* The governor talked about his capital plan again today, but without offering many specifics. His $25 billion figure is on par with the Senate Democratic proposal, which they’re looking to fund with a 16 cents per gallon motor fuel tax hike to bring in about a billion dollars in new annual revenue. Quinn isn’t keen on the gas tax, however…
“We hope to have a $25 billion… Illinois economic recovery investment program that invests in rail as well as highway and bridges and water and everything else,” Quinn said. “I think it’s imperative… but we have to get it passed. I’d like to see it passed by April 3, and we’re going to work very hard in that direction.”
April 3rd is beyond optimistic. The General Assembly is scheduled to take a two-week break immediately after that. If it was Rod Blagojevich, you’d expect the governor to call a series of special sessions when legislators left town for vacation rather than pass a capital plan. But Gov. Quinn appears to be avoiding that kind of confrontation so far. Still, if the GA ignores him, there’s a good chance he’ll look weak and ineffective. That’s a big reason why setting such an early passage date is so dangerous and unwise.
More..
Quinn would not say how he plans to pay for such a massive spending program as the state faces a deficit of $9 billion or more. He once again said he’s “not a big fan” of increasing gas taxes, as some lawmakers have proposed. And he again used the kind of code language that has many speculating an income tax increase could be on the table.
“I think if you’re going to use any revenues to try to invest in our future in Illinois, in job creation, in making sure we get our economy moving, you should rely on taxes that are based on ability to pay,” Quinn said. “That’s my philosophy, you’ll hear about it next week. We’re going to have, I think, a very robust program in Illinois of job creation, investing in things that matter today, but also matter for our kids and grandkids.”
* Trotter talks income taxes…
Donne Trotter is the Senate Democrats’ budget expert. He says talks are underway about how the [income] tax hike would work, although one version would have top earners paying about 60% more. Those who make less would get tax credits to lessen the blow.
TROTTER: It is not like a regressive sales tax. People aren’t shopping anyway so we aren’t getting those. So i believe this is fairest way to do it .
Trotter says other tax and fee hikes are also on the table, as well as some spending cuts.
Trotter points out he has never had a meeting with the Governor’s staff and is unsure if Pat Quinn is on board with this specific plan. But he says an income tax increase is getting more attention this year than it has since it was last raised in the early 1990’s. [emphasis added]
I know the governor is still working on his budget plan, but as a courtesy at least, they ought to meet with the budgeteers. Then again, the House Democrats lost their budgeteer when Gary Hannig was made Secretary of Transportation.
* Also today…
Illinois leaders want stimulus money to develop high-speed train travel between Chicago and St. Louis.
Gov. Pat Quinn and U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin say the priority is to upgrade Amtrak’s existing service between the cities so trains can travel at up to 110 miles per hour. That could cut travel times to under 4 hours from the current 5.
Quinn and Durbin met with other officials Monday at Chicago’s Union Station to discuss an Illinois request for some of the $8 billion set aside for high-speed rail in the federal stimulus bill.
* Also, in case you care, the NCSL has published an interesting paper on state finances during the Great Depression.
Yes, people, we’re gonna have to go back to our wonkier roots now that Blagojevich is gone. Get used to it. 
- Vote Quimby! - Monday, Mar 9, 09 @ 1:19 pm:
==cut travel times to under 4 hours from the current 5==
I’ve yet to meet *anyone* who has accomplished this feat–travelling between Chicago and St. Louis in the published time. My kids love taking the train to B-N to visit family, but as a means of reliable transportation it is not an option now.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Mar 9, 09 @ 1:22 pm:
===as a means of reliable transportation it is not an option now.===
I’d disagree, especially on trains originating in Chicago. They’re usually on time. Also, part of the high speed rail thing, I believe, will purchase tracks so that passenger trains aren’t delayed by freighters.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Mar 9, 09 @ 1:24 pm:
But, I think a legit question can be asked whether it’s worth whatever hundreds of millions or billions it would take to shave off an hour of travel time.
- The Doc - Monday, Mar 9, 09 @ 1:46 pm:
April 3rd? Of this year?
And it sounds like Trotter is considering some spending cuts like it’s afterthought or a last resort; shouldn’t spending cuts (not arbitrary, across the board double digit percentage cuts like Brady is talking about) be the first part of any budget proposal?
- Just the Facts - Monday, Mar 9, 09 @ 1:51 pm:
In my experience the main impediments to on time service between Chicago and Springfield are 1) the stretch of track between Union Station and Joliet (first because the tracks to Summit seem to be lousy and don’t allow for much speed and second because there always seem to be delays because of freights) and 2) delays throughout the trip because of freights. (I generally use the train the leaves Union Station at 7:00PM, so perhaps the trains at other times are better.) The early morning train out of Springfield seems to be a bit more dependable than the late evening train to Springfield.
If they could get the Amtrak service to Springfield to be as dependable as the Burlington Northern out to the western burbs I would never drive downstate. The shorter amount of time as a result of higer speeds would just be an added bonus.
- lake county democrat - Monday, Mar 9, 09 @ 1:52 pm:
I’m not against high speed rail, but just how much would cutting an hour off the Chicago-St. Louis route boost ridership, and how many make that ride in the first place?
What we really need is a crosstown expressway, which would save countless productive hours and lots of energy in wasted gasoline (either driving the 294 loop, making into-downtown-back-out-into-the-city trips or idling in traffic jams).
- Justice - Monday, Mar 9, 09 @ 1:54 pm:
Reliability and safety in rail travel is more important to me than high speed. Not sure if the additional hr saved is worth the investment. As to raising taxes…I’ve not seen reports on areas where we can save money first, or cut expenses via cutting programs or eliminating duplication? Is there such a report ? Been away on business and may have missed it.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Monday, Mar 9, 09 @ 1:54 pm:
Rich- you could take a billion dollars and buy an annuity that would provide a subsidized (”free”)airline ticket for everyone who rode the Amtrak Chicago-St-Louis line last year, and probably not run out of $ until the year 2050 or later. I believe there is no completely new “high speed track” for the prices they are talking; might be an extra track here or there, but still freight train interference, and 30 miles of industrial switching to maneuver around between Chicago and Joliet. If you’re gonna do HSR, why do a half measure?
- train111 - Monday, Mar 9, 09 @ 2:00 pm:
The State of Illinois has dumped a boatload of cash already into upgrading the Chicago-St Louis trackage. There isn’t presently a whole lot of freight on it south of Joliet, but the Union Pacific which owns the tracks themselves has discussed constructing an intermodal terminal on property that was formerly a part of Joliet arsenal–to get out of their Canal Street terminal next to Comiskey Park mainly. That will considerably increase the amount of freight traffic between St Louis and Joliet adding further delays to Amtrak Service, or High Speed or whatever you want to call it.
I sincerely wonder if Durbin or Quinn know anything about this. Seems that politicians like to make pronouncements, but lots of times have few of the actual facts in terms of the situation on the ground.
Perhaps the State of Illinois and Union Pacific can team up in the upgrade like Metra and UP are going to be doing on the West Line in the next couple of years. It would be beneficial to both.
train111
- Plutocrat03 - Monday, Mar 9, 09 @ 2:40 pm:
8 billion dollars to allow a select few to save an hour each way? Since it will also require an operating subsidy, it would be cheaper to provide free airline tickets for the handful of people who use that route.
Its a boondoggle so big that it can be called theft of taxpayers money
- Rich Miller - Monday, Mar 9, 09 @ 2:42 pm:
===8 billion dollars to allow ===
You’re misreading.
- Cassandra - Monday, Mar 9, 09 @ 2:52 pm:
I’ll be interested in hearing how, in a flat tax state, Trotter and Co will arrange it so that higher income residents pay substantially more.
If it were that easy, wouldn’t someone have done it already.
Also, I’d note again that Obama has already pushed off his tax the rich scheme for a couple of years…and some are already prophesying that he’ll push it off longer if the economy fails to recover in time. A local scheme is likely to run into problems as well. Even a court challenge I would imagine. I doubt we’ll hear much about it when major campaign contributors start yelping.
So, why is it that in Illinois, the not-rich middle class are ever-available for extra cash, according to our Dem legislators. Apparently, we are even willing to give up a chunk of our stimulus federal tax cuts for the greater good.
- Levois - Monday, Mar 9, 09 @ 3:06 pm:
Hey we could’ve been wonks before he left. Although hey he wasn’t much of a wonk anyway. lol
- phocion - Monday, Mar 9, 09 @ 4:04 pm:
Casandra, even though Illinois cannot constitutionally impose a progressive tax structure, wealthy people will pay more under the Quinn plan in at least two ways: (1) if you earn more income, you pay more in taxes under a flat rate; and (2) Quinn proposes increasing the amount for personal exemptions, so that working families wouldn’t feel the pinch as much as say, an older wealthy couple.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Monday, Mar 9, 09 @ 4:20 pm:
Chicago Tribune’s AP story: “They didn’t offer a price tag for improving the Chicago-St. Louis line. But it’s expected to run into the billions.”
As Train111 mentions, the Sherman to Gardner stretch of UP has already received track and signal upgrades to allow somewhat faster operating speeds than currently allowed. No doubt, further upgrades will be needed there and elsewhere along the line to allow 110 mph operation. If you don’t completely separate the high speed from the freight lines, you could probably do it for less than $1 bil. If you are talking true HSR, you are definitely talking far more than $1 bil.
- fed up - Monday, Mar 9, 09 @ 4:49 pm:
Quinn will be a half term Gov if he raises taxes.
- Nearly Normal - Monday, Mar 9, 09 @ 5:09 pm:
Living near the railroads most of my life, I have seen the decline of them over those years. Now comes the opportunity to update and hopefully increase use them. I hope that it is not too late as the costs are getting higher than before.
The last twenty or so years I have observed the loss of the dual tracks that used to be able to handle both freight and passenger trains. Now there is only one set of tracks in most places on the Chicago to St. Louis line and the passenger trains wait for the freighters.
I went to Chi on the 7:35 a.m. train and returned on the 7:00 p.m. back in Sept. Both times, we waited on a side-track for a freight train and slow down from Joliet to Chicago due to the quality of the rails.
The ticket clerk in the station said that ridership was up due to the cost of gasoline. Plus, a lot of ISU and IWU students use it on weekends to go to Chicago and return.
Gas is cheaper now so it would be interesting to see if ridership has declined.
As the great-granddaughter of a GM&O trainman (he was a brakeman before the Westinghouse brakes made the job safer), I would like to see the passenger rail succeed. I have concerns about the cost of high-speed rail at this time.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Monday, Mar 9, 09 @ 5:29 pm:
Nearly Normal-
You know how they used to tell how many years a brakeman worked for the RR “back in the day”? Count their missing fingers and multiply by 2.
Passenger rail is not likely to disappear anytime soon…as long as Amtrak has a subsidy, and remains the congressional pet it is, the trains will run, even to the taxpayer-funded tune of $200 per passenger on the most heavily subsidized long haul routes. Whether it morphs into something more useful (such as it is on the East Coast with the Acelas) remains to be seen.
- Zounds - Monday, Mar 9, 09 @ 5:55 pm:
Anyone know what the yearly operating subsidy on a high speed rail line between Chicago and St. Louis would be? And who pays it?
I’d like that question answer before I hop on board (pun intended)
- Angry Chicagoan - Monday, Mar 9, 09 @ 6:29 pm:
They need to be ambitious with Chicago-St. Louis because the public need to see results. 125mph, not 110mph, and a goal of three hours. That means some serious reconstruction Dwight-Joliet-Chicago, and two tracks, not one, over most of the route. It’s worthwhile, a four hour service can be attained at an intermediate stage, four hours knocks out road transport and three should do the same to the airlines.
- Nearly Normal - Monday, Mar 9, 09 @ 7:02 pm:
Six Degrees–Great-Granddad had two fingers missing. He worked for the railroads from the 1880’s until 1934 dying before the feds started the railroad pension system. He was still working until he became ill and died. No pension plans in those days.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Monday, Mar 9, 09 @ 7:07 pm:
Zounds-
Amtrak’s current sorta-high-speed Acela and Metroliner services are about a break even proposition excluding the capital costs, which are high on the Amtrak-owned Northeast Corridor line. However, it is by far Amtrak’s most heavily patronized route, and passengers are willing to pay a premium for the faster service. The regular-speed passenger trains on the NE Corridor operate at a loss. I’d say it depends on the density of service and speed of service (which will increase the price people are willing to pay) as well as the # of people willing to support the service…there’s not 75 million people living along the Chicago-St. Louis corridor like there are on the Eastern seaboard. Minus the increased costs of running HSR, which go up exponentially when you approach true high speed. Lots of if’s there.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Monday, Mar 9, 09 @ 7:10 pm:
NN-
Now that’s a true railroader! Thanks for sharing.
- It's Just Me - Monday, Mar 9, 09 @ 8:49 pm:
Can someone, anyone, please point to me a single politician who lost re-election because they voted for a tax increase. How many legislators who voted for Illinois FIRST lost re-election? And if they did, was the opponent’s campaign theme that of the tax increase? I don’t remember a single one.
- Angry Chicagoan - Monday, Mar 9, 09 @ 9:15 pm:
I don’t think a lot of people realize how low the threshold density is for successful high speed rail in Europe. France has approximately 50 million people in an area slightly smaller than Texas. In other words, it’s about the same population density as Illinois, Lower Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania or North Carolina, but rather more sparsely populated than Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts. And it has a truly national network; about 1,500 miles of brand new 200mph lines, and thousands more in the 110 to 125mph category. It’s to the point where the government (which owns the track) can charge SNCF and other train operators such as Thalys and Eurostar access fees for use of the high speed network in order to recoup some of their capital costs. That doesn’t do much for fares, but people are willing to pay for it because it really is that good.
Where it really gets relevant for us is on speed; in some cases you don’t need 200mph for successful high-speed rail. But you do usually need to treat 110mph as just an appetizer for a 125mph-140mph goal on upgrading existing track. Three hours ought to be a benchmark goal for a service like Chicago to St. Louis. London to Manchester in England using conventional track over a distance equivalent to two-thirds of Chicago-Springfield is two hours, and the trains run every 20 minutes most of the day, up to 125mph. Since the introduction of the new “Pendolino” trains and the reduction from three hours to two, airlines’ market share has dropped from 80 to 30 percent and is continuing to fall. Better yet for our situation, even the three hours for the 300-mile run from London to Newcastle (a much smaller city than St. Louis) has swatted down the airlines; it’s now seven 150-seat Airbus A320 flights a day versus more than a dozen 400-seat trains.
But the modest Quinn-Durbin goal of four hours at least gets us to where Britain was from the 1960s to the 1980s.
- Angry Chicagoan - Monday, Mar 9, 09 @ 9:19 pm:
Oops — Manchester to London is 200 miles, which IS Chicago to Springfield, and two-thirds of Chicago-St. Louis.