RTA Governance

[Busjack]

Since Metra can't seem to figure out that the only North/South Pace bus in the Near West suburbs is the 331, which runs on 5th Ave. through Maywood, but the UP West line skip stops all day there, so making a connection there is impossible when the trains are 2 hours apart, I doubt if combining them would ever work.

...

I think you missed the whole point, which is that there isn't coordination of service given the 3 service board structure now, so service would seem to be better coordinated if one agency would be in charge. At least it wouldn't be any worse coordinated.

[MetroShadow]

Since Metra can't seem to figure out that the only North/South Pace bus in the Near West suburbs is the 331, which runs on 5th Ave. through Maywood, but the UP West line skip stops all day there, so making a connection there is impossible when the trains are 2 hours apart, I doubt if combining them would ever work.

I visit friends out that way & it would be far easier to use the UP & transfer to the bus, that the insane CTA bus, L train for one stop, then Pace bus way I go there now.

Coordination ≠ Transfers

In the grand scheme of things, yes, the public would prefer to have relatively seamless transfers and connections. I don't think it particularly matters if the ridership isn't justified.

What the scheme of the issue is whether or not buses can meet with said trains, and appropriate coverage meets demand. Instead of having six different buses on the same street (this is an example) covered by two agencies, down to two or three would be the issue at hand.

Instead of having a constant fight between all three boards, the RTA, and CMAP (an extension of IDOT), the lack of cooperation and communication and bureaucracy should be addressed before tackling the smaller "timetables of things."

[Busjack]

Coordination ≠ Transfers

In the grand scheme of things, yes, the public would prefer to have relatively seamless transfers and connections. I don't think it particularly matters if the ridership isn't justified.

What the scheme of the issue is whether or not buses can meet with said trains, and appropriate coverage meets demand. Instead of having six different buses on the same street (this is an example) covered by two agencies, down to two or three would be the issue at hand.

...

A reaction I had to strictures's post after reading your post is that it would have to be demonstrated first whether there is a demand for a transfer at that location. I'm not sure there is. But, if there were, it now gets to whether Metra and Pace want to agree on a common schedule at that point (not that likely, although they do agree on feeders and reverse feeders), or whether some planning body with real authority could make an effective decision to implement it. Anyway, strictures's point seems more like the tail wagging the dog, as the assumption is that the bus is supposed to meet the train.

The Crowd Reduction Plan might have cut down some of the route duplication you mentioned, but mostly in a backwards way that CTA retreated in the city, as opposed to curtailing its overlaps in the suburbs (except for 17 and a bit of 49A). I still contend, 12 years after the last restructuring, that CTA shouldn't have infringed on Pace in Evanston and Skokie, and to a lesser extent in the North Riverside area. If there were only one transit agency, there at least wouldn't have been Pace saying that they have to cut back routes such as 212 and 304.

[NewFlyerMCI]

I apologize, I thought that the topics were separate, I originally started mine as its own topic until it was moved here by Kevin.

What would actually happen provided RTA dissolves? Also, does RTA get funding and then doles it out to each agency based on need?

[Tcmetro]

Seems like CMAP should do all the distributing of funds and take over the role of the RTA. They're already taking care of some of this stuff.

[Busjack]

...

What would actually happen provided RTA dissolves? ...

About all the RTA does now is collect sales taxes, distributes them, requires that each service board submit a balanced budget by a deadline (which CTA sometimes misses), and approves the budget. It also has some bonding authority.

If you are asking about the alternative of eliminating the RTA and keeping the 3 service boards, someone would have to figure out how to give them taxing authority and what the scope of that authority would be, which brings us to your second question:

.Also, does RTA get funding and then doles it out to each agency based on need?

For the most part, no. But this takes digging through the funding formula. The RTA budget is here. The funding formula is prescribed by 70 ILCS 3615/4.03.3, if you can slog though that.

1. Paratransit gets "what it needs" off the top, and the RTA is obligated to fund it. This year, that's about $140 million.
2. There are other amounts off the top, such as the Innovation,Coordination and Enhancement (ICE) Fund and the South Cook County Job Access fund.
3. There is old money (allocated under the 1983 Act, and identified in the budgets as RTA Sales Tax Part I). 15% off the top goes to the RTA. While a bit of that is administrative, most of it is discretionary funding, most of which goes to CTA, and hence is arguably due to need, but in fact is because the Chicago representatives to the RTA board have a veto on the budget if they did not get it. The rest of the old money is allocated--

• 100% collected in Chicago to CTA
• Collected in suburban Cook County: 30% to CTA, 55% to Metra and 15% to Pace
• Collected in collar counties: 70% to Metra and 30% to Pace

4. There is new money (from the 2008 Act, designated RTA Sales Tax Part II), of which, after deducting the "off the tops," CTA receives 48%, Metra 39%, and Pace Suburban Service 13%

5. Although capital budgets go through RTA, very little capital money does. The state capital bills designate specific amounts for paratransit, CTA, Pace, and Metra. Federal grants are generally directly to the service boards, or occasionally to IDOT or CDOT.

Finally getting us to:

Seems like CMAP should do all the distributing of funds and take over the role of the RTA. They're already taking care of some of this stuff.

Although proposed, the one thing we learned from the Gray Line episode is that CMAP is essentially a negative gatekeeper. The service boards don't get federal grants unless they get by that gatekeeper, but CMAP does not have any power to establish service or make the service boards cooperate. Each service has the statutory authority to set its own fares and level of service. And, to show the inconsistencies, CMAP administers JARC while RTA administers CMAQ.

[MetroShadow]

The Crowd Reduction Plan might have cut down some of the route duplication you mentioned, but mostly in a backwards way that CTA retreated in the city, as opposed to curtailing its overlaps in the suburbs (except for 17 and a bit of 49A). I still contend, 12 years after the last restructuring, that CTA shouldn't have infringed on Pace in Evanston and Skokie, and to a lesser extent in the North Riverside area. If there were only one transit agency, there at least wouldn't have been Pace saying that they have to cut back routes such as 212 and 304.

AFAIK, I think they might be working on Evanston now. Doesn't mean they've shouldn't have addressed this 9 years after the last restructuring (and 10 years since the North Shore bit).

[MetroShadow]

Also: a little bit of reading material into best practices (especially to our foamer and enthusiast crowds).

[Busjack]

Also: a little bit of reading material into best practices (especially to our foamer and enthusiast crowds).

Mostly especially for wonks.

This area has some of the things, and not some of the others. The other thing I noticed is that it involves mostly small operations, the only decent size ones were Twin Cities and Valley Metro.

In the challenges dept., lack of "Appropriate Leadership," "Lack of Trust Among Stakeholders," and "Loss of Local Control" sure ring a bell.

[jajuan]

A reaction I had to strictures's post after reading your post is that it would have to be demonstrated first whether there is a demand for a transfer at that location. I'm not sure there is. But, if there were, it now gets to whether Metra and Pace want to agree on a common schedule at that point (not that likely, although they do agree on feeders and reverse feeders), or whether some planning body with real authority could make an effective decision to implement it. Anyway, strictures's point seems more like the tail wagging the dog, as the assumption is that the bus is supposed to meet the train.

The Crowd Reduction Plan might have cut down some of the route duplication you mentioned, but mostly in a backwards way that CTA retreated in the city, as opposed to curtailing its overlaps in the suburbs (except for 17 and a bit of 49A). I still contend, 12 years after the last restructuring, that CTA shouldn't have infringed on Pace in Evanston and Skokie, and to a lesser extent in the North Riverside area. If there were only one transit agency, there at least wouldn't have been Pace saying that they have to cut back routes such as 212 and 304.

In a way I always looked at that as a copout excuse on Pace's part given CTA has had a presence in both Evanston and CTA for decades. The CTA service on the bus side in Evanston is really no more than what it was before the restructuring. And the 21 extension is nothing more than streamlining the cumbersome circumstance of having a 21 pull into the 54th/Cermak terminal completely full and have that full bus load of people need to get off there and switch into a different bus to get the rest of the way to North Riverside Mall.

[Busjack]

In a way I always looked at that as a copout excuse on Pace's part given CTA has had a presence in both Evanston and CTA for decades. The CTA service on the bus side in Evanston is really no more than what it was before the restructuring....

Not true. The stated cause of Pace cutting 212 was that 205 was extended via Golf to Old Orchard. Before then, the 205 Grant bus ended at Crawford.

Also, at that time, CTA also extended 201 to Old Orchard from Crawford and Central.

I suppose one could debate what impelled Pace to cut back 304 to the Mall and 322 local trips, but the extension of 21 was no coincidence.

Your last point just reenforces the point I made about 8 years ago to someone on the CTA Tattler--reducing transfers for CTA passengers has the effect of making suburban routes more roundabout or forcing more transfers on Pace riders. Coordination of service, instead of one service board or the other deciding to retreat, is the answer.

[artthouwill]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-rta-transit-report-met-20150109-story.html

Discuss. I am of the opinion that Metra and Pace be combined and CTA left alone. Pace and CTA are radically different (headways, type of service, types of areas served, etc) and shouldn't be combined and Pace is just bigger, except in matters of fleet and volume.

If any two agencies would be combined, it would be CTA and Pace. Both are bus agemcies and Metra is a railroad operation that runs on mostly freight railroad tracks. Pace and CTA fares are fixed whereas Metra fares are distance based. Some CTA and Pace routes overlap and provide duplicate service whereas Metra really doesn't duplicate CTA rail service, even om areas served by both.

[Busjack]

If any two agencies would be combined, it would be CTA and Pace. Both are bus agemcies and Metra is a railroad operation that runs on mostly freight railroad tracks. Pace and CTA fares are fixed whereas Metra fares are distance based. Some CTA and Pace routes overlap and provide duplicate service whereas Metra really doesn't duplicate CTA rail service, even om areas served by both.

As I noted above, that's irrelevant under the MTA model.

Also, that kind of combination of boards would be politically impossible. Suburbanites didn't want Frank Kruesi running their system, and sure don't want Rahm Emanuel doing so.

[Tcmetro]

For all intents and purposes, there is extremely poor integration between NYCT, LIRR, and MNR currently. Fares do not transfer between the operational branches, and recently LIRR and MNR got into a dispute about whether MNR should be able to use Penn Station once East Side Access opens. On top of that, suburban NYC (Westchester, Rockland, Orange, Nassau, and Suffolk counties) has seperate local bus systems, then there are different public and private operations in Connecticut and New Jersey. Additionally, MTA is a state agency, and they have to go to Albany every year to beg for transit money. These are telling signs that if any transit reform happens in the Chicago region, then we can't have state control, and integration between transit operations needs to be prioritized.

Operation wise, we need something like MBTA or SEPTA, something that covers all transit modes across the region. We also need something that is much more independent from existing jurisdictions. Ideally, such a board would have a number of districts where money would be distributed according to some formula, and the representatives would be elected by the people. This would prevent local city and county politics from contaminating transit politics, and would provide more accountability from the public as opposed to an appointment model. I suppose the big hurdle to such a design would be if the public is actually interested in transit politics, and if that would translate to voters at the polls. Additionally, any taxing authority for transit would generally have to be granted by the state, and there is inherent state role in Chicago transit in those respects.

EDIT: I'm too new to Illinois to fully understand the politics yet, but something tells me there isn't gonna be any reform anyways.

[Busjack]

For all intents and purposes, there is extremely poor integration between NYCT, LIRR, and MNR currently. Fares do not transfer between the operational branches, and recently LIRR and MNR got into a dispute about whether MNR should be able to use Penn Station once East Side Access opens. On top of that, suburban NYC (Westchester, Rockland, Orange, Nassau, and Suffolk counties) has seperate local bus systems, then there are different public and private operations in Connecticut and New Jersey. Additionally, MTA is a state agency, and they have to go to Albany every year to beg for transit money. These are telling signs that if any transit reform happens in the Chicago region, then we can't have state control, and integration between transit operations needs to be prioritized.

Operation wise, we need something like MBTA or SEPTA, something that covers all transit modes across the region. We also need something that is much more independent from existing jurisdictions. Ideally, such a board would have a number of districts where money would be distributed according to some formula, and the representatives would be elected by the people. This would prevent local city and county politics from contaminating transit politics, and would provide more accountability from the public as opposed to an appointment model. I suppose the big hurdle to such a design would be if the public is actually interested in transit politics, and if that would translate to voters at the polls. Additionally, any taxing authority for transit would generally have to be granted by the state, and there is inherent state role in Chicago transit in those respects.

EDIT: I'm too new to Illinois to fully understand the politics yet, but something tells me there isn't gonna be any reform anyways.

Last point is correct.

While MTA was, by law, supposed to create a unified system, apparently the word "unified" has a different meaning in New York (like they also refer to the "unified court system," which isn't), The business of Bloomberg having to buy up all the private franchise bus companies, and MTA not having integrated them into the same subsidiary as NYCTA indicates that something is messed up there.

On fares, Metra has at least instituted that a ticket is good on any Metra line (other than the South Shore, which actually is not a Metra line), so that seems different than MTA.

My only point was that if MTA wanted to straighten out such issues, one board could, instead of the internecine fighting between the 4 service boards here covering the same territory. However, you may be correct that MBTA and SEPTA may provide better models.

The funding formula, described above, does distribute revenues among areas, although it has been argued that the Pace allocation doesn't do McHenry County much good. On the other hand, the Auditor General claimed that Metra's zone fare policy was too favorable to commuters in the outer counties, so maybe it balances out.

With respect to state involvement, any change would take state legislation. CTA and RTA exist only because the state created them as municipal corporations. Since they don't have any home rule powers, RTA's only authority to collect taxes has to be based on state legislation, which it is.

The other political consideration is that if the RTA board is properly apportioned by population, Chicago was given only 5 of the 16 seats by district. The 12 vote requirement for most actions was to assure that there was cooperation, but Emanuel has used his 5 appointees as a block. Yet, somehow, he thinks he owns CTA, which, as I noted above, is not a city agency, but an independent municipal corporation. It is not like Detroit DOT or San Francisco MUNI, which are city agencies.

Maybe there is some better way to apportion representation and funding than developed in 1983 and amended in 2008, and while a few more intelligent legislators have made proposals, we get back to your last point.

[Tcmetro]

Chicago transit to be cut by $110 million?

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20150218/BLOGS02/150219820/city-transit-hospitals-could-be-targeted-in-rauners-first-budget?X-IgnoreUserAgent=1

EDIT: Here's a quote on the matter from NBC:

The proposed budget also calls for trimming nearly $128 million from Chicago-area transit agencies, while increasing funding by a similar amount for road construction. Rauner said the reduction would amount to 4.4 percent of the Regional Transportation Authority's budget. The RTA's 2015 operating budget is $2.9 billion.

The RTA is responsible for financial oversight of the Chicago area's transit systems, and its budget funds Metra, the Chicago Transit Authority and suburban Pace buses.

A summary released alongside the governor's address to the General Assembly on Wednesday said the state will continue to provide $131 million to support the RTA's capital improvement bonds.

State funding for downstate transit would remain the same as in fiscal 2014, and road construction funding would increase by $120 million to about $1.9 billion.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/rauner-illinois-budget-2015-2016-292351511.html

[Busjack]

Chicago transit to be cut by $110 million?

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20150218/BLOGS02/150219820/city-transit-hospitals-could-be-targeted-in-rauners-first-budget?X-IgnoreUserAgent=1

EDIT: Here's a quote on the matter from NBC:

http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/rauner-illinois-budget-2015-2016-292351511.html

I don't see how that "trade off" between roads and transit flies in the legislature.

[Busjack]

I don't see how that "trade off" between roads and transit flies in the legislature.

But thinking this over further, and seeing how the bureaucrats in the separate service boards are already crying, maybe this is a backhanded way to get some governance reform. Probably won't get past the legislature, though, so I stand on that.

[strictures]

I don't see how that "trade off" between roads and transit flies in the legislature.

My guess is that Rauner thinks that if transit is cut back, people will use their cars to go to work & then pay for gas & thus more taxes for the state.

A fool's bargain.

[Busjack]

Is there any specific resources that you got that info from??? If Rauner if playing a factor then be my guest. He's already a f'ing idiot based on him trying to screw up RTA.

I really don't think that Rauner cares about what bus goes where. As for the RTA being screwed up, it already is. Maybe there is the squeezing the pig theory I posited above. Maybe CTA shouldn't be elevating operating costs by moving equipment all over the place, every weekend.

[garmon757]

I really don't think that Rauner cares about what bus goes where. As for the RTA being screwed up, it already is. Maybe there is the squeezing the pig theory I posited above. Maybe CTA shouldn't be elevating operating costs by moving equipment all over the place, every weekend.

It's like saying maybe his idiotic self should see how it feels to deal with the ill-digressions and discrepancies by Cta. It's making me wonder if he supports the Metra fare increases for the next ten years.

[Busjack]

It's like saying maybe his idiotic self should see how it feels to deal with the ill-digressions and discrepancies by Cta. It's making me wonder if he supports the Metra fare increases for the next ten years.

In that (1) the service boards have the legal authority to set their own fares, and (2) the proposal was to cut transit funding across the board, not just CTA, I don't think he is in a position to say anything about Metra fares.

The more interesting one was raised by CTA and Metra a couple of years ago, but becomes relevant here--if he is cutting state paratransit subsidies, but the funding formula says that paratransit gets RTA sales tax revenues off the top, isn't he squeezing the services other than paratransit worse? Of course, nothing has been done to restrain paratransit costs, and I predicted at the time that legislation passed that it would have that effect.

Paratransit here exceeds federal requirements of within 3/4 mile of a fixed route, and the fare is not double the fixed fare. By the same token, even if the reduced fare subsidy is reduced, reduced fares here exceed the federal requirement of only during nonrush hours.

Maybe tightening the screws will make the legislature look at the mess it has made out of transit, at least starting with the 2008 RTA Act. Again, I'm not counting on it. Instead, I bet the 3 service boards will be starting a campaign for RTA to get behind another tax increase. As I noted on the CTA Tattler, Rauner has said he is in favor of a services tax, meaning that 1.25% of the cost of every haircut would go to the RTA.

[garmon757]

In that (1) the service boards have the legal authority to set their own fares, and (2) the proposal was to cut transit funding across the board, not just CTA, I don't think he is in a position to say anything about Metra fares.

The more interesting one was raised by CTA and Metra a couple of years ago, but becomes relevant here--if he is cutting state paratransit subsidies, but the funding formula says that paratransit gets RTA sales tax revenues off the top, isn't he squeezing the services other than paratransit worse? Of course, nothing has been done to restrain paratransit costs, and I predicted at the time that legislation passed that it would have that effect.

Paratransit here exceeds federal requirements of within 3/4 mile of a fixed route, and the fare is not double the fixed fare. By the same token, even if the reduced fare subsidy is reduced, reduced fares here exceed the federal requirement of only during nonrush hours.

Maybe tightening the screws will make the legislature look at the mess it has made out of transit, at least starting with the 2008 RTA Act. Again, I'm not counting on it. Instead, I bet the 3 service boards will be starting a campaign for RTA to get behind another tax increase. As I noted on the CTA Tattler, Rauner has said he is in favor of a services tax, meaning that 1.25% of the cost of every haircut would go to the RTA.

Well said but the bottom line is it's about to get worse as it is now. It's tax this, tax that, increase this, increase that but don't have a solid agenda. I was surprised Emmanuel had some bold words to say towards him.

[jajuan]

I don't see how that's going to fly with the legislature just from the fact that he's singling out the Chicago region (both city and burbs) for these proposed steep cuts while telling the rest of the state "Oh we're not cutting you. We're just not going to increase anything for 2015 and just leave the funding at what it was in 2014." Good luck with that one especially when he has to go against that same veto proof legislature that Quinn butted heads with.

[Busjack]

Why was the RTA even created? What happened to self-governance? Personally, Pace and Metra should be combined and CTA stays own its own, but that's me.

Was created in 1973 because CTA was crying poverty, the private suburban bus companies were going out of business, and the railroads were also crying poverty and going to the Interstate Commerce Commission for fare increases. Nobody had the authority to tax.

Originally, RTA had the authority to run its own service or contract with other providers, and such things as the Milwaukee Road and Rock Island going bankrupt forced it into becoming a railroad.

The original RTA fell apart about 1980, either because it overextended or Jane Byrne did something to cut off its source of revenue. It was reconstituted, effective in 1984, with the current structure, creating Metra and Pace, and having "financial oversight" authority.

But, apparently something was necessary to collect taxes and apparently show the feds that there was some sort of regional entity. However, it has always been plagued by that CTA had its preexisting authority through the Metropolitan Transit Act of 1945, and political battles between the suburbs and city, especially when it became evident that the suburbs outpopulated, and hence outvoted the city, Thus, the law incorporated all sorts of stalemates, such as that most action takes the vote of 12 of 17 directors. Not helping coordination are the provisions in the RTA Act that each service board has the authority to set its own levels of service and fares. There was an attempt to get coordination in the 2008 Act, but some legislator neutered it by putting in a preamble that the vote 0f 9 directors was necessary just for the executive director to investigate a complaint. Hence, each service board does what it wants.