Rahm solicits comments on public transportation

Rahm solicits comments on public transportation

Mayor-elect Rahm Emanuel has named his Transportation and Infrastructure transition team, and is taking public comments on transportation issues at his website.

At least three members of the transportation transition team have CTA or public transportation ties and experience.

  • Jacky Grimshaw is vice president for policy at the Center for Neighborhood Technology, and a member of the CTA board.
  • Adolfo Hernandez is director of advocacy and outreach for Active Transportation Alliance.
  • Randy Neufeld, SRAM Cycling Fund director, and board member of Active Transportation Alliance.
  • Jack Catlin, LCM Architects. Catlin is a former CTA board member, chair of CTA’s Citizens Advisory Board, and member of the CTA’s ADA Advisory Committee.

Also worth noting: David Mosena is a transition team co-chair. Mosena is currently president and CEO of the Museum of Science and Industry. He also was CTA president in the mid-1990s.

What are the key CTA issues Mayor Emanuel should tackle first? And see the continuation for a full list of the Transportation and Infrastructure transition team.

Mayor-elect Rahm Emanuel’s Transportation and Infrastructure transition team.

  • Michael Alvarez, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
  • Jack Catlin, LCM Architects
  • Forrest Claypool, Rise Health
  • Jim Coyne, Building and Construction Trades Council
  • Leslie Darling, Ungaretti and Harris, LLP
  • Jacky Grimshaw, Chicago Transit Authority
  • Meghan Harte, AECOM
  • Adolfo Hernandez, Active Transportation Alliance
  • Kevin Irvine, Equip for Equality
  • Howard Learner, Environmental Law and Policy Center
  • David Narefsky, Mayer Brown
  • Randy Neufeld, SRAM Cycling Fund
  • Reverend Dr. Richard Tolliver, St. Edmund’s Episcopal Church

Follow CTA Tattler at my new Twitter page. Post your Crazy Commuting Story on the CTA Tattler Facebook wall.


Leave a comment
  • It's SOS, the same old shit.
    Just another bunch of retreads.
    The same political hacks that always keep being reused because they allegedly have experience.
    Their experience is being pals with the politicians who then repay them with make work jobs, high salaries, free cars & big pensions.
    No good will come from this.

    A far better way would be to pick a dozen random, regular CTA riders, but that's way too sensible!

  • I'm close to what Scooter is saying.

    At least it is the same old "transit advocacy" groups as Quinn also has represented on the CTA board.

    Of course, with what I say about consultants, AECOM has a conflict of interest.

    As far as the business side of running transit, I see nothing from there, except Mosena, who had a brief stint of cutting. Of course, there is nothing like, say, a former head of TTC, LAMTD, etc. who actually has experience in running a transit agency, and might bring comparative thought to the panel.

    Heck, they didn't even pick Mike Payne. Obvious racism.

    I predict that the outcome of this is "we have $10-12 billion of unmet capital needs, and would like to restore service to prior levels, but have not located a funding source to do so." Harte will add "Give us a contract to study that."

  • You know, I do hear what you guys are saying. But I do give Rahm some credit for opening up his site to common folks to comment. And Mike Payne did take that opportunity. And I recommend that you do too. Bitching here will only get you so far. I know the CTA reads this blog, but not sure about Rahm....

  • In reply to KevinO’Neil:

    "I know the CTA reads this blog..."

    Read, but maybe not comprehend. Someone on chicagobus.org found this story on CBSChicago.com, saying:

    Riders appear to be stuck with the center-facing, bowling alley seats, despite complaints seeking a change.

  • In reply to jack:

    Jack, not to defend Rodriguez on this one, but...

    The story you link to mentions center-facing, bowling alley seats. but the complaints I have heard were about the narrowness of the seats, not the fact they are center-facing. I personally support center-facing seats, but have asked that they be more bench-like.

    Still, as I said in the previous comment, I do see you point about the same old people being asked to the transition team.

  • In reply to KevinO’Neil:

    Let's not parse them again, like was done with regard to the Dan Ryan Red Line.

    I didn't agree with your solution, and apparently so didn't the number of riders cited in the Newsradio 780 story, but do you have any evidence that CTA did something along the lines you suggested?

    Or are we left with placing bets on what will show up in about a year? Rodriguez knows.

  • In reply to jack:

    Start placing your bets, because I haven't heard yet that the CTA is acting on bench seating....

  • In reply to KevinO’Neil:

    Then read the story. Rodriguez says he has.

    I know that CTA is opaque enough in its oracular pronouncements, but that seems clear enough. You can't argue about what Rodriguez meant, without denying what he said.

  • In reply to jack:

    I should have said "while denying." At least I clarify myself when I am ambiguous.

  • In reply to jack:

    Jack, do you have any hard evidence that people don't like the center-facing seats?

    Or are you just going by anecdotal accounts from a number of newspaper/radio articles (and your own, tired, opinion)? You should know that the loudest complainers don't necessarily represent the views of the majority.

    I'm with Kevin - the center-facing seats increase capacity on CTA cars and for that reason alone they should be used. I don't understand how you can bitch about CTA financial mismanagement and while simultaneously criticizing a move that would increase capacity during rush hour without the extra cost of running more/longer trains.

    But go on - keep whining because you'll have to face other people while you ride. Priorities.

  • In reply to aaronjbrown:

    The issue isn't whether people like or dislike the bowling alley seats. That was debated a week or so ago.

    The issue is whether anyone at CTA listens to the customers or comprehends blog posts. This is cited as one example where it does not.

    It is quite clear from the article that Rodriguez has made up his mind, whatever his decision was and whatever the passenger input was.

    So, don't divert the issue. I recognized that you tried to.

  • In reply to aaronjbrown:

    Actually, in some cases it decreases the number of seats.
    On the articulated buses, in the rear sections, there are dead spaces that are too small to stand in but if the seats were turned to face forward or in some cases backwards, where there is currently one seat, then there would be two seats.
    Some of the artics also don't have seats on the rotating joint floor. That's four missing seats because few people ever want to stand in this section.

    It's obvious that CTA management hates us, the riders, & has decided that we're getting sideways seats, whether we like them or else!
    Or have you forgotten that bizarre experiment with some of the Novas where a few rows of seats were removed so it would be all standing in that section. That lasted just a few weeks.

  • In reply to aaronjbrown:

    I've ridden the new cars often enough now that I no longer mind sitting facing the center of the car. In other words, you get used to it.

  • In reply to aaronjbrown:

    And now there's this to add to the mix from USA Today:
    Overweight Americans throwing off safety of city buses

  • In reply to ScooterLibbby:

    Wow, very interesting. Thanks for sharing Scooter.

  • In reply to ScooterLibbby:

    I just checked out the website.You can also comment on other issues.You can submit a resume to become part of the new administration.You can submit proposals for the new administration to consider,anonymously if you wish.

  • In reply to aaronjbrown:

    I don't like the center-facing seats. And several reasons why they're not rider-friendly have been articulated on this blog. Kevin took a poll about it a month ago, and in the results, 29% voted "dump the longitudinal seating entirely." That may be a minority but it is a significant percentage. The expression of that opinion does not by itself constitute "whining" or necessarily incorporate any loudness or tiredness. It's a valid opinion. You should get secure enough in your own opinion so that you don't have to unload charged language at people who have a different opinion, no matter who is in the majority.

  • In reply to jack:

    Thank you so much for pointing out my extreme ineffectiveness jack.

    What do you suppose inspired the RTA/CDOT/USHED South Lakefront Corridor Transit Study jack (see Page 16): http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/12456386/348792632/name/PT_South+Lakefront_FEB4+PAC_FINAL.pdf

Leave a comment