Thank you for this article! I really appreciate your mention of the need for better operations. Particularly a fan of this line:
"It’d be great to route an additional $1.5B flow into a high performing, integrated regional transit system – but if we write that check today, I worry that it’s less likely that we get to that outcome."
This is all well and good, but just give the transit agencies the $1.75 billion they want. We nickle and dime our transit and that only makes it worse. Sure, do the changes to the governance structure, but juat get them the money!
IDOT is about to spend $2 billion on a road nobody, but them, wants. Just take the money from them! Its not difficult, IDOT wastes billions each year and nobody questions them. The CTA is forced through austerity measures and then we demand even more. Austerity doesnt work. Fund transit
We just had five years of huge federal operating subsidies. Do you think the CTA used those dollars effectively?
I get the frustration with IDOT spending - but I think that's a reason for better discipline/cost control on how we spend money highways, not a reason to excuse poor performance elsewhere. In the long run, a transit system that serves steadily fewer residents at ever-higher costs just isn't sustainable, politically or otherwise.
I do, yes. CTA made a strategic decision to keep trains and busses running during the pandemic since we as a society deemed it necessary to force poor people to continue working, we called them "essential." Chicago was one of the only cities in the nation to make this decision. Sure, the federal funds could have gone to more long term spending plans, but keeping the trains and busses running for the less fortunate was not a bad plan.
We just fundamentally disagree about how poorly the CTA is run. CTA and IDOT are run poorly in two very different ways. IDOT has too much money, they can waste and waste without putting any thought into it. The CTA, on the other hand, has to make tough decisions all the time. For instance, not greasing wheels because they don't have the money. So we all get loud, creeky trains. That's a ridiculous trade off.
Important to note that the aspirational goal of $1.5 billion is new revenues **per year**, not a one-time infusion. IDOT is beginning a study that may eventually lead to a $2 billion investment, but that would be a one-time capital cost, and it is very likely that they will end up proposing a much smaller preferred alternative for that specific project.
My point was more about how IDOT can throw around $2 billion pretty nilly willy for dubious projects like this or like expanding rural roads from 2 lanes to 4 when they don't need it. We throw billions into roads, constantly, yet make the CTA run on austerity and expect it to perform better with the least amount of state funding for any transportation system in the nation. Beating around the edges, without reconning with the actual issue (not enough money) isn't going to get us anywhere.
Our transit agencies have also gotten quite adept at "throw[ing] around $2 billion pretty nilly willy", as this blog has previously covered with the $3.6- uh, $5.3- uh, $5.75-billion Red Line Extension, to say nothing of the $444 million magnifying glass CDOT is building to replace State/Lake. Capital funds are different than operating funds, and for better or worse roads are very cheap to operate.
I fully support a sustainable, significant, ongoing investment in operating revenues for our transit agencies to modernize and provide the kind of frequent, convenient, round-the-clock service a global city like Chicago should have, but there's simply no political reality in which the state will turn on a ten-figure annual spigot without modernizing the very structure of our transit agencies that are perennially stuck in a 1970s operating model. As this piece makes clear, NITA is a very good compromise to make sure taxpayers get the full value of a transformational investment.
Yeah the station is dumb, no arguments here. But wasn't that also originally proposed pre covid with a lower price tag? Red Line extension sucks that it costs so much, but a promise is a promise, expecially to underserved communities. I highly recommend you go to Altgeld Gardens and see why they need the CTA. They barely have roads. Sometimes it's ok to invest in people who have been shafted for 50+ years.
This isn't "turning on a spigot." It's funding the system the same way every other state does. I'm fine with the changes to governence, I don't love them, but the money should come with it, not as a pre-condition.
As I said in the other post, austerity does not work. IDOT is not nickle and dimed like the CTA so comparing their waste is not the same. If CTA had the in house engineers like, IDOT could afford, then all of these projects would be cheaper. Again, forcing our trasit to go through austerity while our roads don't is a false comparison on money wasting.
I've been to Altgeld Gardens, and I did not say RLE is a bad project so please do not put words in my mouth. However, the cost increases of the RLE over the past year or two have precluded the CTA from being able to rebuild the Forest Park Branch for the same amount of money, so I fundamentally reject your initial argument to cut our transit agencies a check with no questions asked.
What you propose is not "the same way every other state does", and I strongly encourage you to research how peer agencies actually fund their operations. I also strongly encourage you to take a look at how much IDOT relies on external consultants for engineering and capital projects, because you may find more commonalities with our transit agencies in that specific regard.
I don't believe I said you said it was a bad idea...
I understand the frustration with the rising costs but this is a national issue. Maybe where you and I disagree is that I have 0 problem plowing more money into transit. I would like the agencies to figure out better ways to spend their money, yes, but they do need more money. Again, back to austerity, everything becomes more expensive with austerity. Things break, you can't fix it, things get worse (the Green Line is a PERFECT example of this.)
Mis typed in my haste, yes, this would not be the "same way every state does." Similar levels was more my thing. Apologies, working and not re-reading before posting!
I've long thought that rather than giving price tags in dollar amounts, we should give them in comparative projects. The red line extension costs XX Metra stations, or YY improvements to Lake Shore drive, etc. I think it might give us a better handle on what's overpriced and what's reasonable.
The Transit Costs Project tries to compare transit construction costs across countries by using a cost per kilometer metric. Applying that metric to RLE and comparing costs across similar heavy rail projects shows that even in the US, which has by far the highest costs per kilometer in the world, the RLE is exceedingly expensive.
CTA has not adequately justified this cost escalation.
Thanks for sharing that (https://transitcosts.com/) - a great resource, I’ll be digging through their data! And agree about the RLE.
I think one thing that would be interesting is putting train costs in terms of road/car costs - e.g. how does it compare to the total cost of driving that mile (if you include road construction, upkeep, etc..). In my experience people tend to think of roads as free, everything else as expensive.
Will the new NITA have control over the CTA's red line extension? Without control over that duplicative, unnecessary, super-expensive project, the new agency may fail before it starts.
NITA will have authority over the RLE because it will have authority over the CTA’s budget, but it’s not clear to me if it has the ability to cancel the project - which seems to be moving ahead in any event. Could it do a better job managing the project? Maybe, but I’m not holding my breath.
NITA will not have the authority to cancel the project as federal funds are already obligated. There are other ways it *could* be cancelled, but that's another story.
NITA will have authority over "major capital projects." Consider upcoming projects, such as the Forest Park Blue Line branch rebuild, in this category. NITA would exercise more direct oversight over these regionally significant projects.
I enjoyed the article. One question: if it's true that ridership has decreased post-Covid, and that it's reasonable to expect that it will not return to pre-Covid levels due to structural commuting changes brought about by remote and hybrid work, is the right goal here to avoid cuts to the existing level of service at all as the article seems to presuppose? Shouldn't there be some effort to look at whether existing service is a good fit for existing demand? (I recognize there could be a little bit of a "if you build it, they will come" element here that might argue in favor of making service better than you need it now, in the hope of encouraging increased ridership.)
I don't think we should maintain exactly the same service in perpetuity - I do think we should be trying to work out what service changes are needed to steadily grow ridership (and farebox recovery) in the coming years. Beyond the scope of this particular article, but Joshua Woods's Substack Thoughts About Cities has had some great ideas on that front: https://accessiblyurban.substack.com/p/cta-key-network
Thank you for this article! I really appreciate your mention of the need for better operations. Particularly a fan of this line:
"It’d be great to route an additional $1.5B flow into a high performing, integrated regional transit system – but if we write that check today, I worry that it’s less likely that we get to that outcome."
This is all well and good, but just give the transit agencies the $1.75 billion they want. We nickle and dime our transit and that only makes it worse. Sure, do the changes to the governance structure, but juat get them the money!
IDOT is about to spend $2 billion on a road nobody, but them, wants. Just take the money from them! Its not difficult, IDOT wastes billions each year and nobody questions them. The CTA is forced through austerity measures and then we demand even more. Austerity doesnt work. Fund transit
https://www.dailyherald.com/20250907/transportation/billions-for-a-route-120-bypass-in-lake-county-some-residents-warn-its-a-pricey-pie-in-the-sky/
We just had five years of huge federal operating subsidies. Do you think the CTA used those dollars effectively?
I get the frustration with IDOT spending - but I think that's a reason for better discipline/cost control on how we spend money highways, not a reason to excuse poor performance elsewhere. In the long run, a transit system that serves steadily fewer residents at ever-higher costs just isn't sustainable, politically or otherwise.
I do, yes. CTA made a strategic decision to keep trains and busses running during the pandemic since we as a society deemed it necessary to force poor people to continue working, we called them "essential." Chicago was one of the only cities in the nation to make this decision. Sure, the federal funds could have gone to more long term spending plans, but keeping the trains and busses running for the less fortunate was not a bad plan.
We just fundamentally disagree about how poorly the CTA is run. CTA and IDOT are run poorly in two very different ways. IDOT has too much money, they can waste and waste without putting any thought into it. The CTA, on the other hand, has to make tough decisions all the time. For instance, not greasing wheels because they don't have the money. So we all get loud, creeky trains. That's a ridiculous trade off.
Once again, austerity does not work.
Important to note that the aspirational goal of $1.5 billion is new revenues **per year**, not a one-time infusion. IDOT is beginning a study that may eventually lead to a $2 billion investment, but that would be a one-time capital cost, and it is very likely that they will end up proposing a much smaller preferred alternative for that specific project.
My point was more about how IDOT can throw around $2 billion pretty nilly willy for dubious projects like this or like expanding rural roads from 2 lanes to 4 when they don't need it. We throw billions into roads, constantly, yet make the CTA run on austerity and expect it to perform better with the least amount of state funding for any transportation system in the nation. Beating around the edges, without reconning with the actual issue (not enough money) isn't going to get us anywhere.
Our transit agencies have also gotten quite adept at "throw[ing] around $2 billion pretty nilly willy", as this blog has previously covered with the $3.6- uh, $5.3- uh, $5.75-billion Red Line Extension, to say nothing of the $444 million magnifying glass CDOT is building to replace State/Lake. Capital funds are different than operating funds, and for better or worse roads are very cheap to operate.
I fully support a sustainable, significant, ongoing investment in operating revenues for our transit agencies to modernize and provide the kind of frequent, convenient, round-the-clock service a global city like Chicago should have, but there's simply no political reality in which the state will turn on a ten-figure annual spigot without modernizing the very structure of our transit agencies that are perennially stuck in a 1970s operating model. As this piece makes clear, NITA is a very good compromise to make sure taxpayers get the full value of a transformational investment.
Yeah the station is dumb, no arguments here. But wasn't that also originally proposed pre covid with a lower price tag? Red Line extension sucks that it costs so much, but a promise is a promise, expecially to underserved communities. I highly recommend you go to Altgeld Gardens and see why they need the CTA. They barely have roads. Sometimes it's ok to invest in people who have been shafted for 50+ years.
This isn't "turning on a spigot." It's funding the system the same way every other state does. I'm fine with the changes to governence, I don't love them, but the money should come with it, not as a pre-condition.
As I said in the other post, austerity does not work. IDOT is not nickle and dimed like the CTA so comparing their waste is not the same. If CTA had the in house engineers like, IDOT could afford, then all of these projects would be cheaper. Again, forcing our trasit to go through austerity while our roads don't is a false comparison on money wasting.
I've been to Altgeld Gardens, and I did not say RLE is a bad project so please do not put words in my mouth. However, the cost increases of the RLE over the past year or two have precluded the CTA from being able to rebuild the Forest Park Branch for the same amount of money, so I fundamentally reject your initial argument to cut our transit agencies a check with no questions asked.
What you propose is not "the same way every other state does", and I strongly encourage you to research how peer agencies actually fund their operations. I also strongly encourage you to take a look at how much IDOT relies on external consultants for engineering and capital projects, because you may find more commonalities with our transit agencies in that specific regard.
I don't believe I said you said it was a bad idea...
I understand the frustration with the rising costs but this is a national issue. Maybe where you and I disagree is that I have 0 problem plowing more money into transit. I would like the agencies to figure out better ways to spend their money, yes, but they do need more money. Again, back to austerity, everything becomes more expensive with austerity. Things break, you can't fix it, things get worse (the Green Line is a PERFECT example of this.)
Mis typed in my haste, yes, this would not be the "same way every state does." Similar levels was more my thing. Apologies, working and not re-reading before posting!
I've long thought that rather than giving price tags in dollar amounts, we should give them in comparative projects. The red line extension costs XX Metra stations, or YY improvements to Lake Shore drive, etc. I think it might give us a better handle on what's overpriced and what's reasonable.
The Transit Costs Project tries to compare transit construction costs across countries by using a cost per kilometer metric. Applying that metric to RLE and comparing costs across similar heavy rail projects shows that even in the US, which has by far the highest costs per kilometer in the world, the RLE is exceedingly expensive.
CTA has not adequately justified this cost escalation.
Thanks for sharing that (https://transitcosts.com/) - a great resource, I’ll be digging through their data! And agree about the RLE.
I think one thing that would be interesting is putting train costs in terms of road/car costs - e.g. how does it compare to the total cost of driving that mile (if you include road construction, upkeep, etc..). In my experience people tend to think of roads as free, everything else as expensive.
Will the new NITA have control over the CTA's red line extension? Without control over that duplicative, unnecessary, super-expensive project, the new agency may fail before it starts.
NITA will have authority over the RLE because it will have authority over the CTA’s budget, but it’s not clear to me if it has the ability to cancel the project - which seems to be moving ahead in any event. Could it do a better job managing the project? Maybe, but I’m not holding my breath.
NITA will not have the authority to cancel the project as federal funds are already obligated. There are other ways it *could* be cancelled, but that's another story.
NITA will have authority over "major capital projects." Consider upcoming projects, such as the Forest Park Blue Line branch rebuild, in this category. NITA would exercise more direct oversight over these regionally significant projects.
yes, the fear is it will place huge CTA debt on NITA, hobbling the new agency before it really gets going. Thanks for your insights,
I enjoyed the article. One question: if it's true that ridership has decreased post-Covid, and that it's reasonable to expect that it will not return to pre-Covid levels due to structural commuting changes brought about by remote and hybrid work, is the right goal here to avoid cuts to the existing level of service at all as the article seems to presuppose? Shouldn't there be some effort to look at whether existing service is a good fit for existing demand? (I recognize there could be a little bit of a "if you build it, they will come" element here that might argue in favor of making service better than you need it now, in the hope of encouraging increased ridership.)
I don't think we should maintain exactly the same service in perpetuity - I do think we should be trying to work out what service changes are needed to steadily grow ridership (and farebox recovery) in the coming years. Beyond the scope of this particular article, but Joshua Woods's Substack Thoughts About Cities has had some great ideas on that front: https://accessiblyurban.substack.com/p/cta-key-network