CTA Tattler

Why now? Why wasn't Daley calling for these improvements and leading the charge for them, say five or ten years ago let alone five or ten weeks ago. Better late than never I guess, but not that much better.

If he wants to show REAL leadership then let him start using some money from his TIF slush funds to pay for the improvements. He could probably fund the entire amount from the property tax money he's skimming from the schools for the TIFs.

Kevin

What's his game?

After all, he hardly seemed to even notice mass transit until a few months ago.

Why certain people still think Daley is a good manager is beyond me.

Ditto on the other posters. Daley should be scolded on his lack of attention to the CTA until now, not praised for it. But yes, at least he is doing something now.

I did catch the full presentation by Ron Huberman on tv last night- very impressive. A promise to decrease slow zones system-wide to 6.9% by the end of 2008, new signage, exit lighting, structural improvemnents on the rail ties, with examples of each- the old and new way- very impressive.

Huberman looks like he shaping up to be a fantastic replacement for deadbeat Frank.

Maybe they should also spend some of that money retraining some of the bus drivers. This morning around 8:30am, an entire bus-load of commuters stood in line at Ogilvie waiting for the 122 while a bus stood at the curb with the doors closed and the driver reading. The driver later claimed that nobody wanted to get on, so she was just waiting. Only the appearance of a supervisor got things moving.

Daley's never shown that he cares about tranist -- and he doesn't care now. His recent explosion at the aldermen was very hypocritical.

Transit's a money pit. It doesn't pay for itself. It's a divisive issue because people downstate don't think they should pay for it even though we pay for their roads. There's the union. And the pension issue. Ugh, not fun! Dimwits like Daley who get driven everywhere don't see the inherent value of a healthy transit system. That's why the CTA has deteriorated under his leadership. Why bother with it? As Daley said in 1996, "transit has lost its constituency."

Any decision Daley makes is motivated by revenue generation. Improving transit is now a means to an end for the little big man and his legacy. It's pretty simple: it's now necessary to dress up the CTA a little in order to have a shot at securing the Olympics.

Here's the most telling part of the article:

"Although the mayor didn't mention Chicago's 2016 Summer Olympic bid, most of the improvements would be completed before October 2009 when the International Olympic Committee is set to name the host city for the 2016 games."

Seems like buying new L trains is conspicuously absent from the plan. I guess fixing track has to be the priority, but some of those cars are way past the expiration date. Was it just an oversight?

New train cars are already on order. Perhaps they want to wait for the first batch, plus the option to show up and be as reliable as they claim before they dump more money in additional cars...

This is just another bond issue borrowing against future expected federal formula funds. Continuously borrowing against the future is what got CTA (and so many other government agencies) into financial trouble in the first place.

Does anyone know if the slow zone slouth of Roosevelt (orange and green) will be eliminated? I have a client who really likes a condo along there, but of course does not want to buy if the zone will changed and trains will be "flying" through there.

That's the first time I've heard someone argue in favor of KEEPING slow zones, lol.

"That's the first time I've heard someone argue in favor of KEEPING slow zones, lol."

Yeah, that is pretty amuzing. I do hope that nobody like this is actually putting pressure on the CTA to keep or implement slow zones for this reason. Incidently, Megc, there is no slow zone in that area according to the CTA's slow zone map (http://transitchicago.com/news/motion/board/slzn20080206.pdf). So if trains are going slowly through there it is probably because there is a curve requiring the train to slow down as it turns. So your client probably does not have to worry.

Actually MK, there are slow zones in that area, part of which are 15mph. There is an inset of that area in the lower left hand corner of the map referred to as "Detail D." The orange underline under the length of each slow zone indicates it is for the Orange line, not the Red line subway which is also indicated in that detail. I have taken the Orange line through that area mid-day and I can attest they were working on the tracks more than once. Looks like that area will be back to at least 35mph before year end. If you can't handle or get used to living next to the L, then don't! And these days with all the slow zones, if you live near track that isn't curved or a major junction and trains are going slow, you can probably bet that most likely by year-end trains will be moving faster now that the CTA has announced huge project to elminate nearly all of them and to increase speed to 65mph in areas without stations of curves.

Did anyone see the Ch. 2 report on the lack of security on the El? Dan Hall, the VP of security for the CTA, supposedly the husband of City of CHicago Aviation Commissioner Nuria Fernandez, didn't seem to be too aware of the increasing crime stats from CPD. He was a CTA investigator when he was promoted to the VP job which doubled his salary. Nice to see reform has reached the CTA.

I'm not sure why it would be better to live next to a slow zone than normally operating section of track.

With a slow zone, trains take longer to go over track that isn't quite right, so there's bound to be some extraneous noise, and it lasts longer. Plus, eventually there's going to be work crews out there making noise, too. I'd prefer NOT to live next to a slow zone, based on noise issues.

Or maybe we should look at it visually. Perhaps a full-speed train goes by so fast it make someone dizzy. But then again, they aren't going by continuously. I'd be more bothered living next to a slow zone where bored passengers are better able to window peep. (And if the passengers can window peep, imagine what the work crew can do!) So again, I'd rather not live next to a slow zone.

Let's face it -- a fast train on the El is not the same as living next to a street that everyone speeds down. I'd rather live next to a slow street because I may cross the street occasionally. Also fast cars tend to jump the curb more often. (On the other hand, a derailment is more likely in a slow zone!)

So I'm not sure why megc's client wants it to stay a slow zone. Maybe he hasn't really thought it through. Or maybe he's just someone who shouldn't live in a city in the first place. After all, wanting to inconvinence thousands of people for some maginal self-benefit sounds like a personality type that better fits with the NIMBY's out in the burbs, not in a condo in the city.