NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 23, 2012 -> 11:11 AM) Sale Man does he still look skinny. I was hoping he would put a little more muscle on.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 23, 2012 -> 11:37 AM) FWIW I pulled this off the salukitalk website W L W L Wichita St. 15-2(MVC) 24-4(overall) Creighton 13-4(MVC) 24-5(overall) Drake 9-8(MVC) 16-13(overall) Missouri St. 9-8(MVC) 16-14(overall) Northern Iowa 8-9(MVC)18-12(overall) Illinois St. 8-9(MVC) 17-12(overall) Indiana St. 8-9(MVC) 17-12(overall) Evansville 8-9(MVC) 14-14(overall) SIU 5-12(MVC) 8-21(overall) Bradley 2-15(MVC) 7-23(overall) I believe H2H is how it shakes out right now So, looks like MVC sends 2 teams to the NCAA Tourney this year. Probably anywhere from 1 to 3 of them to NIT, including maybe Drake, who you don't often see in the post-season. Well, at least SIU isn't the worst team in the conference. Which is amazing considering all the new lows they have hit this year.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 23, 2012 -> 11:34 AM) Boy I can't wait for summer driving season, how about you? http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/...lar-is-falling/ Definitely sucks, but probably a good thing in the long run to prompt movement to renewable and domestic sources of energy.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 08:44 PM) How do you think people would feel about mass transit if it were to cost the 2 or 3 times as much for a commute? I am fine with it, if the price of driving is also inclusive of all the tax supports that would go away. Just by nature, that would make driving much less efficient than mass transit for those who have the option. So mass transit would get better. But neither will happen, as people would have an absolute fit, even if taxes went down accordingly (which they would not anyway).

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Feb 23, 2012 -> 09:46 AM) I have to imagine that the American companies have plenty of foreign employees as well. And that, to me, was why I never understood the whole "rah rah, buy American" bulls***. They're "American" in that they were founded here, period. Well, and the profits mostly stay here, and the higher paying upper management jobs are mostly here. There is a little more to it than you characterize. Still, I overall agree that the buy American stuff is a bit silly at this point. There are foreign cars with higher American parts and manufacture content than some American cars at this point.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 10:23 PM) Isn't this what I said a couple weeks ago and you refuted? Sort of. I think a lot depends on Texas. If Texas can't win-out, which they probably won't, then I think ISU is a near-lock (call it 90%) even if they lose all three. I think that is where you and I disagreed before - . I'd be shocked if the B12 didn't send 5 teams. I know that isn't truly part of the formula, but when it comes time to selections, I think it definitely comes into play. Furthermore, take a look at Texas and ISU's resumes right now: ISU: 20-8 / 10-5... 2 wins against Top 25, 3 wins against Top 50 TEX: 17-11 / 7-8... 1 win against Top 25, 3 wins against Top 50 ISU gets to play KSU, so they have some chance of adding to the Top 25-against resume, Texas plays KU. ISU has played better against the stronger in-conference competition. I just think the only way Texas passes ISU is if ISU loses all three and Texas wins all three. Just my view of things. Now what may be really interesting is, the way things are going, there is a good chance ISU and Texas will play each other first in the B12 tournament. So even if Texas and ISU do end up 20-11 / 10-8, and Texas then has a stronger resume, ISU could STILL get in by winning that game, which is in KC and will likely be semi-home for ISU. The only path I see with ISU not going, is they lose the next four games, and Texas wins the next four, or at least 3 of the next 4.

Whew. Someone was looking ahead a bit too much. If ISU has lost to T-Tech, that would have put them in a big hole for an NCAA bid. Pulled it out late to win by 18. Now 20-8 / 10-5, with @ KSU, @ Mizzou and vs Baylor left. Win one of those, and they are a lock. Lose all three, and depending on what Texas and KSU do, they may need to make a showing in the B12 Tourney to get a bid.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 04:52 PM) They do that for SOME projects. Yes, they hire out, but even for random crews that are just filling potholes they use IDOT workers. And I wasn't suggesting hundreds of millions PER YEAR. I meant over time. Perhaps we could be saving a jail or medical center or two! I'm fine with doing more of that. Let IDOT manage things, so that the state itself has a solid stake in the outcomes, but have much more of the services on the ground done by private firms.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 04:41 PM) After you add in the yearly losses of billions though? I've said before, USPS should charge rates that cover their costs. But, keep in mind, a big part of their losses right now are attributed to the bizarre requirement in law for them to fund out their health care and retirement benefits for 75 freakin years.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 04:09 PM) Sorry, the IL dept of transportation. And no, i'm describing a small department of coordinators, not a full on workforce in a variety of areas. I'd privatize everything, from toll booth collection to road work. I'm not saying make it a for-profit business model, i'm just saying get it out of the "public" hands where waste is rampant. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 04:37 PM) Common sense really. Think of every downstate project. You could hire local businesses instead of shipping in regional IDOT workers to do the work. But i'm also thinking you could easily set up a system like Medicare - hey construction/engineering/whatever company, you want a piece of this project? Here's the bottom line price we're paying. Bidding ensues and efficiency increases. Just this morning I was laughing about the waste of the Chicago Traffic Authority (beyond the typical waste of traffic controllers repeating what automated lights already do). I saw 8 trucks full of salt on one stretch of Clark Street (south of Congress). There was no snow. There was no ice. There was no cold weather that could potentially turn into ice. They were just out driving around. Waste. On my walk to work (I get dropped off down there and walk to my office in the southwest loop) I saw 4 IDOT trucks with guys sitting in them, just waiting. One guy was outside picking stuff up, the rest were drinking their dunkin donuts and reading the paper. Obviously that's probably not normal, but I do think efficiency would go up if companies were forced to submit itemized bills that have to be reviewed before they get paid versus IDOT just paying it out as the normal cost of business. See also: FedEx and UPS versus the USPS. I am not opposed to your ideas here. But... first of all, they already do that for road projects. IDOT does only a small percentage of the actual construction work. Second, hundreds of millions? Really? You aren't cutting services, you are privatizing. Private firms still need to get paid, and probably want a little profit. That little profit is probably equal to the waste. I would rather they bring in a private firm to find the inefficiencies as they stand, issue a public report, and force Springfield to make those changes necessary to cut waste. You can probably save millions a year, but hundreds of millions? No way. Also, what do you want to do about snow and ice? They only send out trucks when the weather is bad or is going to get bad. Not sure what else you expect. I am sure there is some waste there, but some of it is necessary.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 03:55 PM) People driving, and paying gasoline taxes to do it, is supposed to be paying for roads. Without violating even more rights than the government already does, there isn't a simpler way to do it. Its not like you can put a toll booth on the end of every driveway. If we could keep track of mileage and tax usage that way as to pay for road usage without the government tracking people's personal movements that would be ideal. Then again, I am sure the money for roads would just be cannibalized like it ended up being now. If you are going to fully segregate mass/public transit from driving, then I suppose you need to price in all the externalities from driving too. Driving would suddenly get much more expensive. Tracking mileage has an appeal, but it sure does feel intrusive to me. Probably too much so. Tell you what. Lets raise the gas tax so that it is at the level necessary to actually fund road maintenance where it needs to be, add more to it for the pollution and externalities associated with it (of which there are many), and then see how people feel about mass transit when gas is $7 a gallon. Driving is already subsidized far more so than transit. And worse, we aren't even maintaining the roads and bridges we already have in a reasonable way - there are all kinds of safety and efficiency issues not being addressed there.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 03:57 PM) Not sure what I think of the tax, but I would absolutely abolish the department of transportation and most of the "chicago traffic authority." Create a small office for full, state-wide and state-to-state transit (i'd even possibly accept regional boards to coordinate services), but privatize the rest -- road building, repair, maintenance, etc. Think of the hundreds of millions we'd save. Also, I could be wrong, but isn't Illinois one of the states where the "gas tax" can be used for other things besides transit? Maybe I'm wrong and thinking of something different. Abolish what department of transportation? Federal? State? And what you described creating IS the department of transportation. What makes you think we could save hundreds of millions that way, in either case? I mean, if we don't maintain the roads, then yeah, we save that money. And lose it elsewhere. Not sure about the IL gas tax usage, but it wouldn't surprise me if it went into the general fund.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 03:41 PM) Fire departments aren't self-sustaining; abolish them. Gas taxes do not adequately fund roads. The silly examples don't help the discussion. FD's are not federally funded, in fact aren't usually even state funded. They are almost entirely funded locally.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 03:33 PM) Organically? Are you claiming the gas tax isn't set up to be paying for roads? The gas tax has been 30 years of purposed for TRANSPORTATION, which has included transit all along, potentially until now. If we are counting that for both, then they both cover just fine. If you take the tax money out of it, transit (as you stated) brings in some significant portion of the revenue on their own, while the roads do not.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 03:28 PM) Which is the issue. That isn't nearly all of their budget. It is like saying I am completely self-sustaining if I don't include half of my bills. So you must really hate the fact that the roads only get a fraction of a percent paid for organically.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 03:27 PM) The idea that mass transit isn't fully independently funded. It was a cross-post with your post. Plenty of public services aren't self-funded and theres nothing inherently wrong with that. OK, I see now. I sort of agree. I think it is reasonable to push transit agencies for efficiency, and being able to handle day-to-day operations with fares (and other internal revenue) is not a bad goal to have. But yeah, no one expects the roads to pay for themselves, or even for a tiny part of them. So the expectations on transit are, to me, sort of ridiculous at times.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 02:51 PM) So what? They are public services, not for-profit corporations. What are you saying "so what" to?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 02:53 PM) Metra claims a recovery of 53% in their 2012 budget. Right - complete budget. Operations are only a part of that, in fact capital projects are a big chunk.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 02:34 PM) Unless you are operating a vehicle that doesn't take gasoline, you aren't riding for "free". Toll payers are just paying for the roads twice. Mass Transit ride payments usually equal half or less of the funding necessary to fund and operate a particular line. Half or less is probably accurate for some, not for others. Metra, for example, most years is able to fund its operations purely with their own revenue from fares, ads, etc. The last few very lean years they have been just a bit shy, but their operating budget is typically funded internally at 90-110%. Their taxpayer support is only on capital projects for the most part. CTA on the other hand, doesn't even get to half, I think they are more like a third. Amtrak, last I saw a number, was like 60%. So it depends a lot on the agency in question. No one truly does either for "free" of course.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 01:49 PM) For that big of a loss, we are probably talking about gastric bypass or a serious health event. 5 months is about 22 weeks, yeah? So 2.5 to 3 pounds a week is what it takes. That actually can be done with diet and exercise changes, if you are overweight and spend a lot of time doing the right things. Put another way, that is probably a 7500 calorie net loss per week (or a thousand per day), in combined lowered eating and added exercise burn. if he was consuming 2500 calories a day and not really exercising, then went on a weight watchers or other program to be at 1500-2000 a day plus exercise, boom, you are there. Definitely on the high side, but not impossible.

Also, I think people (especially in urban areas) sometimes forget how much mass transit benefits them even if they don't use it. Think about this... if you took the 1.5 million people who use mass transit of some form in Chicago every day, ended all of that, and suddenly dumped them onto the roads... what do you think traffic would be like? Highways would be parking lots. No one would get anywhere. Parking prices would skyrocket. It would be an epic disaster.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 01:15 PM) But then someone in Carbondale can say "why am I paying for for mass transit in Chicago"? I don't see it as being a problem if it is Federally funded. If you don't like it, move to Canada. The thing that strikes me as odd is the people who are not using the mass transit system are being forced to fund it the most, if it does indeed come out of the gas tax, while the people riding the mass transit the most are funding the infrastructure the least. Either way, I do agree that mass transit is a good thing and something that needs to be maintained and actually improved and developed more thoroughly. That isn't really the case. Because you see, very few if any places have "free" mass transit. You pay fares for train or bus travel. Whereas with roads, aside from a tiny fraction of a % that are toll roads, everyone rides for "free", which is to say using tax money for those roads. So really, it is the users of roads that are using more tax money and paying less for travel. But in any case, that was why I brought up the block grant possibility. You build a formula of cents or dollars per mile of road (at different levels for interstate, state road, county road or municipal perhaps), and per mile of rail... And possibly build population numbers into the formula as well, as a rate per head... then fund each state accordingly.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 12:28 PM) Scott Merkin @scottmerkin Kudos to White Sox head athletic trainer Herm Schneider, who clearly had the CWS best offseason conditioning results. Daryl Van Schouwen @CST_soxvan Nobody looks better than White Sox trainer Herm Schneider, who lost about 70 pounds over the offseason. 70 in an offseason? Less than 5 months? That is truly impressive.

*like*

OK Busterites, we've discussed this topic before, but now we have a specific policy question that I think is worth discussing. Congress is battling over the newest transportation bill. The current version being bounced around does, among other things, something significant with the way non-road transportation funding is handled. Previously, money for rail, mass transit and anything transportation-related that is NOT road/bridge construction/maintenance, was funded as a percentage of the total tax of federal gas tax. There was always argument how much that % should be. But now, they want to decouple that entirely. They want a roads bill, pure and simple, and a second, seperate piece of legislation (or possible an amendment) that grants funding to mass transit and rail stuff, and specifically removes those areas from the gas tax revenue stream. The current bill sits around $450B for roads, and the seperate transit bill would be around $40B, as it stands. So, here are questions to answer... 1. Do you feel that funding for rail (passenger and/or freight) infrastructure, and/or mass transit use, should remain part of the gax tax receivers? 2. Do you think the federal goverment should be funding mass transit at all? How about rail, of any kind of specific? 3. Do you think the percentages make sense or are fair? For me, it always amazes me that people who want to cut or remove funding for rail and mass transit, and freight rail for that matter, sometimes use the argument of "why should we be subsidizing rail/buses?". Really? Who pays for your roads? I am a proponent of strong funding for mass transit and rail infrastructure. It is almost always going to create efficiencies for individuals and businesses, it reduces pollution, it reduces traffic and road wear, reduces accidents, and reduces blood pressure. So I am in favor of a chunk of the gas tax revenue going to that purpose. But, I will say that urban mass transit is a dicey issue because it is only used in any big way in a few dozen large metro areas. People in Wyoming would ask, why am I paying for this? So there is an argument to be made there, that it should be state-run. So, a final follow-up question: 4. Would it be a better model to allocate transportation monies as a block grant to states, perhaps based on population levels and/or total road/rail miles, for them to use as they see fit? Let's hear it...