Lack of State Funding-UGH

[rmadisonwi]

I believe it was Winston Churchill that once said something to the effect of democracy being the worst form of government, except for all other forms.

I've read the comments in this thread. I agree with some, disagree with others, don't care about some, don't understand a few, etc.

The "big picture" that isn't being addressed in this thread is, how is an agency that depends on government funding supposed to avoid being influenced politically? It's "politicians" that determine the funding, "politicians" that appoint members to the board, "politicians" (or, at least, political appointees) that run the systems, etc.

If you don't like the way the RTA or its subordinate agencies are being run, then you ought to express your opinion at the ballot box. The problem is, it's these same politicians for life that keep getting reelected year after year. Daley's probably spent more time in Europe than he has in Chicago, yet the voters (dead or alive) keep putting him back in there.

Illinois replaced a criminal governor with an incompetent one. The state legislature is good for nothing but infighting. With that kind of political climate, do you expect any of them to really care who's running CTA, Metra, or Pace? Sure, they can grandstand in front of some TV cameras to pretend that they care. If they really did care, they'd do something about it. Not to say that some haven't tried, or that none of them care. But, as a whole, the governmental bodies have not shown any serious concern.

Transit funding is being used as a pawn in a greater game of political power. It's obvious that whether the RTA systems get funding will ultimately have nothing to do with whether or not they deserve the funding, or whether or not their riders deserve service. It will come down to which set of politicians blinks first. Some want transit funding to be tied to casino expansion. What do casinos have to do with transit? Nothing.

Will we get casinos, more roads, a 15th airport, or a space shuttle launch pad named after Blagojevich's childhood pet parakeet? Or none of the above? Somehow, they've decided that transit funding ought to be dependent on one or more of those things.

Lots of people complain about CTA (or Metra or Pace) mismanagement. Have bad decisions been made in the past? Sure. Just like bad decisions have been made at every organization, public or private, since the inception of mankind. These include transit systems, school boards, legislatures, large accounting firms, Ancient Rome, Old Uncle Pete's Antique Junk Shoppe, etc. Some organizations are better run than others. None of them are run perfectly. Some have a smaller margin of error than others, which simply tends to magnify whatever mistakes they make. In general, the world is full of mediocre managers. Many of them work in the public sector. Many work in the private sector. The truly great managers out there are few and far between. That's why they tend to run large corporations that make the front page of the Wall Street Journal on a daily basis, and get paid tens of millions of dollars per year. If there was someone who was absolutely the best transit system manager there ever was, and he demanded a $50 million/year salary, do you think he should get paid that much? Even if your answer is yes, I'm sure there are plenty of people (such as those that control the purse strings) who would disagree.

In the modern era, there have been scarcely few truly great managers of transit systems. The primary reason being that anyone that is a great manager and doesn't have political aspirations (per se), would rather find him/herself on the front page of the WSJ reading about their $20 million stock option, rather than on the front page of the Chicago Tribune, reading about the latest in state government foibles. That leaves the (very) few that are not only great managers, but also "get" transit and are just in it for the love of the job. Unfortunately, David Gunn doesn't grow on trees.

I don't know what goes on in the back-offices of the 5th floor at 567. What I do know is that, since May, there has been a lot of internal restructuring, with more to come. Departments throughout the company get grilled on a regular basis through "performance management" meetings to see what it is that they've done to fix whatever problems it is that they may have had. Numerous people (including those in high-level management positions) have suddenly realized that they have enough time with the company to retire.

Is Ron Huberman the best person to run CTA? I don't know. I'm sure everybody could think of a few people they would rather have running CTA, PTA, Cetra, Mace, Chicago Public Schools, the Department of Justice, the Province of British Columbia, the US Postal Service, OPEC, the Federal Reserve, the Crown County Domestic Animal Control Division, the United States of America, etc.

Unfortunately, they're all basically politically elected or appointed positions, so to get there, you've either got to get the majority of your fellow citizens to like you, or get someone who's already been elected to like you.

Think you or someone you know could do a better job at running the CTA? You'd better make friends with Mayor Daley then. Better hurry, though. I hear he's leaving for Rome in the morning.

[trainman8119]

Golly gee, rmad, I really want to agree with everything you said. It is right on point, even with the bit of sarcasm. I guess all of us who work in this crummy business need that to survive on a daily basis.

A couple of things I would like to highlight and discuss. It seems that you are pointing a finger at dah mahor. Funny, it is something I have scratched my head at a lot lately. Everyone seems to be at fault here, but never has a finger been pointed at City Hall. I mean, gosh, this is the Chicago Transit Authority, yet the City of Chicago is coming off as blameless here. It amazes me that towns like Melrose Park, Norridge, Niles and Schaumburg can run free service (albeit smaller areas), yet the City of Chicago can't find a way to keep buses and trains running in their fair city. I think the good Mayor should be held accountable in many ways as to the shortcomings at the agency he appoints people to run. I don't see him crying to the governor for money to staff the garbage trucks or put those pointless traffic managers on every corner in the loop. Somehow the city should be taking more responsibility for this department that they run, more or less, yet don't really support. I will contend that if the politicians want to run the agency, maybe they should be elected too and not appointed so that when they fail, they can be replaced. The pols can be in charge, but then they can also find support people "in the know" who can make them look like geniuses. They are just afraid that if they do, they will be replaced by a more competent person(s).

Quite frankly, I am at the point where I want to be one of those who have suddendly found enough time to qualify for retirement. Unfortunately, I have 20 years to be truely in that classification. But sitting back day in and day out, being passed over for advancement in favor of less qualified higher clouted people, I think I have had enough. Sooner or later, I'll find a new path and move on. There is just no fun going through this day in and day out, and watching all of this political nonsense gives me no reason to believe, from a career standpoint, that there is a future here. For those who are being pushed out, consider it a blessing...for those who can do it on time and merits, take a bus ride and enjoy it for once.

I have been a supporter of da mare, but I am losing faith. This latest assault on raising taxes on everything from living to a stinkin bottle of water is getting out of hand...yet nothing seems to get better. I am beginning to listen more openly when my wife suggests moving to Canada !!!!

Any opportunities at BC Transit ????

[Busjack]

All of this by rmadison and trainman is well stated. They bring up the two inherent problems: the transit system is run by politicians, and the CTA, while it is legally an independent municipal corporation, is being run as an arm of City Hall, except when it expects someone else to fund it.

For what it is worth, I voted for the opponents of Blago and the various Strogers in the primary and general elections, but that didn't do any good. My state legislator voted for SB572, but due to politics, that was watered down to meaninglessness and didn't pass anyway. My mistake was believing that the Auditor General's findings would have some effect, but, due to politics, they did not. Given that, I don't know what else I could do (except sign a petition to add a recall amendment to the State Constitution, if a real movement to do that develops).

BC Transit does need a new president and some full time operators. I don't know about British Columbia politics, but Toronto seems to run an efficient transit system without the political games. Of course, this was based on visiting Toronto several times in the 80s, and somebody probably will tell me differently today. Looking at the TTC site, they have raised fares more than the current CTA ones (and C$ is now worth more than 1 $US), but there is a hiring freeze.

As far as electing the transit boards, that probably wouldn't be more effective than the current elections for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, or the 200 judge retention ballot in making the nominees responsive to the people.

Another idea that won't fly here due to the politicians: let a private transit management company run operations. That seems to work in Phoenix and Las Vegas (although there are detractors of those systems, too, and the former Laidlaw and ATC are now owned by the English and French). At least maybe Huberman can learn something from them.

[trainman8119]

Another idea that won't fly here due to the politicians: let a private transit management company run operations. That seems to work in Phoenix and Las Vegas (although there are detractors of those systems, too, and the former Laidlaw and ATC are now owned by the English and French). At least maybe Huberman can learn something from them.

A little bit of irony her speaking of Phoenix. TJ Ross, who is the ED of Pace came to Pace from Phoenix. At the time, it was thought that he was a much ballyhooed recruit, only to find that he was actually run out of Phoenix and came to Pace looking (and hoping) for a job. Honestly, I am not impressed by the guy, and I wish he would have kept his bike racks on the Phoenix buses. But, I guess if Huberman would need training (on Phoenix matters), he could just make a local long distance call to ol' TJ in Arlington Heights.

[rmadisonwi]

Even the concept of contracting out service would have political implications, depending on who bids for what service.

[Busjack]

Even the concept of contracting out service would have political implications, depending on who bids for what service.

Of course, I'm not sure that the Duffs have a transit management company. But knowing the city, Veolia or First would probably hire lobbyists.

[geneking7320]

<snip>

<snip>

As for funding, no one has still explained to me how gas prices can go up so much, which should increase the tax revenue brought in (since it is a percentage) therefore the percentage that goes to transit. This should have at least, of nothing else, covered any increase in cost of fuel...yet somehow, that money is unaccounted for !!! If there is a problem on the government side, that would be it.

As for why would a politico who doesn't take the bus care about anyone getting to work ??? Simple...there will be an election....someday.

I think our gas taxes are a fixed amount, ie, n cents per gallon. Therefore, they don't escalate with wholesale fuel prices.

Gene King

[Busjack]

I think our gas taxes are a fixed amount, ie, n cents per gallon. Therefore, they don't escalate with wholesale fuel prices.

Gene King

The gas tax itself doesn't, but the sales tax embedded in the pump price does. But as the governor says when proposals were made to cut the sales tax (like happened in the Ryan years) "you don't want to hurt the children." So, we know that he is spending the money. The RTA's 1% share of the sales tax in Cook County should be going up, but maybe other spending is going down.

[Kevin]

CTA's 2008 budget is released.

An additional 43 bus routes would be eliminated, resulting in the closure of 3 bus garages. Fares would rise to as high as $3.25.

Rail service, and service frequency on remaining bus routes, would not be affected.

[Busjack]

CTA's 2008 budget is released.

An additional 43 bus routes would be eliminated, resulting in the closure of 3 bus garages. Fares would rise to as high as $3.25.

Two things I noted:

• They are really back to basics; just a black and white presentation, although the expected political points are made.
  
• Didn't say what 3 garages. Also, although it says it takes 780 buses off the street, and lists some more routes for killing, other specifics were lacking. Given the chart on page 15 that bus service would be cut by 1/3rd, and on page 16 that about 2200 operating positions would be cut, I wouldn't assume that frequency wouldn't be affected.
  

[Kevin]

Given the chart on page 15 that bus service would be cut by 1/3rd, and on page 16 that about 2200 operating positions would be cut, I wouldn't assume that frequency wouldn't be affected.

That's a good point. In the past, they've specifically mentioned if service frequency would be reduced. I didn't see any direct references to that, so I'm hoping my assumption holds true.

[trainman8119]

CTA's 2008 budget is released.

An additional 43 bus routes would be eliminated, resulting in the closure of 3 bus garages. Fares would rise to as high as $3.25.

There is one thing I have not heard about in all of this budget talk. We have service cut, we have fares cut, we have bus garages closed, we have jobs lost. However, the new talk is that some 225,000 rides will be lost daily. I caluclate that to be almost $675000 daily in fare revenue lost. Over the course of a year, that somehow calculates to $175 million, just in fare revenue on a 5 day scale. Is this reflected in the scenario. It sure as heck in not talked about with all of the scare doom and gloom (great for halloween time). For an agency that is suppose to be providing some 40% of their cost from the fare box, that is a heck of a lot of money to be throwing away, yet cry poverty and continue to wine that they never are getting enough money from the state. Are there cuts to be made...yeah, sure, but I will contend that if you are going to get as ridiculos as the CTA is on this front, they might as well just go chapter 13 and start from scratch. Heck, the airlines do it all the time !!!

I will again state that if I were a state politician from anywhere but the 6 county metro Chicago area, there is no way I would ever agree to give up any money to these guys with out securing any fraction of it for my own area for some project. This is why there is such turmoil in Springfield. Those away from the city have finally had enough. Even though Chicago is a cash cow for the entire State, what you are seeing now is the other 2/3 of the State telling them to take a hike.

I will predict the savior in all of this. Some how, some way, Rich Daley will step up, either as a money maker, or brilliant (?) politician and come to the rescue. When he sees his silly dream of the olympics slipping away because he can't keep buses on the street, he will step up and create a tax, start a business, have Boeing or someone buy and finance the company, or lock Madigan and Blago in a basement in South Loop until something is done. But before that gets done, November 4 will come and go. And not only will that happen, but through it way, you can bet that Pace and Metra will not see nearly the money they think they will see (which would explain why Pace is just going ahead right now and quietly dumping off stuff). I think you will see November 4, but I am not so sure you will see January 1. November 4 needs to actually happen for this game of chicken (I don't care if Huberman wants to admit to it being that or not) to wind down.

[Busjack]

You can't equate rides with fare level. CTA measures unlinked trips. As the budget states on page 14, the yield is about 93 cents per unlinked trip, going up to $1.03. Hence, the 225,000 rides lost is about $225,000 per day, not the $675K you estimated, and the annual would be about $58 million, for which they budgeted.

Also, the only stuff Pace has dumped up to now has been based on other rationales, such as 835 duplicating Metra, not wanting to renew the Northwestern contract (although that contract is mentioned in its budget), and Geneva no longer needing its shuttle. The big cuts are for November 4, although the Pace budget states that the criteria is now weekend service not recovering 25%, as opposed to all weekend service, and after 7 p.m. runs.

Whether white knight Blago or Richie will come to the rescue, who knows?

An additional point: While CTA claims that tax revenue has not kept up with inflation since 1987, if I am reading the chart on page A-37 of the Budget (page 92 of the pdf) correctly, fares haven't either, and would not unless raised to at least $2.50. I'm not sure what political point that chart was supposed to make.

[trainman8119]

I figured there was a back door rationale on how fares are calculated, it was too simple. But $58 million is still $58 million. However, it is what it is. As for Pace, they have at least put their cards on the table from the start. They have not been changing their tune from week to week. Metra has said they would raise fares and part with some sort of weekend service. From their standpoint, if they just charged regular fares on weekends, they could probably make up the shortfall, not raise any other fares and let uncle Phil keep "stealing" his year end bonus (the one he claims he doesn't get).

[RailBus63]

A few numbers jumped off the page when I read the 2008 budget. If my understanding of the 2008 proposal is correct, and the numbers are factual, the 31 percent of the bus service revenue hours that would be cut only carries 12 percent of the CTA's bus ridership.

I've seen enough of these doomsday scenarios to know how the game is played - the transit agency proposes that entire routes are to be eliminated (or all evening and weekend service is cut, etc.) to get the riders all riled up, with the hope that said upset passengers will pressure the politicians to pony up the bucks to maintain the status quo. I don't want to see such draconian cutbacks take place, but I do wonder if there are some sensible service reductions that should be pursued that could allow the CTA to reallocate some of those vehicle hours to routes and areas that could attract more riders.

[Busjack]

Railbus, I think you hit it on the head. Several ideas have been mentioned before (here and elsewhere):

• Instead of killing whole routes, route segments should be investigated. The Clever Devices system (CTA) or IBS (Pace) should be able to allow this analysis.
  
• Service duplication should be eliminated. As I previously said, there is no sense eliminating virtually all bus service on the far North and Northwest sides, while maintaining duplicate service with Pace on the West Side. Pace probably shouldn't be running to the Loop.
  
• Other concepts, such as community based paratransit, should be considered for low ridership routes. That was suggested by the 1997 Booz-Allen report, and Pace is at least investigating it.
  

An aside: If the second round of cuts, including of the LSD expresses, goes into effect, the Gray Line people will get one of the things they requested--the end of bus competition with the Metra Electric South Chicago line. They won't, however, get the fare integration they wanted.

[Busjack]

Somewhat related to this, I have seen on a couple of occasions, paratransit contractors using Scion vehicles (probably xBs). If it does the job (and I doubt that ADA paratransit needs a 12 passenger cutaway bus, unless there is significant ridesharing), it makes more sense to use a vehicle that costs $17,000 (approximately the MSRP) and maybe another $10,000 to convert, than a $100,000 cutaway. Of course, in some feeder applications, the cutaway makes more sense that a full size bus. However you look at it, this seems to be a place where a private contractor used more sense than a public body would in conserving capital.

[Guest metralink]

Somewhat related to this, I have seen on a couple of occasions, paratransit contractors using Scion vehicles (probably xBs). If it does the job (and I doubt that ADA paratransit needs a 12 passenger cutaway bus, unless there is significant ridesharing), it makes more sense to use a vehicle that costs $17,000 (approximately the MSRP) and maybe another $10,000 to convert, than a $100,000 cutaway. Of course, in some feeder applications, the cutaway makes more sense that a full size bus. However you look at it, this seems to be a place where a private contractor used more sense than a public body would in conserving capital.

Paratransit is now Pace operated and should be discussed under the Pace folder

[Busjack]

Paratransit is now Pace operated and should be discussed under the Pace folder

Not necessarily. The point was that contractors (not Pace) seem to find more economical ways to use capital than the CTA standard format of running a 40 foot bus, despite the demand, which was the point of this thread. Also, I'm sure a Scion gets much better gas mileage. And the contract driver's rates are cheaper. The point was the ingenuity of contractors, not what a good job Pace is doing with paratransit (in fact, it has very little to do with Pace, since that contract was made by the CTA and only assumed by Pace).