/ Campaigns | Public Transit (CTA) Campaign | CTA Links - Events - Media - Research - Riders' Comments

CTA Rider Comments and Letters Speaking Points Little Village residents create a Vision for the Future | Rider Stories RTA Cook-DuPage Corridor Study

VISION FOR THE FUTURE – A FORUM ON JOBS, TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING VISION PARA EL FUTURO – UN FORO SOBRE TRABAJO, TRANSPORTACION Y VIVIENDA Conclusions from our Pilsen Vision For the Future Meeting(s) (Includes Flash slideshow of our last meeting) Read the reportback from the first meeting. Lea el reporte de la primera junta *There will be another Little Village meeting in late April. *Habra' otra junta en la Villita mas tarde en abril.

---

Sign and send us a letter to Bring Back the Blue Line.
         We want half Pink and half Blue to and from 54/Cermak...Download letter template

	No Fare Hikes No Service Cuts!   Transit Cuts = More Cars = Unsafe Streets in Chicago Learn to fix your bike at one of our free clinics! Visit us on the Internet at: http://www.chibikeproject.org

---

Rider Stories:

C.T.A. 2006-2007 Blue/Pink Line Rider Comments

---

"Letter from _Howard Ehrman, M.D. and Michael Pitula LVEJO Public Transit Organizer"

Two very well thought out letters from Beth Harris [ February 12, 2006 | January, 2006]

Letter from the Neighborhood Capital Budget Group
Letter from Zenny K. Sadlon
Letter from Kim Wasserman

Testimony for June 14 CTA Board Meeting

Good afternoon. My name is Michael Pitula. I’m the Public Transit Organizer for Little Village Environmental Justice Organization. I live in Pilsen, and I am here today on behalf of the many residents of Little Village, North Lawndale, the Near West Side, Pilsen, Berwyn, and Cicero who ride the CTA.

Chairman Brown, our organization worked with these communities and with Congressmen Davis, Gutierrez, and Lipinski to get the federal funds to Rebuild the 54/Cermak Blue Line and restore weekend service.

The result: Cermak Ridership is up 23% this year compared to 7% for rail service on the entire system.

The NEW $5 million PINK LINE train service is unproven and fiscally irresponsible. Especially at a time when the CTA will have to cut service and raise fares to meet its $200 million annual pension costs.

Chairman Brown, I talk to 54/Cermak riders day and night, and I can tell you that they are confused, upset, and outraged about the Pink Line.

Riders want to know why the CTA has spent nearly three months hyping the color Pink, but didn’t tell us that the line will take money from all other existing CTA bus & rail services.

With no new cars until 2009, the CTA will have to take cars off existing lines -- cars that are critical whenever there is a breakdown on any rail line.

Also, the Pink Line will increase your employee budget since you need to hire more operators to run it.

It isn’t hard to see that the CTA is soon going to find itself between a rock and a hard place. Or perhaps I should say “between a rock and a Pink place.” As services decline and fares increase, existing customer base will drop, catching the CTA in a vicious cycle.

Beyond helping fail to meet the CTA’s stated commitments, the CTA’s Pink Line will threaten national security, and violate the civil and disability rights of riders.

To run the Pink Line, direct Blue Line service between 54/Cermak and O’Hare will be cut from about 100 trains every day, to just 17 trains a day, weekdays only.

This will create a National Security Issue when TSA personnel at O’Hare, U.S. Postal workers, and Amtrak/Metra workers who depend on ONE DIRECT Blue Line cannot get to work on time safely at the nation’s largest Post Office, second busiest airport, and one of the busiest train stations. This will needlessly complicate the lives of critical personnel, and may endanger National Security.

What’s more, by cutting rapid transit to employment, educational, healthcare, and other opportunities across the city, the CTA’s $5 million dollar Pink Line will violate the civil and disability rights of its riders. Blue Line service cuts associated with the Pink Line will effectively split the city in half for Latinos and African-Americans who make up 90% of the riders on the 54/Cermak Line.

The cuts will violate ADA standards, making it harder for disabled riders to get to and from the Polk Street station, the only ADA complaint station within a mile of the Illinois Medical District.

Why compromise train safety and upset thousands of riders, particularly during the rush hour, by slower train service at a cost of $5 million??

Chairman Brown and the rest of the board:

VOTE TODAY for fiscal responsibility, train safety, national security and to protect civil and disability rights of CTA riders.

VOTE to continue all 54/Cermak Trains on the present route to/from O’Hare and cancel the Pink Line NOW!

---

Mass Transit or Mess Transit?

“The CTA operates the nation's second largest public transportation system and covers the City of Chicago and 40 surrounding suburbs. . . Chicago is one of the few cities in the world that provides rapid transit service to two major airports. From the downtown area the CTA's Blue Line takes customers to O'Hare International Airport in about 40 minutes and the Orange Line takes customers to Midway Airport in about 30 minutes.”

- from “CTA Overview,” transitchicago.com

Construction has begun for the new CTA O’Hare Express Station at Block 37, the necessity of which is obviously questionable. I did not realize that this project had progressed from “proposed” to “in progress.” Meanwhile CTA plans to reduce Blue Line local service in the southwest suburbs even as it has been confronted with a lawsuit from southwest residents as a result of the Chicago Card implementation and related fare changes.

CTA is public transit. It is a non-profit organization. Like some other large non-profits in the city, however, its decisions are not always made in conjunction with its stated mission. According to the CTA website, the mission of CTA is to “ deliver quality, affordable transit services that link people, jobs and communities,” and, according to a previous budget report, this mission includes working towards better service, reduced congestion, and improved air quality. True, money for transit often comes with strings attached and is subject to CTA’s cost analysis formulas, but we need the CTA to make its choices based on the goals of improved service, reduced congestion, and improved air quality. These goals are sound. If the funding formulas are not, then they need to be changed so that CTA can grow - and grow responsibly.

Have you bought your Chicago Card? CTA wants you to have one (even though the day and multiple day passes might be a better value for you). They want you to have one so much that they have temporarily waived the five dollar fee and have spent significant money to advertise and implement the cards. They want you to use Chicago Cards so much that they have eliminated the cash transfer and have made cash fares more expensive than card fares. The Chicago Card does not significantly address service, congestion, or air quality. Now if the Chicago Card, with its unique number for each card owner, allowed me to express my opinion as a transit rider on every decision on which the CTA board votes, then I might well get one. We probably already have the technology for this. Instead, the Chicago Card has the Big Brother-esque ability to track my travel and requires me to carry another piece of plastic, and the new fare structure is inequitable.

Many cities are implementing cards similar to the Chicago Card. But many of these cities did not previously offer riders the option to transfer between busses and trains as CTA used to offer. This was a major strength of the CTA before 2006. Chicago may in fact have been the only city in which riders could start their trips on busses (as many CTA riders do) or on trains, paying cash (as many CTA riders do), and get transfers good for busses and trains throughout the system. With the implementation of the Chicago Card, the paper transfer has been unnecessarily eliminated, and cash and transit card fares, apparently in an effort to convince riders to switch to Chicago Cards, have been raised. In the name of spiffy technology, we are going backwards in service.

Transit cards are great, especially day and multi-day passes, and, like Chicago Cards, they allow CTA to get more of its money in advance and to account for fares more easily than cash. (The transit cards were even better when they offered the bonus that is now given only to Chicago Card users.) Keep the Chicago Card Plus, too. It is a convenient option for many riders. But for goodness sakes, bring back the paper transfer and bring back fares that are equivalent at the time of travel. Make our system as financially accessible as it used to be. And make changes that increase overall accessibility with increased – not decreased – local service.

Transit is the way of the future. Accessibility, including day-to-day financial accessibility, is crucial to a user-friendly system, more crucial than a computer chip card. Transfers are also crucial to a strong system, especially in Chicago. We need a public transit system that will allow – that will encourage – a rider to jump on a train or a bus at anytime with any method of payment – even if he or she has only two dollars cash at the moment the train or bus arrives.

The signs say, “CTA. Take It Everywhere.” It’s a good idea. I prefer CTA to the crowded roads. And I would like to think that CTA will make sound decisions for its future growth, decisions such as alternative fuel usage and increased accessibility throughout the region. The CTA needs to spend less money on advertising and on technology and on capital projects in order to grow as mass transit – instead of becoming mess transit.

Beth Harris

February 12, 2006

Letter 2 : January 2006

My name is Beth Harris. I am a regular CTA rider. I live in the Edgewater/Roger’s Park area near the Granville red line stop. I am not speaking on behalf of any particular group today, but I have been involved with the Neighborhood Capital Budget Group’s Campaign for Better Transit, and I encourage you to review their studies including their overview of the CTA 2006 budget.

I am here primarily to speak about the elimination of the paper transfer and the new fare structure, and I did submit some of my comments last year in writing.

Eliminating the paper transfer and varying the fares based on the method of payment are both discriminatory.

There was a huge discussion about the proposed doubling of the paratransit fare. Obviously that idea was unconscionable. Now we need to have a discussion about the fare increases and about the elimination of the cash transfer which are equally discriminatory decisions. I think that the paratransit proposal – which was obviously going to be a hot topic - was a successful ploy to keep the emphasis off of the fare increase and off of the elimination of the cash transfer.

I have lived in Chicago for four years now, and this is the first time I feel angry when I go through the turnstile. Why do I have to pay more than somebody else does? At my station, Granville, I could load a Chicago card but not purchase one. There is a new ATM machine in the station in case I need cash. Who paid for this ATM to be there? The ATM at my station is not bank affiliated. There is a bank down the street. The ATM at my station is one of those freestanding ATMs that will charge me money to get my money. I don’t want to take out money at the train station unless I have to. I just want to get on the train. So I can’t buy a Chicago card at my station, but there is an expensive ATM where I could pay to get cash, and maybe the currency exchange down the street and around the corner sells Chicago cards. But I don’t want to go down the street and around the corner. I just want to get on the train. Suddenly, I have to pay more to get on that train than my neighbor with a Chicago card has to pay. This is not convenience or improvement. Not for me. Yes, the Chicago card is great for some people. I have a friend who is a professional with a regular income who sometimes works late nights, and for her it is more convenient to know that her transit card will always have value. The Chicago card is a great option for many people. But taking away the other options or making them more expensive – that’s discriminatory.

I moved to Chicago from Washington, DC to dabble in the arts. I freelance and my money does not come in regularly or predictably. Don’t tell my mother, but there are times when I walk around with only enough cash in my pocket to get home. Yes, I have a bank account and I could get cash but it is often likely that if I take out twenty dollars, I will overdraw, and then my bank will charge me thirty dollars. This day to day existence for me is a choice. I know that I am choosing to be a bit financially precarious. But I am fortunate to have that choice, and in making that choice – and in taking public transit - I interact with a lot of people who are living financially day to day and not by choice. Chicago is a city of the arts, restaurants, tourist attractions. Who do you think keeps these businesses running? The busboys and the front line service people and the people behind the scenes who are probably underpaid. Does it make sense if I only have a few dollars on me on the beginning of my shift and if my commute starts on a bus – as MANY people’s commutes do in Chicago, especially in the lower income neighborhoods – that I have to pay more to get to work than the person who can keep a Chicago card loaded and lives near a train station? Discriminatory. With these two dollars if I start on a bus, I get one ride. That’s it. With these same two dollars and a Chicago card and a place where I can reload it, I can get three rides. Imagine I do have ten dollars. That’s five one-way rides for me on a bus. Or fifteen rides for my friend with the Chicago card. It is discriminatory especially when you add in the fact that it is often the people of lower incomes who are more likely to pay cash.

The Chicago card is spiffy, modern technology. How much money is being spent on this spiffy, modern technology that is doing nothing to improve my service or the infrastructure of the system? And how much money is being spent to advertise and promote this spiffy, modern technology? Technology is a tool. It is a tool that is valuable not because it looks cool or because everyone else is doing it, but because it serves a purpose. Prerecorded stop announcements and electronic plastic cards do not improve service. When I see fancy new screen advertisements in the Lake Station but I have to pay more to get on the train, I am angry. Do you know that, according to one statistic I have, 32% of people in the US are cash only consumers? That’s about one out of three people. Is there a reason to force us to go cashless?

Perhaps it is that with the Chicago card, CTA is more likely to get more of its money in advance. I understand that if I buy in bulk and put – not ten but now twenty – dollars on my card in advance, I can get a discount. That is an incentive for me to give you my money in advance. But why should it matter which kind of card I use to get this incentive? I understand that CTA waiving the $5 fee for the Chicago card is also an incentive. You want me to get a Chicago card. But I don’t want to get one. And at the time of service, whether I pay with this, this, or this (and I borrowed this), my fare should be the same.

I like this little card. It does not waste a lot of plastic. It does not hold any of my personal information. It is fast and convenient and it holds a transfer. The paper transfer was great for when I have no value on my card, but I have cash. People have different lifestyles and different financial situations. Public transit should be equally accessible by any person at any time. Individuals and groups have tried to tell the CTA that repeatedly in response to the paratransit issues. Improved infrastructure and accessibility for all riders will decrease the cost of paratransit. This logic applies to the cash transfer, too. The system is most accessible to all riders when the fare – whether purchased on the bus or on the train – can be used systemwide. In fact, this was one of the strengths of the CTA system – that riders could initiate travel on the train or on the bus and make a transfer. Not all major cities in the US have this. In DC – where the trains look like something from the Jetson’s and people can ride them in their finery to the inaugural balls – you cannot transfer from the bus to the train, and the train, honestly, doesn’t take you very many places and it doesn’t run overnight. Elimination of the cash transfer, varying the fares based on the method of payment – that’s going backwards. That is making the system less accessible, less user friendly in the name of spiffy modern technology. Let’s not go backwards – let’s go forwards. Improve what we have instead of limiting it.

A few other points:

CTA needs to reprioritize.

The proposed superstation plan should be abandoned or shelved for a long time. The large amount of money designated for a superstation could be better spent to improve the services that already exist. Chicago does not need a dedicated line connecting the O'Hare and Midway airports to the city. Chicago does need to improve and expand existing services that can connect both airports with the El, with METRA trains, and with Amtrak trains. Have you tried to make the connection at Washington between the red and blue lines with luggage? Theoretically these stations are accessible, but the connection is hard to find, and I think you actually have to go out and repay to enter the upstairs pedway.

Improving signage and connections for passengers with disabilities would also benefit airport travelers who are carrying heavy luggage and would not be very expensive.

Instead of worrying about the limo set, simplify the unwieldy connection from the Midway Orange Line station to the inside of the Midway airport.

Add a simple connection between Union/Ogilvie Station and the Chicago El.

Add connections between Midway and O'Hare airports and nearby Metra lines.

I know that this means the CTA, and Metra would need to work together more. That is one aspect of transit in Chicago that does need to improve.

Consider, if you must consider a fare hike, a set fare of $2.00 (bus and rail, any payment method) that would include two transfers in two hours. Two dollars. Two transfers. Two hours. Current riders not needing to transfer would see an increase of $0 .25 – which is still significant. Riders who already transfer, who use CTA extensively, would not see a fare increase at all; and all riders who choose to use CTA might be encouraged to use CTA more because their fares automatically include the included transfers. Most importantly, the base fare would be the same for everyone.

We do not need to be at the mercy of “volatile” fuel prices. There are other fuel and energy options. CTA needs to be open to offers such as the CITGO fuel proposition. Maybe an offer like this and others that might arise in the future can buy us time while we transition away from fossil based fuels – which we need to do. That’s the spiffy modern technology I want to see CTA investing in.

CTA has a good basic infrastructure and needs to go forwards – to improve what we have.

CTA mission is clear – reduce congestion, improve air quality, and improve service. I appreciate that you have public hearings and workshops about proposed changes. I appreciate that you listen to our concerns. Most importantly, I appreciate the transit that we do have in Chicago. This is the first time I have lived without a car, and I love it. Americans are too dependent on their cars. I am not dependent on transit. I use transit. Keep making it better and more people will use it. Transit is the way of the future. Improved service, reduced congestion, better air.

CTA needs to continue to push for increased funding at the city, state, and national levels. Find ways to involve your riders in this campaign. We want to be involved.

It is wrong on the parts of both the city and the CTA to promote transit developments that are inequitable. Technology is merely a tool, which can be expensive and which may be outdated before it is entirely implemented. If we want new technology, let’s think about fuel options. Chicago needs additional funding for public transit, and both CTA and the city need to reprioritize the use of the funds that they have.

Beth S. Harris

January, 2006

6165 N. Winthrop #710
Chicago, IL 60660
773-743-1724

Letter from the Neighborhood Capital Budget Group
Letter from Zenny K. Sadlon
Letter from Kim Wasserman

For general information please email us here.

/ Campaigns | Public Transit (CTA) Campaign | Events - Media - Research - Riders' Comments