CTA survey shows rising overall satisfaction but riders cite safety, cleanliness and accessibility gaps
Loading...
Summary
The CTA's spring 2025 customer survey and disability focus groups show overall satisfaction rose to 69%, yet concerns about personal security, station/train cleanliness and accessibility features—especially signage, elevators and operator assistance—remain major factors reducing ridership. Staff outlined training and pilot responses.
The Chicago Transit Authority reported an increase in overall customer satisfaction to 69% in its spring 2025 biannual survey, but agency presenters told the advisory committee that safety, cleanliness and accessibility problems continue to deter riders, particularly frequent train users and people with disabilities.
Jack Hogan, coordinator of market research for CTA, said the agency sent roughly 35,000 survey invitations and received 1,911 complete responses between mid‑May and June 20. While overall satisfaction rose by eight percentage points from spring 2024, Hogan and Emily Drexler, senior manager for customer insights and strategy, said the results remain below pre‑pandemic peaks and show persistent trouble spots that affect ridership.
The survey and recent focus groups of riders with disabilities identified several recurring barriers. Hogan summarized four themes: clearer, more legible signage and reliable audio announcements; poorly maintained or unreliable elevator and escalator conditions and lighting at some stations; crowding and bustle that block priority seating or make boarding impossible for some riders; and inconsistent operator assistance such as deploying ramps or kneeling buses.
"Overall, a big takeaway from these focus groups was that the CTA really is a lifeline that makes daily life possible for riders with disabilities," Hogan said, summarizing participants’ testimony that transit provides independence that paratransit alone does not.
The results quantified how perception translates to lost trips: Hogan reported that about 77% of train riders are dissatisfied with at least one attribute and among those, 17% reported riding significantly less; personal security on trains and cleanliness were leading drivers of reduced ridership. For buses, dissatisfaction with wait times, reliability and interior cleanliness correlated with an estimated 4% drop in ridership among affected riders.
Committee members pressed staff on how CTA will turn the findings into fixes. Emily Drexler described an internal working group—staffed by operations, planning, technology, training and communications—that began in August to turn focus‑group insights into three pilot projects for accessibility improvements. She said the group will coordinate with peer agencies and advocacy organizations when designing pilots and tests, including simplified bus‑stop signage and tactile elements.
CTA training staff outlined steps the agency is taking to reduce operational barriers. Kim Robinson, vice president of training and workforce development, said bus operator training runs 36 days across classroom, field and qualification phases; customer service assistant (CSA) training lasts 13 days and covers gap‑filler operation, wheelchair securement, PA announcements and SOPs for assisting riders with disabilities. Robinson said trainees are quizzed during training, that operators are recertified every two years, and that CTA will begin annual refresher modules in 2026 and roll ADA topics into quarterly safety campaigns.
Irma Gomez, CTA’s ADA compliance manager, said training emphasizes respecting riders’ agency, asking how customers want to be assisted, and reporting defective ramps, lifts and station equipment. Gomez also noted CTA piloted e‑paper bus‑stop signs and will continue to test signage, including tactile and accessible website features.
The committee identified follow‑up tasks including sharing working‑group outputs with the broader advisory board, piloting simplified stop signs, and improving coordination with regional partners such as the RTA. No formal policy votes occurred at the meeting because the committee lacked a quorum.

