CTA Tattler

I was wondering why there, but you and the press release indicate two good reasons affecting that neighborhood:
* Pink Line
* 38 Ogden Taylor bus cut back to California.

At this point, the hearing seems perfunctory, because either the experiment worked or it didn't. They aren't going to bring back the O'Hare-54th.

I saw people exiting from the Red Line subway between Madison and Washington this morning. Is the Washington Street station open again, or have these exits been open for a long time, even though the station has remained closed? Anybody know?

Along the lines of Tony's question (which I don't specifically know the answer to, other than being quite sure the station is not open again), it's appeared over the past couple weeks that there's work going on at the closed Washington station. Of course, it's hard to tell when you're zipping by on the train, but a couple of times now it has looked like there was activity.

Is there still ongoing work just to finish "mothballing" the station?

Perhaps they're building a tribute to KevinB to honor his on-going concern for the state of the Washington stop.

Maybe they took my advice and are putting the Children's Museum there.

So, the RTA has decided to waste money by having 12 public hearings and then doing whatever they were going to do before anyway.

Good point, Painhertz. I went to one of the RTA meetings last summer and it seemed like some sort of performance art. The lunatic fringe was out in full force and it seemed the RTA facilitators encouraged them to take as much time as possible. You wouldn't want anyone with a non-ranting point to get the floor for too long.

The lunatic fringe was in full force at the last CTA budget meeting, no wonder they decided to only have one meeting!

Martha,

I find your post increadibly ironic considering that you are the one who is advocating for what you call a "true citizan's advisatory board" that would be composed of the type of people you are complaining about. And yet you are critisizing the CTA here for letting all of them "advise" the CTA. I think it would be wise to pick a consistant position. Either you think it is worthwhile to have the lunatic fringe people advising the CTA or you realize that it serves no good. As you saw at the meeting you went to, the lunatics amongst us are the people who are most likely to want to give their views to the CTA. They would be the people who would serve on the body you have been fervently pushing for. And, of course, you can't really say "well, but the CTA could reject these types of people and instead make sure those who serve are more constructive". Because your entire complaint with the current board of that name is that the CTA chooses who is on it.

And now, I attempt to scream into a category five hurricane. The individuals to whom I referred in yesterday’s post about the August RTA public hearing did not address issues remotely connected to transit or transit funding in NE Illinois. They were allowed to rave on about Bush, Daley, the Chicago Police Dept. and other topics that, while they make interesting bar conversation, had no place taking up public comment time at a transit authority budget hearing. If you took the time to carefully read my initial post where I asked about the idea of a more democratic advisory board, MK, you will notice that I reference WMATA’s citizen board, which has a formal application process. Through this process, individuals who can form a consistent and coherent argument regarding transit could be identified. Further, after my question about the advisory board was answered last week by Ron/not Ron, I mentioned that the main reason I had posed the question in the first place was that I wanted to see how the monarchy would respond to an attempt by the peasants to storm the Bastille. I know it’s never gonna happen, MK; I just wanted to hear what they’d say. Finally, if you read my very last post on the subject from last Tuesday, you will notice I have completely abandoned the advisory board idea because I’ve decided that fortune cookies are the best way to facilitate communication. In that spirit, MK, here is my fortune cookie for you: “The wise one makes sure the word exists before he forms an argument around it.” I’ve checked Webster’s and the OED and nowhere can I find the word “advisatory.”

But if there was a "formal application process" then it wouldn't meet your original criteria for the board, that it be "truly representative" and not composed of people picked by the CTA. The CTA already has a Citisans Advisotory Board and your entire critisism of it is that they choose the people who serve. But I see that in your plan that would not change after all. So I don't quite get what you think your suggestion would accomplish. Either the CTA would not restrict the type of people serving and we would just see the phenomenia that is displayed over and over again, those who most want to complain to those in charge of something tend to fall on the lunatic fringe and do not have the interest or ability to develop comprehensive and constructive thoughts. Or the CTA would limit the people to those who it chooses and then all the flowery ideals that you have articulated about openness and listening to everybody will go out the window.

Really? Seriously? Ugh.

MK,

You are just being willfully obtuse. Even as a casual reader, its clear to me that what Martha is proposing is quite different both from the current advisory board and the lunatic fringe who go to these public forum.

To wit: the current advisory board is primarily muckety-mucks and other socially and politically connected types who are chosen primarily based on connections rather than passion for transit policy (although the two are currently not exclusive).

Those who go to public meetings and rant, based on Martha's description, just want to rant and lack eloquence, coherence, and an ability to discuss trade-offs of policy.

Martha (as I understand it) is proposing a group of everyday riders who self-select, and through an application process can show commitment, eloquence, coherence, and an ability to discuss and balance all the competing needs of public transit, thereby giving decision makers an actionable view "from the trenches," which they clearly do not have.

Distaste at disorganized public meetings does not invalidate the desire to have a more democratic citizen advisory board.