CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by aaron38

Public streets are public. That’s either true or it isn’t. There is no right to drive a car into the loop and park it for free. Never has been.
But if I choose to drive my elderly parents to the theatre and drop them off, that is my right. I’m already paying all the state taxes to fund those streets. And the economic activity of that theatre also pays for the streets.

Use taxes have their place. But if the loop is made artificially expensive, people will go elsewhere.

I imagine that people getting dropped off downtown is such a small fraction of traffic (except maybe at Union Station?) that it's not worth going after since it would be complicated.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

You think retail workers are driving their cars downtown and paying $25 plus per day to park? Sorry, but I find that extremely hard to believe.

Of course not, Vlajos. But keep in mind, there are LOTS of garages on the periphery (ie: Roosevelt Road area) that charge like $7/day.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[the urban politician]

Looks like even John Kass has a bit of hope for Lightfoot:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/colum...i6i-story.html

[LouisVanDerWright]

It's interesting that someone would essentially argue that tolls, which are as old as the concept of roads themselves, are unconstitutional. The Romans were building legionary checkpoints on their roads 2500 years ago to collect fees from the passing traffic enjoying that service.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

It's interesting that someone would essentially argue that tolls, which are as old as the concept of roads themselves, are unconstitutional. The Romans were building legionary checkpoints on their roads 2500 years ago to collect fees from the passing traffic enjoying that service.

I think people often forget that the service offered by roads is more than just the installation of asphalt. It's security measures and emergency responders on top of infrastructure improvements that give a road its real value.

When somebody drops their elderly parents off at a Chicago theater, they enjoy many services that go above and beyond the road itself that aren't payed for by state taxes - the departments of police, fire, public health, streets and san, among others.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

I think people often forget that the service offered by roads is more than just the installation of asphalt. It's security measures and emergency responders on top of infrastructure improvements that give a road its real value.

When somebody drops their elderly parents off at a Chicago theater, they enjoy many services that go above and beyond the road itself that aren't payed for by state taxes - the departments of police, fire, public health, streets and san, among others.

To play devil's advocate, these very same services are utilized/enjoyed by anyone, not just private vehicle owners/passengers. Anyone in the Loop area, whether by walking, bicycling, driving, transiting or any other way, enjoys the very same services. So I don't necessarily think this is a logical argument.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Handro]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Did I specifically state this? And rideshares are not your personal car, neither are taxis. What I stated was that the increased time and/or cost would make it prohibitive for many employees to stay at their current service/industry positions in the Loop area as well as for employers to fill open positions. Of course if employers would actually increase wages in the downtown area to compensate for these commute time and/or commute cost increases, that would likely resolve the issue. Even then, you're now basically taxing employers in the Loop area specifically, which I'm not sure is such a smart thing to do when you're trying to increase overall job density, not decrease it.

Aaron (Glowrock)

I think an obvious solution for many people who live in transit-poor areas and usually take ride shares downtown would be to take your ride share to the nearest neighborhood train stop (thus avoiding the downtown fee) or use a shared ride--still more expensive if congestion prices were instituted but also significantly less.

I also wonder how many people that routinely take ride shares all the way downtown for work are so hard up for money that the increase would make it prohibitively expensive. I'd argue you'd need to be making a certain amount of money to even consider getting driven to work each day (once in a while when you're running late excluded)... if an extra 50 bucks a week would make or break you, you probably shouldn't be taking an uber all the way downtown anyway.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Handro

I think an obvious solution for many people who live in transit-poor areas and usually take ride shares downtown would be to take your ride share to the nearest neighborhood train stop (thus avoiding the downtown fee) or use a shared ride--still more expensive if congestion prices were instituted but also significantly less.

Or, better yet, take a Divvy or escooter to the transit stop. There was actually just study released on the first month or two of the scooter pilot program which showed disproportionately high scooter use in low income, transit poor, areas. That's a gap that the otherwise obnoxious scooters can really help fill.

I also wonder how many people that routinely take ride shares all the way downtown for work are so hard up for money that the increase would make it prohibitively expensive. I'd argue you'd need to be making a certain amount of money to even consider getting driven to work each day (once in a while when you're running late excluded)... if an extra 50 bucks a week would make or break you, you probably shouldn't be taking an uber all the way downtown anyway.

The people who take Uber to and from work are mostly high income professionals and half the time it is paid for or subsidized by their employer. My wife is a prime example of this, she often works late and her company has a standing policy of allowing her to expense after-hours rideshares as a matter of "employee safety". It's a nice perk for her that she uses fairly often as she can actually shave a lot of time off her commute (and spend it working or relaxing) if she waits until 7PM to leave the office when traffic dissapates and an Uber is 15 minutes to our house insetead of 1 hour or 30-40 minutes on transit (including the walk).

[Baronvonellis]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

The people who take Uber to and from work are mostly high income professionals and half the time it is paid for or subsidized by their employer. My wife is a prime example of this, she often works late and her company has a standing policy of allowing her to expense after-hours rideshares as a matter of "employee safety". It's a nice perk for her that she uses fairly often as she can actually shave a lot of time off her commute (and spend it working or relaxing) if she waits until 7PM to leave the office when traffic dissapates and an Uber is 15 minutes to our house insetead of 1 hour or 30-40 minutes on transit (including the walk).

So, she waits at her office for an extra hour or 2 to save 15 minutes of transit time, so she can burn fossil fuel instead of taking electric transit, and taking money from her employer for that privilege? How does that math work? Great job, ExxonMobil would be proud!

[tjp]

~ nevermind

[BrinChi]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

More importantly, other cities have instituted congestion pricing--or banned cars from portions of the cities--and now have fewer or no cars.

Generally, it makes sense to tax the things you don't want.

It's not that we're punishing people like it's this terrible thing to drive through downtown -- although the noise, pollution, safety risk are negatively impacting the majority of pedestrians on foot. It's physics: private vehicles take up much more space than all other forms of transportation, and there is a finite amount of street space; we know that widening streets to reduce vehicular congestion induces more people to drive until streets reach a point of congestion again. So right now the price we pay for congestion is time -- being free, we all have an equal right to a limited amount of street space. When too many people drive down the same street at the same time we run out of room (traffic). To deal with this situation we have a few options:

A) Continue the status quo and traffic/congestion will get worse in areas like downtown that are popular destinations.
B) We can come up with rules that make us take turns, like what they do in China where license plates that are odd numbers can drive on certain days while even numbers can drive on the other days.
C) We can charge a fee (which can change dynamically based on demand) to essentially allow drivers to "rent" the large amount of street space that they are borrowing from the public street -- even if the rental duration is momentarily.

Personally I like option C. It seems profiteering, capitalistic, or like it f---s the poor on the surface. But remember that our streets are generally public assets. So those revenues are paid to the public domain and *in theory* benefit all residents equally (unlike TIF). The money can be used to make public transportation better, build bike lanes, expand sidewalks, and, yes, there are some situations where adding space for more vehicle traffic might make sense. And it gives flexibility. Even if you're middle class or lower income, if there's an urgent reason for you to drive downtown you can spend the $ and get there much faster than option A, and option B would depend on the luck of the day.

[Vlajos]

^ Any money received from a congestion tax should be for pensions. We can't afford more spending.

[Halsted & Villagio]

I have been traveling so I am a bit late catching up on local news/not sure if this has been discussed here or in the local media but I ran across this today. I LOVE IT!

I really like that our Mayor is battling back against unfair stereotypes and perceptions of Chicago. It is about time someone stood up against the ridiculous and incessant stereotype and trope about Chicago that is so popular today. They say it because it is a fad (everyone does it)... because everyone accepts it as true and no'one PUBLICLY refutes it... but now when they say it, hopefully they (politicians/some in the media) will think twice before speaking because there is this little pit bull waiting in the wings that they will be hearing from.


https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/03/polit...ngs/index.html

Chicago mayor to Ted Cruz over city shootings: 'Keep our name out of your mouth'


It may or may not work (that is debatable) but at least someone is trying... and is not just rolling over while letting them drag Chicago's name through the mud.

.

[LouisVanDerWright]

I would love to see Lightfoot make herself heard on the national political scene in the same way or greater that Rahm did over the years. I think she could potentially go for a Federal level position after two or three terms in Chicago if she has success with her reforms.

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

So, she waits at her office for an extra hour or 2 to save 15 minutes of transit time, so she can burn fossil fuel instead of taking electric transit, and taking money from her employer for that privilege? How does that math work? Great job, ExxonMobil would be proud!

Lol, yeah she just sits at the office twiddling her thumbs! Man would you be in trouble if you said that to her. No nimrod, she works like 50-60 hour weeks year round and sometimes more during busy weeks. So instead of trying to leave during rush hour she takes advantage of her company's policy for people who work past 630 or 7 pm. I'm sure you'll be horrified to know that sometimes I pick her up in my giant V8 work truck that gets like 10 MPG on my way home. Unfortunatley sometimes your time is not worth the financial savings of transit. Some people even have jobs (like mine) that require you to use a vehicle. I can't exactly take my tools on the train with me.

Maybe you'll see me transferring with a lawn mower at Clark and Lake...

And BTW, you now have to wait 4 or 5 Blue Line trains at Clark and Lake if you leave between like 4:30 and 6:30. Our TOD policy is working a little too well.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

^ Any money received from a congestion tax should be for pensions. We can't afford more spending.

I doubt not giving at least a large chunk of the money raised to transportation would be palatable politically. Included in this I would not be opposed to the city striking a deal with Metra to improve its city services, equalize fares, and add more infill stations as part of an overall package of transit investment utilizing these funds.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by k1052

I doubt not giving at least a large chunk of the money raised to transportation would be palatable politically. Included in this I would not be opposed to the city striking a deal with Metra to improve its city services, equalize fares, and add more infill stations as part of an overall package of transit investment utilizing these funds.

So we just keep raising every tax imaginable but never address the massive pension debt? Lightfoot would be just as bad as JB than.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

So we just keep raising every tax imaginable but never address the massive pension debt? Lightfoot would be just as bad as JB than.

That's not what I said.

I sincerely doubt it would be politically possible to implement a congestion charge and not give a dime of that money to improving transportation as you seem to suggest doing. I'm sure some of the revenue could be tagged for pension relief but giving over all or even most of it isn't likely to be tenable.

[SIGSEGV]

Money is fungible... the money could go to the pension fund while more money is available for transportation improvements that would otherwise have been cut because it would have had to go to the pension fund. So in that sense, people can be told that the money is being used for transportation and it's not even really lying...

[k1052]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Money is fungible... the money could go to the pension fund while more money is available for transportation improvements that would otherwise have been cut because it would have had to go to the pension fund. So in that sense, people can be told that the money is being used for transportation and it's not even really lying...

Assuming that you did't promise anything over baseline to get it passed, which seems unlikely.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by k1052

I doubt not giving at least a large chunk of the money raised to transportation would be palatable politically. Included in this I would not be opposed to the city striking a deal with Metra to improve its city services, equalize fares, and add more infill stations as part of an overall package of transit investment utilizing these funds.

We don't know what's proposed, but it probably WON'T be a Manhattan or London-style congestion zone. If it's just another tax on Uber/Lyft, I doubt it will raise nearly enough revenue for rail improvements.

SBS-style bus lanes, on the other hand, might be feasible (signs and paint, v cheap, get JC Decaux to pony up for shelters and ticket machines). Put em on State, Halsted, Chicago, Roosevelt, Milwaukee, Columbus, maybe LSD if IDOT will play ball, open up the McCormick Busway to CTA if McPier and Metra will play ball, etc. You could build out a whole downtown network for a low 9-figure budget that would supplement and extend the rail network, or relieve the rail lines in the case of the O'Hare Blue and Brown Lines.