Last night at Lane Tech High School the Board convened its first public hearing to receive input from our customers and other stakeholders on President Huberman’s recommended 2008 budget. Those recommendations, as you’ll recall, will dramatically reduce service on both bus and rail and increase fares across the board. I have no doubt that Chicago will be a starkly different city if these go into effect.
These hearings are designed to give you and your fellow customers a chance to tell the Board what you think of the President’s proposed budget (not surprisingly, no one was happy about it last night), and also to weigh in with the Board on what you think we could do differently. We heard some very constructive comments last night—they reinforced the shared pain that CTA workers and its customers are facing as November 4th and January 1st, 2008 fast approach. Once these hearings are complete, the Board will incorporate public comments into its deliberations as it determines CTA’s final 2008 budget.
I am also staying abreast of developments in Springfield, including the House and Senate’s apparent planned action this week and early next. I remain hopeful if not optimistic that our state elected officials will resolve their differences and provide regional transit with long-term, equitable funding.
In the meantime, my fellow Board members and I would very much like to hear from you at our remaining two public hearings:
6 p.m. Thursday, November 1, 2007
Percy L. Julian High School
Dr. Edward H. Oliver Auditorium
10330 S. Elizabeth Street
Chicago, IL 60643
6 p.m. Monday, November 5, 2007
CTA Headquarters Building
567 W. Lake Street
Chicago, IL 60661
48 Comments:
Carole,
Here's a few questions to you. How are you not able to control labor costs going up over 2007 for your 2008 operating budget?
Looks to me like the greatest cost to the CTA is labor, security, and some mysterious "other" services. Maybe you should look to cut ties with these private security firms and reduce your labor costs further before raising fares.
As a board member, how are you compensated? Does this come out of tax payer funds or CTA operating funds? If we need to take a hit financially, then maybe the citizenry doesn't need a 7 member board to oversee a reduced capacity transit system.
You've got a top heavy organization with a lot of operating fat (why are you funding a circle line expansion project in your budget when you can't effeciently run what you have? Rail Project 194.007 in the budget), and that needs equal scrutiny from the CTA Board.
Finally, I'd love to know how much money was wasted by printing of these notices that have been handed out at the rail stations? For a president of a transit authority that wants funding, this seems like a strange way to spend money.
Just caught this last item. Instead of eliminating express busses, why not charge more for them like other cities in the country (i.e. New York) do?
Anon 3:55pm said:
"Finally, I'd love to know how much money was wasted by printing of these notices that have been handed out at the rail stations? For a president of a transit authority that wants funding, this seems like a strange way to spend money."
And if CTA did not print these notices, then I'm sure you would come on here and say that CTA did nothing to announce these cuts.
What a pathetic statement, anon 3:55 pm - it really shows your ignorance.
Darn. I read this thread around two hours ago but I was not really paying close attention. And just a few minutes ago something reminded me of Anon 355's comment about the notices and it occured to me just how idiotic his statement was. I came here to mention that but it turns out you beat me to it. I am truly befuddled as to how someone could call that "wasting" money. The entire purpose of all those signs and flyers was to encourage people to tell the legislators and Blagoivich to wake up and do their jobs. The cost of printing and distributing those things are probably less that one-fiftieth of what would need to be spent to reprogram the machines for the fare increases, layoff all the employees, rehire and retest them once the legislature finally provides funding and, reprogram the machines again. And then with fewer people reminding the Springfield idiots of the importance of public transportation to people and to the economy there would almost certainly be a more watered down bill. I bet Anon 355 never cleans his house because he considers it a waste of money to buy a broom.
And, by the way, members of a public service board do not get payed very much money. They serve because they want to serve the community, either because they want to do some good or for prestige purposes. Any notion that reducing the size of the CTA board is going to do a thing to save money is ludicrous. I don't know what the exact salery is but I would guess it is less than even bus drivers make.
And if CTA did not print these notices, then I'm sure you would come on here and say that CTA did nothing to announce these cuts.
Sure, because the notices on the trains, busses, television, and newspapers haven't been enough to notify the general public.
Printing costs aren't as inexpensive as you claim.
"Printing costs aren't as inexpensive as you claim.
11/01/2007 7:41 AM"
Yeah, they are.
The printing costs are probably even cheaper than the one fiftieth one poster referenced. He or she made a great analogy to the other costs that will be involved if the cuts have to be implemented, but likely overestimated the printing costs. (but made an effective point anyway).
Printing a couple hundred thousand flyers inhouse likely only cost the CTA hundreds, not thousands, of dollars. Reprogramming some 600+ (1,000+??) turnstiles and 3,000 fareboxes, not to mention printing and installing new permanent signage about fares, will cost in the tens, if not well into the hundreds, of thousands.
Plus, the main reason to print and distribute the fliers is as the other posters have mentioned - information. There can never be too much information - and I think that is a point we have been trying to make here for months.
Anon 11/01/2007 7:41 AM and 10/31/2007 3:55 PM, you are a damn-them-if-they-do and damn-them-if-they-don't kind of person, huh??
Just to illustrate your lack of knowledge, let me address your suggestion about "Maybe you should look to cut ties with these private security firms and reduce your labor costs further before raising fares." These private firms are way cheaper than having a Customer Assistant in the station, and that is why the CTA resorted to that. It's a shame, some of them seem to sit around uselessly, and they can't provide the level of service that customers need, but it is an incontrovertible fact that they are a result of previous cost-cutting measures. Let's face it. We get what we pay for, and when they continue to cut costs, the service and product goes down.
Hi Carol! Please don't accept another band-aid from the governor. I don't want the cuts to happen, but our state legislators have proved themselves to be incompetent. The only way they are going to act is when they have to. This is embarrassing.
It is just grotesque that the governor has people lobbying to defeat transit funding. I think recall elections are generally a bad idea, but maybe we could make a small exception here - just allow recall elections for the office of governor during the year 2008. That should be sufficient...
Anyhow, the last poster is right. Political backlash from service cuts and fare increases is the only thing that has a chance of putting SB572 over the top at this point. Sad that it has to come to that, but we'll be better off in the long run if we stick with the Nov. 4 deadline.
Anon 3:55PM---
Transit Board members’ compensation is controlled by the State statute that created the CTA, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Act. Section 19 of the MTAA reads in relevant part:
“The salary of each member of the initial Board shall be $15,000.00 per annum, and such salary shall not be increased or diminished during his or her term of office. The salaries of successor members of the Board shall be fixed by the Board and shall not be increased or diminished during their respective terms of office. No Board member shall be allowed any fees, perquisites or emoluments, reward or compensation for his or her services as a member or officer of the Authority aside from his or her salary or pension, but he or she shall be reimbursed for actual expenses incurred by him or her in the performance of his or her duties.”
As you can see, in 1947 when the CTA was created, the State set each Board member’s compensation at $15,000 per year. The Board has changed their compensation twice since 1947, changing it to $20,000 in 1982 and then to $25,000 (its current level) in 1986.
Wow, that's a big change from 1986. Meaning that with inflation, etc., no change is a big change.
$25,000 wasn't going to make anyone rich back then, but the job isn't full time. And executive pay wasn't what it is today. To hold the stipend at the same rate for 21 years ...
It's not exactly time to ask for more money or anything. I'm just surprised. I wonder how much work the other board members put in, though. Probably not a lot.
And of course, you do get free transit!!!
I believe RTA, CTA, METRA made a big mistake by taking another "bandaid" for the transit service. The bandaids are going to keep coming, with no real solution.
I work for CTA, though I am not one of those who would have been affected by the layoffs (Nov 4 for the drivers or Jan 1 for the mechanics and servicers), but to make a point with the IDIOTS in Springfield ... NO MORE BANDAIDS, I was/am willing to be laid off.
I have no idea whether the notices handed out at rail stations are useful. What I do know is that many of them contain laughably false statements.
For example, I have in front of me one that was handed to me at a Blue Line station. It says "We Heard You!", and details "rebuilding" efforts on the Blue Line between Belmont and O'Hare, which, the leaflet suggests, will eliminate the 15-mile per hour slow zones in that stretch.
This is, of course, drivel. The CTA didn't "hear" the ridership, 25 years of taking the CTA having convinced me, at least, that CTA doesn't care in the least about riders. What the CTA "heard" was the National Transportation Safety Board, which found that the CTA had been culpably negligent in failing to maintain tracks in that area, indeed going so far as to falsify maintenance records.
This is galling enough, as it demonstrates exactly what CTA thinks of rider safety. To then act as if fixing the problem - caused by CTA's own negligence over a long period - is a CTA success story in customer satisfaction, rather than grudging compliance with a federal requirement, is just disgusting.
For your information, the leaflet is marked 07kd037 2upf#2.
I expect you to stop acting like I should lustily cheeer CTA management every time it fixes an egregious piece of CTA-quality negligence or screwing up. I certainly expect you to stop using money you say you don't have to publicly pat yourself on the back for doing so.
Mathew: The slow zone removal effort is a direct result of Ron Huberman's leadership. Mr. Kruesi had no plans to fix the slow zones anytime soon. Furthermore, the slow zone plans were announced prior to completion of the NTSB investigation.
I've heard the CTA is looking for small ways to improve service to passengers. Here are a few:
1) Start rush hour a few hours early on the Blue line on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving (i.e., run trains at rush hour frequency and do not schedule non-emergency daytime track maintenance on that day). It's the busiest air travel day of the year, and in recent years the trains to the airport are stuffed with people and their bags.
2) Put some luggage racks on some blue line and orange line trains. Doesn't have to be every car, but if, say, the first two cars of trains that serve the airports had an overhead place for people to put their stuff, it would increase the capacity and comfort of the trains significantly. On the blue line, people headed for the airport often cluster in the first car or two, since they're closest to the airport entrance. These would be the last two cars leaving the airport, which is fine for the same reason.)
3) Expand bus tracker already. It's going to be winter soon. We've been told the thing would go system-wide "early" in 2008, and customer service told me that the first wave of expansions would occur in summer of 2007. Summer of 2007 came and went and nothing happened. It's going to be winter soon - it's cold waiting for the bus and the amount of frustration generated by the unpredictability of bus arrivals is vastly, vastly disproportional to the cost of dealing with the problem. I realize this is dramatically more expensive than my first two suggestions, but dollar for dollar, there is probably no single change in service that would do more to improve as many people's transit experience.
4) Appoint an Al Gore for the CTA. Like the Vice President Gore of the 1990s, this person should be on a mission to examine things, large and small, to identify potential efficiencies. I'm not saying that the CTA doesn't have people doing this now (at least I hope you do), but concentrating the effort, advertising it, and giving people a single contact point for making efficiency suggestions would make the effort more effective (and more likely to build goodwill with the public). This person should also be like the Al Gore of the 2000's, looking for ways to make the CTA greener. Aside from being a moral imperative in its own right, environmentalism tends to save money in the medium-to-long run (e.g., why are there still incandescent light bulbs anywhere on CTA property?). Moreover, it's no secret in the private sector that organizations win major bonus points in public perception by taking even modest steps to be more environmentally responsible.
And CTA could use bonus points right about now. None of these ideas is going to make people who dislike the CTA suddenly think highly of it, but there's a segment of the population that would think more highly of the CTA if there was some appearance that things are steadily improving and/or that the CTA is doing more than just what it has done day-in-day-out for time immemorial. The slow-zone elimination projects are very important, but they are perceived (rightly) as remedial - stuff the CTA should have done long ago rather than a sign that the CTA is on the lookout for economical ways to improve itself.
If the CTA was able to announce some new minor but significant improvement every month, think of the difference in perception that would create. Between luggage racks, Nov. 22nd blue line service, and incremental expansions to the bus tracker, you have enough for many months of improvements right there.
Yeah, I have to say that Matthew, a big part of the problem is people like you.
When there is new CTA management, and they do something completely different, you're completely clueless about it, and blast them because they didn't fix the CTA back when they weren't even working for the CTA.
Why would any politician or bureaucrat ever work hard to be accountable, knowing clueless voters like Matthew will make their judgments based on somebody else's work? Please, get a clue before you criticize.
Stillwaiting,
Telling the CTA to be more environmentally friendly is like advising a baseball player that he should try hitting a ball, because fans like that. Everytime someone gets on a CTA bus or train, it's one of the most environmentally significant acts they can take in their normal lives. All the compact fluorescent lightbulbs in the world ain't gonna make up for your car. They're already environmental as can be, and instead of telling them to do more, you might just let all your friends know how environmental they are.
The comment on energy saving lights is a good point and CTA has implemented energy saving programs. I know for a fact that several CTA maintenance facilities have had a complete overhaul of all their lighting. The lighting is more energy efficient and provide better lighting for repair personnel.
Anon 11:08-
Oh believe me, my friends all know. If you'd like me to start in on yours, just give me the contact info. :)
More seriously, I agree with your basic point which is that simply existing is the greatest environmental contribution that the CTA makes (or could ever make).
But that and other environmental steps aren't mutually exclusive, and neither one somehow makes the other less significant. The fact that you're doing 85% of what you can to be environmentally responsible isn't much of a reason for not doing the other 15%. If the other 15% is incredibly expensive, THAT might be a reason, but to the extent that there are things in that 15% that have modest (or negative) costs, the CTA should do them.
And the perceptual benefits of the other 15% are disproportionately large. Both to the CTA and to environmentalism.
Mr. Harvey,
In addition to the signage you mention, my least favorite CTA sign are those that begin, "Due to insufficient state funding..."
It drives me nuts that the CTA is placing all the blame on "insufficient state funding" when everyone knows that much of the problem is how the CTA has been operating for many years.
I wish the CTA wouldn't use such rhetoric. I understand what they are doing (trying to get people to contacts state legislators so they can get a huge bail out, so they don't have to make any difficult changes...). But it's irritatingly blind to place doomsday blame only on "insufficient state funding".
Ms. Brown:
I have to say, it was pretty disappointing to read in the RedEye that the CTA increased bus service on routes servicing schools for the purpose of decreasing gang activity.
Nobel, but, can we leave that to the police and the schools? Do our fares need to be increased because we are funding a CTA After-school Daycare program?
Are there other social concerns that are inflating the CTA budget that should be included in the budgets of different government entities?
Let's start making cuts there.
Um, seems to me that if sending buses to schools (imagine that!) lowers gang activity and keeps people from, I don't know, DYING, then that's probably an excellent use of resources.
And if kids not getting beat up or shot at doesn't impress you much - and it sounds like you might be the sort who isn't impressed by such trifling human affairs - then consider the fact that it would cost a heck of a lot more to have extra police patroling the paths between schools and various farther-flung bus stops.
Also, shootings cost the public a lot, as do kids on drugs, etc.
Maybe we should add unneeded postal carriers around schools too.
You've totally misunderstood my point. Mine has nothing to do with whether or not I care about kids. It's a misallocation of resources.
Fare's and state funding for public transportation should be used for public transportation.
Public and private funding for crime prevention and schools should be used for that.
We are already paying the police and the schools. They have the money to create programs and task forces if the gang activity outside of schools at 3:00 p.m. is a problem.
I have a doomsday $3.00 cash fare that says at these problem schools there is security and police on the grounds when school lets out.
And I agree that kids getting hurt and gang activity are bad. Don't misunderstand: We don't pay the CTA to fight crime, and we don't pay the police to give us rides from school to our homes. They aren't good at that. The police are paid to be good at crime, and the CTA is paid to be good at public transportation.
So, anonymous, please don't act like I don't care about the kiddies. I'd rather pay the police and donate to a school for a gang prevention program---they're trained to deal with it.
I'm confused, Jeremy. In your most recent post you say "We don't pay the CTA to fight crime, and we don't pay the police to give us rides from school to our homes. The police are paid to be good at crime, and the CTA is paid to be good at public transportation." But in your earlier one you state "Nobel, but, can we leave that to the police and the schools?" Which one is it? Should we make sure that the police and the schools are the only government entities that attempt to fight gang activity and that the CTA is the only one that provides transportation? Or should we leave any increased transportation which is believed to prevent gang activity to the police or the schools? You have stated both and you can't have it both ways. If you use the logic of your second post, you would have to say that the CTA should not make sure that its service is friendly to tourism and that everything like that should be handled by the city tourism office. You would also pretty much have to believe that the CTA should not attempt to run any routes that have a purpose of making it easy for people to get to work (which is the the largest purpose of people riding the service) because that should be handled by some other government agency. But then those government agencies don't have a purpose of "public transportation" so if we use the logic of your other statement this can't be done. The reality is that the purpose of the CTA is to serve the public. It is used to promote business development, tourism, and many other things. There is no reason why it should not be used to prevent crime if a good case can be made that increasing bus service will do so.
(By the way, I am a not the same anonymous poster that replied to you earlier.)
This Doomsday wasn't very doomsy, but the next Doomsday will be the doomsiest doomsday ever. I mean it this time!
Jeremy, Jeremy. If you persist with such illogic, I shall cast a spell over your transit card and it will only work on PACE!
We're not asking the CTA to "fight crime" but rather to provide a transit service that has the positive side effect of reducing crime and other things that are bad for the public and cost us all money.
If you think about it, that's really the whole point of having a publicly subsidized CTA: providing transit services that have positive side effects that reduce things that are bad for the public and cost us all money. As a social problem worthy of public transit dollars, how is gang activity corrupting kids really all that different from pollution and traffic congestion? Is there something special about the CTA's mission that limits it to doing stuff that will reduce air pollution?
Now swipe your card three times as penance.
Dangit. Does anyone know an exorcist? I can't get my card to work. :)
Brunhilda:
I understand your point of view. And it would be great if the CTA was doing so well financially that it could take on social causes that have nothing to do with transportation.
Until then, I still think it's poor management to add service where it's unneeded. Unneeded because the schools and parents and police should be dealing with it.
On snowy days should we have the buses run 24 hours so that the snow never builds up? That would be helpful. Maybe when an Amber Alert is sounded, we can put every CTA employee on the street for 24 hours.
I understand that good can come from these types of projects, but we have to draw the line somewhere.
I'm just saying your definition of the job description of the CTA is so broad that you're going to end up with funding problems. I challenge you to consider that the whole point of the CTA is simply to provide transit services: helping us get from point A to point B.
And I hope you don't think ill of me for that. I want kids to be safe, too.
Anonymous 2:
I think I understand some of your argument. You're saying that if transportation alleviates gang activity, then who better to do that than the CTA.
This is a good point, but it assums that increased transportation is the answer. I'm saying that the schools could create programs that make the increased bus service unnecessary. (Off the top of my head: keep the kids in the school until the CTA bus comes. Yes, they may have to wait an additional 10 minutes, but they won't be trying to walk home if they aren't allowed to.) And the police could do things to make sure that increased transportation is not the answer either. Increase patrol/presence when school lets out.
I don't know. I'm not paid to come up with these answers. I'm just suggesting that there are probably answers other than increased transportation.
Your other point takes my argument too far. Suggesting that I don't think that the CTA should be getting people to work, for example. That IS precisely the CTA's purpose: getting people from A to B. That helps every aspect of city life: work, schools, tourism, etc. My understanding of the increase of service on school routes is that the service is unrelated to increased ridership. Meaning, if there was no threat of gangs activity, they would not have increased the service.
When you expand the scope of the CTA's purpose to include problems that transport does not solve, cannot solve, and can be solved by other entities both public and private, then you start artificially inflating the cost of the system.
I hope I've made my thoughts clearer.
Let me add that I don't know anything about the CTA's budget. I don't want to act like I do.
This program to increase services at schools may not even increase the overal costs of operation in any significant way.
I'm just angry that the CTA finds itself in this financial position with 1.6 million fares every day. And all I hear about is how it's the General Assembly's fault for not throwing more tax money to Chicago.
I sorta trust Mr. Huberman to clean house, even when trusting any public official in this town is the very definition of bonkers. I just hope that they are going over routes/projects like this with a fine toothed comb and cutting the budget where they can.
This may be one of the social goods that totally outweighs the increased costs, but it may not even reduce the crime. We're just assuming. And it makes the alarm bells go off---what else are they doing over at the CTA? Where have they increased service where it is unneeded?
That's the feeling that is underneath my comments here: Anger, distrust and decreasing real income.
(Please don't let them pass a City od Chicago income tax. Please, God. Please, Brunhilda.)
This Doomsday wasn't very doomsy, but the next Doomsday will be the doomsiest doomsday ever. I mean it this time!
11/06/2007 6:17 PM
I call this the drowning man theory - if someone is screaming help me, I'm drowning, and you rescue him, then clearly he wasn't drowning, and you'd be forgiven for throwing him back in and leaving him to his fate.
What an idiotic thing, these people who say the CTA is losing credibility because doomsday never comes. It hasn't come because the legislature and governor have reacted to their cries of doom. Not adequately, but they've reacted. Whoever posted that is an idiot.
Carole still no word about the stations in Edgewater, now Thorndale is losing it's roof and I hope they aren't left this way all winter or left with a pathetic short roof forcing everyone to crowd together....
PS I love how Huberman is god and Krusi was the Devil. lol
"What an idiotic thing, these people who say the CTA is losing credibility because doomsday never comes. It hasn't come because the legislature and governor have reacted to their cries of doom. Not adequately, but they've reacted. Whoever posted that is an idiot."
The idiocy lies in using apocalyptic terms such as Doomsday. This term only serves to desensitize the public to the harsh realities of funding crises when there are several Doomsdays per year.
Now there is a little breathing room can our not-so-brave mayor work his connections to help broker a funding deal? I realize it isn't as politically rewarding as a photo op on a rental bike in Paris but his input would be helpful. He is the mayor, after all, for better or (mostly) worse. Come on Carole, stand up to him and get him to speak more than just a couple of days before each "Doomsday".
Here's an idea to save money --- fire Ron Huberman and reduce the pay to all board members to a $100 a month stipend. Sell the building on Lake Street Spred the offices amongest the CTA yards and lease space in the Merchandise Mart like it has been done in the past.
To replace Ron Huberman -- the President of the Board and the board appoint someone just like any company does. Has to have a background in transit though, not a political appointee of the Daley machine.
Pressure our legislators to get their act together and remove the mayor from any overseeing of transit agencies.
Everyone knows why Chicago is called the Windy City (the meterologists are wrong) its because of the hot air coming out of City Hall/coming from the Governor's House on the North side. (Move to Springfield Rod we have enough hot air up here already.) Pressure the fat cats in City Hall to pass a City Budget that has some money in it for mass transit. (pay cuts for all elected officials)
Ron doesn't need to go anywhere. He has done more for the CTA in the last few months than Kruesi did during his entire time there and Ron is hot to look at!
I just saw the list of proposed eliminated bus routes in January:
http://www.transitchicago.com/news/motion/board/20071107RoutesOperatingJan20.pdf
I don't know how I am going to get to work now. I might as well move to another city. WHY CAN'T DALEY WAKE UP AND DO SOMETHING? I HOPE THE OLYMPICS SKIP CHICAGO EVEN IF THE CTA GETS MONEY.
The link got cut off.
Go to CTA Tattler:
http://kjo84.typepad.com/cta_tattler/
You folks demanding Huberman's head might want to read this first:
http://transitchicago.com/news/ctaandpress.wu?action=displayarticledetail&articleid=123446
First he attacks the slow zones, then he fixes the leaky roofs.
Now he makes sure the buses that are scheduled to run actually run!
Next, I think the sweet-smelling guy sitting next to me is going to shake my hand and say, "did you know I was a urine-soaked bum sleeping on the train till I met Ron Huberman?"
I mean seriously, I think they've found a big part of the answer. It definitely makes Kruesi look either corrupt or like he wasn't qualified to manage an agency that size. (Or that his marching orders from Daley were different.)
DOOM!! DOOM!! DOOM!! DOOM!! everybody be afraid.
Hey Carole, WHY NOT RAISE PRICES NOW! why wait you are going to do it anyway. just freaking do it already.
Um, Anon 10:04: The hope is that there will be no need to raise fares or cut service. Both of those things would result in fewer people using public transit and more people driving - creating more traffic and polluting the air. The whole point of subsidizing public transit is to avoid both of those things.
All these comments about reducing people to $100/month stipends and firing this person or that person are kind of bone-headed and tiresome. Yeah, Chicago and Illinois have a history of corruption and waste, and EVERY large organization (public or private) requires a bureacracy to function. But that doesn't mean the problem is uniform or perpetual. Huberman has eliminated millions and millions of dollars of administrative costs from the CTA's budget in just a few months.
What basis do you have for believing that that there are still problems on anything approaching the scale of what it would take to avoid fare increases or service cuts?
If you've ever worked for a large private company, then unless you're blind, stupid, or both you've no doubt noticed that the existence of company-wide procedures and rules leads to waste and inefficiency. That's just inherent to the operation of a large organization - it takes significant administrative resources to provide financial oversight for sprawling operations, to apply policies consistently, and ensuring that the thousands of people who work for the organization are not doing something that will run afoul of some law, regulation, or contract.
I've heard no reason to believe that the CTA has more "fat" in its budget than any other organization that operates 24 hours a day with thousands of employees whose operations are geographically very widely dispersed.
At some point, the problem really just is money. Public transit doesn't run on gumption and positive thinking.
Uh, anon 9:39, the original money allocation for repairing the station roof's was under Kruesi. Huberman hasn't done everything you know.
Anon 12:00 p.m., I would say that they are still going to raise fares. It is a money thing always has been always will be. Yes we can find people not doing there jobs, yes we can see waste. You talk about large private company, well they too would have raised rates even if DOOMSDAY did not happen. You need money how does when get money, and if you get what you want the lower the rate back down.
Hi everyone, I just got off of a Brown Line train in Downtown, and there was a rider that was in the car trying to inform everyone on board that "They're shutting the system down on January 20." He claimed to be from the Transit Union and apparently came from some meeting or something.
I find this to be hard to believe and seriously doubt it. As far as I know, there will be heavy fare increases and heavy service cuts - not a systemwide shutdown.
However, does anyone know anything differently? Was there some sort of secret transit union meeting or something?
Also to add, he stated that it's going to be all over the media. However everything that I've read just points to cuts and fare increases on Jan 20. I haven't seen anything about an entire systemwide shutdown of the CTA.
Anon 6:53: Huh?
From the trib.. "The neglect of the rail system has also led to derailments, including one in July 2006 in which a Blue Line subway train jumped tracks held barely in place by rusted screw spikes and fastening clips. Hundreds of passengers escaped from the smoky tunnel."
I do believe that the NTSB found that CTA was at fault for not doing their JOB. And now we have to deal with it. With not enough money to fix the problems or to fund operations.
Where in the world did Frank go. He wasted money, didn't do his job and we have to suffer. Bring him up on negligence charges, I think the state congress needs to bring him down there to explain why under his watch the money just disappeared and nothing was fixed. If you want the money then the legislators should be able to question all of the board and past presidents to the spending practices. And not closed to public, Open for all of us to know what happened.
Why are the stations getting rehabed and the rails go to crap. Are the rails no more important to our safety?
From the CTA website:
On Monday, November 12 customers may resume using the main entrance to the station located on Sedgwick. The temporary entrance currently located on Hudson will no longer be in use.
Carole,
Great that the new entrance is opening. I just want to ask, why not leave the temporary entrance open too? It saves some customers a block of walking. Couldn't you install those floor-to-ceiling fare-gates, like at other stations with alternate entrances? Seems like saving a block is a fairly big deal. Doesn't it likely save 4-5 minutes/day for some commuters?
CTA Rider, I've heard that it's in the union contract that if they strike the employee's all lose their jobs, so this is very mysterious (or just hysterics).
I wonder if there is anything that says if the pension funding, etc fails due to legislative funding failures the workers will strike or something like that.. Or do a work slow down.
BTW keeping two entrances open at Sedgewick would mean paying two people to work there (unless they did an iron maiden card entry like they sometimes do in NYC). I thought that they were keeping an exit there, however.
Anon 12:54:
I think what you're referring to as the "iron maiden" entry is what Anon 12:38 was proposing. And we have them here in Chicago, too - just not that many of them. I went through one recently up in one of the more northerly Red Line stations, for example, and I think they may have installed a couple as part of the brown line rehab at either Rockwell or Francisco, too.
So question is: why not at Sedgewick also? These entrances aren't great, but they are better than nothing.
ANON 11/09:
Throughout the design phase of the Brown Line, the community was very vocal about not having an entrance or exit on the Hudson side of Sedgwick station. Thus the design was to have those stairs be emergency exit only.
Now that the new station house at Sedgwick is open, we have closed the stairs on Hudson so the Contractor can complete some contract work there such as stair roofing, some roof drainage plumbing work, and removal of the temp station house. Currently we are looking at alternatives to the situation at the Hudson end of the station.
Carole,
I live on Fullerton Pkwy, near Lincoln Park and east of Clark Street. I am wondering why the 74 Fullerton bus line ends at Fullerton/Halsted/Lincoln instead of continuing to the Park as most of the major streets with busses do (i.e. Belmont, Diversey and Armitage). I would love to untilize the 'L' red and brown lines, but the walk down Fullerton is quite a distance esp. on those cold winter mornings.
Anon 3/16:
A number of factors influence CTA's decision to operate service. They include: ridership (is there enough ridership demand to warrant the service), street capacity for traffic (is the street wide enough to accommodate cars, trucks, cyclists and buses), input of local community residents, businesses and elected officials, safety of operation (can the bus properly curb at a bus stop to load customers; is there adequate room for turn lanes and bus stops); safety for customers (is there adequate room on the sidewalks for bus stops; what kind of traffic signals are in place); and available financial resources.
While CTA has previously studied this area for bus service taking the above factors into account, at this time there are no plans to extend the #74 east to the park.
It might interest you to know that The #74L Lincoln Park ‘L’ephant operated on Fullerton and was a shuttle to Lincoln Park Zoo. The 74L 'L'ephant Bus ran from August 1973 to Sep 1977, and then again from June 1980 to Sept 1981 on various routes, days, and hours, connecting the Fullerton L station with Lincoln Park.
Post a Comment
<< Home