CTA Tattler

I'm not sure of the source of this fantasy that if Chicago gets the Olympics, the feds would provide transit funds that they otherwise would not. Cities like Athens had to pay for their own. Also, as indicated in such things as the consultant's report on the Airport Express, any such improvement would come on line only around 2015. How does that fix the current slow zones on the Red and Blue Lines?

Maybe this will shame the goobers down in Springfield into rethinking funding.

BTW.... over the past few days... especially yesterday.... has anyone been in a hotbox car. Yesterday, 5pm, packed in like sardines, our train car had the heat blasting like it was below zero. Wanna cut down on energy costs..... how about listening to Tom Skilling in the morning, CTA!!!!

If i'm not mistaken, the heating/cooling system on the trains is automatic... however like everything else on the CTA it is often broken...

I don't know if a NYT article carries any weight whatsoever in Springfield, but I'm tired of hearing the "we won't pay for Chicago's problems" line of reasoning. If the CTA stops, Chicago stops, and being that Chicago is the engine, transmission, and wheels that make Illinois's economy go, if Chicago stops, it would gravely affect the whole state whether they'd like to admit it or not.

Funny to see this entry about a NYT article on the CTA. I was in NYC last weekend with a friend and we were THRILLED with the public transit in Manhattan. We purchased Metro cards and used the subways and buses exclusively to get around. Our longest wait time for a subway or bus was about 8 minutes, and that was on a Sunday AM (non- peak travel time). At one point my friend turned to me and said, "If the CTA was this reliable, I'd definitely get rid of my car." We didn't use taxis at all, even to travel to and from the airport. Fly from Chicago to Newark and take the NJ Transit train (like Metra) from the Newark airport to Penn Station in Manhattan. No traffic delays, and it only costs $14!

I'll second LindaN, NYC definately has a more robust and reliable system from my experience. I'm moving out of Old Irving Park and closer to work just so I dont have to rely on CTA services anymore (or as much).
I've said this before and i'll say it again: The CTA doesn't need more money. It needs better management and less waste.

Ryan, you and the other whiners get the cta you deserve. Even mediocre managers can deliver a decent product with sufficient resources. Witness metra (who's public funding has outpaced inflation for the past 20 years), the department of aviation, or most major corporations. These organizations are not managed by a calibre of employee any better or worse than CTA -- but they do have enough funding to get things done.

If cta were so darn mis-managed and inefficient as you self-righteously claim, why did the state auditor say that its inefficiencies could be totaled in the low tens of millions (every organization has some inefficiency, and that seems pretty darn low out of a budget of a billion) whereas its needs are in the hundreds of millions? who knows more about the shape of cta's finances and management practices, you or the state auditor general?

As I said, all of you complainers get the CTA you deserve, because you complain about the wrong thing -- the effect not the cause. CTA's management is not the problem. Funding is. CTA's management is no worse than the management at any other organization of their size. Actually, the very fact that they can manage to put out any service at all given 20 years of diminishing resources would indicate that they've perhaps been managing too well. If everything would have gone to seed after just 5 years of insufficient funding rather than after 20, that would have been a better indication of incompetent management.

Everyone likes to praise New York, London, Paris, etc. But no one likes to metion (or bother to do the math) that the NYC region spends TWICE what our region does on public transit annually. London and Paris spend FIVE TIMES! Overall in this world you get what you pay for.

So keep on focusing all of your wrath on the wrong target. You'll keep getting more of the same, more of what you deserve.

Matt said:
>>>If the CTA stops, Chicago stops, and being that Chicago is the engine, transmission, and wheels that make Illinois's economy go,<<<

You are quite right. And it's not just Illinos's economy, if Chicago doesn't work, the impact will be felt in a circle of about 2000 miles.

Many Chicagoans are unemployed not because of NAFTA or India. They're unemployed because jobs went to Nashville and Indianapolis. If Chicago's can't provide the infrastructure needed for commerce, more jobs will follow.

People downstate simply don't understand how problems in Chicago will ultimately cost them dearly. All they can see is the big city bully shaking down the scrawny farmer for lunch money.

It's an ego trip. Lawmakers from rural areas won't provide money to Chicago until Chicago gets down on it's knees and begs. Meanwhile, suburban lawmakers are standing to the side, and instead of fighting for the city that directly supports them, they're waiting to take a cut of the loot just because they can.

It's a shame that Federal spending is being cut, leaving the states to decide for themselves. This kind of urban versus rural ego trip is the result. While there is some of that fighting at the Federal level, it's not so pronounced.

Or we can just hope that downstate opinions of Chicago's importance that have been reinforced for generations will change overnight.

Realistically, it's not the Olympics that will bring in the money. What will bring in the money is a reversal of the trend of reducing Federal programs, and expecting states to pick-up the slack. Things need to shift back to the Federal level where a big city has a chance.

"I'll second LindaN, NYC definately has a more robust and reliable system from my experience. I'm moving out of Old Irving Park and closer to work just so I dont have to rely on CTA services anymore (or as much).
I've said this before and i'll say it again: The CTA doesn't need more money. It needs better management and less waste."

So NYC and LA fund transit at a per capita rate TWICE as high as the Chicago region, and it's Chicago transit managers at fault for not putting out quality service (and I've read that London and Paris subsidize at about 4 times the per capita rate of Chicago)?

'Simple' is right, you're just getting what you deserve, Cheapo McWhiny. If anyone actually working in transit is responsible for the mess, it's the unions with ridiculously cushy pension benefits, but even that doesn't compare to the pathetic regional underfunding that state law provides for transit.

I hope this article is wake up call to people at all levels of government around here, city, county, and state.

I am in complete agreement with the Behind the Bid blog's view. Even IF magic money showed up to solve the problems, would you hand it over to the same people who made the situation bad in the first place?

Transportation needs to be a REGIONAL issue with REGIONAL control.

Another negative side effect of the CTA crisis is home values. It took massive spending on neighborhood infrastructure, additional police protection, and community organizing over the past two decades to realize the urban renaissance of today. But all of that progress is currently under jeopardy by the city’s transportation mess. If the current crisis goes unresolved, prospective home buyers will once again flock to the inexpensive track housing of the suburbs, and Chicago will risk sinking back into the dark ages of urban decay and stagnation.

Dana said "would you hand it over to the same people who made the situation bad in the first place?"

No, the REGION and the STATE are the ones who broke it.

How does the Internet attract people like Simple and Truth? The CTA management is an incompetent bunch of political appointees. How could Carole say in August that staff assured her that all north side Red Line slow zones would be fixed before the three track, when the Red Line in fact needs $500 million in work? And all she said afterward was that "staff apologized?" See http://ctachair.blogspot.com/2007/03/three-track-service-update.html . Why did it take a subway fire in August for staff to realize that the Blue Line needed $100 million in work over 3 years just to be serviceable, when they were pushing consultant's reports for the Airport Express? Why is CTA still pushing the Ogden Connector? With the Auditor General saying that there needs to be less competition between CTA and Pace, why did CTA announce a study down to 159th Street, competing with a Pace study in the same territory? See http://www.yourcta.com/news/ctaandpress.wu?action=displayarticledetail&articleid=123468 . If CTA labor negotiators were so competent, why did they wait several years after the contract terminated to start negotiations, and then belatedly dissented to an unfavorable arbitration award, that CTA was legally bound to accept? How did the pension fund, in just a few years, go from 80% funded to 20%? The Auditor General was correct in saying that there have to be massive management reforms throughout the RTA system or otherwise additional money will just go down the drain. Simple, do you pay taxes?

I recently moved into the area from north-central Wisconsin. After the awe of being able to hop a train to just about anywhere in the city worth going to wore off, I've started to become very discouraged by the way things are playing out with this whole CTA mess. It's a sad thing to ponder what this city could be doing with the current urban upswing and potential that's so clearly presenting itself. I ride the RL down to Grand every day, and it's simply miserable. However, being from an area that's built around the automobile, I still have an appreciation for the option of leaving my car at home.

My question to you all is this - is it too late for this whole situation to be turned around? Is it really so bad that these problems are going to begin manifesting themselves in lost jobs, declining growth rates, etc. in the very near future?

The Roz: If $500 million instantly appeared, and the projects started tomorrow, it probably would take at least 5 years to get the Red Line back into serviceable condition. This is based on CTA saying that it would take at least 3 years to fix the Blue Line with an instant infusion of $100 million. Of course, the two prerequisites don't exist. You also have the given that the cutbacks on the North Side Main between the subway portal and Addison will be in place, due to the Brown Line project, until and probably through 2009.
Whether the inability to fix the mess manifests itself in the economic problems described is now a matter of speculation. However, given the overwhelming election victory Daley received, and his disinterest in transit, even though he dictates who runs CTA, I wouldn't be looking for a quick improvement.

Simple: "If cta were so darn mis-managed and inefficient... why did the state auditor say that its inefficiencies could be totaled in the low tens of millions... whereas its needs are in the hundreds of millions?"

Thanks for clearing that up for me, chief. I was worried that the CTA was mismanaged, but when you explained that they need more to survive than they lose through incompetence, you put my mind to rest. By the way, I have a hot stock tip for you. The company loses money on cost overruns, but it only in the low tens of millions. Drop me a line: I'm sure it's something you would be interested in.

Can't speak for the Paris metro system, though I have used it. I'm from the New York area originally, and I know that system. Also, looked at a map of their system, and I noticed something interesting about it: It's bigger. That might be why they spend more money on it.

Actually, I would say that both sides of this argument are right: the CTA's top management and many of its employees are incompetent and unresponsive, and all levels of government--city, state, and federal--have been grossly derelict in oversight and funding. As for being cheap and getting what we deserve--I vote for, and contribute to the campaigns of, candidates who support public transit. Too many other voters do not, and unfortunately the result has been--as it so often is--all of us getting the kind of (mis)government that the most ignorant and shortsighted of us deserve.

It will never cease to amaze me how still, with all the information available on the situation, how many people still don't get that it all comes down to funding.

What are the problems?

The independent two-years-in-the-making, 250-page audit quite clearly shows that the problems CTA can solve internally are a drop in the bucket compared to what's actually needed.

The debate as to whether it's CTA's fault that things are the way they are is by all accounts over. The problems simply don't stem from waste, mismanagement, misappropriation, corruption, or any of the other complaints people assume without substantiation so often in these discussions.

This isn't to say that there aren't a couple of places CTA could make some minor improvements, as per the findings in the audit.

But that isn't to say that the hundreds of millions being asked for isn't absolutely valid and real, nor that the only way it could work is to fire a bunch of people and put a bunch of fresh, inexperienced faces in.

My position is not one of defending management or decisionmaking at CTA, but one of pushing the need for better funding.

It's clear that the cause of the problems that plague the system is funding--everything from the deteriorating infrastructure, the aging and subsequently unreliable rail and bus fleet, an inability to hire more staff to monitor the buses out in the field... The only alternative is futher service cuts and massive fare increases (the auditor said that even doubling the fare wouldn't be adequate, especially since costs would continue to increase more rapidly than the subsidies from sales taxes), which is an unacceptable solution.

Funding is the problem, funding is what needs to be fixed. Find all the scapegoats you like, but funding still is the core of everything and is not something any management could overcome. All the experts agree on this one.

Tony, your head is in the sand, as typified by our last exchange on expansion vs. fixing it, when you didn't even realize that the north side Red Line was falling apart. Go back to the scenario described by The Roz. Even if CTA had infinite capital funds, CTA staff didn't see any significant problems with either the Red or Blue Lines until August. Now we are told that even if the money arrived tomorrow, it would take 3 years for the Blue Line to be fixed. You previously said that you didn't believe that the Airport Plan would be implemented until the Blue Line was fixed. However, CTA, according to the consultant's report, is under a contractual obligation with Mills Corp. (now its successor) to have service in place in 2008. How do you reconcile that Tony?
No, it isn't just funding. It is also lack of prioritization, lack of a regional focus, and all the other things the Auditor General said. If we assume Simple's view that only 1% is wasted (and I don't, since the pension mess appears to be about $200 million a year), and CTA wants another $110 million a year (after getting rid of its paratransit duties) and $5.8 billion in capital for unprioritized needs, that's another million wasted in operating and $58 million wasted in capital. And what's to say that when more funding comes, the union doesn't again demand pension sweetners, and the arbitrator gives it to them, even though the current trustees let the fund go from 80% to 20%? Funding may be inadequate but oversight certainly is.

There is one other thing that should be considered on the funding issue. The Auditor General said that CTA's expenses have been going up 6% per year while revenues have gone up 2%. He also said that Metra is starting to have problems because its expenses have been going up 4% per year with its revenue again going up 2%. Unless the taxpayers have infinite deep pockets, this path is not sustainable. Cost controls have to be implemented.

What's the deal with everyone at CTA being scapegoats? First the 5 track inspectors, now we are finding all the scapegoats we like. Isn't there any accountability at the CTA?

I moved from the city to the far, far south end of the state. We have problems down here too (like company's climbing over each other to get out)Why do you expect us downstaters to subsidize Mr Dalys toy train set? Why don't you folks shut your mouths and open your wallets? I subsidize your ride home but what do I get?

I say raise fares until it pays for its self. If you don't like the way the system is run quit voting for the same clowns.

topgon, let's be clear, the Chicago area provides the vast majority of tax revenue for the state, so get off your soapbox and think about who is subsidizing who.

I read some of your comments on how Chicago's alleged first-class transit system dares compare to those of Paris, London, NYC, etc. Compared to those systems in other cities and your own possible experience, can Chicago's really be the worst? I'm leaning on "You bet your life!", but I'm looking for other people's answers. I live in an apt bldg *right behind* the el trax, so there's no doubt in my mind that CTA trains are the LOUDEST in the world.