Talk:Chicago Transit Authority

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Spotted a bit of a POV problem, a recent addition to the page, but defending my change here just in case. The CTA did not cut service January 1, 2005, as it had previously planned to, but this cannot necessarily be accredited to pressure from groups like Midwest Unrest.

First of all, the CTA's own explanation of why it did not cut service seems logical, and mentions nothing of these groups. The official reasoning is that a promise was made by Springfield legislators that service should not be cut now because they were willing to put a lot of energy into finding new money for the authority this year. Therefore, if the CTA went ahead with its cuts, it would seem to nit have faith in these legislator's abilities to find new funding for it.

While it is possible that such resident pressure is the real reason for delayed cuts, this is unlikely for a couple of reasons. First of all, the CTA has a history of not heeding to citizen pressure. Second, the fare evasion campaign by Midwest Unrest was misdirected. It was directed at the CTA rather than politicians, and if the fare strike had occurred, it would have only served to make the authority poorer than it already is, not solved any problems. Even if it was able to exert some pressure, it would have needed citizen support, but the Midwest Unrest campaign was largely ignored by the citizens of Chicago (though it did get some press time, admittedly.)

So, I've eliminated these as a reason for the CTA delaying cuts, but added a link to midwest unrest at the bottom of the page.

Laldm 19:39, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

General Managers and other Operating Officials[edit]

Can someone include the names of such officials and dates of service, including George Krambles, Harold Geissenheimer, and Harry Hirsch? They are, among others, significant in the recent history of CTA. Thanks.

Recent Derailing[edit]

Is the recent derailing of a train on the CTA's blue line important enough to be added to the article?

Unless the investigation results in something systemic, like an entire series of cars being sidelined, probably not (considering the distinction between Wikipedia and Wikinews). As indicated in other reports, it has happened a couple of times before (the Green Line fire was more spectacular) and a similar incident, a fire in the Red Line subway a couple of years ago, wasn't even mentioned this time around. Also was not as big as the train falling off the L in 1977. Now, maybe inserting a chronology of accidents on the Chicago L page might be appropriate, but generally covers that topic.--Busjack 16:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Was that the culprit? (btw, most if not all of those buses look like rifles in profile... with their tail section sloping backward substantially) (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

7542 according to NABI's press release.--Busjack (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No Retired List?[edit]

Although there is a retired list in the Chicago Transit and Railfan page they sort of neglect recent retirements, most notably the retirement of the problematic 60 footers from NABI. Allan kuan1992 (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Transit and Railfan has their status as "Buses 7500-7725 were removed from service in early 2009 due to structural problems, and are unlikely to return to service again" which is their official status. While some people outside of Chicago classified them as retired on the North American Bus Industries page, they probably will not be officially retired until the lawsuit is resolved and the FTA decides on the disposition of its interest in some of the buses. Since they are sitting in the yards, "in storage" is probably the correct status.
Although CT&R's Bus Rosters of the Past has the legend (1979 to 1997) in the link, the Retired roster in fact is current, as it includes the 4400 TMCs, 5300 Flxibles, and 5800 New Flyers. In fact, it appears that it jumped the gun in writing off the 6000s, although those series are listed under both active and retired (approximately 40 of the 300 have been retired). --Busjack (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
BTW, the link to the historic roster is already in the article, in the notes under the current roster. Busjack (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

CTA Bus Tracker[edit]

As the biggest bus service with GPS real time tracking in the country (and possibly the world, although I am unsure on this) shouldn't there be a section on it in the CTA page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent CTA service cuts[edit]

Would a section on the CTA funding woes and the recent service cuts be appropriate? There should be plenty of context with all the articles out there discussing the previous attempts to cut service and political negotiations. Lonelymiesarchie (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to write it, with references to verifiable sources, go ahead. However, I think any encyclopedic coverage would have to put it in context with, say, the 1973, 1981, and 1997 service cuts or "funding crises," and how the tax hikes mentioned in the Regional Transportation Authority (Illinois) article didn't work. If you want to research all of that .... Busjack (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


I put something like this on the TTC page because it states that it carries 1.5 million passengers daily, and this article has the CTA at 1.7 million passengers daily. The TTC article claims that the TTC is the third largest city-transit system in North America (and cited a five-year-old unsourced claim from a TV network website) and this article states (with no citation) that the CTA is the fourth largest. Something is wrong here and I think this should be resolved. I put the citation needed tag in the CTA article. My position is that based on the information in the articles, the CTA should be listed as third and the TTC as fourth. I'll make changes in a few days unless someone can cite something that proves me wrong. --Antigrandiose (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Basically I deleted both references, because they (1) essentially are puffery, and (2) probably not true after the Feb cutbacks. I don't see any need to retain and document these points, and especially find it strange that someone would want to demote TTC below CTA, but c'est la vie (as Canadian law mandates I say). I did add a reference to where one can find the numbers in the monthly Board Presentations. Busjack (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ashland BRT[edit]

Any info on the alleged new buses with Boston-like left-sided door arrangements? (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Lots of historic photos[edit]

most (or all) of these are cc-by-sa 2.0: Victor Grigas (talk) 04:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Those are good. I wonder if anything from that period is going to be revived. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding a Fare Chart and details of the unlimited ride passes[edit]

Do you think it's okay if I add a fare chart and information about the unlimited rides? Jchen1999 (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not think fare charts are considered encyclopedic. See WP:NOPRICES: "An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is a source and a justified reason for the mention." I don't know the details of the unlimited ride passes, but information on the pricing structure seems appropriate if supported by reliable third-party sources. Huon (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a reliable source for fare charts and unlimited ride passes. So can I still add it on this article? Jchen1999 (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a great reason to add this information. It is not critical to someones understanding of the CTA. There are reason to add fare information would be things like criticism over it and subsidies but there is no overall reason just to include a fare chart. I guess the question is for what purpose should it be included. Remember this is an encyclopedia not an advertising website. XFEM Skier (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chicago Transit Authority. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)