@akeefe.bsky.social
I think we agree on most if not all of that, but I’d add that the MMA goes too far in the other direction. I think (and certainly hope) that both the labor bill and the MMA are starting points for negotiation and the final product should probably be somewhere in the middle.
March 9, 2025 at 9:52 PM
I think we agree on most if not all of that, but I’d add that the MMA goes too far in the other direction. I think (and certainly hope) that both the labor bill and the MMA are starting points for negotiation and the final product should probably be somewhere in the middle.
How do you think we avoid a “suburban takeover”? The way the MMA legislation is currently structured seems to open that as a possibility…I’m personally in favor of an RTA that has much broader authority over capital improvement, with service boards handling service
March 9, 2025 at 9:29 PM
How do you think we avoid a “suburban takeover”? The way the MMA legislation is currently structured seems to open that as a possibility…I’m personally in favor of an RTA that has much broader authority over capital improvement, with service boards handling service
Agreed, though I’d argue that the CTA and mayor have done enough damage to the city’s standing in Springfield that it might be a moot point. Any new revenue will be a huge lift right now, but especially if there’s a perception it’s funding the CTA’s/Mayor’s mismanagement.
March 9, 2025 at 9:27 PM
Agreed, though I’d argue that the CTA and mayor have done enough damage to the city’s standing in Springfield that it might be a moot point. Any new revenue will be a huge lift right now, but especially if there’s a perception it’s funding the CTA’s/Mayor’s mismanagement.
Definitely agree with your last point there. I also think your first points require lots of contextualization. I guess my general point (and I’m sure you agree) is that political considerations and system needs are frequently at odds, which leads to underfunding and funding distortions
March 9, 2025 at 9:16 PM
Definitely agree with your last point there. I also think your first points require lots of contextualization. I guess my general point (and I’m sure you agree) is that political considerations and system needs are frequently at odds, which leads to underfunding and funding distortions
Didn’t mean to suggest that at all, we should be increasing funding to all transit agencies, but I do think it’s irrefutable that suburban transit is better off than the CTA is, largely because of mismanagement, but in part because the CTA is more underfunded relative to need/ridership than Metra is
March 9, 2025 at 8:49 PM
Didn’t mean to suggest that at all, we should be increasing funding to all transit agencies, but I do think it’s irrefutable that suburban transit is better off than the CTA is, largely because of mismanagement, but in part because the CTA is more underfunded relative to need/ridership than Metra is
I agree with the point, but I think the rhetoric around it is supposed to be a reminder that the current funding formula is broken, not necessarily a suggestion that 80% of the rides should = 80% of the public funding. We should fund transit according to need, not by geographic sales tax revenue.
March 9, 2025 at 7:57 PM
I agree with the point, but I think the rhetoric around it is supposed to be a reminder that the current funding formula is broken, not necessarily a suggestion that 80% of the rides should = 80% of the public funding. We should fund transit according to need, not by geographic sales tax revenue.
And this whole argument is made even weaker by the massive property tax breaks being given by the city/state law to projects that have the quantity of affordable housing already required by ordinance.
January 30, 2025 at 3:51 AM
And this whole argument is made even weaker by the massive property tax breaks being given by the city/state law to projects that have the quantity of affordable housing already required by ordinance.
You can make other normative arguments about the virtues of density, but claiming that we are solving Chicago’s budget issues by allowing new high-density apartment buildings seems like a huge stretch and ignores the root causes of the structural deficit.
January 30, 2025 at 3:50 AM
You can make other normative arguments about the virtues of density, but claiming that we are solving Chicago’s budget issues by allowing new high-density apartment buildings seems like a huge stretch and ignores the root causes of the structural deficit.
In fact, some research has indicated that public spending per capita INCREASES with population (or at the very least levels off) when you reach a certain density (essentially diseconomies of scale).
January 30, 2025 at 3:50 AM
In fact, some research has indicated that public spending per capita INCREASES with population (or at the very least levels off) when you reach a certain density (essentially diseconomies of scale).