Today’s Headlines

  • CTA Closing in on 3 Key Ventra Benchmarks (Sun-Times)
  • CDOT 2013 Bike Projects Recap: PBL Has Lowered Speeding on Vincennes
  • 1 Dead, 4 Injured in 3 Separate Metra Crashes Friday (Tribune)
  • Hit-and-Run Driver Critically Injures 3 Pedestrians in Rogers Park (Tribune)
  • Media Outlets Catch Wind of Curb-Protected Bike Lanes Plan (Sun-Times, DNA)
  • Is the BRT Plan in Danger of Being Watered Down? (WBEZ)
  • An Absurdly Slanted Piece Anti-BRT Piece From Gapers Block
  • Speed Cams by Warren Park Begin Issuing Tickets (DNA)
  • Fallen Cyclist Bobby Cann’s Girlfriend Remembers Their Life Together (DNA)
  • Colón Urges Residents to Request Divvy Stations in 35th Ward (DNA)
  • Last Run of the CTA Holiday Train on the Yellow Line Today (Tattler)
  • CL

    “on Tuesday, the city will begin dolling out $35 tickets to those caught going 6 to 10 mph over the posted limit, and $100 for faster than that.”

    I wonder if they have already lowered the threshold to 6 mph, or if I keep reading this because reporters don’t realize they were going to gradually lower it over time? I guess we will find out when people start reporting they got tickets for 6 mph over.

  • Per the CDOT press release: “The City will start enforcement by only issuing tickets for speeders going 10 or more miles per hour over the posted speed limit. That ticket threshold will gradually be lowered going forward.”

  • Fred

    The CTA says that Cubic will not receive a penny until it meets certain criteria. Logistically, how does that work? Doesn’t Cubic collect all the fares, then cut the CTA a check minus its fee? I used to work for a company that did collections on behalf of government agencies, and that’s how they did it. So is Cubic being forced to cut the CTA a check for all revenues and not getting their cut, or does this contract work differently?

  • SP_Disqus
  • SP_Disqus

    I posted a link to the Ventra contract below to answer another commentor’s question and that was the first time I had read the contract. It does shed some light on the reasons for the problems in the Ventra transition. I’ve always thought that the main issue with the Ventra implementation was that they were attempting to make a full transition way too fast. From what I can tell, rollout started in August and they attempted to have it fully transitioned by November which is way too ambitious for a service with millions of costumers and thousands using it each day. It seemed to me that it should have been a nearly year long process where you start out with a small population of willing early adopters to do some beta testing and then start expanding it to different populations while tweaking what needs fixing.

    After reading the contract, I understand why they attempted such an ambitious rollout since Ventra doesn’t get paid during the implementation period prior to the full transition to the Ventra service. It makes sense that if the CTA is able to get a contract written where they don’t have to pay anything until after the implementation ended that they will write the contract that way, but I can’t fault Ventra for trying to minimize their losses by minimizing the time prior to receiving payment. As the contract is written, it makes sense that Ventra basically attempted to pray for a hail mary perfect transition knowing that it was unlikely to do it because it makes the most economic sense to minimize the transition time to whenever they hit their benchmarks instead of having a transition time where they know for certain that they’ll hit their benchmarks before it is over. If it would have been smart customer service wise to do a 9 month transition but this ends up accomplishing it in 7 months, they still come out ahead and it’s not like the customer service experience will hurt them in the long run since they have a monopoly on the service. A smarter contract, at least in terms of customer experience, would have had Ventra receiving payment based on the number of people they were servicing during implementation along with an adjustment for performance metrics. There could have also been a clause that they had to meet metrics on the customers that were being serviced before expanding to more customers. That would have provided incentives for a longer rollout period that would have serviced their customers much better.

  • Chicagio
  • Article with interesting data visualizations on pedestrian accidents —