New bill possibly to replace RTA

[Sam92]

https://chicago.suntimes.com/transportation/2024/04/28/new-legislation-create-illinois-transit-agency-metropolitan-mobility-authority-cta-rta-pace-metra.

I ran across this link just now. The bill is pushing for RTA and the 3 service boards to be merged and replaced with Metropolitan Mobile Authority with the goal of integrating fares, eliminating service overlap and coming with an additional $1.5 million annually. So basically the little overlap that's left (Halsted, Harlem and Cermak) would be taken care of. So all service on South Halsted would probably be strictly 8A and 352 with 352 short turns at 127th thrown in to replace 108. Harlem could be come strictly 307 and Pulse work. The issue about Evanston would be a moot argument at that point. 

[Elkmn]

Under this bill would the branding remain the same, our would it all be called the mma?

[Busjack]

3 hours ago, Sam92 said:

• 1 hour ago, Sam92 said:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/transportation/2024/04/28/new-legislation-create-illinois-transit-agency-metropolitan-mobility-authority-cta-rta-pace-metra.

I ran across this link just now. The bill is pushing for RTA and the 3 service boards to be merged and replaced with Metropolitan Mobile Authority with the goal of integrating fares, eliminating service overlap and coming with an additional $1.5 million annually. So basically the little overlap that's left (Halsted, Harlem and Cermak) would be taken care of. So all service on South Halsted would probably be strictly 8A and 352 with 352 short turns at 127th thrown in to replace 108. Harlem could be come strictly 307 and Pulse work. The issue about Evanston would be a moot argument at that point. 

I was in favor of something like that way back, but seeing how 1) MTA is now mismanaged, and 2) the service boards are now cooperating, I'm not so sure.

One thing I'm sure about: The proposal has WAY too many prospective political stooges to be effective. .

The official text of HB5826 is here.

Among highlights:

• The synopsis says it creates "the Suburban Bus Operating Division, Commuter Rail Operating Division, and the Chicago  Transit Operating Division."
• Section 1.03: "Fare capping" means the action of no longer charging a rider for any additional fares for the duration of a daily, weekly, monthly, or 30-day pass once the rider has purchased enough regular one-way fares to reach the cost of the applicable pass."
• Section 2.04(3) allows the head of the Cook County Board to appoint 5 members. Toni Preckwinkle has wanted that for a long time, and sued for it. No assurance that suburban Cook County would be represented.
• Section 2.05(c ) "Directors shall have diverse and substantial relevant experience and expertise for overseeing the planning, operation, and funding of a regional public transportation system, including, but not limited to, backgrounds in urban and regional planning, management of large capital projects, labor relations, business management, public administration, transportation, and community organizations." In short, the current bunch of preachers.  However, Section 5.01 has provisions on public input to appointing authorities.
• Section 4.25: Same zero-emission law.
• Section 6.02 Taxes: A 5% gas tax, same sales tax, parking tax, and a car rental tax.

It's way to early to predict whether it will pass in this form, and, if so, whether any of the things a new Board could do would address any of your and @Elkmn's points. There still could be rivalry between the Operating Divisions, even though they would be subject to one Board.

 

 

 

[artthouwill]

3 hours ago, Sam92 said:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/transportation/2024/04/28/new-legislation-create-illinois-transit-agency-metropolitan-mobility-authority-cta-rta-pace-metra.

I ran across this link just now. The bill is pushing for RTA and the 3 service boards to be merged and replaced with Metropolitan Mobile Authority with the goal of integrating fares, eliminating service overlap and coming with an additional $1.5 million annually. So basically the little overlap that's left (Halsted, Harlem and Cermak) would be taken care of. So all service on South Halsted would probably be strictly 8A and 352 with 352 short turns at 127th thrown in to replace 108. Harlem could be come strictly 307 and Pulse work. The issue about Evanston would be a moot argument at that point. 

In theory, I suppose they could just merge the three service boards ( or agencies) into the RTA.  The law would have to be changed to make the RTA more than a financial oversight board.

The fight becomes how many members will be on this new board?  How many members will the government select?  How many members will the Chicago Mayor select?  What will be the specs of future bus and train orders?  How will this affect the various unions?

I don't know if this will pass or not, but if it does, I don't expect Dorval Carter to be the President of this new superagency.  The irony is that this is being introduced by two Democrat State Representatives from Chicago  and not the suburbs or downstate or Republicans is telling.  The politicL winds are trying to blow Dorval Carter out of town .

[Busjack]

18 hours ago, artthouwill said:

The fight becomes how many members will be on this new board?  How many members will the government select?  How many members will the Chicago Mayor select?  What will be the specs of future bus and train orders?  How will this affect the various unions?

If you had read the cited article, you would have had the answers to the first three questions. The fourth can't be answered until some version of the law passes, the Board is established, it appoints an Executive Director and the Executive Director establishes a procurement department, except that buses that hold more than 10 passengers must be battery or fuel cell. On unions, section 3.03(c ) says: "The Authority shall assume and observe all applicable collective bargaining and other agreements between the consolidated entities and their employees in effect". Subsection (e) requires mediation if a disagreement arises on the implementation of the Act, and arbitration if mediation results in an impasse.

18 hours ago, artthouwill said:

I don't expect Dorval Carter to be the President of this new superagency.  The irony is that this is being introduced by two Democrat State Representatives from Chicago  and not the suburbs or downstate or Republicans is telling.  The politicL winds are trying to blow Dorval Carter out of town .

Again, you (and every one other than me so far in this topic) is being too provincial. Section 4.13(b) calls for one Executive Director, "appointed by the
Chair with the concurrence of the Board." Section 3.01 calls for a search for a "Chief Executive Officer" defined as the Executive Director, by the Transition Committee. There isn't a President, and nobody has a leg up.

As for the politics, this isn't a "get rid of Dorval Carter" bill. This seems a sincere effort by certain progressive members of the General Assembly to implement PART. As I said before, I don't know if it will pass, but "you people" are reading into it stuff that is highly speculative. I suggest reading the bill, although it probably will take several hours to do so.
 

[Jackson232]

16 hours ago, Elkmn said:

Under this bill would the branding remain the same, our would it all be called the mma?

That’s what I’m wondering too. I think if this did happen it might be called rta. But I’m not sure.

[Erin Mishkin Jr.]

This act would be interesting with a huge transit agency going into eight counties and three states. I doubt they’ll pass it but that’ll mean restructuring for many many miles of area from Wisconsin all the way thru the aurora and Joliet and going east into Hammond where a few pace bus routes end. 

[Busjack]

45 minutes ago, Jackson232 said:

I think if this did happen it might be called rta.

One thing that's clear is that the bill kills the RTA. They could have done what they did in 1982 and reconstitute the RTA, but didn't. Section 1.03  says "Authority" means the Metropolitan Mobility Authority, the successor to the Regional Transportation Authority and the Chicago Transit Authority." It isn't section 3 of the Metropolitan Transit Act, which says "under the name of Chicago Transit Authority."

Whether the operating divisions keep their names is another question. For instance, MTA still has the LIRR.

11 minutes ago, Erin Mishkin Jr. said:

going into eight counties and three states

It may go there, but Indiana and Wisconsin are not part of it. Section 2.03 says "Extraterritorial authority. To provide or
assist any transportation of members of the general public between points in the metropolitan region and points outside the metropolitan region, whether in this State, Wisconsin, or Indiana, the Authority may enter into agreements with any unit of local government, individual, corporation, or other person
or public agency in or of any such state or any private entity for such service." Outside the 6 counties, Section 2.02  establishes the procedure for annexing other counties.

 

[Busjack]

Update: I cited a bill introduced by Kam Buckner. HB 5829 was introduced by Eva-Dina Delgado, and apparently the one in the newspapers. I don't know if there is any difference.

HB 5828 is the one that appropriates $1.5 Billion to the MMA.

[Busjack]

Rereading Articles VI of both bills, here are my informed contingent speculations :

• There is already some cross-border cooperation; thus, I don't see much change to something like Halsted Pulse/8A plans. However, the provision encouraging express bus service (Section 4.07) might encourage more Pulse service in the city, such as an Ashland Pulse, or a Western Pulse from Howard to Harvey.
• Section 4.18 provides for arbitration of disputes if the MMA proposes any new public transportation facility which may result in the displacement of employees or the rearrangement of the working forces of the Authority or of a transportation agency,for relocating operating staff." Thus, it could decide that routes 96, 97, 201, and 206 be operated out of North Shore garage instead of NP and FG, or that some I-90 trips run out of FG. I don't know if this would put another monkey wrench into plans to renovate River.-
• Since "operating division" may include "any public transportation operating division formed by the Authority," (sec. 1.03) it could make a separate paratransit division.
• Fare capping, fare integration, and the elimination of the tax distribution formula may make something like the Gray Line more feasible.

[Tcmetro]

On the last point about the ME/Gray Line, Metra is looking into more "regional rail" type operations on RI, NCS, and UP-N. Will be nice to see if some routes are extended to Metra stations, such as moving the 24th/Cicero terminal to the nearby BNSF station.

Looking forward to seeing if this plan comes to fruition or not.

[Busjack]

3 hours ago, Tcmetro said:

On the last point about the ME/Gray Line, Metra is looking into more "regional rail" type operations on RI, NCS, and UP-N.

The RI one is confirmed by the purchase of the battery trainsets and building the Auburn Park station. Despite one poster's views, the Peterson-Ridge station seems a nod to regional rail. I don't see anything possible with the NCS given the CN's  intransigence, Section 4012 says that the Authority may not "require or authorize the operation of, or operate or acquire by eminent domain or otherwise, any public transportation facility or service on terms or in a manner which unreasonably interferes with the ability of a railroad to provide efficient freight or intercity passenger service."

What I was thinking about included:

• Section 1.03: "'Regional rail' means a commuter rail service pattern that emphasizes more frequent off-peak service, simplified schedules, and non-downtown trips. "Regional rail" may include other elements, such as running trains through downtown stations."
• Universal fare systems and fare capping.

Maybe it is possible to run a train from the RI through Union Station to the UP-N, but there's nothing that seems to allow the ME to run through downtown. Also, while you mention moving bus terminals (i.e., the 36 terminal is LaSalle St. Station), there are few transfer points between outlying L and Metra stations (Oak Park, Evanston, Jefferson Park, Ravenswood).

[Elkmn]

If they were to rebuild the green line back to jackson park, there's potential for a " south Hyde park hub" where metra, green line, and UChicago bus lines (cta and uni run) go. As stated previously, i don't know too much about the south side, but it seems reasonable to say having a (near) southeast side mobility hub with multiple transit modes would be beneficial 

[Busjack]

25 minutes ago, Elkmn said:

If they were to rebuild the green line back to jackson park, there's potential for a " south Hyde park hub" where metra, green line, and UChicago bus lines (cta and uni run) go. As stated previously, i don't know too much about the south side, but it seems reasonable to say having a (near) southeast side mobility hub with multiple transit modes would be beneficial 

Would be beneficial, but no way they (especially the Apostolic Church of God and related entities) would allow a structure over 63rd St.

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, Elkmn said:

If they were to rebuild the green line back to jackson park, there's potential for a " south Hyde park hub" where metra, green line, and UChicago bus lines (cta and uni run) go. As stated previously, i don't know too much about the south side, but it seems reasonable to say having a (near) southeast side mobility hub with multiple transit modes would be beneficial 

In thinking about it, a link between the RLE and the ME at Kensington might be feasible, but I don't know if it has been contemplated. See map (approximate)

[Elkmn]

What's especially surprising is no ssl transfer on the rle.

[Tcmetro]

21 minutes ago, Elkmn said:

What's especially surprising is no ssl transfer on the rle.

It's not that surprising. The whole point of the 130th (really 131st) station is to serve Altgeld.

A transfer between the South Shore and the Red Line would have to be at the water treatment plant which isn't a good idea.

South Shore should have a transfer to the ME at Kensington to improve access to the south side.

[strictures]

12 hours ago, Busjack said:

Maybe it is possible to run a train from the RI through Union Station to the UP-N, but there's nothing that seems to allow the ME to run through downtown. Also, while you mention moving bus terminals (i.e., the 36 terminal is LaSalle St. Station), there are few transfer points between outlying L and Metra stations (Oak Park, Evanston, Jefferson Park, Ravenswood).

The problem there is, the one track that used to go north out of Union Station that did connect to the UPN, is gone, replaced by a couple of office & apartment buildings.  Now it does look like they left a space in the buildings for the track to be re-established, but that track went through to the old C&NW long distance coach yard, abandoned in 1971, when Amtrak was created & took over that service, where the Tribune printing plant is & will soon be torn down for that insane location for the casino.  North of the old coach yard is the 3-4 track incline up to the mainline of the combined UPN & UPNW, that currently has a single track left used only for freight & is in poor condition.  I last remember it used for that was decades ago, when some guy had bought a famous British steam locomotive & displayed it at Union Station & then it ran north & I saw it from the Rogers Park platform. The one building on the north side of Kinzie street would lose a large part of its parking lot if the track is rebuilt, so I expect a big fight over that, even though they were probably required to allow for an easement for the rail line at some future date.

[Elkmn]

To have the electric line running through the loop would require a rebuild of the 16th bridge and electrification of multiple sections of track, as well as multiple new switches, unless they built a downtown metra tunnel, which would be amazing but not easy.

[Busjack]

11 hours ago, Elkmn said:

What's especially surprising is no ssl transfer on the rle.

 

11 hours ago, Tcmetro said:

It's not that surprising. The whole point of the 130th (really 131st) station is to serve Altgeld.

...

There was a proposal for such a station, but not really much of an interest pursuing it. Theoretically, with the South Shore no longer stopping at Kensington and very infrequently stopping at 63rd and 57th, there  might be a demand for a way to get to the south side from Indiana,* but apparently not.

__________

*Sort of similar to when 355 went downtown, there was a stop at 87th, but 355 suffered a death by many cuts.

[Busjack]

Block Club Chicago article on the MMA. Notable:

• Sen. Ram Villivalam and Rep. Eva-Dina Delgado got credit because they held a news conference at Union Station.
• Those running the transit systems had the predictable reaction "the only problem is underfunding." Kirk Dillard was somewhat reasonable, but out came CTA's Manny Gonzales again bitching about the distribution formula, not realizing that it would all go away if all the money were administered by one Board, instead of being set by the RTA Act. But maybe Manny is worried about losing his job. He's the kind of tool that gets the result Prof. Lowe characterizes as "the rampant distrust of the CTA may be fueling the interest to “dissolve” the agency."

[NewFlyerMCI]

 

On 4/29/2024 at 6:22 PM, artthouwill said:

The fight becomes how many members will be on this new board?  How many members will the government select?  How many members will the Chicago Mayor select?  

Re: the block club article that Busjack posted:

• Governor of IL (3 seats)
• Mayor of Chicago (5 seats)
• Cook County Board President (5 seats)
• County Executives:
  • DuPage (1 seat)
  • Kane (1 seat)
  • Lake (1 seat)
  • McHenry (1 seat)
  • Will (1 seat)
• MMA (1 seat, Chair)

For 19 seats with voting power.

To note, I don't believe that there's any incentive or requirement that the Cook Co seats come from outside the city of Chicago, so that's interesting. But this overall board makeup is concerning. Kate Lowe's take on the situation is one I mostly agree with

[Busjack]

-Villivalam's version of the bill finally officiallr posted: SB3937

[Busjack]

I just sent my state senator and rep a letter on this topic. Let's see if it does anybetter than in 2008.

[Busjack]

Sun-Times column that Pritzker hasn't ruled out a services tax as part of a transit reform package, and he seemed receptive to this one.