A recent Sun-Times column about the CTA’s planned Red Line extension misses many crucial points while making claims that sound reasonable on the surface but don’t hold water under realistic expectations (“As Red Line extension advances, a cheaper way hides in plain sight”).
First, the story references Metra lines providing CTA-like service. Just because there are tracks there doesn’t mean every railroad can serve the same purpose. Rapid transit like CTA (which provides frequent service over shorter distances) and commuter rail service like Metra (longer trips with less frequency) play two very distinct roles, governed by different operational considerations and federal regulations.
SEND LETTERS TO: letters@suntimes.com. We want to hear from our readers. To be considered for publication, letters must include your full name, your neighborhood or hometown and a phone number for verification purposes. Letters should be a maximum of approximately 375 words.
Though there are Metra lines that run near the proposed Red Line extension, those commuter rail services simply do not have the ability to provide rapid-transit service. Converting commuter rail to rapid transit would carry steep operational and infrastructure price tags that could easily outweigh the cost of the Red Line extension — while not providing nearly the stops, service frequency, connectivity and economic-development potential.
Existing infrastructure would need to be made fully ADA accessible, signal systems would need to be updated, rolling stock and facilities would need to be modernized. Current commuter rail stations don’t have fare-control equipment, fare vending, communications systems, customer assistant facilities or other elements of rapid-transit systems.
Even if this kind of infrastructure investment were made, significant additional funding would be needed, every year, to maintain a huge expansion of Metra service. Unlike the Red Line extension, which is in line for $2 billion in federal funding, no such funding has been proposed for improvements that would be needed for increased Metra service — which may not even be eligible for this kind of federal funding.
Second, existing commuter rail lines lack the connectivity of CTA. The MED tracks terminate in Millennium Park, where there is no direct connection to other CTA rail lines. Rock Island terminates at the LaSalle station, near two CTA stations. With direct integration to the CTA rail system, and frequent Red Line service, the extension will provide a breadth of benefits, to both commuters and communities, which cannot be matched.
The Red Line extension will provide a faster and more robust set of connections to multiple CTA rail lines and bus routes. Over 70% of riders who board at the 95th/Dan Ryan station today have destinations outside the Loop or are transferring to other CTA lines to reach destinations throughout the city.
Lastly, the story ignores the ability of CTA investment to promote economic opportunity. After decades of disinvestment, the Red Line extension is poised to not only build four new rail stations — an investment that by itself has a proven track record of spurring development by creating vibrant community anchors — but also foster thoughtful development through Equitable Transit-Oriented Development, for which CTA has developed a comprehensive plan.
Community leaders have stated loud and clear to CTA that they expect this project to support broader community development objectives.
Investment in CTA rail lines has paid dividends for the past century and helped shape the city. The Red Line extension will provide long-overdue transit access and economic development in a way that no other transit improvement can. Chicago’s South Side should have access to high-frequency, accessible and affordable rapid transit service. Quality, affordable transit options are what our communities need and deserve to be resilient.
Dorval R. Carter Jr., CTA president
Former Trump aide did the right thing
I ordered a copy of “Enough” by Cassidy Hutchinson, assistant to former chief of staff Mark Meadows during the Trump presidency. She had close access to the president, the Oval Office, key presidential advisers and what transpired day to day in the White House.
I recently watched MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow interview Hutchinson. What was clear is that Hutchinson is an amazing person of the highest moral character. At 25, she had more courage and ethical conviction than the other older, more experienced people working in the Trump White House — most of whom stood idly by while the president’s discourse and actions were inexcusable and very likely illegal.
As a scholar of communication who for 45 years studied political rhetoric, I found Hutchinson to be honest, credible, sincere and believable — just as she was during the Jan. 6 congressional hearing. To be sure, she has endured a lot, sacrificed much and has been verbally attacked and threatened by Trump’s allies.
Nevertheless, Hutchinson has been consistent and professional, giving us a very troubling picture of the lawless nature of what occurred in the White House during the last days of the Trump presidency. She makes a compelling case for why our democracy may be destroyed if Republicans don’t stand up and prevent the election of Trump in 2024.
I also watched from a rhetorical perspective — carefully and in a non-partisan manner —CNN’s Jake Tapper’s interview Hutchinson; my admiration for her ethical character continued to grow. She responded directly and clearly to all of the questions. She appeared thoughtful, reflective and committed to doing the right thing, even if doing so had serious personal and professional consequences.
Although she is a Republican, as a Democrat I firmly believe Hutchinson would make an ideal candidate for political office. I say this as someone who no doubt disagrees with many of her conservative views.
Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, surely we can agree our country desperately needs more principled, moral and thoughtful leaders like Cassidy Hutchinson.
Richard Cherwitz, professor emeritus, University of Texas at Austin
Government shutdown helps Trump
It seems well accepted that the faction of House Republicans who are forcing a government shutdown are doing so at Donald Trump’s behest. As explained in the Sept. 27 Sun-Times cover story, one of the effects could be delays in federal court proceedings (“How shutdown could slow down Chicago”).
Considering that Trump is facing several federal trials that he would love to delay, this may be the reason for the shutdown struggle, which puts our entire nation in jeopardy just so Trump can gain a small personal advantage.
Ken Stein, Lombard
