A View From the Sears Tower's Ledge
Illinois Is Getting Fatter
Mayor Blames Violent Holiday Weekend On Booze, Heat
Chicagoan Involved In Mount Rushmore Ruckus
Yes, But Where Do You Put The Chalk?
The US House subcommittee on highways and transit will conduct a hearing here on October 29 to determine what kinds of transit improvements Chicago would need before we could host the Olympics. Why yes, October 29 is a mere 6 days before our public transit system starts collapsing into itself like a dying star! "Mayor Richard Daley, Blagojevich, officials from the Regional Transportation Authority, the three transit agencies and the U.S. Olympic Committee will be invited to testify," says the Trib. Looks like the best we can hope for is that the hearing lends a sense of urgency to the transit crisis. Related (loosely): The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee uses Comic Sans on its website. Noooo!
Clear your calendar: the CTA's public hearings about the service cuts are 6 p.m. Oct. 30 at Lane Tech High School (2501 W. Addison St.); 6 p.m. Nov. 1 at High School (10330 S. Elizabeth St.); and 6 p.m. Nov. 5 at CTA headquarters (567 W. Lake St.). These meetings are typically insanely boring and pointless, but ... anything to get closer to Chicagoist's current civic crush, Ron Huberman.
If you still don't have a Chicago Card or a Chicago Card Plus, get it now. The CTA is waiving the $5 fee
from now until Dec 31.
And finally, a suburban mayor thinks the CTA, Metra and Pace should close for a day to teach state legislators a lesson about what will happen if public transit doesn't get more funding.
You know how sometimes the El just sits still, and it makes you crazy? Thee Erin feels your pain.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
I think the voters are speaking out loud. If the system doesn't get fixed people are going to be out of office next term. Things like the above news items makes me happy.
I hope we become an international embarassment and that this stuff gets fixed out of shame. Hell,maybe the Olympics will force this city and state to get their heads out of their collective asses.
Marcucci is right.
matty; I used to think these people would be voted out of office next term too, but here we are with the same people. And then they elect Todd Stroger to top it off.
But I do think shutting down service for one day would be a huge kick in the pants for these childish legislators, plus it would actually get lethargic people riled up enough to put a call in to their reps. or write a letter.
We can all call our local and state leaders--Blago, Cross, Jones, Madigan and Daley--and just jam up their fucking phone lines, too, and at least make life hell for their offices. It's not equal payback, not even close, but it is a start. If each of us spend a mere 20 minutes a day making these angry calls, imagine the increasing levels of annoyance on their part. At least that's something.
Screw these fucking pricks and their egos. Politics is one thing, but there comes a time for public service, too. Frankly, they have all but forfieted their right to office in my view--for this and other recent disasters--and should be removed from office.
In an ideal word, enough of us would rise up that we could at least tar-and-feather these greedy, corrupt bastards and run them out of town--on an El line perhaps.
Too bad, I guess, that we are more 'civilized' than our forefathers. What we need now are more firebreathers.
Well, if the Olympics want us to have adequate public transporation I'm sure Daly will be all over it. The fact that it serves the community is merely a by-product of the desire to appease the Olympic committee.
There are advocacy groups in existence that I'm sure would love more participants, including the League of Women Voters. There are outlets for putting pressure on politicians and companies that are under-utilized but still available. And when a person (or a group of, say, young people) fails to vote in elections they kind of get what they deserve which is a government unconcerned with their issues.
"collapsing into itself like a dying star!"
Love that!
anyone want to start a chicago voter advocacy blog with me?
I am sooooo looking forward to this years advanced
morning version of "Trying To Get To Work Winter Games of Guess When The Train Is Coming In Minus 60 Below Wind Chill Weather". Its not as easy as you might think because remember 75 percent of the trains will be packed. Its gonna be a bone chilling good time!
Why isn't raising fares to cover the actual cost of a ride on the agenda? If a ride downtown costs $4.50, then it costs $4.50. It sucks, but transportation ain't free.
I don't understand the two pronged effort to both make a ride cost more and make it worth less at the same time.
Oh yeah, that's right, this is about getting the state to bail them out again. The CTA is trying to screw you into leaning on your legislators. It stinks. I for one suggest calling their bluff.
Yeah, ok, this is what I am doing. I'd like others to do it with me.
I'm leaving for china tomorrow, but I will be back next week.
When i come back I am making site dedicated to sending emails to our representatives regarding this transportation mess.
I am not an expert, but enough bitching, it's time to start doing.
I will post here and let chicagoist know when it is up.
Time is of the essence with the Nov. 4th deadline, but I'm going to do it anyway.
I hope people here will join me.
Matty, your idea's already been implemented and up for quite some time.
Where will everyone park when all of these bus routes are gone? Are there new parking garages being planned? Is there anything being planned to keep the city moving? Or is this just the ol' "Pull and Pray"?
The problem is revenue, rather than cutting services and crippling the city, find the money. What will the private sector do when people stop visiting the city because parking is either a) too expensive or b) non-existent? Throw in the likely increase of DUIs and it becomes apparent that everyone needs an efficient CTA. The CTA needs to be improving and expanding, not slicing their own wrists.
@mike. damn.
well go there people!
You should tell your rep. that you oppose funding for the CTA. Demand fiscal responsibility. The whole reason they are really in this mess but don't want to say it is because the pension system was about 90% funded so the unions decided they all needed pay raises and raided the pension fund so that workers would get raises. Then they stopped contributing for a while and now the pension is only 30% funded and therein lies the huge shortfall. You need to question the amount of money these CTA workers make and how much fat there is in the payroll.
The CTA is basically blackmailing everyone saying we are gonna cut your service if you don't pay our bloated salaries and refund our mismanaged pension. I take the CTA everyday but I welcome these cuts because there needs to be fiscal responsibility here.
I highly doubt you take the CTA everyday or else you wouldn't welcome these cuts because you'd be too busy wondering how the hell you are going to get anywhere.
Whymustiregister: I will pay the full cost of the fare on the CTA/Metra/Pace as soon as drivers pay their full costs. I suggest tolls on all roads as a start. If you think gas taxes covers all the costs of driving--up to and including our tax favors for oil companies so they will drill more, or the aircraft carrier battle groups that protect the oil areas and shipping lanes--I would suggest you have not studied the issue enough.
Huckeyes, while I think that shutting down service will get apathetic people off their asses to make calls and send emails, I doubt it will be a kick in the pants for the legislators. The worst that will happen to them is that their offices get flooded with calls. I doubt any of them take the L, or rely on any public trnsit for that matter. If someone like Tom Cross, for example, took the Metra like many of his consituents do, he may be more supportive of mass transit.
Matty, if you are interested, you can also go to this site: http://www.movingbeyondcongestion.org/ or this: http://transitfuture.cnt.org/ . (CNT is the same organization that started i-go cars.)
Matilda: User fees make perfect sense and the technology is available. Bring it.
Now, let's stay on topic.
No. I don't take the CTA because it is a terrible investment of both time and money.
When I go downtown, I drive and park @$25 a day. It is a better deal than $4.00 plus 3 hours on the el. My suggestion is this:
a) sell crappy transport for less than it costs to produce
b) expect non-users to make up the costs, and then
c) react with shock and indignation that people resist subsidizing the transport for Lincoln Parkers.
Only the power of groupthink can make such notions seem reasonable.
My suggestion would be to charge whatever it costs to break even on good transport. For infrastructure reasons, we are stuck with the CTA running the el, so it might as well break even on it.
A more useful suggestion is to destroy the CTA's monopoly wherever possible. Cities used to have competing bus lines. Why not again?
Why does the CTA enjoy a monopoly on bus traffic?
They are a terrible provider of transit service. They aren't cheap, fast, or safe. Let's give somebody else a chance.
There's no technological reason not to offer private bus lines a chance to compete for my transit dollar-under flexible pricing. The only problem is political.
I was the guest in the previous comment and yes I do take the CTA everyday. The problem is that you all whine that we need the CTA (which we do) but the money has to come from somewhere. But throwing money at problems doesn't solve any problems because the problem is the unions and their pensions and their healthcare and not contributing their fair share. You know there was never any shortfalls when the trains and buses were private enterprises. It's only since government has stepped and ruined the system. You guys must work for the CTA because there in no way in my right mind I will pay a sale tax increase to go back into a corrupt system.
Whymustiregister: Stay on topic? You are the one who brought up fare fees.
In any case, you seem to propose at least a partial privitization of the CTA.
Fair enough.
Do you actually have a business model? Does anyone actually have a business model? You know, real numbers and revenue streams rather than semi-libertarian wishes?
I am not philosophically opposed to breaking up what you call the CTA "monopoly." But I do now the last privitization scheme failed--hence, the CTA--and I am inclined to treat transit as a public service. Most importantly, though, no one--NO ONE--has come up with actual numbers to show me how any scheme that tilts toward privitization could work.
So, put up or shut up, pal. Otherwise you are just wasting time and pissing in the wind.
****Add: You make this point: "..react with shock and indignation that people resist subsidizing the transport for Lincoln Parkers."
Again, do you not realize that driving is heavily subsidized? You don't really think the MFT pays all our driving costs in the USA, do you?
London's buses are run by the private sector. I don't seem them having a problem except that government employees are giving their friends and relatives cushy jobs in their Transit Authority.
Getreal: What were your thoughts about the most recent audit of the region's mass transit, including the CTA? I assume you have read the audit and studied its conclusions.
I agree: Throwing money at the problem does not mean the problem will go away. But, preventing the revenue stream to grow in a reasonable manner does no good, either.
I am no fan of CTA management, including the king pig at the top, Daley: Their massive mistakes have made this problem much, much harder to solve, for both economic and political and PR reasons. But that fact does not automatically erase the need for a fair revenue stream.
The last privatization "scheme" didn't fail. The city forced transit to because a public entity. The reason that the private companies started to lose money at the end of their lives is because the city forced them to put bus routes where they wanted them to go.
Private sector is always better, cheaper, more efficient than anything the government can provide.
I have read the audit and studied it. The problem is they had the pension well funded and decided to raid it to give pay raises to all the union employees. they were just robbing peter to pay paul. Now the pension is only 30% funded and the workers don't want to fund their own retirement. So there is a huge shortage because of irresponsibility and they want taxpayers to bail them out. Cut the pension fund so it can't be raided anymore and force employees to fund their retirement with an IRA or 401k like the rest of us.
One problem with the CTA is that we are still using 100 year old technology. When they rebuilt the green line and the cermak branch, why not upgrade? They spend over a billion dollars to replace 100 year old technology with 100 year old technology. How about monorails, light rail? Cheaper, quieter. Nah let's just blow the taxpayers money on the same old thing.
There is no way that anyone could say with a straight face that there is no better technology out there then our L.
Getreal: Yes, the London buses.
What does that have to do with a business model for the CTA?
Again, TELL ME HOW IT WORKS.
What is about real numbers that confuses all the liberatarians and free-marketers? Did anyone of you actually study economics or business? Or did you just read the libertarian brochures?
You mention the problem of using 100-year-old technology. I agree. Now, tell me how the costs of replacing the technology are paid for--do you rely entirely on the private sector, for instance? Where is the seed money? Do the feds put in skin?
Do you people have any specifics at all, or just slogans?
FYI. I was just on the CTA website & this is what it says:
And now, the $5 purchase fee for the Chicago Card Plus has been waived through October 31, 2007.
Not December 31st. thought you'd wanna know.
Yes I actually received my bachelor's degree in Economics thank you very much.
Well if you want government dependency you have it already. We got the money for the orange line, rebuilding the green line and cermak branch all with federal dollars. So why did we take those dollars and spend it on an outdated system.
What does that have to do with a business model for the CTA?
Model the damn CTA after London. How about use Hong Kong instead. Their system is completely private and is one of the best systems in the world.
You talk about bringing up specifics and all you can come up with is to reach into taxpayers pockets.
Getreal: I have serious doubts you know shit about business plans or ecomonics.
You have NO specifics--not one of you free-marketers have specifics when it comes to privitizing the CTA. All you have are slogans.
And you really want to talk about government handouts, cowboy? Then what about all the ways the government--that's me and you, pal--pay for driving? Funny how you free-marketers ignore that.
Hong Kong has a decent system with Octopus. I will give you that. But saying the CTA should be like Hong Kong solves nothing--what would be different? What would be the same? What about banking and retail activities and real estate [do you even know what I am talking about, economics expert?], both of which help prop up that system? [As an aside, have you EVER talked to anyone who helps run the HK mass transit scheme or the Octopus program? I have, and done so more than once. I am looking at some business cards from these people as I type.]
As well, why not more like Paris and Berlin? Those systems are amazing as well, and relatively cheap.
It's not that I wanted government in my pockets, stud. Rather, my main concern in having an functional and even one day growing transit system for the Chicago region. My main concern is how do we get there. So far, neither you nor others who carry about a libertarian fetish can offer anything more specific or better than what has been offered through the Hamos bill--which, I admit, is not the best thing we could do, but it is probably the most realistic at this point for reform that will last more than a year or two.
Again, I ask: WHAT NUMBERS/SPECIFICS DO YOU HAVE?
I support: A slightly larger sales tax, as called for under Hamos bill. Greater RTA oversight. A universal fare card. 100% to 150% increases in cash fares. Up to 20% to 25% increases in electronic fares. Higher gas taxes--perhaps 1 cent a gallon, all going to mass transit. A greater portion of state capital bond issues dedicated for mass transit throughout the state, something along the order of $1 mass transit for every $3-$6 for roads, a ratio that was achieved before and which seems politically feasible with some hard work. A greater contribution from the City of Chicago.
As I said before, if you can show me better numbers or specifics, I am open to changing my mind.
If you all you have are more slogans, then kindly just shut the fuck up and go back to reading your econ texts. If that is the case, you are useless and your views carry little heft and you are a lightwieght pretending to be otherwise.
You know why roads are funded by the government? Because it's in the United States Constitution that the government build roads.
I'm not spouting Libertarian beliefs, I'm spouting free market, Austrian Economics. Libertarians just happen to believe in that.
I already stated what you need to do, get government out of the transportation business. Have workers fund their own retirement. And you can charge higher fares for entering downtown since probably 80% of L traffic is to and from downtown.
First, Getreal, do you really think Hong Kong is a good model? First, the MTR is 76% Government owned. It is not completely "privitized" as you would like to let us believe.
Second, It's hard to compare Hong Kong to Chicago. According to the NY Times, "the land that the government sold to the subway system soared in value when a new line was built there, turning the transit agency into one of the city's biggest landlords. Income from that real estate helps pay for the subway."
No large transit system has no government assistance.
Getreal: One could easily make the argument that mass transit are roads. After all, we allow private ownership of semi-auto weapons even though no one is in a militia anymore. Spare me your half-assed reading of the Constutition--christ, did you just graduate or something?
You really don't want public funding of mass transit? There are two things you can do:
--Either provide a specific model for private onwership;
--or prepare for the economic and traffic problems caused by less mass transit.
What school did you go to--the Iowa Barber College of Economical Arts? Did you never learn in college to provide factual support for your slogans? God, you are a dolt.
Here's my solution:
1) Make it legal for multi passenger buses to compete with the CTA so long as they support the universal fare card system. (this is just technology).
1a) Get the heck out of the way. Maybe there is a business oppy here, maybe there isn't. Either way, the beauty of private greed is that it can serve the public good. There is no need for a five year plan.
2) Back at the CTA, raise fares to whatever it takes to deliver a good product and break even. Stop screwing your customers in hopes of a bailout.
3) Do nothing else.
Stay the heck out of the way and let people make their own transit decisions instead of having politicians make them for them. If the $7 each way private express van goes out of business because people prefer the cheaper $3 each way CTA bus, fine, but that's a decision for people to make, not planning boards and politicians.
Oh, and watch your language Matilda. I'm impressed that you mastered the seven dirty words, but really, some of us have a larger vocabulary.
I keep telling you just look at Hong Kong. They own the land that they built the subway on so they can develop the land. So they make money off of fares as well as rents. The MTR is a publicly trading company. Private Property is the backbone of a free market. Why do people want to live by a subway? Because there is a benefit to it. However when the subway company doesn't own the land, they can't profit off of the increase in land value and rents. Private citizens charges higher rents for apts near transit. So everyone benefits from the transit except the CTA because they don't own any land.
Please spare me your interpretation of the Constitution. It states that government shall make roads for postal delivery. It doesn't say that we should subsidize improperly run government mass transit. A gun is a gun is a gun. Doesn't matter what kind you have the right to own one.
I really don't want public funding of mass transit and if people don't want to use it then its their choice to drive and clog up the roads. The markets tend to do a pretty good job of determining what people want. I use the CTA everyday and I will gladly pay market value when it is run by a private corporation but I will not subsidize government and union pensions and bloated salaries and advertising telling me that they need more of my tax dollars.
Whymustiregister: Fine ideas.
Any numerical thought to it? You know, you really need to have at least a fragile business plan for anything to work. Do you know know that?
Seriously, I am willing to have my mind changed, but that cannot happen without numbers.
Why on earth do ALL the privitization advocates who come here and to other blogs lack even basic numbers?
--Do you know what a revenue stream is? What is the revenue stream for private mass transit in the Chicago area?
--What are the revenue projections for the first 5 years, at least?
--What about income projections?
--What about expenses, both operating and capital?
--Who inherits the pension liabilities?
--Do you know what seed money is? Where is it coming from?
--Do you know what licensing schemes are? What are your thoughts on this aspect of the project?
--Are you able to the measure of public support for this, and if not, how will you?
--What on earth makes you think any private, or even semi-private, firm want to do that? [Perhaps one can make the case that private and semi-private firms have taken over tollways around the world, including Chicago, but revenue-wise, roads can be a different animal than mass transit for a variety of reason, not the least of which is rolling stock]
--Would a semi-private transit scheme be backed by public bonding authority? Why or why not?
--What happens to that rolling stock?
--Does govt provide any initial infrastructure aid?
--What happens to the actual infrastructure?
--What other examples of mass transit privitization can you look toward for guidance, either good or bad?
--Will the use of eniment domain be involved? Why or why not?
--If a private agency is competing with a public agency--not sure you mean this--what happens with bus stops and train stops, which, after all, are located on public roadways?
In short, do your homework, guys, before making a half-assed attempt at changing minds. You are simply not serious, and you deserve to be humiliated.
Sounds like a good idea for a paper for some bored econ student such as our challenged friend above.
I look forward to your well-thought out responses ....
Since you are operating on shouting and ranting at great length approach, I'll aim for brevity as my usp.
You legalize competition at bus stops, then get out of the way. Either there is an oppy here or there isn't. We know that the govt does a bad job of transit, we should let somebody else try, and the buses are an easy way to start. Nobody needs to file your five year plan projection to do that.
Whymustiregister: And free-marketers wonder why people think they are fact-challenged kooks.
Nobody needs to file a five-year projection? Uh, try selling that to a private company. I am sure they need them.
And you assume that private companies are just dying to enter this market for mass transit--any evidence of that, cowboy?
God, you two are stupid.
whymustiregister: Don't even bother this guy is a CTA stooge. He doesn't understand free-market enterprise only government subsidize.
Getreal: Really? You really think that? Wow.
Seriously, get a refund on your education.
I doubt you understand free-market enterprise or ecomonics, as you seem to know only abstract psuedo-theory but are utterly unable to produce any numbers or anything resembling even a rough business plan. Nor can you show what private companies would be interested in competing in the Chicago area's mass transit business.
I suspect you are just some liberatarian loser sitting in mom's basement waiting for Jerry Springer to come up. I suspect you either passed through Hong Kong for perhaps 12 hours, or read about the city-state's wonderful transit system, and them make leaps of logic from their, not all of them supported by actual facts [see Sparky's comment above].
But, feel free to dazzle me with the specifics of your "plans."
Still waiting ....
I'm suggesting that I don't have to file a 5 year plan because (wait for it), I'm not in that business. You want to talk to my neighbor across the alley who does van service for corporate clients. Could he make money at it? At some price points, yes. Is it worth the time of one of his drivers for six months? Possibly.
Here's the part where I think you must be trolling because nobody could be so stupid that they can't understand this: There is no need for a commission, committee, blue ribbon panel, special investigative branch of the local five year plan committee, whatever. You legalize private buses and get out of the way. Either people will go into this business or they won't. If they won't we are stuck with the awful CTA. If they do, we could have a real choice. Whatever happens can't be worse than what we have now, which is a CTA monopoly.
Even under your plan we get a marginally better funded incompetent monopoly. There has to be something better.
So let's call you on your facts: In detail, what is your fool proof method to get downstate congressmen to vote more money for Chicago transit. Not what they should do, but how it will actually happen. Fine, lay your no blood for oil rap on them, but it didn't work last time. Ditto the Olympics, world class city, etc. They don't want to hear it.
Explain why this time, they will see the light and decide that *their* constituents should pay for *your* ride to work.
Ain't gonna happen toots.
Why should I create a business plan and spend hours of my life on something that i'm not getting paid for or have any chance of implementing. Besides let me see your 5 year projection for the CTA under its socialistic rule. Where's the money gonna come from the next time they raid there pensions and blackmail taxpayers for more money? What's your business plan besides raise taxes. All you do is drive people out of the area to lower tax places. Do you know nothing about economics and personal behavior?
It's not pseudo-theory, it's what has made this country work since the colonial days. Why do you assume you even know my political views and why do you assume that libertarian's are losers? Milton Friedman won a nobel prize and was one of the greatest economists ever. Is he a loser? I've never been to Hong Kong in my life. Quit acting like you know me.
You know what happens when you assume and you are making a big one out of yourself.
OK, guys, let's boil it down to this:
What private companies are stumbling overthemselevs to provide mass transit services in the Chicago area?
Where the hell are they?
Do you have even the tiniest string of evidence that private business wants to enter this field?
No, you don't get paid to write business plans for non-existant companies. But the whole point of my rant was to show you that despite your free-market leanings, no one has shown me--and believe me, I've been looking--the numbers to prove that privatized mass transit will do a better job than public mass transit.
Do you have any thoughts related to numbers, any at all? Or will the mythical fairy of the free market take care of it all?
Oh, and Getreal, you are wrong: Heavy government subsidies, either direct or indirect, were involved in everything to the building of railroads and interstates to the development of nuke energy and space-tested technology, as well as biomedical techology, as well as a host of other things, including meeting our current oil needs. Do you seriously not know this? Would you like me to provide tutoring? I have very reasonable, free-market rates.
I am having a harder time believing you are a college grad in economics.
Getreal: I am not an economist, but it sure sounds like you are the economist on this site.
Can you explain to me what govenment-subsidized service works?
Can you give me an example of what "public service" that has become private works (And Hong Kong and London cannot be an examples, because it is clear that Hong Kong is not truly private considering that the government is majority shareholder at 76%, and London is a private-public enterprise.)
As an economist, what do you think of the PP partnership that London's Underground has, considering as recently as July 2007, the Metronet (the private partnership) has encountered serious financial issues? Do you think that the issues are facing are less serious than the issues that the L is facing?
Do you think that every public service (i.e., roads, public transportation) should become private?
Just because they were subsidized doesn't mean the subsides were needed. We subsidize farmers every year for corn, they don't need it. One of the largest growers of corn is ADM. Why don't they subsidize apples and pears? Because it's not needed and its just wasteful spending.
Maybe you don't hear about companies wanting to run transit because there is no way it would ever happen with how things are right now. Hong Kong works because they own property around the subway and can build. PRIVATE PROPERTY rights. Every time I bring up facts you just ignore them. Take the Green Line to the southside there are huge parcels of vacant land. If the company could buy the land in the area as well as the green line the could turn a profit on rents and passenger revenue.
Well Hong Kong is private its traded on their stock exchange go to yahoo finance and lookup mtrjy. However foreign exchanges don't have disclosure laws so it doesn't say who the major shareholders are, however it does turn a profit with out subsidies.
As with London, Chicago used to be private-public right before it was taken over by the CTA. The city was basically telling the bus companies where they wanted bus routes, not necessarily the most profitable ones. So anytime government interferes with private enterprise it inhibits its growth and profitability.
If government didn't subsidize we wouldn't have to pay as much in taxes. If we kept more of our own money we could afford to pay an extra ten cents on corn that the government was paying instead with out all the governmental waste involved we would save money.
Getreal: You sure do know how to gloss over vast stretches of US economic history to attempt to make your point.
I am through with you. You are a factually-challenged dolt who is more comfortable with slogans than figures.
Don't make the mistake that I am opposed to privitization. I am not. I am just opposed to dolt who have no facts to back up their theories, and who try to pretend something is that is isnt: The free market in the USA, for instance, which glosses over the fact of subsidies and massive amounts of unpaid labor (slaves) that bulit this country you love so much for its supposedly free market ways.
Read some Friedman or Hayek or Mises then come talk to me otherwise quit calling me names. I'm not going to go into great detail about how stuff works on a message board on chicagoist.
Ding!
Matilda wins!
Read the budget and the external audit. Even if the CTA doubled their ridership, the fares wouldn't cover operating expenses. It is horribly mismanaged and think about how crowded some of the buses and trains are now. Even if double the number of people were on ever train and bus the CTA would still be losing money. So I ask again, why should we throw more tax dollars at a failed system?
RDA has a campaign up to get people to come to the concurrent protest on this. Please join:
http://www.thepoint.com/campaigns/rda-olympics