The CTA Doomsday Plan

[mr_genius]

How do poor people cope in other cities that have zoned rates?

 

don't know how it works. Chicago is more segregated than most major cities (from what i've been told), with much of the very poor living the furthest form downtown. I'm just offering a possible reason why the city does not use a distance based fee.

[NorthSideSox72]

don't know how it works. Chicago is more segregated than most major cities (from what i've been told), with much of the very poor living the furthest form downtown. I'm just offering a possible reason why the city does not use a distance based fee.

I wouldn't say that's true at all. The farthest reaches of the city are in some cases quite wealthy. There is definitely a push-out from downtown lately though. Still, look at the really poor neighborhoods. The west side generally is very poor, west of Ashland or Damen, but parts of that are very close to downtown. Even Austin is a shorter trip than the far north side. The further northern reaches of the CTA are Evanston, Skokie and Wilmette, which are all affluent suburbs. Going northwest is sort of middle income mixed with other. Southwest, is up and down as you head out the Orange line. Red line and green line south, that's poor all the way out.

 

So I think its a mixed bag.

 

[BigSqwert]

don't know how it works. Chicago is more segregated than most major cities (from what i've been told), with much of the very poor living the furthest form downtown. I'm just offering a possible reason why the city does not use a distance based fee.

Well there are trains that go all the way to Skokie and Evanston.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well there are trains that go all the way to Skokie and Evanston.

Is there an echo in here?

 

[BigSqwert]

Is there an echo in here?

Oh duh.

 

Did some quick skimming.

 

[mr_genius]

I wouldn't say that's true at all. The farthest reaches of the city are in some cases quite wealthy. There is definitely a push-out from downtown lately though. Still, look at the really poor neighborhoods. The west side generally is very poor, west of Ashland or Damen, but parts of that are very close to downtown. Even Austin is a shorter trip than the far north side. The further northern reaches of the CTA are Evanston, Skokie and Wilmette, which are all affluent suburbs. Going northwest is sort of middle income mixed with other. Southwest, is up and down as you head out the Orange line. Red line and green line south, that's poor all the way out.

 

So I think its a mixed bag.

 

I was referring to the 95th stop, not the skokie or northwest stops. There are large pockets of poverty in the west , there are massive sections of poverty in south with pockets of middles class/more affluent neighborhoods.

 

http://webpages.charter.net/jcory17/geotec...maps/image2.htm

 

if you look at the map, the furthest southern reaches have very high levels of poverty.

 

Honestly, I don't care if they have a distance based fee, just as long as poor people who rely on public transportation can afford it. As I have stated, I am just giving possible reasons why there is not a distance based fee. Take it for what it is.

Edited October 30, 2007 by mr_genius

[Rex Kickass]

New York does not have a zoned system for Subways, however they do have zoned systems for LIRR and Metro North. However, one reason why they are fiscally more sound right now, has a lot to do with the fact that there is one agency managing all mass transit funding.

 

Berlin does. They're system is also flat broke. However, they are also on the honor system with no turnstiles (common in Germany). It's estimated that 1 in 6 riders is not paying for their ticket. However something like a zoned system is extremely hard to police without retrofitting all the turnstiles.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Now Metra is talking shortage and eliminating Sunday ridership in a year or so affecting 50,000 people a week. The truth is that Illinois needs to offer better funding for the entire RTA, and Lake County ought to contribute in and of itself. I think the best thing to do is merge Metra and CTA.

 

 

That would really suck. I know a lot of Suburban folks who use Metra to spend a Sunday in the city and take in the sights. That would cost Chicago a lot of lost money that they spend there.

[southsider2k5]

The troubles here are now being highlighted on a national level.

 

There is a nice big front page write up in the Trib today, so now the entire country is going to see it. Chicago, Cook County, and the State of Illinois ought to be embarrassed at how badly the mass transit system has been run. In an age of "going green" and trying to ween the country off of fossil fuels, they have squandered an opportunity where under one party control, they could have pushed through pretty much any program they like, except they were too busy bickering about every stupid thing. They literally could have put together a transit program second only to NYC, and instead they are looking to butcher it, right before the Olympic vote. How stupid are these people?

[NorthSideSox72]

Update in the Trib. Basically, since the Governor isn't willing to negotiate, Madigan and Cross (Dem and Rep house leaders) have decided instead to negotiate with each other to compromise on legislation for transit funding. Madigan is now conceding that allowing more casinos may be the only way to make that work, despite his previous statements against supporting reliance on gambling funds. From the Republican side, the senate minority leader is saying now that a tax increase can't be the ONLY solution, as opposed to saying it can't be ANY of the solution. So it seems the legislature is approaching compromise. If the 2 chambers can craft a bill that gets bipartisan support in the legislature to a two-thirds tune, then G-Rod will be rendered irrelevant, and the bill will pass without him.

 

[BigSqwert]

...then G-Rod will be rendered irrelevant, and the bill will pass without him.

Lobbing them up this morning, eh?

[NorthSideSox72]

Lobbing them up this morning, eh?

Its early, I'm tired, I'm throwing softballs.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

So, entirely seperate from the debates about CTA's operating expenses and budget is the fact that the system itself is crumbling and is badly in need of updating. In fact, they estimate that the system needs $6 billion dollars of work on its infrastructure. This is not something that can easily be blamed on operating costs or management overhead - this is mostly just the reality of maintaining such a huge transit system.

 

6 billion is a huge number. But then, as has been shown repeatedly over the years, that 6 billion invested in mass transit will save even more than that on the roads. Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to see that relationship.

 

[southsider2k5]

So, entirely seperate from the debates about CTA's operating expenses and budget is the fact that the system itself is crumbling and is badly in need of updating. In fact, they estimate that the system needs $6 billion dollars of work on its infrastructure. This is not something that can easily be blamed on operating costs or management overhead - this is mostly just the reality of maintaining such a huge transit system.

 

6 billion is a huge number. But then, as has been shown repeatedly over the years, that 6 billion invested in mass transit will save even more than that on the roads. Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to see that relationship.

 

I have said it before, and I will say it again. If you REALLY want to get people out of their cars, you HAVE to give them an alternative mode of transportation. The decay of the Chicago mass transit system, and the neglect of mass transit in the US is a joke. It sends the message that all of the talk about going green, is just talk.

[YASNY]

I have said it before, and I will say it again. If you REALLY want to get people out of their cars, you HAVE to give them an alternative mode of transportation. The decay of the Chicago mass transit system, and the neglect of mass transit in the US is a joke. It sends the message that all of the talk about going green, is just talk.

 

The decay of the infrastructure in the US is a joke.

[NorthSideSox72]

I've looked at the policy statements and goals and what not for a number of the candidates on their websites, and not one mentions mass transit. Has anyone else seen one of them mention it? I agree with SS, this is such an obvious thing to truly help use less oil and gas, but also to create less pollution, make it cheaper to maintain our roads, take some load off the overpacked air transportation grid, and reduce traffic deaths.

 

I really wish someone would make it a priority.

 

[BigSqwert]

Note I just submitted on the Obama website:

 

Good afternoon,

 

With all the talk about global warming, depending less on foreign oil, etc why hasn't Barack talked about improving mass transit in the U.S.? I personally live in Chicago where mass transit infrastructure is quickly deteriorating and there is a severe lack of funds to maintain what is already in place. By investing in our infrastructure we can tackle many problems such as global warming, foreign oil, clean air, etc. I am a supporter of Barack and will most likely vote for him but I am highly disappointed that he, nor any other candidate, has brought this up as a serious issue.

 

Regretfully,

[Controlled Chaos]

I have said it before, and I will say it again. If you REALLY want to get people out of their cars, you HAVE to give them an alternative mode of transportation. The decay of the Chicago mass transit system, and the neglect of mass transit in the US is a joke. It sends the message that all of the talk about going green, is just talk.

This statement reminds me of the movie Singles. I'm not sure why I even remember that, but the dude says something along these lines.

Edited November 9, 2007 by Controlled Chaos

[NorthSideSox72]

Note I just submitted on the Obama website:

Well done. I might do similar for him and Richardson.

 

 

[kapkomet]

Note I just submitted on the Obama website:

 

Good call. Seriously.

 

I look at the area I live in, and wow, I don't see how mass transit could be done here with the way everything's spread out. How do we address the urban sprawl and mass transit? That becomes extremely expensive. I look at Chicago, though... and what a beautiful system they have and it's all going to crap, by all accounts.

[BigSqwert]

I'll make sure to post the generic response from the campaign once i get it.

[Balta1701]

I have said it before, and I will say it again. If you REALLY want to get people out of their cars, you HAVE to give them an alternative mode of transportation. The decay of the Chicago mass transit system, and the neglect of mass transit in the US is a joke. It sends the message that all of the talk about going green, is just talk.

The federal government spends, IIRC (too lazy to check actual numbers) something like $40 billion a year on upkeep of the roads and around $1 billion or so on Mass Transit.

[southsider2k5]

Note I just submitted on the Obama website:

 

Way to step up I will be interested to see the response.

[Balta1701]

Just FYI, it's a bit buried and lacking specifics, but this is sort of what his "Issues" page brings up on the Transit issue.

Reform Federal Transportation Funding: As president, Barack Obama will re-evaluate the transportation funding process to ensure that smart growth considerations are taken into account. Obama will build upon his efforts in the Senate to ensure that more Metropolitan Planning Organizations create policies to incentivize greater bicycle and pedestrian usage of roads and sidewalks, and he will also re-commit federal resources to public mass transportation projects across the country. Building more livable and sustainable communities will not only reduce the amount of time individuals spent commuting, but will also have significant benefits to air quality, public health and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

[NorthSideSox72]

Just FYI, it's a bit buried and lacking specifics, but this is sort of what his "Issues" page brings up on the Transit issue.

Saying he will "re-commit" resources is no better than saying keep the status quo.