As a man who would sooner pull a sofa out of a dumpster than pay for one at a garage sale, I always prefer cheap functionality over luxury. If it works, don’t throw it out.
This is why a Chicago Transit Authority’s plan to renovate the aging, yet functional, Howard Street El station for $56 million baffles me. It comes at a time when the agency is battling a $55 million operating budget shortfall and has threatened to cut service by 36 percent. Wait times may increase 68 percent.
Efforts to stave off this public transit doomsday — scheduled for July 17, if CTA can’t secure more money from the state — have been underway in Springfield for months.
The state legislature denied a request for additional funding in November. Since then, lobbyists and lawmakers have discussed everything from raising sales taxes in outlying Chicago to letting Pace pay for CTA’s handicapped-friendly services.
So far, the end of the world is right on track.
But building a brand new Howard Street station seems like folly when there isn’t enough money to fully operate it. Instead, use the money to keep Chicago moving. Or find some other way to trim $55 million from the $2.9 billion CTA has set aside over the next five years for similar improvements.
In such an atmosphere of gridlock, it’s amazing that CTA will spend nearly $300 million to rehabilitate parts of the Red Line in the next five years. In addition the agency sank $483 million to rehabilitate parts of the Blue Line, a project completed this year. And work began last year on a $530 million project to increase the carrying capacity of the Brown Line.
But why increase the capacity of a line when service is going to be cut by 36 percent? Wouldn’t it be better to temporarily forego shiny new tracks?
CTA pays for those shiny new tracks differently from the way it pays for service. The agency draws from two separate pools of funds: an operating budget, which covers CTA’s day-to-day expenses, and a capital improvements budget, which pays for big projects like station renovations.
CTA rejected a plan last year by the Regional Transportation Authority — the agency that oversees funding for the CTA, Pace, and Metra — that suggested the CTA divert some federal funds from the capital improvements budget to its operating budget to make up the deficit.
Federal funds are generally not used for operating costs, explained Meg Reile, an RTA spokeswoman. Some of the federal money can be used for things like transportation for handicapped or disabled passengers, an option CTA is required to offer by federal law. If CTA were to use some federal funds to cover handicapped-accessible service costs, it might free up enough money to stave off service cuts.
CTA rejected the plan, Reile said, because it wanted a “long-term solution” that would keep improvement projects from being cancelled or delayed.
But this idea may still get a second chance. In Springfield, where lawmakers are racing against a May 31 adjournment for the state legislature, Rep. Julie Hamos (D-Evanston) said reallocating capital funds to cover operating costs is “still on the table.”
“That’s unfortunate but that’s where we are,” she said, adding that the legislature may extend its session. “We may not be able to fill enough of their budget hole, they may end up doing a little of that.”
It’s obvious there is a need to rehabilitate parts of the aging CTA network. But it’s also obvious there is an inherent paradox about spending $3 billion improving facilities when a $55-million shortfall is forcing the CTA to cut services.
And for a public service agency like the CTA, doing what’s best for its customers should be its top priority — even if it means pulling a sofa out of a metaphorical dumpster.
Assistant City Editor Mike Cherney is a Medill sophomore. He can be reached at [email protected].
