THE PSYCHOLOGY OF TRANSIT PLANNING
> "Mommy puts on my coat." That is what the little
> five year old girl tells Daddy, when he is trying to get
> her and her sister out of the house for a train ride,
> on that delightful Metra radio commercial for its
> week-end family fares. If you are five years old, of
> course, and Mommy has always put on your coat, it
> might indeed be a bit strange to have Daddy do it or
> to put it on yourself.
> It is not much of an answer, however, if you are
> dealing with serious transportation problems. That
> is what you almost always get, nevertheless, from
> bureaucrats and activists both, translated into
> adultese, "We've always done it this way." Transit
> policy is formulated on about a four year old mental
> level.
> Maria Montessori wrote of small children getting
> very upset by a change in their surroundings. Jean
> Piaget wrote of a mentality of children in the
> "pre-operational" stage, from about two to seven,
> that takes such things as the rules for marbles as
> absolute. He wrote of "syncretic" thinking in that
> stage, which is an inability to see wholes, and of
> "juxtaposition" which does not see inconsistencies.
> In "concrete operations," from about seven to fourteen,
> the child can at least perceive wholes, and in "formal
> operations," over age fourteen, the adolescent can
> imagine something different in "hypothetico- deductive"
> thinking.
> Both of them should have seen the uproar over
> rebuilding the Green Line five years ago. I have
> done my share of bureaucracy bashing, but I have never
> seen any transit bureaucracy as monomaniacal as "the
> community" was about rebuilding century old
> elevateds.
> It was the Chicken Little school of transit
> planning; the elevateds are falling down and we simply cannot
> imagine life without them. Any old excuse to throw
> money at them was good enough, even putting in stops
> every two blocks. Anything to save money or open new
> possibilities or to look at new technology was
> ignored or even censored. Never mind, say, a unified
> CTA/commuter train fare or keeping the line open on
> a limted basis or a new monorail technology.
> As matters stand now, neither the activists nor the
> bureaucracy can think of else than rebuilding
> century old third rail technology. Never mind that CTA
> recently revised the total cost from $3 billion to $7
> billion (see the 1998 budget). Metra isn't any
> better about rebuilding commuter trains, even though all
> those billions could conceivably fund a unified
> city/suburban system with a new technology, one that
> serves suburban industry as well as the downtown.
> What would Montessori and Piaget make of the
> various apprehensions over "privatization" ? That might mean
> going back to unsubsidized private companies, which
> no one is seriously proposing. Or, the
> "lease/leaseback" deal for the Green Line, which is just a tax gimmick
> that is costing the federal government far more than
> a direct grant, including, according to some reports,
> some $9 million for "consultants. " The riders will
> not see any difference in operations, unless there is a
> provision to foreclose on CTA.
> It can also mean private companies, or even the
> unions, for that matter, providing service under
> contract to CTA. The advocates claim it would save
> considerable money while providing much better
> service. A recent report says CTA is paying some $54
> an hour to operate buses, while a number of other
> carriers pay about two-thirds as much. On CTA this
> would easily save several times the $25 million in
> current cuts that are causing so much grief and
> agony.
> In Indianapolis the union got 12 of the 18 routes
> put up for bid. Government contracting, which this sort
> of "privatization" is, is no automatic cure-all, to
> be sure. Just look at the military-industrial
> complex. If the bidding process is honest, however
> (quite a big "if" in this town), I think privatization
> of this sort would do what its proponents say it
> will.
> Maybe if the public voted directly for bus companies
> instead of politicians, we would see a much better
> turn-out on election day.
> The "U-pass" for college students is an intriguing
> idea, a $90 student fee for five months of unlimited
> riding, when the monthly pass is $88. What's the
> gimmick? Partly, a mass sign-up; partly, CTA's
> dawning realization that most of the rides would fill empty
> off-peak seats. The major expense of a transit
> system is the rush hour. Once that is paid for, the
> off-peak merely uses what is already paid for, almost a free
> ride. When downtown has to pay for its enormously
> expensive rush hour, then CTA's money problems will
> be over.
> To a four year old mentality, however, there is no
> solution for CTA's problems except to throw money at
> them. So you traipse off to Springfield and
> Washington, like a little kid pestering Daddy for an
> increase in allowance. You better enjoy it, however.
> Throwing money at CTA is like filling a seive, you
> have to keep at it.
> Although "the community" would like to cover the $25
> million cuts with an $83 million city surplus, CTA
> calls that only a "short term" solution. Only nice
> free painless buckoes from afar need apply to CTA.
> Local responsibility for CTA finances might just
> require an adult mentality about CTA spending.
> In any event, I must commend the Pilsen/Little
> Village businesses for giving discounts to CTA
> riders and putting their money where their mouths are,
> quite unlike their downtown big brothers.
> Well, well, well, Daddy got little Katie and Alex
> to the train and they were adventursome enough to ride
> on the upper deck. If their elders were half as
> open-minded, they would straighten some of this out.
> William F. Wendt, Jr.
>
> printed in Southwest News-Herald June 4, 1998 under the title,
CTA Problems Won't Go Away With More Money