CTA Tattler

It's so hard to comprehend. The 92 Foster, which is right outside my house, services ALL of Foster Ave. Without it, I don't even know what people will do. Combine that with no 144 or 146 or any of those that go from the Berwyn el line down Lake Shore, and I don't know how people will get downtown - oh, on the already packed train? This is such a disaster.

I think we can say that about at least half the routes--Higgins? no more access to a hospital. Austin? especially when there isn't a bus between Central & Harlem. Milwaukee!?! Lincoln??
I expect my commute time (all by bus) to double when I add a leg to the trip.

I doubt doomsday will happen, not in any large form.

But I also doubt any longterm solution will be found, not in the coming months.

What I suspect will happen are a series of short-term bailouts, with our useless gov still trying to act like a hero. Meanwhile, needed CTA pension reform is left on the shelf, and cap funds continue to get depleted.

What a mess.

What do I care anymore? In about 14 months I move to NYC, a direct result of this shameful mess with mass transit, along with the other boneheaded moves by Blago, Daley, et al. NYC and its MTA are not perfect, but at least I don't have to worry about reductions in service, or its mayors and media virtually ignoring mass transit for years and years. I've lived here a decade and I've simply given up.

The more I travel, both in the USA and abroad, the more I realize how overrated Chicago is when it comes to big cities. (Then again, at least it smells better than Manhattan or Paris.) I see more of the people I know coming to the same conclusion and planning ways to get out. The mass transit mess is not the only reason, but it is always in the top three.

woodstock: Chicago only smells better when you're downwind of Blommer Chocolate

We're in a vicious cycle of abuse. The only way CTA/RTA can get the operating funds needed to operate is to Announce pending cuts. Then, at the last minute, someone comes along to broker a deal that provides just enough money to get past the deadline. A new deadline is set, and the cycle begins anew.

There are only two ways to break the cycle: Either the folks that control the money have to truly believe that their political careers are at stake, or the CTA/RTA has to change how they play the game.

Ron... Are you listening?

My suggestion is forget about doomsday scenerios where partial service is offered. Create your budget, budgeting for the system we need (let's call today's service the baseline for this subjective concept.) Then plan on running the whole system until all the money runs out.

All service should continue until the day that all that's left in the bank is money to keep the mothballed equipment parked until the end of the budget year.

If partial funding is offered, start it all up again, and run it all until the moeny once again runs out. No partial restorations.

The idiots in Springfield aren't going to change how they're playing the game. The change has got to come from the CTA, or this cycle will continue indefinately.

The game needs to end.

My question is does Ron have the guts to play hardball?

One of the most serious errors that is being made is that the problem is being framed incorrectly. It is being portrayed as bailing out the CTA, which causes people in the suburbs to argue that the CTA is not their problem and they should not have to pay for the cost. Instead it needs to be repeatedly emphasized that this is about properly funding all the components of RTA. PACE is in even worse financial shape than the CTA and will have to make brutal reductions in bus service in the suburbs. And METRA is now holding hearings about the need to reduce service and/or sharply increasing fares. It need to be emphasized that this is a problem for the entire metropolitan area and the entire metropolitan Chicago area is in this together.

I'm so sick of this.. it is bad to be on hold with what they are finally going to do. its like get it over with already! then we can move forth. but this hanging in limbo is emotionally stressful.

next year when my lease is up i want to move out to the suburbs so i can take metra. I can live within walking distance to the train. I will have to take a bus from ogilvie center to michigan ave, but i am sure there will be buses. I dont care if Metra raises its fares somewhat, i dont think they are talking about reducing the number of trains... or has anyone heard of what they are planning to do?

or are we having to go thru this no matter what mode we take? CTA, metra or pace??

Pookie Marie, my understanding is that Metra will reduce the number of trains as well as raise fares as part of Doomsday: The Adventure Continues. So you'll feel a certain amount of pain regardless. But I'm sure Metra will never be allowed to go down in flames like the CTA and PACE--compare the demographics of the ridership to see why. Cynical, sure, but what other than a cynical view can you take when looking at the politics of Illinois and our metropolitan area?

Some thirty years ago we did what you're thinking of, renting a place for a year or two in a suburb. It was in a real neighborhood, in walking distance of the Metra station (as a bonus, this suburb, being older, had a real downtown), and it was one of the most pleasant commutes I ever had. (One of the most productive too--I did a lot of writing on those trains, though it didn't do for me what it did for Scott Turow.)

You could also move to a city neighborhood near a Metra stop, though. That's what I've done for the past 27 years.

Not so glad to see that the 80 Irving Park Bus stays in service at the same time the Brown line Irving Park stop is closed for one year. Or is it that the 80 Montrose and 152 Addison are suspended shortly after those two Brown line stops are reopened? Oh well, maybe all three bus routes(plus x80) can all cram onto an 80 bus and continue to the Red line at Sheridan and then wait for a half hour or more to squeeze onto an overcrowded Red line train. Maybe wait for a Purple to come while crossing fingers. And when does Track 2 close for reconstruction at Belmont and Fullerton? Doesn't that require fewer SB trains in morning rush?

I'm sure a scenario like the above plays the same throughoute CTA service area. "Political Blizzard" if it ever happens, although transit will surely be a top priority for all,if even one day of this takes effect.(We all know it takes longer to rehire the laid off workers)

Still hoping it doesn't come to it, I think woodstock it right, more short term bailouts until RTA(CTA,Pace,Metra) actually cuts service, or a realization of a massive employee/employer exodus is taking place.

Oops... 78 Montrose, you get the idea.

Pookie Marie, I don't know ALL of the facts, but all three systems are in trouble, or at least aren't in perfect financial situations and ALL would benefit from a long-term solution to this mess.

As CaptainVideo stated, "One of the most serious errors that is being made is that the problem is being framed incorrectly. It is being portrayed as bailing out the CTA, which causes people in the suburbs to argue that the CTA is not their problem and they should not have to pay for the cost. Instead it needs to be repeatedly emphasized that this is about properly funding all the components of RTA." (Basically just read that whole comment of his/hers[?])

Definitely not just a Chicago-problem, suburbs as well.

I think Rusty's idea is good enough to repeat. I hope it gets Ron Huberman's attention:

===============
My suggestion is forget about doomsday scenerios where partial service is offered. Create your budget, budgeting for the system we need (let's call today's service the baseline for this subjective concept.) Then plan on running the whole system until all the money runs out.

All service should continue until the day that all that's left in the bank is money to keep the mothballed equipment parked until the end of the budget year.

If partial funding is offered, start it all up again, and run it all until the moeny once again runs out. No partial restorations.

The idiots in Springfield aren't going to change how they're playing the game. The change has got to come from the CTA, or this cycle will continue indefinately.

The game needs to end.
=====================

Sometimes the google ads are almost spooky. They got the wrong CTA, but came out totally appropriate anyway: "Coronary CTA". Sounds right to me.

What's weird is I get the feeling from the state that they don't care about Chicago. Well, Illinois, without Chicago (and the tax revenues) how do fund the rest of the state?

Now, certainly there's waste in the city gov't and waste in the CTA, but the repeated hostage-taking is probably not the right way to reduce it.

Hello All. I have been researching this blog for a school project regarding the media and would greatly appreciate help from the readers of CTATattler. If you are available to answer a few questions please email me at newproject07@gmail.com. Thank you for your help!!

I think Metra is doing this more as a show of solidarity than as an actual crisis victim. They serve people who more likely vote than many others. The problem that is most difficult to solve is operational funding, and Metra is a more capital intensive and less operations intensive organization (how many trainmen and maintenance men do you need for an 8 car train vs. 8 buses?) I think that's why they're a late entry into the discussion--but they ARE interested in more capital funding.

In addition, Metra is not responsible for some of the system. Municipalities maintain the stations and since thet operate on freight rail tracks on many of their lines, they aren't 100% responsible for maintaining them -- although you'd have to look at the contracts to see exactly what they're paying. Amtrak owns Union Station, so how much is Metra responsible for there? I'm not sure about Ogilvie (northwestern) but my guess is even if they did own it, rents in all the office space would cover their expenses.

I was surprised to see the Milwaukee bus on the cut list, too -- especially seeing what is left. I assume U of C subsidizes all their routes, but there seem to be several things that just serve tourists, while regular commuters will be shafted (especially on the lakeshore express buses). Maybe the MSI is subsidizing their bus, too? It was on the cut list last time.

For Metra's plans about fare increases and service cutbacks see:

http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2007/10/27/news/illiana/docf73859cf94922c4386257380007cc7fe.txt

It's sad, but the Chicago region is just content to be a backwater. You go to the coasts, and you have cities that have good and expanding transit systems. At a time when cities around the country are renewing themselves, Chicago's population is still basically flat. There are podunk towns all up and down the coasts that have had residential recycling for decades, but Chicago still throws most of its garbage into landfills. Places on the coasts have been smoke free for years, and we're only finally doing that next year. In New York, they're debating congestion pricing, and here we're debating casinos! Here, it's all our politicians can do just to avoid getting indicted; good public policy is an afterthought (if it's a thought at all).

And what's most aggravating: by and large, people put up with it all! Our political leaders are largely incompetent - but people just keep electing them! Few people try very hard and even fewer expect them to!

It's enough to make you want to tear your hair out. Why is this place content to be second rate?

"But I'm sure Metra will never be allowed to go down in flames like the CTA and PACE--compare the demographics of the ridership to see why. Cynical, sure"

Huh? I don't think there is very much difference in the demographics between the CTA and Metra. My guess is you seem to think (although it would have been nice if you had been clear) that CTA riders are generally lower income and Metra's are wealthy. The reason why I am guessing that you think that is because it, to a large extent, was more of the case around 40 years ago when higher income people fled the city and moved to the suburbs. Many people, including academics, tended to believe this trend would continue and that the city's population would be almost completely lower income. But, in case you haven't noticed, that is not the case. There probably are more upper income people who ride the CTA than lower income, with the majority being middle class. In fact, the huge amount of expensive condos in the city probably means there is a larger percentage of wealthy CTA riders than wealthy metra riders. That, in fact, has been my observation from observing the passengers on both services. But it seems conventional wisdom of several decades ago sometimes has a greater effect on some people's beliefs than their observations or actual data. Or are you referring to some other form of demographics?

Yes, U of C subsidizes the 17x/192 buses... so pretend you don't even see those.

David,

Being a sympathetic-to-Chicago downstater I would have to say that yes, some of the rest of the state doesn't care about Chicago, however, if I am recalling correctly, it is not only downstate government officials who are voting against the CTA funding.

Also, I think the statement of "Well, Illinois, without Chicago (and the tax revenues) how do [you] fund the rest of the state?" is just pure ignorance. Yes, Chicago provides much tax revenues, etc., for the entire state, but Chicago also takes back much of the money put in by both Chicago and downstate for its programs/etc. I would assume that, like many states without really large cities like Chicago, Illinois could survive on it's own without Chicago.

Do realize, however, that as I said earlier, I am sympathetic to Chicago. This isn't an issue about downstate vs. Chicago, it's about stupid politicians who don't do their jobs from both areas of the state.

MK, can you post a source for your take on the demographics?

Seems to me that your view of the city as being condos filled with wealthy riders is a bit myopic. And while the suburbs aren't all filled with rich people, the lower income suburban dwellers probably aren't as willing to just hop on a train, and whip-out Metra-level fares as lower income city dwellers are to hop on a CTA bus with their more affordable fares.

Metra's ridership, while perhaps not as skewed towards upper income folk as it was twenty years ago, is still heavily skewed towards employed people headed to jobs that pay enough to afford a daily train ride. The CTA has a more eclectic ridership with many people riding who are not employed, and/or not going to a job that will pay for their ride.

When push comes to shove, there is still a huge difference between the demographics of each agency. But if you've got some of this "actual data" that shows otherwise, I'm sure the rest of us would love to see it since it would be so much different than all previous data. That kind of data is pretty newsworthy, too.

Quondam El Rat is right to an extent. While I believe that the income demographics of the average CTA and average Metra rider are about the same, allowing Metra to fall apart would, for the state government, have more adverse consequences than the CTA's Doomsday '08. The state government is run by Democrats. Even if the CTA is reduced to one bus route and the Red Line, many Chicago voters will continue to elect Democrats. The collar counties, on the other hand, are more politically diverse, often spliting their votes 50-50 between the Dems and Repubs. If Metra implements their version of doomsday, the suburbanites would be more likely to make their anger known at the ballot box. It's not income. It's politics.

MK needs to get off north branch of the red line south of Irving and the blue line south of Western more often. The rest of the city is filled with middle/working class people who drive and wouldn't be caught DEAD taking the el or a bus after they get a drivers license.

I always understood that the U of C bus routes were a contract that the CTA bid on; they should actually be MAKING money off of this deal.

sick of mediocrity,
cheer up, it's really not that bad. those other cities generally have more problems than we do, you just don't experience it because you don't live there. Chicago is generally held up as a model for what the city has acheived in terms of urban redevelopment. That's not to say there aren't a great deal of things that are done wrong, but you're giving the fabled "coastal cities" waaaaaaay too much credit. And we passed the smoking ban in 2005, riding the same wave when every other city did it (yay for liberty-stomping groupthink), so that's just an erroneous unsubstantiated statement of yours.

Point taken on the changing demographics of the city, MK, but I think on the whole the city is still less affluent than the suburbs. You may recall part of the controversy in the City Council on the affordable-housing ordinance was that the mayor wanted to use median household income for the Chicago metropolitan are for a baseline, not the lower figure for the city proper. Unfortunately I don't have those figures at hand--the only statistical comparison I can come up with right now, from the 2006 Statistical Abstract of the United States, is a 2003 per-capita income of $21,773 for Chicago (with 19.3% of individuals and 16.6% of families under poverty level) versus $35,464 for the Chicago-Naperville-Joliet metropolitan area (no poverty-level percentages in that table).

I certainly see those huge condos going up, too, and take it as a clear indication that wealthy people are living in the city in significant numbers. But casual observation (I'm not implying by that that your observation is just casual, but mine is, where the condos are concerned) can be tricky. It's possible that the sheer size of their megacondos and McMansions (not to mention their SUVs), and their concentration in neighborhoods that--I'm guessing--a lot of us travel in gives them a visibility somewhat out of proportion to their numbers. Similarly I expect our observations of who rides the CTA might vary considerably depending on where we ride.

Add those thoughts to the lingering rivalry-shading-to-antipathy between Chicago and downstate and Chicago and the suburbs, and I still won't be surprised if suburban Metra riders keep at least a reasonably functional, if reduced, more expensive, and more crowded, service, while Chicago CTA riders are cheerfully thrown under ... well, I was going to say the bus, but there won't be a bus. Under a passing Escalade, I guess.

"MK, can you post a source for your take on the demographics?

First, I find it hillarious that you state that expect me to cite a source and then immedietely write three paragraphs filled with mostly incorrect assumptions that DO NOT INCUDE ANY SOURCES. I was responding to Quontum El Rat's comment about demographics in which he did not cite a source (or even bother to explain clearly what he was talking about) and I just used basic observations to support what I was saying (you don't even do that in your three paragraphs). If I have time, maybe I'll do some research to find some statistics, but it really is not neccessary.

"Seems to me that your view of the city as being condos filled with wealthy riders is a bit myopic."

I find it truly bizarre that you apparently don't think that there are many condos in the city. Have you ever been down Lake Shore Drive or in the West Loop or the South Loop. Have you even gone just east or west of downtown? Heck, have you been in downtown or even the city at all since the 1950's or 60's? I find it amazing that somehow you haven't noticed any (or many) condos.

"And while the suburbs aren't all filled with rich people, the lower income suburban dwellers probably aren't as willing to just hop on a train, and whip-out Metra-level fares as lower income city dwellers are to hop on a CTA bus with their more affordable fares."

Huh? This statement makes absoluletely no sense. Taking public transportation, with both Metra and the CTA, is less expensive than driving. And I tend to think of Metra fares as more of a bargain than the CTA for the amount of distance travelled. It is certainly true that people are less likely to use Metra to travel for short distances (especially from suburb to suburb) than to use the CTA to get between outlying areas of the city. But that has nothing to do with price, it is a result of the way everything is set up.

"Metra's ridership, while perhaps not as skewed towards upper income folk as it was twenty years ago, is still heavily skewed towards employed people headed to jobs that pay enough to afford a daily train ride. The CTA has a more eclectic ridership with many people riding who are not employed, and/or not going to a job that will pay for their ride"

I am beginning to believe that you have rarely or never set foot on the CTA or in the city. The busses are not filled with unemployed people. I would guess that 98% of people who ride it have a job (or at least are a full time student). You seem to have some pre-conceived notions about public transportation, which is odd since I never really detected that from your posts before. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "is still heavily skewed towards employed people headed to jobs that pay enough to afford a daily train ride.". Are you suggesting that people are going to jobs that do not pay enough to afford the $3.50 daily round-trip fares (and it actually would cost less than that with a monthly pass)? That would sort of be difficult when the minimum wage (although even the lowest paid jobs in the city pay at least a doller or two higher) pays more than twice that amount an hour. Unless people are going to third world jobs that have been secretely placed in the city, they can afford the price of the fare. Or perhaps, by that statement, you are saying that a large proportion of CTA riders are going to places other than work. That definetely is true and it is no doubt higher than Metra. But I'm not sure why that is relevanant to what we are talking about.

"When push comes to shove, there is still a huge difference between the demographics of each agency. But if you've got some of this "actual data" that shows otherwise, I'm sure the rest of us would love to see it since it would be so much different than all previous data. That kind of data is pretty newsworthy, too."

Again, I love the fact that you are demanding data to support my observations right as you are making blanket statements while providing no data to back them up. And no, it really would not be newsworthy to state that the demographics of public transportation had gradually changed between the 1960's and the 1980's. Even though it still continues in that direction, it would be a little late to be a news item.

Quontum El Rat:

I think that is probably correct that there is a larger percentage of poor people in Chicago than the suburbs (although those numbers are probably skewed a bit because there are many college students in Chicago who have people supporting them, with this not included in the income level). But they still are outnumbered by higher income people and I think, if anything, are less likely to take the CTA. My observations of the red line, for example, is that no matter what the hour of the day there are always at least six or seven times more people who on it north of downtown than south of Roosevelt (and I'm at the Roosevelt station a fair amount to notice this). It is true that there might be a lower population density on the south side that would explain this, but that would sort of support my argument that there is far more middle or upper income people than lower income in the city. There are also generally more people on the busses going north than south. I just think it is a misperception from a lot of people that the ridership on the CTA is largely poor.

I don't know MK. I noticed I am the only person who ever uses a Chicago Card when I ride the Lawrence bus which leads me to believe that most people who ride that bus, if not the CTA in general, are poor, as no Chicago Card = no bank account and/or computer access.

Something like 70% of CTA riders are choice riders. That means they don't have to take the CTA if they don't want to, which LIKELY means they have a car. That said, with the majority of rides being taken on the North and NW sides, I'm sure the income distribution of CTA riders skews quite a bit higher than that of the city as a whole.

MK, Rusty is right. The condos downtown, along LSD, and in the West and South Loop, are but a FRACTION of the city. A very small fraction. As of the 2000 Census, there were approximately 98,000 people living "downtown" (approximately North Ave. to Cermak). 98,000 out of 2.8 million or whatever. Even if you include all lakefront neighborhoods from Rogers Park to Hyde Park, it's still only around 33% of the city's population.

"I just think it is a misperception from a lot of people that the ridership on the CTA is largely poor."

The person who brings the counter-intuitive idea to the table is the one that should be bringing the data. The widely acceptable notion needs to be disproven, not the other way around.

Once an idea is accepted as mainstream, one doesn't have to repeated re-prove it. The burden lies with those who want to disprove the already codified belief.

So it's not my responsiblity to prove that the commonly held belief is true. It's your responsiblity to convince us that your new idea is true.

If you're not seeing the underclass, the homeless, the unemployed, or all the people not traveling to their jobs using the CTA, then you are only seeing a very limited part of the system. And if you think that most folks in the city live in condos, you clearly are not getting out much.

There's a very big, and very diverse city out there. While there may have been some gentification in some isolated, but high-profile neighborhoods, and while there are pockets of poor people in the suburbs, the whole idea that there's not much of a difference between the demographics of the city and the demographics of the suburbs anymore is laughable.

The way people use public transportation in the city, and the way they use it in the suburbs is still more different than the same, gentification of some city neighborhoods, and ghetofication of some suburban neighborhoods not withstanding.

But if you want to bring some wild, hard to believe idea to the table, then it's up to you to bring your numbers. Don't expect everyone else to have to constantly reprove what's already been widely accepted as true to still have to reprove it to you.

I'm just accepting the widely held belief. I haven't researched any numbers. I don't have them at hand. You're bringing us a new, wild idea. I assume you've broken from the pack with your new belief based on numbers. So share those numbers. If you don't already have those numbers, then why don't you agree with the widely accepted beliefs?

As the guy with the new idea, it's your job to bring the new numbers that support your new idea.

Oh, Good Grief! Rusty, what on earth makes you think that your belief that CTA riders and city residents are mostly poor is the widely accepted belief? I don't know very many people who believe this. In my experience, there are a fair amount of people who do not live or work in the city who have this impression. But I think the overwhelming majority of people who have experience with the CTA know that it has a diverse ridership of all income levels. And I think the people who post on this blog generally ride the CTA so I do not feel that my observations would be contrary to the "widely acceptable notion" or the "already codified belief".

"If you're not seeing the underclass, the homeless, the unemployed, or all the people not traveling to their jobs using the CTA, then you are only seeing a very limited part of the system. And if you think that most folks in the city live in condos, you clearly are not getting out much."

Where exactly did I say that I never saw homeless or underclass people use the CTA? The answer is I never said that nor did I come close to implying it. I was responding to your comment and Quentem El Rat's which indicated that the MAJORITY of CTA rider's are lower income. That is extreamly far from the truth and that is what I was saying in my posts. I never said that there are not poor people who ride the system. I am baffled as to how you could think that this is what I was saying.

And I did not say that most people in the city live in condos. Again, it would be great if you could point out where I stated or implied this. The reality is, however, that there are a large amount of condos in the city (yes, a minority of all homes). And these condos are in densely populated areas that make them very automobile unfriendly. Which means the people who live in them are more likely to use transit than in sparsely populated areas. They likely use the CTA (or cabs) the overwhelming majority of time they go from place to place and rarely use their cars. Certainly they don't only use it to go to work and neither, I think, does the majority of CTA riders. I'm befuddled by your implication that I seem to have said that CTA riders generally only use it to go to work. I actually stated the exact opposite. You seem to have trouble interpreting my posts.

If you look at the city of Chicago, the lakefront and the areas near downtown (including the west and south loop which stretch for about two or three miles) are generally upper income. Lincoln Park, Wrigleyville, Lakeview, Wicker Park, Bucktown, North Center, and Lincoln Square are generally middle to upper income. Rogers Park, Edgewater, and Uptown are generally middle income with some upper and lower income residents as well. The northwest side tends to be middle class families. I'm not too familar with the southwest side but, from what I understand, it tends to be middle and upper class houses. The "underclass" is generally concentrated west of the United Center and south of something like 30th street. Those two areas together probably make up less than one-fifth of the city(and yes, I know there are spots of poor people in other areas). It certainly is nowhere close to the majority of city residents.

"The way people use public transportation in the city, and the way they use it in the suburbs is still more different than the same, gentification of some city neighborhoods, and ghetofication of some suburban neighborhoods not withstanding."

I never stated anything about differences in the way people use public transportation. No, actually I did state something about it and it supports what you just said. This is like the fifth thing in your post where you argue with something I never said. My points were about the income level of the people who use it not being vastly different. Not about the purposes for which they use public transportation. In fact, I believe public transportation is vastly different in the city and the suburbs. Many people in the city use it to get around for all purposes instead of driving (mostly by choice). The overwhelming majority of trips on Metra are used to get to work. There are a pretty large amount of people (albiet a small percentage)who ride Metra to Chicago for non-work purposes, especially on weekends. But there are very few riders who go between suburbs.

Since you insist, I will find some statistics to point out that neither the City of Chicago nor the CTA is overwhelmingly lower income. I thought just common-sense observations would be enough. But sometime before the end of the weekend I will let you know of some hard data. I have better things to do right now but I will spend a few minutes researching this before Monday. I have no idea why your observations and beliefs are so off.

"while Chicago CTA riders are cheerfully thrown under ... well"

The suburbanites who depend on PACE are going to be even worse off than the CTA riders. Pace is planning absolutely brutal cutbacks in suburban bus service.

Weekend service eliminated

63 Metra commuter rail feeder and shuttle routes discontinued

27 Pace mainline routes discontinued

Fare increase to $2 on all Pace routes remaining in service.

"I don't know MK. I noticed I am the only person who ever uses a Chicago Card when I ride the Lawrence bus which leads me to believe that most people who ride that bus, if not the CTA in general, are poor, as no Chicago Card = no bank account and/or computer access."

Snarla:

You don't need a bank account or computer access to get a Chicago Card. You are probably thinking of the Chicago Card Plus. But, in any case, the Lawrence Avenue bus is going to be more lower income than the population of all the areas it travels through because the higher income population tends to live closer to the seven rail stations which are right next to the eastern portain of the route (five on the brown line, one on the red line, and one Metra station.). Therefore, these people are more likely to use the train and then walk to their homes. Also, those who work at the various businesses will likely take the train. But I've ridden the Lawrence Avenue bus two or three times and it certainly is not all lower income people.

The transit card vs. Chicago card issue is something else entirely. I frequently see people who can clearly afford the $5 charge to get a Chicago Card, and who clearly must have bank accounts, delaying my entry into Clark/Lake by using a transit card. I don't get it. Get with the times! The cash payers on the buses are worse. I guess I can understand if you don't ever ride the trains, and thus, have very few places to reload a fare card...

I don't mind that at all. They are paying 25 cents extra that results in a lower price for those of us who care enough about our finances to get a Chicago Card. If it wasn't for them, our fares would no doubt rise higher than they would need to be when they eventually raise them. I do agree that the people paying cash on busses can be annoying, especially when they don't have their money ready. But I would rather be delayed a few seconds when someone uses a transit card at a rail station than have to pay a higher fare.

Hey I have a car. I ride the bus 8 miles to work downtown, but since there is no parking or it would cost $18 a day I ride the bus to work!

"They are paying 25 cents extra that results in a lower price for those of us who care enough about our finances to get a Chicago Card."

It costs money to collect, count, and deposit the cash. Cash is also easier to steal than electronic pre-payments are. In the end, they're contributing less than non-cash fare payers.

I use a 30 day card, and not the version of the CC/CC+ either. I don't care to bank online, don't care to have the CTA automatically recharge it, or whatever happens--in this I am a Luddite. I can now afford the $5 fee (might have had problems a few years back) So sorry I delay your progress--but what about those with defective CCs that block *my* progress by having to hit the reader 5 times?

Sorry. Certain assumptions just get on my nerves...

"It costs money to collect, count, and deposit the cash. Cash is also easier to steal than electronic pre-payments are. In the end, they're contributing less than non-cash fare payers."

That's a good point, Rusty. And you may be right. I do find it interesting, however, that you responded to that comment instead of everything I said about your unbelievabely incorrect views about the people who live in the city and who ride the CTA. I'll ask you this question directly. Have you ever taken the CTA in the past few decades? Have you been to the city of Chicago on a regular basis (I am pretty convinced based on your naivety that you don't live in the city but please do correct me if I'm wrong)? It seems to me that your unbelievable belief that Chicago and its transit system are almost entirely poor indicates the answer to both of those questions is no. How on earth could you possibily believe that the city is just a huge ghetto filled with people who are unemployed or with very low paying jobs? What in the world could make you think that the ridership on the CTA is almost entirely lower income? If you are not familar with Chicago or the CTA then I have to ask why you post on this blog so often and so extensively. There is nothing neccessarally wrong with doing that and you do seem to have some knowledge about transit issues, if not its ridership. And I must say that nothing from my observations from your previous posts indicated you were going to state anything as bizarre as you ultimetely did. It really surprised me that it turns out that you apparently know nothing about the demographics of the people who ride the service you have been extensively talking about for a long time. In fact, I seem to remember you discussing (correctly) how the CTA plays a huge part in reducing traffic congestion and that if the "doomsday" service cuts were to go into effect that the roads would be jammed with cars. How could that be if everyone who rides it is extreamly poor and barely able to pay the fare? If they have trouble paying the fare then they certainly wouldn't be able to afford cars (or cab rides), would they?

Dee:

Huh? Perhaps someone can translate your post because I don't have the slightest idea what you are trying to say.

I didn't respond to your earlier post because I'm still waiting for you to produce these numbers that will prove the demographics of the suburbs are the same as the demographics of the city.

You seem to circulate in some pretty limited territories if you think the city has become overwhelmed with condos, and all the poor people have moved to ghetofied suburbs, and that now CTA is filled with upper-class people, and Metra has a huge share of lower-class people.

I'm not going to further address that until you bring some numbers to the table. But I will say that your observations seem far more myopic than mine.

Your original assertation was:

"I don't think there is very much difference in the demographics between the CTA and Metra. My guess is you seem to think ... that CTA riders are generally lower income and Metra's are wealthy. The reason why I am guessing that you think that is because it, to a large extent, was more of the case around 40 years ago when higher income people fled the city and moved to the suburbs."

You went on to say:

"But, in case you haven't noticed, that is not the case. There probably are more upper income people who ride the CTA than lower income, with the majority being middle class. In fact, the huge amount of expensive condos in the city probably means there is a larger percentage of wealthy CTA riders than wealthy metra riders."

So I'm waiting for some numbers that show the CTA ridership consists of more upper income than lower income folks, and that there is a higher percentage of wealthy riders on CTA than on METRA.

Sure, if you take a very limited tour through city neighborhoods, and then head to some select suburban neighborhoods, you can see all kinds of new upper-income housing in the city, and lower-income housing in the suburbs. And some of the changes in these neighborhoods are what makes for good newspaper stories.

But the fact is that despite these isolated newsworthy changes, the overall differences between suburban and city demographics have not flip-flopped as you assert. They may have inched closer, but they are still substantially the same as they were 40 years ago. And that is why there is still a widely held belief that the city has more under-classed people, and the suburbs is where the upper-class moves to.

I'm still waiting for your numbers that say this is no longer the case, and our widely held beliefs about the city-suburban divide should flip-flop.

If you believe that the demographics of METRA's ridership matches that of CTA's ridership, then lets see those earth-shaking numbers. Until then, I doubt that anyone who gets around more of the city than those few gentified neighborhoods really believes you. There is still a very diverse city out there. The whole city hasn't been turned into some high-cost condo development.

"You seem to circulate in some pretty limited territories if you think the city has become overwhelmed with condos, and all the poor people have moved to ghetofied suburbs, and that now CTA is filled with upper-class people, and Metra has a huge share of lower-class people."

It probably is not worth responding to you when you completely mistate what I have said. I'm sure that you know very well that I did not say that "all the poor people have moved to ghetofied suburbs". I never even said that the population of lower income people in the city has significantelly decreased. What I said was that the city has many residents of all income levels, including higher income. This is something that is just quite obvious and probably anybody who has been to more than one or two areas of the city would know that. One thing that gets lost is that the areas of Chicago that are more higher income tend to be more dense, and there is nothing that encourages transit use more than density. Therefore, I think the average income level of the CTA ridership is probably a great deal higher than the average income level of all city residents (even though that is no doubt higher than what you believe it is). If you have ever observed the ridership of the lake shore dribe bus routes, the #151, or the brown line you would know that the riders are mostly upper middle income to upper income. Heck, the ridership on the Madison and Chicago avenue busses are now around half condo residents. Many other routes have numerous riders who are nowhere close to poor, such as the red line North. All these things is just common sense and would be obvious to anybody who observes them. I spent around twenty minutes trying to find some hard data on the internet that clearly shows this. I have heard CTA statements, as an earlier poster in this thread mentions, that at least 70% of the ridership use it by choice. They have other options available, such as a car, but choose to ride public transportation because of its convenience or cost effectiveness. But, unfortunetely, there is no other hard numbers on the internet readilly available(there certainly isn't anything to support your incorrect statements either) and it really shouldn't be neccessary for me to find something like that to just support the obvious. I find it bizarre that you stated that your view that the people who ride the CTA is overwhelmingly poor is the "widely held" and the "generally accepted" belief. You are hiding behind this ridiculas statement to argue that it is ok for you to not provide any evidence for your statements but not me (and my evidence is just the common sense observations of the ridership). If you are not going to support your statement that it is essentually only poor people who ride the CTA than at least provide some evidence as to why this is the widely held belief.

Again, my argument is that there is not a large difference between the income level of CTA and Metra riders. I was responding to Quantum El Rat's suggestion that elected officials may be more likely to bail out Metra than the CTA because, he believes, Metra's ridership tends to be wealthy and and the CTA's tends to be poor. I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever that the CTA has many upper income riders so I was pointing out that this view would be incorrect. I think it is clearly the case that both agencies have many riders from all income levels. It doesn't even matter if there is a significant difference in the average income level and if Metra's is higher. That still would not change the fact that there are many upper middle class and wealthy CTA riders. That is the only thing that is neccessary to support my original point in response to Quontum El Rat. My statement that a higher percentage of CTA riders are wealthy than Metra riders (which I still believe to be true) was just a secondary point and was not neccessary to prove my case. And it is unfortunate that you apparently think that only ghettos house poor people. In the suburbs, poor people are more spread out. But that does not make them not poor. There probably are a larger percentage of lower income people who ride the CTA than who ride Metra but I think there is a higher percentage of wealthy people who ride the CTA when compared with Metra as well(both of which has more to do with transit ridership differences than population).

I noticed you never answered my question as to whether you have been to Chicago or riden the CTA in the past few decades. Your ignorance about this is really obvious.

Oh, and I should remind you that in addition to it being secondary and not neccessary to prove my point, I also used the word "probably" when I said "the huge amount of expensive condos in the city probably means there is a larger percentage of wealthy CTA riders than wealthy metra riders". Therefore, if you somehow were to come up with some data that shows otherwise it would be irrevelant and well beside the point.

Regarding the Chicago Card vs. Transit Card thing.

I can afford a Chicago Card, in fact I had a Chicago Card Plus until the thing gave out on me. It's my understanding that for my personal needs a 30 day pass is going to cost me the same as the CC+... except that I have to walk a block away to Dominick's to get a new one, rather than have to haul myself to the CTA offices every time the CC dies. Yeah, no thanks. And I know about the "oh what if you lose your pass" thing. Well, it happens sometimes. What are you going to do.

I'll switch back when they figure out a better way to present the CC; perhaps a keychain thing or something as others have discussed here before.

Anyway, to sum up, it's really silly to assume that just because someone is using the passes that means they're lower income and in your way.

Being on CC+ card #8, I see Sarah's point. It's great as long as it works. Once it stops working it's a PITA.

Since I get mine through work and plastic is my only option to get the tax savings, I just come into work late about once every three months because I've had to go get a new card.

Sorry, MK; I was responding to posts by Snarla & Josh, about relative wealth & the use of the CC. (A Luddite is someone who dislikes technology/progress. There are aspects to computer use I hate, so I call myself a half-Luddite)
Sarah said it a bit better, though for different reasons.

Yeah, I'm sure there are people who still use the old cards even though they are able to get the comnputerized ones. I'm often tempted to go back to the old ones myself because like someone said the new ones are a PITA on the bus. However, I still maintain that MOST people who have the means to get a CC Plus or whatever, do so. I also continue to maintain that most of the people on my bus route are getting screwed by the CTA for being poor.