As Pace Struggles, CTA Claims "No Major Delays" After Doomsday Day One
CTA Doomsday Schedule: Day 2
Calumet Fisheries Wins James Beard Award
How To: Roast a Chicken (If You're an Idiot)
30 Percent Chance Of Hailey
The CTA is creating a stink with some with new signs that are aimed at "continuous riders" that critics say are aimed at the city's homeless. The signs have gone up recently and some, like Chicago Carless' Mike Doyle, suggest the signs are aimed at curbing the number of homeless people who take to the warm train cars during Chicago's harsh winters.
Any regular ‘L’ rider can attest to the wave of homeless Chicagoans who take to the warm interiors of CTA rail cars during the city’s brutal winter months. Although generally a benign presence in the system, their downtrodden visual appearance–and in many cases odor–earns them the ire of many fellow, more fortunate passengers.Trying to get to the bottom of the matter, Doyle contacted the CTA and asked them a few questions.With that in mind, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why the CTA would hurry to install the aforementioned signage at the start of another Windy City winter. Of course, it isn’t necessarily legal to single out homeless people and deny them service. (Just ask the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless about the numerous cases they’ve won against housing-status discrimination). Especially a public service like transit.
What is the legal basis for the signs? i.e. Is this rule officially codified in CTA’s existing rules and regulations and if so, where? If you can cite and quote the codified rule in your answer that would be a great help.) If there is not legally codified rule, what is the basis for these signs and the rule posted on them?Reading through the CTA's answers, we tend to side with Mike, that, especially given the timing, the CTA is aiming to reduce the number of homeless who traverse the city all day on the trains. And, yet, we also understand the CTA's concerns of enforcing its "policy." Either way, we doubt the effectiveness of this new push in policy as it seems almost impossible for the CTA to enforce it. With the exception of the O'Hare station, rarely have we seen any CTA personnel or staff make any concerted effort to enforce such a policy. [NBC 5]“Payment of fares for CTA service is governed by State statute. The Metropolitan Transit Authority Act, 70 ILCS 3605/31 gives CTA the statutory power to make all rules that are proper and necessary to regulate the use, operation and maintenance of all property owned, operated or maintained by CTA which also includes the right to impose fines and penalties for violation of those rules. Non-payment of the appropriate fare is considered theft of service.”
Image via ChicagoCarless
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
i don't know why i think about such things, but there's been times where i think "if i were homeless, i totally would ride the rails during winter."
i don't think there's anything wrong with it, really. if blago can give senior citizens a free pass (which is great in theory, but shafted the CTA, money wise), i don't see why we have to be dickish to people who are in such need. they have to come up with at least one fare, right? that's more than the seniors are throwing down.
it makes sense to kick someone off the train if they're doing drugs, being disruptive, going to the bathroom or breaking other laws. but in general, i think as a society, we need to take care of each other more.
I agree that we need to take better care of each other. I don't think allowing people to ride a train all day instead of offering other options accomplishes that. We need to invest more--both as a government and as individuals--in actual shelters that help those without choices rather than shuffling people off into a corner of an el car.
This is stupid. I sometimes space out on the train or get really engaged in my book and accidentally miss my stop. Are they going to prevent me from getting off at the next stop and taking the opposite direction train one stop back?
Finally, the CTA is addressing the big, pressing issues. By pushing this unenforceable policy they not only waste resources, but force confrontations with people whose only crime is being present.
If they're causing disruptions then that's another matter. But someone just keeping warm on a train, who does this hurt?
I agree with CTA's commitments and disagree with the comments.
The CTA has a commitment to riders, not freeloaders. It's not the CTA's problem to figure out where the homeless should go, and saddling them with it is just laziness on the part of society.
And from a rider's perspective, I don't enjoy riding next to someone in a closed quarters that has poor hygiene if I can avoid it. If they can pay a fare and have a final destination, there's nothing I can do about that. But for the sake of everyone's nostrils, why exacerbate the problem by giving them an outlet next to us?
Call me callous if you wish, but the CTA trains are NOT the answer for the homeless during the winter.
... because clearly, insisting that they get off the train and pay again with money they don't have is going to help.
If they break the rules? They're asked to leave the train and go out into the cold. If they get belligerent? They get arrested, and go in a nice warm jail cell.
And from a rider's perspective, I don't enjoy riding next to someone in a closed quarters that has poor hygiene if I can avoid it. If they can pay a fare and have a final destination, there's nothing I can do about that. But for the sake of everyone's nostrils, why exacerbate the problem by giving them an outlet next to us?
I know plenty of people who pay their fare and smell like shit (Hello, lady-who-gets-on-the-136-in-the-morning-with-too-much-perfume-or-whatever-that-crap-is). Should we kick them off too? For the homeless to get on in the first place, they had to have paid a fare. Other than following them all day long and waiting until they cross from one train to the other over and over, how can you fairly enforce this? You can't go by smell alone.
Since this *is* unenforceable, why the uproar? How do you know why someone is changing trains? How do you know where they got on and where they intend to get off? We don't, and the CTA doesn't. Furthermore, even if there is a reason to be able to eject someone from a train, for $2 they can get right back on.
This seems like much ado about nothing.
kicker: I dont think anyone is suggesting that the CTA is responsible for housing the homeless. What people are suggesting is the CTA has bigger problems to tackle than this non-issue. And really, who cares if there is a homeless guy sleeping in the back of the el car?
I know plenty of people who pay their fare and smell like shit (Hello, lady-who-gets-on-the-136-in-the-morning-with-too-much-perfume-or-whatever-that-crap-is). Should we kick them off too? For the homeless to get on in the first place, they had to have paid a fare. Other than following them all day long and waiting until they cross from one train to the other over and over, how can you fairly enforce this? You can't go by smell alone.
As I said, if they pay a fare and have a final destination, there's not much you can do... Unfortunately, poor hygiene isn't a crime.
What's to stop someone from just setting up shop (as I've seen) complete with sleeping bag in the engineer's space of passenger cars? The CTA should not be the answer to the homeless. We as a society should figure that one out.
I care if there's a homeless guy sleeping in the back of the El. Just like I cared Saturday when there was a belligerent drunken homeless guy on my southbound red-line train calling everyone in sight by the n-bomb. Just like I care when I take the blue line to O'Hare only to have one end of the train taken up by a homeless person and their possessions. I'm pretty sure she wasn't going to catch a flight anywhere...
God, can the people who hate the poor and homeless come up with some new material? Really, it's 2008 and I'm hearing the same old Reagan-era "They smell bad" and "they're freeloaders". Toss in a "Welfare queen" and we're ready to redefeat Mondale.
Oh yes, spare our nostrils and drive them onto the freezing streets. Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
Letting people ride the trains at night isn't a solution at all, no sane person would argue that. It's a way for people to keep warm when it's freezing and they have nowhere to go.
If you've experienced homelessness, or partial homelessness (like having a shelter bed but only being able to use in for part of the day) you know that there are times in the day where it's cold and you have nowhere to go. Restaurants, shops, even malls, these all cost money.
Chasing people to the edge of society doesn't improve anything. And yes you are callous, and how sad that you seem proud of that.
JD84: I highly doubt a homeless woman was taking up the entire back of the train. Two seats at most. And anyone (drunk yuppies coming back from a cubs game included) that is swearing and causing a disturbance should be kicked off the train. But most homeless people I've seen on the train in my 15 + years of riding the el simply just sleep and dont bug anyone.
Big f'ing deal. get over yourself.
"homeless problem? give them a home! legalize squatting in buildings left vacant for tax write-off purposes." - jello biafra
@jd84:
You're talking about someone being disruptive, I've seen people who clearly have money (*Ahem* red line) acting like asses on the train since I was a kid. There's no place for that and they should knock it off or leave.
But this prissy "ew, stinky" bullshit just burns me up. Some people aren't going to be up to your exacting hygiene standards, suck it up and move to another car if it's that bad.
The only way they could do this is by putting up a fence in between train stations forcing riders to go one way or another.
gas, grass or ass: nobody rides for free
God, can the people who hate the poor and homeless come up with some new material? Really, it's 2008 and I'm hearing the same old Reagan-era "They smell bad" and "they're freeloaders". Toss in a "Welfare queen" and we're ready to redefeat Mondale.
The same can be said for your washed up, regurgitated "Why do you hate the homeless???" bullshit.
I don't hate the homeless. Just because I'd rather not rub shoulders with ANYONE that aggravates my olfactory nerve doesn't make me callous. It makes me normal.
Do you advocate them the passenger seat in your car when you see them at a stoplight? If not, then shut the fuck up.
From a business perspective, the CTA loses millions in revenue from late-evening rides, because people choose cabs over public transit. Much of this is due to the types of riders that frequent the CTA at night. The CTA should and is doing what they can to keep freeloaders off of trains. The homeless should not be saddled on the CTA. Shame on those that fault the CTA for recognizing this.
Hate is such a strong word. You should learn what true hate is. It isn't some overused punch line cliché'.
I guess I kind of expected those responses eventually.
Gerobobo: Taking up the whole back, from the doors she had stacked her stuff up over about 6 or 7 seats. Ok, so I over-exaggerated, it was still quite a bit of room and it stunk of urine.
Albanypark: I get it, you dislike many of the people on the red line because they have a life style which differs from your ideals. Either way, the guy was still being loud and disruptive.
So they're making my decades long tactic of getting a seat when there is a crowd going north illegal?
I've ridden south to Jackson or Harrison so I can sit all the way to Howard.
Plus I don't have to pay anymore, thanks to our insane governor!
What are they going to do, make me go upstairs at Jackson & go through the turnstile again, even though there's no extra revenue from such an action?
I can tolerate the homeless if they leave me alone. And they usually want to be left alone. Get rid of those God awful musicians on the Monroe Blue Line platform. That black guy with the radio is the worst. A close second is that woman with the violin/guitar and the tappers on her shoes. She has been playing the same song for the last 8 years.
@kicker:
Oh Honey, such anger. I'm going to love you with kisses.
You aren't hateful at all. Anyone saying otherwise is BULLSHIT!
I'd say you're very normal. More's the pity really. Normal being angry, touchy and, whenever the homeless or poor are the issue, very sensitive about your widdle nose. You're an adult right? Because yelling "They're stinky!" is rude from a child.
Actually, I have given people rides. Strangers even! Sometimes they didn't even smell all that great! The temerity! Not everyone who is without a home or access to regular showers needs to be treated like a morlock.
Go back back to Xbox live with the STFU nonsense. You're commenting to talk, not shout people down.
Clearly this is because of smelly homeless people and not the ease and convenience of taxis. The lack of dependable late night service, the long walks from stations for many riders and the outdoor platforms in the depth of winter play no part. It's the smell.
You work for the CTA, don't you?
Have you been on the CTA late at night? I doubt it. Yes, there are some people curled up, kind of tattered and maybe even stinky. There's also a plethora of drunk people who aren't poor or homeless raising a ruckus.
Again, ARE THERE NO PRISONS? ARE THERE NO WORKHOUSES!
Thank you for clarifying. That said, I hate you.
I don't hate the homeless. Just because I'd rather not rub shoulders with ANYONE that aggravates my olfactory nerve doesn't make me callous. It makes me normal.
so we're back to the smell.
From a business perspective, the CTA loses millions in revenue from late-evening rides, because people choose cabs over public transit. Much of this is due to the types of riders that frequent the CTA at night.
Prove that all of those people are opting for cabs because homeless and not because they're drunk and don't feel like waiting for the bus or walking two or three blocks from the station to their home when a cab will let them right off in front of their door and I'd say you have a legitmimate argument.
Gerobobo: Taking up the whole back, from the doors she had stacked her stuff up over about 6 or 7 seats.
Really? She took up 6 or 7 actuall seats and had stuff on every single seat in the back of a car? If this is true (and I'm not saying it isn't), definitely the CTA should say something. But I think most of our experiences with a homeless person the train is one guy camped out in a back seat MAYBE using one extra seat for his stuff. and I've been riding the train since high school, 1979.
As a side note, non-payment of a fare is "theft of services." However the terms of service when I put my money on my ChicagoCard allowed me to ride FOREVER in the system once I paid a fare. It seems to me that changing the terms of service without public notice (and maybe comment) is unconstitutional, and might call the delegation of the authority from the legislature into question.
That being said, what is the going charge for the theft of $2 of services?
That being said, what is the going charge for the theft of $2 of services?
Six months in prison, six months probabtion and being prohibited from being anywhere upwind of "kicker"
@Stealth:
Hyperbole becomes the norm when people start talking about the homeless and poor. "There were dozens of these bums all over the place" means one or two sketchy looking guys.
I've been riding the CTA daily since 1994, buses and trains on the north and south side. The worst I've seen is a guy with a bunch of newspapers taking up the backrow on the old green limosine buses. Late at night, the "continuous riders" are asleep.
Perhaps I had one of those rare experiences, but this lady was hauling a lot of stuff. Perhaps she was half sherpa?
Perhaps I had one of those rare experiences, but this lady was hauling a lot of stuff. Perhaps she was half sherpa?
Well, like i said, I'm not saying it isn't true, but I will concede that it happened and that it was extremely rare. The worst I've seen was a mother and daughter (I'm guessing), who were homeless (guessing again), who seemed to be wearing most of the clothing they owned (their puffy shapes seemed more like clothes than fat), covered with matching white cloaks of some sort and matching white headscarves. They hauled the rest of their stuff in two shopping carts and at most took up two seats and a decent chunk of aisle space. They were around for years but i never really heard anyone complain.
There's plenty of weird on the CTA, and as long as it's not disruptive (blocking seats, harassing people for money, criminal) it's just people being people.
I started riding the train in grade school at my parent's insistence. They used the CTA all the time and viewed it as the best way to not only get around the city, but to learn how to get on with people.
Some people smell bad, some people look strange, some people are loud, some people are eating whole meals out of bags. Doesn't shit on my gingerbread house to ride with them.
And I've never NOT ridden the train because of them. Well, maybe moved to to another car, but that's the extent of it. This "that's why people ride cabs late at night instead of the el train" is ridiculous. So millions of women would ride the train late at night if there weren't stinky homeless guys on it and have no problem with walking the three our four block from the station to their front door, rather than take a cab that would let them off right at their door. And if it weren't for aromatic street people, millions of drunk people would rather ride the relatively slow-moving el train that stops every few minutes or so than take a cab that can get them home quickly and let them get to bed and/or puke in their own bathroom? Hmm....
Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone's mentioned that the uptick in homeless people finding refuge on the El seems to indicate either a shortage of homeless shelters or the ineffectiveness of getting the homeless to take refuge at existing shelters.
Albany,
You are so full of shit it's senseless to argue with you. Do you really expect anyone to believe you actually give rides to the homeless? I've lived in this city for years and I've never seen a single person give a homeless person on the streets a ride, anywhere. Much less a female.
I'm a 31 y/o male that works in the Loop and doesn't own a car. You can bet your ass that I ride the public transit everywhere. Your answer is to call me names because you don't have a strong argument.
My comment about the olfactory nerve was simply from a rider's perspective. It has nothing to do with my personal views of the homeless. It's basic science. The longer a person sits on that train, the more of that person's odor will penetrate the train. Most people only ride the train a few stops. When you're on there for hours, it tends to begin to smell like you.
And yes, from a business perspective, the CTA loses riders because of the clientele. If ease of getting a cab were the main problem, they'd be losing service in the middle of the day. Think before you type.
And FYI, the drunks are just as bad, if not worse culprits for lost revenue. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's a stupid argument to point fingers at one when BOTH are a problem.
Albany,
I'm glad you hate me. I would say the feeling is mutual but I just don't care enough to put that kind of energy into our relationship.
I don't believe that the CTA loses riders to taxis. CTA and taxi riders are two different demographics.
People with the money to spare take taxis everywhere, people who don't have the money, or prefer to save it, take the trains.
I have no problem whatsoever with the fact that homeless ride the trains to get out of the cold. I would too if I didn't have a home.
And when I'm in my car on the Eisenhower, I see the trains coming and going at all hours of the day and night and they're practically always empty. So what's the big diff if some random homeless people are on them to get warm?
It's not like they're taking over. There but for the grace of God, people.....
Cue 3 posts arguing with me. Oh you are a huckleberry.
Sure. I worked with the Night Ministry as well as outreach through the great Chicago food depository. But then, I'm full of shit.
My argument is to treat the homeless and poor as human beings worthy of dignity and respect. To be kind and understanding, to show compassion to people who might not be able to shower twice a day or who are just trying to get refuge from the cold. Go on and cry about being called a name. Awww.
No, you're being a snarky dick. Plenty of people just take it in stride and don't demand the world conform to their scent preferences by penalty of law.
Oh no. Here comes the science.
Where did you do your post-doc in chemistry? Circle campus?
The science, it overhelms me.
That not only fails to make sense, it actually collapses into a sort of black hole of nonsense. Do you have any facts to assert on these claims of rider-loss or chemistry? Of course not. Because while they may smell, you're happy to talk completely out of your ass.
Someone curled up in a corner with BO is not nearly as disruptive or dangerous as some jackass coming on board loaded up from the bar and looking to fight/fuck/act a fool. The former is a minor nuisance and a sad fact of urban life, the former is actively obnoxious.
Oh Honey, do take a joke. All your macho posturing is just getting me hot.
I love that we'd all rather argue about petty shit like who hates who and who smells like what than pick up slaphappy's much more valid point. Shouldn't we be more concerned with helping the homeless get assistance in shelters? Maybe the signs should say "dear continuous riders, there are shelters at stops x, y and z. Please get off our trains and go get some help."
Homeless people sleeping on the train really don't bother me. I'll admit, its not the most pleasant thing but really they usually don't bother anyone. I'd take a random homeless guy sleeping in the corner over a drunk cubs fan or some whiney trixie any day.
But I can also see how the CTA would want to discourage this kind of behavior. Still there's no way they're enforce it.
Albanyparkour...the nuthouse called.
You are due back by 6:00 pm tonight.
Albany,
Do you have any facts to back up your assertions that freeloaders don't cause a problem? If the CTA didn't recognize the freeloaders as being a problem on the trains, they wouldn't be posting signs trying to prevent it. I don't need to present evidence to argue it. If you want the signs removed, present evidence that they don't.
Do you really need evidence to know that the longer something sits out, the more odor it gives off? Tell you what, put an egg in the microwave and cook that egg. Then open the microwave door. Be sure to wear a helmet, because when you pass out from the smell, I don't want you to protect those 7 brain cells you're clinging to.
Again with the "Drunks are worse" argument. Sure, they may be, but that doesn't mean freeloaders aren't a problem.
Oh Honey, you're so full of shit trying to make people believe you're a good person. The truly good people in this world don't need to brag about their charity. They just do it. Good luck giving your free rides to the homeless. LOL
I never said that the CTA loses riders specifically because of the smell. That would be your strawman extraction from my argument that the CTA loses clientele because of the types of riders that sit on late night trains. Drunks, stinky people, and just generally shady people are all to blame for that.
The absence of proof is proof enough?
Google is not broken sweetheart. Try plugging in "CTA Crime Statistics" That's a hint for you.
See, now you're approaching cogency. This effort is smokescreen. It's an unenforceable policy that gives the appearance of "doing something" but in fact does precious little. You don't need to show results in a program like this, that's the CTA's favorite kind of initiative.
I'll go on proving a negative. The last digit of pi is 6 by the way, fancy that.
Yes. Because they do clean the trains, especially if people complain about an odor.
You and Irishman1 got the same "Big Bathroom Book of Put-Downs by Irving Feldman" for Christmas last year didn't you?
Again with the "Drunks are worse" argument. Sure, they may be,I love that we'd all rather argue about petty shit like who hates who and who smells like what than pick up slaphappy's much more valid point. Shouldn't we be more concerned with helping the homeless get assistance in shelters?
But as pointless as arguing about who smells and who doesn't may seem, I think it's sort of an important first step in a way. Getting some people past the petty misconceptions and generic stereotypes might help them understand the REAL problems with homelessness is not the smell or that "they don't want to work" or "all the want to do is drink and take drugs". THEN we can get on to providing real help in shelters.
No argument here, Albanyparkour.
Just a phone call from the nuthouse.
Jesus, read what you write. Read your accusations...read your "put downs".
You're a nut. I'm talking nuthouse nuts. You don't see it?
Just be back to the nuthouse by 6:00 pm...6:30 if you are driving random homeless people around the city.
@Stealth:
Right on.
Many homeless actually have jobs, or are in recovery for addiction. Housing is expensive and with the economy going tits up more and more people and families are facing a winter of high heating costs and shaky employment.
In the GLBT community there are a number of teens who have been tossed by their families for being gay who end up on the streets or out of the system. These kids are going to school, working part time and can only get shelter intermittently. Poverty is not a monolith.
The simpletons like Kicker just want to whine like infants about the smell, and I'll happily slap them around verbally for shits and grins.
And finally, you just start lying. You wrote"
Show me where I said "homeless" in talking about the CTA losing revenue. Show me.
What a pathetic argument you're making, pointing at the drunks of the CTA trains as a problem to divert from the freeloaders. They're both problems, and the CTA can fix BOTH at the same time. Or oare you one that believes we can't address the drug problems in this city until we address the murder problem. They aren't mutually exclusive.
The simpletons like Kicker just want to whine like infants about the smell, and I'll happily slap them around verbally for shits and grins.
Slap me around? Please. I'll mop the floor with you, just like I have been.
But as pointless as arguing about who smells and who doesn't may seem, I think it's sort of an important first step in a way. Getting some people past the petty misconceptions and generic stereotypes might help them understand the REAL problems with homelessness is not the smell or that "they don't want to work" or "all the want to do is drink and take drugs". THEN we can get on to providing real help in shelters.I'm not unsympathetic to the homeless plight. I just don't think people should fault the CTA for addressing (if you even want to call it that) the problem. Bitch at the city for closing the shelters.
Kicker, it's not worth your time to keep the argument going with the parties you're arguing with.
Jesus, Albany's heart bled all over my shoes. It's mixing with the homeless guy's pee.
albany wins.
@Kicker, quoting kicker:
From a business perspective, the CTA loses millions in revenue from late-evening rides, because people choose cabs over public transit. Much of this is due to the types of riders that frequent the CTA at night.
I'd use a larger font if that would help.
You make a very adulterous point.
Really hung up on this aren't you. Friend of Bill?
Do tell. Does it involve work gangs? Fatal beatings?
Yes but what about the economy. You're drifting now honey.
Yes, you just ooze humanity.
God, you just make things up when you can't think of anything.
Clearly the homeless problem is the fault of vampire voles living in my trousers. When has the city closed shelters? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
Oooh. Rough trade.
Kicker, it's not worth your time to keep the argument going with the parties you're arguing with.
I know. It's the typical "why do you hate______?" argument that gets spewed whenever you question her. I realized where her head was when she accused me of being Hannity.
albany wins.
Coming from someone that advocates squatters rights, I consider that a compliment. I'd hate to agree with you on anything.
A: I'm a boy. A queer one, but a boy all the same.
B: You're not Sean Hannity, he's successful. You're parroting a style of argument based on using outliers and removing context. Combine that with overly passionate screaming.
C: This isn't about winning or losing. You're a priss who whines like a baby about stinky people. I'm just poking the bear to amuse the court.
yes, I support squatters living in vacant buildings left vacant for dubious reasons. I'd rather have people have a home than not.
have you ever been homeless? I have - you do what you have to survive. and if that includes (gasp) sleeping on a train so you dont die from exposure or sleeping in a boarded-up or burnt-out building on the far west side, then so be it.
Until more humane and social programs are better funded and managed, we should turn a blind eye to these innocuous acts.
I love how as arguments get more severe, the terms of affection become more nauseating on here! It went from "honey," to "sweetheart"... give it a few more posts and we're going to see "go fuck yourself, schnookums!"
...or how we've gone from giving homeless people rides to having actually been homeless...
I see it as a means of conveying just how silly a discussion has become. With friends I'll do the same. "Oh honey, you're being an asshole." is oddly common expression amongst my clique.
And we're not even all that swish.
"You're not Sean Hannity, he's successful."
"I'm just poking the bear to amuse the court."
Ding!