Would you rather have the decision go in front of the city council who neither have knowledge of nor care about the contents of the collective bargaining agreement? I would've personally preferred a judge, but that raises the same issues of unaccountability.

Quinn made the choice to keep rates steady, reduce service (coicidentally several days after the primary elections), and raid the capital fund to limit back lash before the primary election. Your beef should be with Quinn for being a union lacky incapable of making a tough decision. Having said that, comparing Houston to Chicago is absurd, even if Chicago does cut transit 10-20%.

the comparison was more in jest but it still is ironic. I don't care if its Quinn's fault or who ever's. The fact is Chicago will no longer be able to offer the lifestyle I want. Then after this round two of cuts comes this Sept.

^ That's BS.

Every transit-legacy city in America has had to do this here or there.

Reality is, a city is like a human body. Body goes into shock, it clamps down the blood vessels and supplies the vital organs (brain, lungs, heart). Same with a city. This economy is, in every way, a shock to the system, and the unions don't want to play ball.

So you have to clamp down, and while mass transit is vital, keeping trains and buses running every ten minutes at all hours of the day (or whatever, you get my drift) is not absolutely vital. Some of the core services, such as fire, police, emergency health, sewers, water, etc--those areas are, and cannot be touched unless you want to see an end to civilized life. But some cuts to mass transit in an established city like Chicago that already has backup safety mechanisms in place (>70% car ownership, bike lanes, large taxicab industry, car-sharing, more housing within walking distance of downtown jobs than ever, etc) aren't unreasonable, considering that rush hour and midday service will be mostly intact, and the fact that this is the worse economic downturn in generations.

Not to be insensitive, but this is just how things will need to roll for a while. The unions didn't play ball and now over 1,000 of them will be in the soup lines. I'm glad somebody is finally popping their little bubble of invincibility..

umm.. how is it bs? There are other cities out there, not many, maybe 1, 2 or 3 - aint that sad, that can offer the lifestyle I want. Maybe that is indeed why so many flock to NYC.

So lets say I stay in Chicago and get a car. Now what? As you know Chicago, i'll explain my life; it is basically along the Redline from the South Loop to Evanston. School, work and friends. Where am I going to park wherever I go or where I live? The part of Chicago I live my life in is at that uncomfortable stage where owning a car is a huge hassle and expense.

So a place like Seattle for example, yes I would need a car but that city can accomodate a car much better than Chicago or take NYC, I certainly don't need a car there. Both those cities are desirable examples of places to move to. While Seattle may not be exactly what I want in an urban city is still is a pleasing place to live for me and dealing with a car there is simple in comparison to Chicago.


While you can say, move to another neighborhood in Chicago that is more spacious, why? I can't go into those areas I like, work or school, easily with a car.

So who ever's fault this crisis may be, whether it be the City/State or Unions it doesn't matter to me as the end result I don't like. Btw. I tend to side against the Unions in this one. Also what happens in Sept. with round two of cuts?

^ I'm not telling you you're wrong about being upset. I just want you to keep in mind that periodic service cuts are a reality when it comes to mass transit in America--everywhere. Including New York.

oh I know that. But realize a service cut in NYC still leaves quite the desirable service especially in comparison and also like I said other cities that indeed do have an excellent quality of life like Seattle can accomodate a car much much easier than Chicago. Chicago is in that position for much of the city where good public transit is necessary. Its not like Lakeview is the only densley populated neighborhood, an island, those Lakefront and adjacent neighborhoods have a population of Seattle in a not many square miles. Bad public transit in these neighborhoods is not an option.

^ Really? Try making it out to Costco or Ikea in Queens or to any number of destinations in the outer boroughs, without a car. Keep in mind that these are dense neighborhoods that have, from my anecdotal experience, even less off street parking than Chicago's do.

And that is before the pending service cuts.

If your work, school, and friends are all arrayed along the Red Line, then what's the problem? None of the rail lines or bus lines will shut down (except the redundant express buses). Frequencies will decrease and the trains will get a bit more crowded. Fortunately, the Brown Line just got a huge capacity upgrade to 8 cars, so even with less frequency, it should be able to absorb all the traffic.

I really wish, though, that CTA had a definite plan to reinstate all the service that is getting cut if/when funding becomes available. In the future, the CTA may have more money, but they may redirect it to other stuff, leaving us with a less-than-optimal transit system.

Once you have demonstrated that people will cope with a less frequent transit system, it's not a huge stretch to assume that you can keep the system that way and realize long-term savings. Unfortunately, the service cuts will undoubtedly lead to much lower ridership, but the effect may be delayed, since it takes awhile for people to change their habits.

^ you know, a 20% reduction in bus service is huge no matter how you cut it. What's the problem? Seriously! You are aware there is another round of cuts coming up later this year. Once the cuts go into effect rioership will drop and it will be impossible to get the service back up to where it is now with lower ridership.

Is this really the direction Chicago is going to take? This part of the country is a hard sell and Chicago is a beacon in this region. Why drop Chicago?

Transit in Chicago is going to go to essentially a commuter service and the easy convenience of getting around at most hours will be gone. The bus is necessary for me to get around too.

and urban politician where is Cosco or Ikea in Chicago?

You are comparing the outer areas of NY to the most urban areas of Chicago. But you can find your bubble in NY and be well connected with other areas via transit.

But whatever. These upcoming cuts in Chicago are ridiculous. We are talking a 20% reduction in bus service and a 10% reduction in train service.

I really hope the unions give in. The time has come for municipal workers to realize they have a golden pension and healthcare plan and other benefits that hardly anyone has anymore. And the people, the general public, who are paying for these benefits are the ones without these pay/benefits. It's like the opposite of Robin Hood.

I had an interesting thought... what if the CTA chairman was chosen in a popular election, instead of by mayoral appointment?

It would definitely spur people to think more about transit as an ongoing project that needs constant tweaking and improvement, like the rest of government, and not as a static part of the background. Obviously, anybody campaigning for the director of the CTA can't be anti-transit (although he might advocate for a leaner, higher-quality system). The candidates would have to propose definite things they would do to improve the CTA, and then follow through on at least some of them if they want to stay in power.

It's most certainly a moot point, since Daley would be loath to give up this small tidbit of power he maintains over the CTA... although he would still appoint part of the RTA board.

Re: the union negotiations... I'm sure that, at this point, the union realizes that forgoing the pay increase is preferable to the massive layoffs. How could they not? There's probably something we're not hearing here... perhaps the CTA management is simply trying to screw the unions over, at the expense of the city's transit quality.

^ The CTA announces service enhancements and new service all the time. I'm no expert, but following the news for the past 7-8 years I often read articles about the CTA initiating or improving service where it wasn't there before. I just don't buy the 'slippery slope downward spiral' panic that you all have.

Yeah, but those new services are usually backed up with a study, and then a trial period, and then evaluation before they become part of the established network. I'd hate for CTA to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to "study" the reinstatement of services that worked before.

Of course, this could also have an upside in that under-performing or unnecessary routes may be slashed, making the CTA leaner and meane

Chicago's glacial pace when it comes to New Starts projects means that redundant studies are done frequently, because the real world doesn't wait around for endless red tape, and on-the-ground conditions change. Often, without the proposed transit services in place, those conditions change for the worse, and we get more suburban schlock where dense urban developments could be springing up. The city is now trying to do a SECOND alternatives analysis for the Carroll Ave project, and I've heard that an EIS for the Orange Line to Midway existed back when the Orange Line was built in 1984, but now the CTA has to study the concept yet again. Of course, we all know that new development along the Carroll Ave corridor has been quite urban and transit-friendly (EnV, 353 N Clark, Trump, et al) so I fully expect the new study to be more optimistic about the ridership on the proposed line.

Honestly, the cuts are probably best for the CTA in the long run. Even if the union gave up the pay raises and added furlow days, the math still doesn't work; which means service cuts would still be needed in the future to balance the budget, unless we see a good uptick in retail sales and a rebound of home sales to pay into the pensions, but 2010 looks to be a rough year for the economy as well and by extension, rough for CTAs subsidies.

Cut the fat out of the system, yes it sucks for everyone, but service can be added back when more money begins flowing in and service enhancements can be targeted where needed. Plus, the layoffs of 1100 employees sends a strong message to the union that they can't continue to play chicken and expect things to work out all hunky dory for them every time. I'm sorry by the 90% of the CTA workforce is unionized and only the union employees have had job security, no furlow days and guaranteed pay raises for 3 years in a row, when everyone else is getting reduced pay (through mandatory furlows) or losing their job entirely.

Everyone has to make a sacrifice right now, especially with public service jobs funded with public money.

Its not just CTA, as stated by TUP, this is occurring with transit systems nationwide, in fact many other systems have already reduced service. This is just part of living in auto-centric America where transit is usually an after thought. Really envying London's 3 minute Sunday morning headways right now.


That is not a Chicago thing, its the FTA and we have to play by their rules. FTA New Starts always take a long time, some other cities entered into design-build contracts which expedited the late stages of the project, but the full-funding grant agreements generally take just as long anywhere else. Sure a EIS for the Orange Line may have been completed in the '80s, but that was 20+ years ago, and things change including the route of the current LPA, thus requiring a new EIS to be completed. Its the fed's rules and we have to play ball to apply for that money.

Has popular election of the Water Reclamation District board led to an informed discussion of various pollution control technologies or district tax levies—or anything, other than what political dynasty or machine is sponsoring a particular candidate, or whether her surname is Greek or not? Letting the mayor wear the jacket for CTA performance is probably the best way to keep the pressure on, and keep a strong manager—if not a transportation pro—in the job.

Besides, you might be quite surprised and disappointed to learn how many residents of the CTA service area find the CTA utterly irrelevant to their daily lives.

Well, they'll still be eligible to collect their $385/week in unemployment for the next year and a half while they do nothing and have "Cadillac" health insurance subsidized at 65% via COBRA, but otherwise yeah, soup lines.

Not sure to what extent it's "definite" - but generally the first service that will be added back with any found money is the span of service (late night and early mornings on those 41 bus routes). There will probably be some corridors where the frequency reductions are so bad as to make the route an utter disaster of high-crowding and unreliability (I anticipate this on Western and Ashland), meaning these "key" routes would almost surely be the first to see restored frequency once the worst of the span reductions are dealt with.

On rail, I'm not sure. The rail system could probably already have easily absorbed a 5% reduction in service hours that should have happened a year ago (would have made the current hole that much smaller), not sure how the 9% reduction will impact things. There is no span reduction on rail, only frequency reductions. Off-peak rail loading standards are already very generous, with frequencies set to basically guarantee a seat if you want it - if the rumored public launch of train tracker occurs (sorry I have no more information on this) the reductions in frequency could really be quite manageable.

Part of the hang up, I think, is in the trend in employee pension contributions. Even though entirely justified by the numbers and rationality, there is an emotional reaction wherein the employees feel like an entitlement is being pulled from them. Basically, prior to 2008, employee payroll contribution for retirement (pension + health care) was 3%. The 2008 sales tax deal raised the employee pension contribution to 6%, and added an aditional 3% contribution to a "Health Care Trust" to support retiree health care expenses. Part of the 2008 deal also specified that if the pension fund falls below 60% funding of all liabilities, employee contributions would have to increase to make up the shortfall. Well, 2009 happened - so employee contributions had to increase from 6% to about 8.5%, or a 2.5% reduction in take home pay. From the worker standpoint, they view this as a 2.5% paycut, even though of course its not, since part of their "pay" is the pension benefit they will receive. But nonetheless, the average bus driver feels like the 3.5% raise in 2010 was basically making up for that increase int he pension contribution, so if they forgo that raise it is effectively a "pay cut." Granted, non-union employees not only didnt have a say in the matter and got no 2010 raise, but also had the mandatory furloughs that cut annual pay by 6-8% depending on salary.

Anyway, when the union talks about having made concessions already, this is what they refer to - finally paying a fair share of the actuarial value of the very generous retirement benefit - a benefit that was reduced from bananas-insane generous (formerly, retire at 55 with full pension and health care for life, now retire at 62 with 90% health care). These concessions in terms of the pension and health care payroll deductions represented a sizable chunk of their take home pay - so the 3.5% 2010 raise felt like a long time coming, barely canceling out the additional 2.5% being deducted for the pension plan anyhow, even though one rationally could explain that the added contributions were actually beneficial by fixing the health of the pension plan.

That said, public sympathy falls off when the unions start campaigning for tax increases on the public to maintain union retirement benefits at no expense to union members. Those concessions in reducing the retirement benefit and increasing the employee contribution were the only reason a funding deal finally got done in 2008.

Would a Chicago with a never ending CTA doomsday offer you the lifestyle you want? A CTA that plays chicken with its citizens on an annual basis?

Look. Neither the state nor the city were going to bail out the CTA again. In such situations, the service should and must be cut. I'd much rather have a CTA that trims its fat of 1000+ workers and tells its constituents that if they want more government service, they have to pay for it, than a CTA that makes a homeless beggar look respectable. That's how government functioned for most of the 20th century and most of our city services were built on that premise. Once people once again realize that there is direct correlation between amount of money spent and amount of service, the system will fix itself. Of course it will require re-educating an entire generation who can barely remember that Reagan raised payroll taxes to maintain social security.

Well I know there is a Costco at Fullerton and Clyborn, about 2 or 3 miles out from downtown... The only Ikea in the area is way out in Schaumburg if I remember correctly. Why you would go to Ikea using public transit is beyond me though... "Lemme just take the subway to Ikea and pick up a bedroom set, I can just drag it home with me..."

In NYC, Asia, and Europe, such urban big box stores make it a cinch to make delivery arrangements. Limited examples exist elsewhere, such as the Best Buy on Clark south of Diversey here.

Even with one's 8-seater Urban Assault Vehicle, of course, sometimes one goes all the way to Schaumburg and still has to arrange for delivery of oversized items.

Actually it is mroe like Diversey / Damen / CLybourn...it is north of the river.....fullerton and elston are south of the river....but not too far off.

Like Viva said the big boxes deliver....here in RP the grocery stores deliver

IKEA is actually not much of a challenge. Blue Line to Rosemont; Pace bus 606 gets you to Woodfield 30 minutes later. From there, take Schaumburg's free trolley (or walk) to IKEA. Delivery service is available (but not terribly cheap).