayor said the letter reflects viewpoints that the mayor has expressed publicly."

Of course, everything around here is either money or power/politics. Even Daley II acknowledged so, once in reference to Ryan's corruption, and again with respect to the International Olympic Committee. And he ought to know.

So, I have to take my hat off to Brown for saying this so succinctly.

Yes it's about money and power, but I don't think he was necessarily saying the city and CTA were there only ones jockeying for power in the unnecessary political minefield that is public transit in NE Illinois. The bigger point and question he posed is how to get the politicians on the state level to come up with something that truly reforms public transit in the region but is also still fair to BOTH CTA and the two suburban boards. And it's not as simple as CTA and the mayor of Chicago are bad guy boogeyman out to take advantage of the poor innocent suburbs. I've already mentioned that yes Emanuel's ego has to be taken out of the equation, and I do agree with Brown that it would be a bad move to let Emanuel move through transit issues unchecked. But going back to my point of balancing and protecting both sides interests, the system has to be structured in a way that the suburbs realize that public transit brings benefit to them too even for the residents who drive as part of the problem also happens to stem from suburban residents having the sense they're paying into a system that benefits mostly the city overall. Quite frankly, in my opinion it comes back to structuring the system once and for all in a way that neuters both city AND suburban politicians' ability to keep turning public transit on both sides of the city limits into these political bastions for cronies.

[Busjack]

Yes it's about money and power, but I don't think he was necessarily saying the city and CTA were there only ones jockeying for power in the unnecessary political minefield that is public transit in NE Illinois. The bigger point and question he posed is how to get the politicians on the state level to come up with something that truly reforms public transit in the region but is also still fair to BOTH CTA and the two suburban boards. And it's not as simple as CTA and the mayor of Chicago are bad guy boogeyman out to take advantage of the poor innocent suburbs. I've already mentioned that yes Emanuel's ego has to be taken out of the equation, and I do agree with Brown that it would be a bad move to let Emanuel move through transit issues unchecked. But going back to my point of balancing and protecting both sides interests, the system has to be structured in a way that the suburbs realize that public transit brings benefit to them too even for the residents who drive as part of the problem also happens to stem from suburban residents having the sense they're paying into a system that benefits mostly the city overall. Quite frankly, in my opinion it comes back to structuring the system once and for all in a way that neuters both city AND suburban politicians' ability to keep turning public transit on both sides of the city limits into these political bastions for cronies.

However, you agreed with the rest of us that there shouldn't be 4 boards, and if the one board is properly apportioned Emanuel would have to give up power. It was assumed that the boards were properly reapportioned in 2008, and Emanuel has 5 votes out of 17 on the RTA board. It usually takes 12 votes to get anything done. The purpose of the supermajority requirements in the RTA Act for both the RTA and Metra boards was to force cooperation, but instead Emanuel wants to block the RTA board from doing anything, because they are not compliant puppies like the rubber stampers on the CTA Board.

Hence it solely is about power and money, and certainly not about service in the city. Also, Emanuel's petulant personality, and Claypool saying "no problem here, I report to and you can vote out the mayor."

In the meantime, Emanuel's puppets on the RTA board have committed a clear statutory violation of the timeline for working on a budget. Read 70 ILCS 3615/4.01. Last year, Claypool & Co. violated the statute on when CTA was supposed to submit its budget. The RTA claims that CTA is violating the statutory requirement that it run a balanced budget. Finally, appointments to all the transit boards, including CTA violate the statute; in the CTA's case only Zucarrelli's hit the fan.

Maybe it became time that suburban members of the boards point out this lawless behavior. It has nothing to do with providing transportation, but screwing the taxpayers and riders.

Finally, Carole Brown pulled out this argument in 2005, while proposing to eliminate local bus service in Oak Park and Evanston, so it was bull then and bull now, as far as CTA management is concerned.

On a side note, if you want to know what another "reformer" in the Emanuel camp thinks about legal constraints on those who run government, see what Joe Moore finally ended up saying when I challenged him on Chicago Political Commentary. Lisa Madigan should make these despots confine themselves to their authority, but she's one of them, too.

[jajuan]

However, you agreed with the rest of us that there shouldn't be 4 boards, and if the one board is properly apportioned Emanuel would have to give up power. It was assumed that the boards were properly reapportioned in 2008, and Emanuel has 5 votes out of 17 on the RTA board. It usually takes 12 votes to get anything done. The purpose of the supermajority requirements in the RTA Act for both the RTA and Metra boards was to force cooperation, but instead Emanuel wants to block the RTA board from doing anything, because they are not compliant puppies like the rubber stampers on the CTA Board.

Hence it solely is about power and money, and certainly not about service in the city. Also, Emanuel's petulant personality, and Claypool saying "no problem here, I report to and you can vote out the mayor."

In the meantime, Emanuel's puppets on the RTA board have committed a clear statutory violation of the timeline for working on a budget. Read 70 ILCS 3615/4.01. Last year, Claypool & Co. violated the statute on when CTA was supposed to submit its budget. The RTA claims that CTA is violating the statutory requirement that it run a balanced budget. Finally, appointments to all the transit boards, including CTA violate the statute; in the CTA's case only Zucarrelli's hit the fan.

Maybe it became time that suburban members of the boards point out this lawless behavior. It has nothing to do with providing transportation, but screwing the taxpayers and riders.

Finally, Carole Brown pulled out this argument in 2005, while proposing to eliminate local bus service in Oak Park and Evanston, so it was bull then and bull now, as far as CTA management is concerned.

On a side note, if you want to know what another "reformer" in the Emanuel camp thinks about legal constraints on those who run government, see what Joe Moore finally ended up saying when I challenged him on Chicago Political Commentary. Lisa Madigan should make these despots confine themselves to their authority, but she's one of them, too.

Yeah I agreed and still do agree that there don't need to be four boards, and Emanuel's personality is a part of the problem in terms of it only serves to throw fuel on the fire of the larger structural problems with public transit in the region. But one thing I don't and won't agree with is that the City of Chicago and elected officials from said locale are the only guilty parties in all this foolishness. Suburban politicians have let a legitimate concern to protect their constituents from the activities of at times overly ambitious Chicago mayors morph into a someways equally overambitious vendetta of keeping the City of Chicago in check. And to bring this back to transit, we keep paying the price in terms of lackluster service across the board in both city and suburbs that's always under some threat of being cut beyond what's realistic to maintain a balance of providing efficient service without cutting of the nose despite the face and in terms of service that's more complicated than need be for a region this size because the oversight board does not exercise those oversight duties among the other three boards and those three subsidiary boards have no true incentive to cooperate or coordinate among each other under the current structure because of in part that lack of oversight.

[Busjack]

Yeah I agreed and still do agree that there don't need to be four boards, and Emanuel's personality is a part of the problem in terms of it only serves to throw fuel on the fire of the larger structural problems with public transit in the region. But one thing I don't and won't agree with is that the City of Chicago and elected officials from said locale are the only guilty parties in all this foolishness. Suburban politicians have let a legitimate concern to protect their constituents from the activities of at times overly ambitious Chicago mayors morph into a someways equally overambitious vendetta of keeping the City of Chicago in check. And to bring this back to transit, we keep paying the price in terms of lackluster service across the board in both city and suburbs that's always under some threat of being cut beyond what's realistic to maintain a balance of providing efficient service without cutting of the nose despite the face and in terms of service that's more complicated than need be for a region this size because the oversight board does not exercise those oversight duties among the other three boards and those three subsidiary boards have no true incentive to cooperate or coordinate among each other under the current structure because of in part that lack of oversight.

The Metra scandal, including that apparently none of the board members was legally appointed, and there still is one undetected (except by me) double dipper indicates that the suburban politicians aren't clean. However, I think that deflects that the whole thing (except maybe for Pace) is a corrupt mess, in the sense Daley said of there is corruption by power (as well as by money).

For that matter, I am pretty convinced that Gates is trying to aggrandize his position without really offering any reform, either.

But getting back to Claypool, we should have figured out that the lackluster performance and certainly unwillingness to enter into regional cooperation was inevitable based on the CTA Tattler of August 1, 2011 where:

A few of my readers have asked about better service coordination with the CTA’s RTA partners, Metra rail and Pace bus systems. Claypool said he has a good relationship with RTA Chairman John Gates, and that he’s “sympathetic to the needs of CTA and engaging across agencies to spur cooperation.”

But Claypool quickly veered off that topic to lament the “long-standing structural inequities driven by decades of politics that are inherent at the CTA.”

Then he cited previously discredited statistics and walked out (or later Kevin O'Neil claimed that Claypool had said earlier that he only had a half hour instead of the promised hour).

We now know that Emanuel's concept of regional cooperation is to let Pace do the exclusive operation of bus service in outer areas of the city, and is more bugged about the "long standing structural inequities" than Claypool meaning that he really had a good relationship with the RTA. Maybe in the first two months of his reign, but not since.

Even during the Crowd Reduction Plan, CTA wouldn't admit that it had talked to Pace first.

So, even at the dig I just made at Gates, he is correct that if there is to be an effective regional system, the planning departments should be combined.

[mkohut]

The Metra scandal, including that apparently none of the board members was legally appointed, and there still is one undetected (except by me) double dipper indicates that the suburban politicians aren't clean. However, I think that deflects that the whole thing (except maybe for Pace) is a corrupt mess, in the sense Daley said of there is corruption by power (as well as by money).

For that matter, I am pretty convinced that Gates is trying to aggrandize his position without really offering any reform, either.

But getting back to Claypool, we should have figured out that the lackluster performance and certainly unwillingness to enter into regional cooperation was inevitable based on the CTA Tattler of August 1, 2011 where:

A few of my readers have asked about better service coordination with the CTA’s RTA partners, Metra rail and Pace bus systems. Claypool said he has a good relationship with RTA Chairman John Gates, and that he’s “sympathetic to the needs of CTA and engaging across agencies to spur cooperation.”

But Claypool quickly veered off that topic to lament the “long-standing structural inequities driven by decades of politics that are inherent at the CTA.”

Then he cited previously discredited statistics and walked out (or later Kevin O'Neil claimed that Claypool had said earlier that he only had a half hour instead of the promised hour).

We now know that Emanuel's concept of regional cooperation is to let Pace do the exclusive operation of bus service in outer areas of the city, and is more bugged about the "long standing structural inequities" than Claypool meaning that he really had a good relationship with the RTA. Maybe in the first two months of his reign, but not since.

Even during the Crowd Reduction Plan, CTA wouldn't admit that it had talked to Pace first.

So, even at the dig I just made at Gates, he is correct that if there is to be an effective regional system, the planning departments should be combined.

Reality is all the College Clowns,Quinn,Emanuel can't be trusted.

Its all about getting there share of the pie.

Quinn can't get spending control over the remodeling of the State Capital.I'm surprise he hasn't blame John Thain.

Even if it got down to where there is only 1 board and 10 members.I can't picture any of there egos giving up there power to appoint someone.

Also,whats the point of having planners when there is no money no add Metra or new CTA train routes.

There has to be at 6 train routes for the CTA to have new service or extension to routes.

The only thing i can see happening for a new board is they might get the power to add sales tax or gasoline tax so the College Clowns and whoever becomes the next Governor won't get blame.

[mkohut]

The latest in the war

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130914/news/709149863

[jajuan]

The Metra scandal, including that apparently none of the board members was legally appointed, and there still is one undetected (except by me) double dipper indicates that the suburban politicians aren't clean. However, I think that deflects that the whole thing (except maybe for Pace) is a corrupt mess, in the sense Daley said of there is corruption by power (as well as by money).

For that matter, I am pretty convinced that Gates is trying to aggrandize his position without really offering any reform, either.

But getting back to Claypool, we should have figured out that the lackluster performance and certainly unwillingness to enter into regional cooperation was inevitable based on the CTA Tattler of August 1, 2011 where:

A few of my readers have asked about better service coordination with the CTA’s RTA partners, Metra rail and Pace bus systems. Claypool said he has a good relationship with RTA Chairman John Gates, and that he’s “sympathetic to the needs of CTA and engaging across agencies to spur cooperation.”

But Claypool quickly veered off that topic to lament the “long-standing structural inequities driven by decades of politics that are inherent at the CTA.”

Then he cited previously discredited statistics and walked out (or later Kevin O'Neil claimed that Claypool had said earlier that he only had a half hour instead of the promised hour).

We now know that Emanuel's concept of regional cooperation is to let Pace do the exclusive operation of bus service in outer areas of the city, and is more bugged about the "long standing structural inequities" than Claypool meaning that he really had a good relationship with the RTA. Maybe in the first two months of his reign, but not since.

Even during the Crowd Reduction Plan, CTA wouldn't admit that it had talked to Pace first.

So, even at the dig I just made at Gates, he is correct that if there is to be an effective regional system, the planning departments should be combined.

I actually was pleasantly surprised to see the merging planning departments proposal pop up, and the questions that popped in my head were: Could they actually get this through? And what more can they come up with that shows they're actually serious this time about reforming transit without trying to outdo each other with the political posturing and b.s.? And I've already said countless times that Mayor Emanuel is an arrogant bubblehead so you get few arguments from me on his part in exacerbating the divisions that keep the inefficiencies going.

[mkohut]

I actually was pleasantly surprised to see the merging planning departments proposal pop up, and the questions that popped in my head were: Could they actually get this through? And what more can they come up with that shows they're actually serious this time about reforming transit without trying to outdo each other with the political posturing and b.s.? And I've already said countless times that Mayor Emanuel is an arrogant bubblehead so you get few arguments from me on his part in exacerbating the divisions that keep the inefficiencies going.

I'm not a fan of Emanuel and the College Clowns either.

As my previous posts if you trim the amount of Planners and Boards..Service would be added or more frequently added..

[Busjack]

...

Also,whats the point of having planners when there is no money no add Metra or new CTA train routes.

...

The planners aren't the consultants on the nonexistent projects.

I think we have one here, but the planning department is the one that sets up schedules and routes, including restructurings.

For instance, if there were one unified planning department, we wouldn't have had:

• Pace saying in 2005: CTA encroached on us, so we are rerouting around it (such as on Golf Road cancelling 212 and connecting the outer portion to 422, because CTA extended 205 without consulting Pace).
• CTA saying that the outer portion of Chicago will be served by Pace, but not saying that they had first talked to Pace about such things as ending express service on 270.
• A fake ME alternative to the Red Line shutdown.

But doing that would require repealing the portion of the RTA Act that each service board is responsible for its level of service.

...

As my previous posts if you trim the amount of Planners and Boards..Service would be added or more frequently added..

I see, though, that you may have changed your position from the previous quote.

The latest in the war

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130914/news/709149863

I think there is 6 of one and a half dozen of the other. If there were unified purchasing, maybe CTA wouldn't spend $80,000 a bus, but, then again, based on the NABI debacle, maybe CTA has to have higher standards. If there were unified purchasing, maybe CTA wouldn't have engaged in a consistent losing fuel hedging scheme. On the other hand, the Ventra example was bogus, because Pace says that the contract was structured so that Pace got piggyback prices, as Cubic was essentially selling a service (but for which Pace had to pay the cost of the equipment it wanted.).

...Could they actually get this through? ..

See above; that it would take an amendment to the RTA Act. Is enough of the legislature interested in this? Probably not.

[jajuan]

The planners aren't the consultants on the nonexistent projects.

I think we have one here, but the planning department is the one that sets up schedules and routes, including restructurings.

For instance, if there were one unified planning department, we wouldn't have had:

• Pace saying in 2005: CTA encroached on us, so we are rerouting around it (such as on Golf Road cancelling 212 and connecting the outer portion to 422, because CTA extended 205 without consulting Pace).
• CTA saying that the outer portion of Chicago will be served by Pace, but not saying that they had first talked to Pace about such things as ending express service on 270.
• A fake ME alternative to the Red Line shutdown.

But doing that would require repealing the portion of the RTA Act that each service board is responsible for its level of service.

I see, though, that you may have changed your position from the previous quote.

I think there is 6 of one and a half dozen of the other. If there were unified purchasing, maybe CTA wouldn't spend $80,000 a bus, but, then again, based on the NABI debacle, maybe CTA has to have higher standards. If there were unified purchasing, maybe CTA wouldn't have engaged in a consistent losing fuel hedging scheme. On the other hand, the Ventra example was bogus, because Pace says that the contract was structured so that Pace got piggyback prices, as Cubic was essentially selling a service (but for which Pace had to pay the cost of the equipment it wanted.).

See above; that it would take an amendment to the RTA Act. Is enough of the legislature interested in this? Probably not.

And the last statement of your posts brings us all back to the vicious cycle that the legislature keeps us locked in because it doesn't have the stomach to create measures that go deep enough to help real reform of the transit system go anywhere beyond just piecemeal fluff that doesn't amount to anything.

[mkohut]

And the last statement of your posts brings us all back to the vicious cycle that the legislature keeps us locked in because it doesn't have the stomach to create measures that go deep enough to help real reform of the transit system go anywhere beyond just piecemeal fluff that doesn't amount to anythin

How many signatures would it take to put a ballot Should the Board Members have to be elected to serve?

[Busjack]

How many signatures would it take to put a ballot Should the Board Members have to be elected to serve?

Illinois only had advisory referenda, unless it is a constitutional amendment to alter the structure of the legislature.

So the answer is an infinite number would not be sufficient to mean anything.

[mkohut]

According to Greg Hinz

Here are the 2014 Funding Proposals

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130913/BLOGS02/130919874/rta-misses-budget-deadline-as-cta-metra-squabble

[Busjack]

According to Greg Hinz

Here are the 2014 Funding Proposals

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130913/BLOGS02/130919874/rta-misses-budget-deadline-as-cta-metra-squabble

The last part was Hinz's speculation that the panel would abolish the RTA and just distribute subsidies based on a geographic formula.

However, that doesn't work, because (1) someone has to collect the taxes, and (2) except for the 15% discretionary funds, there is already a geographic formula, and apparently the funding dispute is over 3% of the 15%. Of course, there is also the dispute over bonding authority. So, I don't know where Hinz got his "likely to recommend" "news."

[mkohut]

I'm not sure if this is the right spot for the latest news.According to CBS Daley is dropping out of the race.Which obviously leaves Quinn .

Also,Standard &Poor lower Chicago bond rating.

Meanwhile,no new news on the Boards.

[Busjack]

I'm not sure if this is the right spot for the latest news.According to CBS Daley is dropping out of the race.Which obviously leaves Quinn .

Also,Standard &Poor lower Chicago bond rating.

Meanwhile,no new news on the Boards.

The only thing relevant here is that Daley seemed to support the Emanuel plan for abolishing the RTA, so basically one is left with the usual Quinn plan of "I don't know."

[mkohut]

The only thing relevant here is that Daley seemed to support the Emanuel plan for abolishing the RTA, so basically one is left with the usual Quinn plan of "I don't know."

The Sun Times confirms that along with Jack Franks supporting Bill Daley.

I wish Kevin was running for Governor.He can appoint ChicagoBus.org members to the Board.

[Busjack]

The Sun Times confirms that along with Jack Franks supporting Bill Daley.

I wish Kevin was running for Governor.He can appoint ChicagoBus.org members to the Board.

Well. if we believe Daley, we don't have the 5 to 9 years to butt heads with the Legislature. We certainly wouldn't be left with the time to keep posting.

Maybe, like Daley, we don't have sufficient campaign cash, nor the ability to win downstate.

As for Jack Franks, I don't know exactly what solution he supports, other than "best practices," and the usual McHenry County one of "we don't trust Chicago politicians," which would seem to include Daley, even though he wasn't endorsed by the Machine this time.

[mkohut]

As the Soap Opera continues

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130917/news/709179790

[mkohut]

This battle would be a great WWE story line

http://www.suntimes.com/22626288-761/rta-board-members-squabble-miss-funding-deadline.html

[Busjack]

This battle would be a great WWE story line

http://www.suntimes.com/22626288-761/rta-board-members-squabble-miss-funding-deadline.html

I mentioned statutory duties before.

However, the WWE would make sure that Wrestlemania occurred on the day for which they sold tickets, and whatever the deal was between The Rock and Cena, they would be ready to simulate beating the c*$p out of each other. Apparently the RTA and CTA aren't interested in either simulating a battle or doing it by a deadline.

Also, the numbers cited in each article seem to be going down.

[mkohut]

I mentioned statutory duties before.

However, the WWE would make sure that Wrestlemania occurred on the day for which they sold tickets, and whatever the deal was between The Rock and Cena, they would be ready to simulate beating the c*$p out of each other. Apparently the RTA and CTA aren't interested in either simulating a battle or doing it by a deadline.

Also, the numbers cited in each article seem to be going down.

The way there going it can be Gates vs Claypool in a scaffold match as the main event for next year Wrestlemania.

[Busjack]

The way there going it can be Gates vs Claypool in a scaffold match as the main event for next year Wrestlemania.

Unfortunately, there is supposed to be a budget by Jan. 1, not March twentysomethingth.

They used to say when WCW was still around that Boxing Day was Dec. 26, and Wrestling Day was Dec. 27, when Starcade was held.

I doubt that I would want to pay $60 for a PPV of Gates v. Claypool. Maybe they can get in the Octagon for MMA Inside the Cage free on Saturdays on TUFF TV 24.1.