^That sounds pretty good. I think it will be a successful bet. An interesting tidbit in the article was that senior ridership is up 25% since March's initation of free rides; overcourse with no extra state help thanks to Gov. Ass Clown.

As soon as I saw that headline on the Trib website, I thought I could hear the shit hitting the fan faintly in the background. 15 minutes after the article was posted, there were over 100 irate comments on the comment page.

At the time when transit services have a GOLDEN opportunity to convert drivers to straphangers, they keep making all these cuts that are turning trains and buses into ever-more-inhumane places. Chicagoans are not Tokyoans and we won't put up with such ridiculous crowding. It's not gonna happen.

I've thought about this as a good temp solution, but given that by the end of the year we'll be back to 4-tracks anyway, why the rush to rip out seats?

To run that effectively anyway, you'd really need 3 doors on the cars, like they have on the short cars in New York, otherwise you're extending trip times while people work their way in and out of the cars. It's bad enough as it is, let alone if you had 12-20 more people in the center of the car away from the doors.

http://yourcta.com/news/ctaandpress....ticleid=130446

CTA to Expand Park & Ride Program on the Red Line
07/16/08

The Chicago Transit Board today approved an intergovernmental agreement with City Colleges of Chicago for the sale of a surplus parcel of land adjacent to the Wilson Red Line station. City Colleges’ Truman campus will build a facility which will include a parking garage with approximately 1,100 parking spaces – 200 of which will be licensed to the CTA for use as Park & Ride spaces.

^ :rolleyes: Yeah, because 2 seatless cars on a rush-hour train that is already packed to the brim anyhow (seats or no seats) somehow diminishes the "humanity" so immensely.

But then, I guess it's more humane to just have more people wait a few more minutes for the next train, so that they can be packed in like sardines then.

Some people just have to criticize the CTA no matter what. I applaud Huberman for at least trying to make changes according to this apparently rapid rise in ridership, esp since there is NO STATE HELP in the foreseeable future. How about giving the guy a wee bit of credit for at least trying to be creative?

Seatless cars increase capacity without costing a dime. Fuller trains fill downtown sidewalks. Full downtown sidewalks fill shops & offices. Full offices serve other offices. This attracts more offices. And that's what brings companies like MillerCoors to town... :)

CTA is running out of railcars. CTA would probably not have enough railcars to restore Brown Line to the same frequency (albeit with 8-car trains) as before 3-tracking, and might not even have yard capacity at Kimball.

The problem is in the peak of the peak, when the vehicle requirement nearly maxes out your entire fleet assuming you keep a reasonable spare ratio.

CTA really needs to look at non-capital-intensive ways to increase capacity in the peak of the peak, and this sounds like a decent idea to me. Though maybe they could only eliminate seats in the middle of the cars, and leave the seats at the ends, or something to that extent.

I have to admit that this sort of thing infuriates me. A nice, dense neighborhood with two rail stations (Wilson and Lawrence) and a number of express buses, and what's the best idea the CTA and City have for improving the area? PARKING LOTS? Not office space, not residences, not retail, not even governmental services, but PARKING?

I can't even express how angry this makes me. If people are at the Wilson stop, they're 1/2 mile (at most) from LSD, and they should probably just drive to the Loop. To get to the Red Line from the west, they'd have already braved a bunch of local streets, why would they then NOT get on the virtual-expressway that is LSD, only a few more blocks? Why would they hop on the Red Line, and if they did, why would you want to crowd out the thousands of car-free riders already on the trains? This is just the latest example of how stupid our regional planning is. To put a park-and-ride not in a suburban-type area, but a dense, urban neighborhood is damn near unforgivable.

^ It's more like, Truman College "needed" parking, and another city agency happened to have land that could serve as parking . Everyone knows that everyone drives, and parking around there is tight, after all. Netting $1.1 million for the budget and devoting some of the garage spaces to Park n Ride is making lemonade with this rancid lemon of a situation from a transit ridership standpoint.

But yeah, I agree with you, it's an incredibly awful place for a Park n Ride and I wouldn't have agreed to sell the land for a parking lot, but unfortunately, CTA is a political organization and thus subject to political whimsy (and thus one of many reasons why I'm not CTA President or board member). And don't you know how tough parking is around Truman? People's parking rights are being violated, dude.

At least that $1.1 million will make up for a decent chunk of the net present value of the ridership revenue lost when ridership drops as more students drive to Truman instead of taking the L or bus. In an ideal world, CTA would have ran some mode split calculations and determined how this would impact ridership, and factor that into the selling price so that the sale price compensates for future lost revenue.

Either Huberman is indeed trying to make lemonade out of lemons (those press release quotes are rather... ebullient), or he actually believes this is a good development for CTA.

For future reference for the Jones Lang LaSalle wizards who are taking over CTA real estate operations...

Red Line stations that would make good Park n Ride locations:
Anywhere along the Dan Ryan.

Red Line stations that make lousy Park n Ride locations:
Everywhere else except Howard.

^ On another note, I just Google Streetviewed the area around that L stop and DAMN that area could so use some development, especially east of Broadway. What's with the strip mall and the one story retail store?

BTW, what exactly will this garage be replacing? The article mentions that the first floor will serve some College functions, so it won't completely be useless

i dislike Blago as much as the next person but giving seniors free rides was one of the best things he's done in years.

but I understand that isn't your complaint. it's the lack of state funds to cover the effects of overcrowding due to extra seniors crowding the system. Unfortunately you're right on this one. Blago held the system hostage and the result was a good program without a responsible move by Illinois politicians to make the CTA better, more viable and safer.

haha I work at Truman College.

Are you sure east of Broadway? Just west of Broadway maybe. Or you could be viewing the immediate area of off Wilson near Broadway. Immediately east of the tracks and west of Broadway is the old Wilson Yards, a repair and maintennce building for CTA trains which burned down and has been vacant for years and years. Just west of the tracks before Truman College is vacant land that the CTA owns and has leased/sold or something to the City Colleges for a student center and parking garage. This all put together along with the Wilson Yards development is a huge project, about $200 million dollars. All this replaces acres of surface level parking.

With regards to the strip malls. Well, the city was desperate. The 70's and 80's were not good for Uptown as Edgewater was once part of Uptown but succeded to form their own neighborhood. How often does that happen? Skid row on Madison street in downtown was 'moved' to Uptown. The strip malls was Uptown taking anything it could get.


Look at it this way. Lakeview to the south is 31,000 people a square mile, Edgewater to the north is 37,000 people a square mile and Uptown imbetween those two is 20,000 people a square mile. Uptown got hit hard. The density of the housing is very high but it has so many vacant lots which lower the average especially right off of Broadway.

This parking garage is consolidating all that acres of vacant land and surface parking to a multilevel garage. On this vacant land will be a multi level street fronting Super Target, parking for Truman college which has 24,000 students annually taking classes, condos and apartments on the vacant land. If anything there will not be enough parking.

I am not advocating more parking, but lets get realistic. 1100 spots for a 24,000 student college and faculty/staff, a Super Target, condos, apartments, commuter parking and other retail on what is now vacant or surface level parking on top of a growing in popularity neighborhood. I will tomorrow find out tomorrow how much parking there is now and was before this construction started taking up space. I think you will find there will not a much of a net increase in parking spots after the $200 millions dollars in development going on.

It was suggested here that why would a driver not continue driving to their job in downtown if they are already got to Truman. Because to park in downtown is expensive to put it plainly.

Uptown is a different animal from other neighborhoods as much of area is socail services, highest concentration in the city so private for profit developers do not own much of the land right on Wilson and Broadway streets. Just walk off any area off of Wilson and you will see condos. Strange contrasts so fast.

As for students commuting by car. With gas proces the way they are, its done. The popularity of students actually using their UPasses is amazing in contrast to what it was before and students that don't qualify are asking how to get to Truman by CTA. Biking is the thing that has blown me away the most. Our new bike racks are beyond capacity, and yes Truman College devoted a whole chunk of area to bike parking so its not just a few bike racks. So many people bike now.

Uptown is just different fron a gentrification standpoint, to a community social services point, to everything lol. But if people are concerned about transit ridership and people actually walking around, growing businesses, etc you really have nothing to worry about. Uptown just does things, differently, and Uptown is everything you can imagine from the good to the bad to every demographic to every mindset to many nationalities and from the good and bad of American society in about 3 square miles. No joke. Just people watch. The snooty yuppy to the gay couple to the ghetto to immigrants, from the poor to the rich. From an expensive gut rehab next door to scattered sight housing next door to an apartment complex full of poor immigrants, next door to a methodone clinic. It just does it own thing. Uptown is Uptown.

Time for me to put the beer down and call it a night. :) Got to go to Uptown in 7 hours.

^ Thanks for that dose of reality.

And you know what? In this case, the reality is better than the fantasy we cooked up here. I dig Uptown.

'L' may stop in food aisle
CTA looking into stores on its routes
By Robert Manor | Chicago Tribune Reporter
July 17, 2008
The Chicago Transit Authority is hoping that some day you will pick up milk and bread or perhaps a six-pack of beer without ever stepping outside an "L" stop.

The CTA wants to investigate having some "L" trains stop inside supermarkets, or perhaps host mini-banks and restaurants on its property, as it seeks to more fully benefit commercially from its far-flung network of rail and bus routes.

There is always the speculation that the Orange and Brown Lines would merge to take advantage of the yard capacity at Midway once the Brown Line construction is complete.

The CTA is faced with ridership growth beyond its wildest dreams due to oil prices and they can't just run out to the store and buy more rolling stock with money they don't have.

Personally I think this is a good solution. I almost never sit during my rush commute and the vast majority of my fellow commuters don't appear to be disabled (other than trying to juggle a cell phone/blackberrry/book/headphones at the same time) and should have no problem standing for a 20-30 minute ride.

It's just odd that CTA would actively participate in something that would negatively impact its mode share and ergo, revenue. I am definitely not under the impression that all of these developments are holding steady the amount of parking in the area; the Target will have it's own very large parking facility. I'm also not under the impression that this parking won't be subsidized at the point of consumption (underpriced), and thus overconsumed. Will Truman faculty/staff/students have to pay to use the lot?

The development in total might be positive for the area but bad for CTA. Some interesting issues, here. Since ultimately, good for the area = the right decision, but should CTA participate in that?

Seatless cars - brilliant! I know the CTA has been looking at this idea recently, determining how to introduce it. There are significant numbers of people who don't sit, even when seats are available. The CTA knows this. You will probably see alot of these riders ( I'm one ) gravitate to these cars.

Me too. I'm close enough to the loop that my main concern is getting on a train - period - since they are usually pretty full by the time they get to me. Hopefully, the seatless cars will consistently be in the same position on the train, and then appropriate signage can be placed along the platforms to indicate where the SRO cars will berth.

Yes, because they were running the red line on the loop they had cut back on the brown line trains. I waited about 25 minutes when they should have been running every 10-12 minutes and two trains were packed. It didn't make sense to get on the red line just to have to get off and transfer wait at Fullerton or Belmont for a packed brownline to show up...behind me.

What a quack idea! I thought putting seats along the windows...length wise was great and that is what I used in NYC and SEOUL (cities with far higher ridership per car). Where the hell did they get this stupid ass idea? What city has no seats in its cars?

well, chicago will have no seats in its cars apparently. Does that answer your question?

It's quite sad that the richest country on earth needs to resort to tearing out seats to accommodate riders. But if it needs to be done, do it. When I lived off the Chicago Blue line stop, this would have helped. It was very common to wait 3 trains at that time for a stinking train that could be boarded.

Response 1:
Thank you for your feedback, though we have heard no suggestion about removing all the seats from any CTA train.

--CTA Customer Service

Response 2:
Please review those reports again; they said nothing about banning all the seats on any CTA train.

--CTA Customer Service

Response 3 (after the 3rd time I requested they tell me what cities have tried this):

It has been proposed to have some cars without seats during the weekday rush hours, no more than two cars per train. That is a far cry from trains with no seating. Thank you, however, for your feedback.

--CTA Customer Service

Response 4 (final):
Thursday, July 17, 2008 1:23 PM
From: "cta help" <ctahelp@transitchicago.com>View contact details To: "Wil "<wil@yahoo.com>

Thank you for your added comments. We are certain you can do whatever research you feel is necessary to develop an informed opinion on this proposal--you have already indicated a familiarity with other major transit systems around the world--and we believe that each customer is very much entitled to his or her own opinion. We welcome all feedback and consider it before implementing any such proposal. As of this moment, we have registered your opinion as being against having any train cars without seats. If we have misinterpreted your current view or you modify it after looking into the pros and cons, you are welcome to provide a correction or update. --CTA Customer Service

MY INITIAL EMAIL TO CTA HELP……
________________________________________
From: Wil (edited) [@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:35 PM
To: cta help
Subject: Stop the insanity (leave some seats on our trains!)
Please share with Chicago Citizens the major subways in the world that have NO seating?!?

I thought Ron was on top of things until this. Now I see we just have a person running CTA who has no idea what mass transit is.

I have ridden NYC, SEOUL, TOKYO, LONDON and they ALL HAVE SEATS.

Stop the madness.

Several years ago CTA after spending tens of thousands of dollars said they were going to only have the seats that go along the windows...so there would be more standing space. This is like I have seen in major city subways that are better than ours. Why hasn't CTA gone a head with this plan? Why are they doing something that no one else has done? Have other cities tried it? Why haven't the 1st class subway systems that put education into their decisions ripped out all the seats? We cannot even get bars to hang onto in the CTA when we stand....if CTA hasn't figured that out yet...should we trust them on this idea?

WOW - Two cars will be seatless - TWO. That is it. The CTA knows there are enough people that prefer to stand that will fill those cars up. Geez. I think the CTA did a poor job of advertising this, thus the confusion.

chicago3rd -
They are still planning on getting those cars.

Other cities with 1st class subways systems actually receive the capital funds to buy new railcars (both for regular replacement and fleet expansion) and upgrade facilities to run more frequent service.

And actually, several other systems do have "convertible" cars with foldable seats, that can be folded up in rush hour for extra standing room.

In regards to this specific decision:

The 3200s are not the best choice, as they are already the highest capacity cars due to a clever seating arrangement that actually allows people to move to the middle of the car and not cluster terrified right in front of the doors. Removing seats would accomplish a good deal more on the 2600 and 2200 series, e.g. Red and Blue Lines.

Plus, all cars have those heaters that stick out that realistically need to stay covered....with a seat. Unless you reconfigure the heater, but now we're talking some more substantial expenses.

Seoul and New York still get more people on their cars with seating than we do. I laughed when I first moved to Chicago from San Francisco at what "personal space" people on the "L" think they are entitled too. In SF I often helped pull people on board the Muni by pulling them in so we could get the doors shut. In Korea they have pushers...the cars are so pact with "chairs" they have pushers (doesn't matter how much money they have). YET they do not have cars that are seatless. Why?

So... you're saying CTA should create a whole slew of new union positions (pushers) to do something that Chicagoans probably wouldn't tolerate culturally anyway, not getting into the liability issues of CTA employees manhandling the riders?

Most "world" transit system also have substantially less peaked vehicle requirements than CTA. A large proportion of CTA's fleet is only called into action during rush hours when capacity is constrained. At all other times, all cars on all trains would have seats as only a fraction of CTA's railcars are needed to meet demand. This is why CTA has "married pairs" of railcars instead of full articulated train consists like many other agencies such as those in Asia, Europe, (some of) NYC, or (soon) Toronto; because CTA needs the broad flexibility to couple/decouple trains to appropriately meet service demand.

You are behaving the same way as the CTA Help desk. You are really deflecting nicely....not answering the question...typical CTA.


Why don't other cities who have similar issues do what CTA is proposing? You tried to blame it on not having money..and I just wanted to show you that train capacity isn't always related to money..i.e. Seoul has money and trains that are more croweded that ours to the point they have pushers. Why haven't they...a city that has a far superior public transportation system think of just removing all the seats?

Have other cities studied it?
What did they find?
What are the pros and cons they found these other cities found?

I am not even asking to do the studies...but it seems strange that this practice isn't being done anywhere else and that no one ever thought about it until CTA did yesterday.

don't like cars without seats? don't sit in them, there, problem solved.

Why does it matter if other cities have done this or not? Chicago needs to do what's best for Chicago and the CTA needs to do what it thinks is best for it riders and system. We can barely get funding as it is. If having a couple of cars with no seats on rush hour trains can help out with capacity, who cares if New York or Soeul is doing it too. Maybe some other American cities facing this same "higher-transit-demand-but-no-state-funding-to-purchase-new-anything" problem as we are will follow our lead.

God forbid we try something new or different! And of course all of the good ideas have already been thought of and implemented by NYC and Korean cities. Who the $*^% are we to try something different than the real cities!?!?

Among the transit agencies you list, how many of them have 5/7ths of their rail lines converging on a single set of tracks in the CBD? Do you think this might put a lower limit on the headways at rush hour that other systems don't have?

Further, don't you think that sense of entitlement for personal space probably factors into why the CTA might be trying this? I know I personally get pissed off when people don't "move to the center" during rush hour, but this is Chicago and guess what? People don't move to the center. In fact, when the idea of center-facing seats was floated, I remember hearing a *ton* of people bitching about it. "I don't want to stare at someone's zipper the entire trip!" "Don't take out seating, the poor people who work long hours have tired feet!"

It is hostile reactions like yours (go ahead and re-read your initial e-mail to the CTA...could you be any more reactionary?) that really do the CTA in, IMO. Trying new things to improve efficiency and throughput should be lauded, even if they don't work out in the end. Being proactive about trying new ideas to improve the system is all we can ask for in transit leadership, IMO.

Give their ideas a chance. I think the new leadership at the CTA deserve it.

Taft

^ chicago3rd

big F*CKIN deal. Ive taken the blue line almost every work day of every week for three years, and if there were two cars with no seats, so what??? I get in the exact train car i want to every time. I stand where its gonna be. You think they're gonna have "I'll have whats behind door number 3" train service? NO! and whats good for other cities might have nothing to do with chicago.

i might have an issue if it was more than two and/or if it was longer than just rush hours

SIGH. you sound like someone complaining about shadows and congestion

Lol....wonder why there are no answers.

whats that supposed to mean? The way i see it, you're just bitching about a temporary fix that probably won't even affect you or anyone who doesn't want it to

Other cities don't have similar issues. Huberman and the CTA management are coming up with novel solutions to a unique set of problems.

First, all the ideas have been coming out of the CTA with regard to increasing their revenue are really quite creative, since they all improve the experience for the riders as well. They've planned for LCD advertising (which generates a profit AND displays useful information for riders). They now are trying to leverage underused real estate, and many of the potential buyers for the real estate are businesses that would provide a real amenity for CTA riders. The main suggestion was grocery stores, but I could also see some form of urban rental car place taking advantage of CTA real estate as well.

Realistically, the CTA is so cash-strapped you can't believe it. They're being buffeted on all sides by people demanding money out of them (the union pension funds) or people withholding money from them (the state and city). CTA funding in real dollars (inflation-adjusted) keeps dropping, while expenses rise faster than inflation.

Compounding this is that people, in cities around the US, are now turning to transit like never before due to high gas prices. This didn't really happen in the 1970s at the last time oil prices got huge, but the situation is different now - a cultural shift that makes urban living, and by extension, transit, socially acceptable. The CTA knows that they have an opportunity to drastically increase ridership across the board, which they may lose in a few years as hybrid and electric vehicles are developed, or even faster if the Big Three automakers can somehow increase production on their compact cars.

So, increasing the ridership by putting more people on trains can add income to the CTA's budget while pulling new people into riding transit. Without any money to spend, the only cheap way to increase capacity is to remove seats.

One question, though...

if CTA is able to reconfigure an existing rail car by removing the seats, can't they simply shuffle the seats into a longitudinal setup? It's a hell of a lot cheaper than buying new cars with the longitudinal seats, and it increases capacity without making the CTA into a set of cattle cars.

Also, reconfiguring the 2600s to the same seating arrangement as the 3200s, which would probably quickly add about 10-15 passengers per car.

Can the railcars' suspensions deal with an additional 25+ people, particular as regards the physics of the various curves on the system? Probably, but I'd like to think this has been considered thoroughly before the idea was released to the public.

^ TOTALLY unreasonable.

How about blaming the people who really deserve the blame--the people in Springfield--for forcing the CTA to take such measures to increase capacity. Give me a friggin break, dude, you sound so belligerent in that email. If I was that CTA helpdesk person I probably would chuckle and move on.

Are you not READING a thing that's being written here? We're talking about 2 cars per train being seatless. Let me repeat that: 2 CARS. If you're so bent out of shape about it then it's actually quite goddamn simple: get into one of the other, non-seatless cars. Voila, end of story, end of whining.

You're not in New York, you're not in London, you're not in Tokyo. Get over it. Look at the financial situation around you and try being a reasonable transit constituent instead of barking up the wrong tree.

the CTA is fighting for survival. Instead of writing the CTA and complaining to them you should be writing your elected officials to do more.

This is something I always did when I lived in Chicago. If everyone did it, you'd be looking at a system that was undergoing substantial improvements instead of trying to stay relevent.

1st class subway systems don't have to rip out seats. CTA rail is not a world class system. It's in many ways a 3rd world system coupled with slow zones and deteriorating equipment.

I wonder how hard is it to simply add overhead handrails so that more standees can stand away from the doors on busy trains, currently other than the 3200 on the Brown/Orange Line no other train has these and that would improve capacity by the same amount.

ohohoh... I can answer that one.

because you haven't actually asked a question, just whined a bunch and stuck a question mark at the end.

I asked what cities have done it our studied it?

The answer appears to be none.

Perhaps we need to change this to a bitch slapping group rather than a discussion group?

at least the CTA is trying things. Even if it ends up being a failure, at least they recognized the issue and are doing something to try to solve it. As my semi-alcohol induced post stated a few pages back, metra and pace aren't doing anything at all to try to correct their problems. Until the state or federal legislature gives transit a chance, expect "duct tape" like solutions. In some ways, chicago's mass transit has it tougher than any other city. Unlike other aged systems, like new york's, it only semi-recently has seen increased ridership, and lucky enough for them, it is coinciding with rising fuel costs. So this means, that for many years, there wasn't enough attention to keep it well-funded. On the other hand, cities that are just now building mass-transit (like the sun-belt) have the benefit of having a newer system and being able to build after urban renewal so they only build to where current population density is, not where it used to be.

Really, cut the CTA some slack, they've have made leaps and bounds over the past 6-12 months. I think Huberman has definitely changed the tone of the organization, whereas metra has yet to incorporate modern technology such as electricity into their ticketing operations.

I'd also like to see them go all standing for sox games. Most people only ride from 35th to jackson, maybe up to chicago/grand. They could fit a ton more people if they were all standing cars.

^^You are right. Overall Ron has done a great job. I am just curious why no one else ever thought to do this. Guess I expect either someone saying it has been done or a discussion about the pros-cons.

you're the only one fixated on this. and people have come out in favor of it. I have and plenty others have as well.

It's a pragmatic move. The negatives are few since most cars will still have seating and funding for CTA isn't really a priority to state government. While a better solution would be more frequent train service, chicago won't get that.

the U.S. does not put priorities into mass transit. Even nYc has cut funding to MTA by $61 million. Their overall budget is down 4% in the past 4 years. Unless everyone starts lobbying government for better transit, the minimum will be done by our lawmakers in Springfield and Washington.

Granted, you have to wade through a bit of attitude to see it in our posts*, but most of our replies did address why chicago is different than other cities and why this might impact Chicago's decision to try this. For instance, in my post:

Snarky? Yes. But I do wonder how 5 lines converging in the loop effects minimum headways. I'd think the loop would eventually become a bottleneck, limiting the number of trains each line could run. Other systems might just keep increasing the number of trains, because their separated track would support them. Just a theory...but plausible.

Taft


* Attitude breeds attitude, I suppose...

I think it's a great idea to have two seatless cars on the brown line. It's only 25% of the train that will be without cars, it's not like EVERY car is going to have standing room only. If you don't like it, sit in the 75% of the train with seats.

I use to get on at Diversey, and for 4 years I never even once thought about getting a seat. My only concern was actually being able to squeeze on a train without waiting for 3 of them to go by.



Also, saw this lovely article this morning. Gotta love the devil's butthole working hard to destroy our state. It's like talking to your financial advisor when you're being forced to declare bankruptcy, and his advice is to maybe lease out a new car or buy a nice bedroom set.


RTA warns of service cuts or fare increases to make up for governor's budget cut
Most of the money paid for senior citizens' free rides


Mass-transit service cuts or fare hikes might be needed to make up for a $37.3 million fare subsidy that Gov. Rod Blagojevich chopped from the state's budget, Regional Transportation Authority officials warned Thursday.

Most of the money helped cover the free rides that Blagojevich gave senior citizens in January. The rest subsidized a long-standing program providing reduced-fare rides for students and the disabled.

Losing the money could make it even tougher for the transit agencies to pay for free rides for the low-income disabled, a program the legislature approved in May that is awaiting the governor's signature.

RTA Executive Director Steve Schlickman called Blagojevich's veto of the subsidy last week "an unfortunate action."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,4414129.story

Blago is such a dumbf*ck.

:previous: Perhaps I haven't been in the Chicago area long enough, but these constant budget crisis with mass transit are getting old. Is this a constant for Chicago or is Blago just a tool?

Historically, it's been cyclical, with crises about every 10 years and lasting for a couple years.

The crisis in the early 80s was probably the worst, when doomsday actually went into effect amidst legislative gridlock (commuter rail fares doubled, etc.).

Prior to that, the previous crises were in the early 60s (nationwide, when UMTA was created to provide subsidy) and the early 70s (when the RTA was created to collect transit taxes in the entire region to fund transit).

The last crisis period was in the mid 90s when federal operating subsidies ended, which culminated in the substantial service cuts in 1997. Things were "fine" again until about 2004, and it's been nonstop since then; first, the problem was dealt with consecutive fare hikes. This latest funding package should have kept things steady for the next 10 years with a periodic minor fare increase, but then Blago decided to muck everything up. Twice.

Yes he is... and not the only DF pol in city/county. Here a couple to go with him, Mike Madigan, Emil Jones and Todd "nepotism" Stroger.::koko: