Special Event Buses

[trainman8119]

Anybody know how the special event buses now have a $3 fare. When they first started they were $5 and if I recall, went up to $7.50. The Bears bus was eliminated during the season on account of impending doomsday. Now, I hear that Cub and Sox buses are just $3. Where did the extra funding come for that ???? Did the brass there figure out that the $7.50 fare was a little over priced ???? I know Cub parking has gone as high as $65 around the ball park in some cases, but take 3 or 4 people on the bus at $7.50 was a little steep. In any event, I think this is a proper fare. I was just wondering if anyone knows how the $4.50 reduction came about. With everything going up, it is odd that this would take place.

[Guest metralink]

Anybody know how the special event buses now have a $3 fare. When they first started they were $5 and if I recall, went up to $7.50. The Bears bus was eliminated during the season on account of impending doomsday. Now, I hear that Cub and Sox buses are just $3. Where did the extra funding come for that ???? Did the brass there figure out that the $7.50 fare was a little over priced ???? I know Cub parking has gone as high as $65 around the ball park in some cases, but take 3 or 4 people on the bus at $7.50 was a little steep. In any event, I think this is a proper fare. I was just wondering if anyone knows how the $4.50 reduction came about. With everything going up, it is odd that this would take place.

[Guest metralink]

my guess is to make them into express routes to comply with FTA regs, $3.00 is the highest fare charged so its now $6.00 rt.

[jesi2282]

They have also changed the name of some of the routes:

Cubs Roundtripper changed to Wrigley Field Express

Go Go Sox Express changed to US Cellular Field Express

Go Bears Shuttle changed to Soldier Field Express

[Busjack]

my guess is to make them into express routes to comply with FTA regs, $3.00 is the highest fare charged so its now $6.00 rt.

I don't think the FTA has anything to do with fares, other than seniors and disabled ride at half fare (and, the former in the state now ride free, as we all know). It sure wasn't doing anything about Doomsday. The RTA Act gives the service boards the power to set their own fares, so long as they meet the recovery ratio (70 ILCS 3615/2.04).

While I believe it used to be $7.50 for a round trip, trainman does raise a good question about why this, of all fares, should have been lowered, after the Bears shuttles were canceled for lack of funding (or based on a faux social equity argument), and our recent discussion about subsidizing what appears to be nonessential service.

But if anyone at Pace has an inside story on what happened, please let us know.

[trainman8119]

I didn't realize this was a one way fare, I just heard the ad during the Cub game on the radio. I guess you can say this would be a brilliant "deceptive" marketing ploy, since it used to be $7.50 (and $5 at one time) round trip, the average joe would think it would be $3 for the day, just as I did. It is being played off as a bargain (which I guess it really is) while kinda of trapping you. I think the ads on radio should be a little more clearer on what the fare really is. You shouldn't have to go to the web site to find this out. Still, all in all, the fare did drop a buck and a half in a time when fares are rising. I am surprised they didn't use this as a way to cover any perceived losses with the free senior program.

[Busjack]

my guess is to make them into express routes ... $3.00 is the highest fare charged so its now $6.00 rt.

While I did dismiss the FTA link, apparently there is some connection to express fares, as indicated in the Express Routes page. There must be something behind Pace no longer calling them "Special Events" routes, as jesi points out. There also isn't the deal about buying tickets in advance or group rates, formerly in effect.

Up to now, the talk about express fares was to increase fares, such as the proposals in the South Will-Cook proposal to charge a $3.00 express fare on 877 and the proposed 889. It wasn't, as trainman points out, to reduce fares.

One would expect an inside explanation from Pace, but I doubt we will see it here.

[trainman8119]

While I did dismiss the FTA link, apparently there is some connection to express fares, as indicated in the Express Routes page. There must be something behind Pace no longer calling them "Special Events" routes, as jesi points out. There also isn't the deal about buying tickets in advance or group rates, formerly in effect.

Up to now, the talk about express fares was to increase fares, such as the proposals in the South Will-Cook proposal to charge a $3.00 express fare on 877 and the proposed 889. It wasn't, as trainman points out, to reduce fares.

One would expect an inside explanation from Pace, but I doubt we will see it here.

I have a contact at HQ that I know will have the answer. I will send an e-mail and advise when I get an answer.

[jajuan]

Yes there must be something to this because not only are they called express routes now, they all now have route numbers, except the Auto Show Express which already had it's service obviously in February and the Soldier Field Express which doesn't yet have a schedule because Bears season is months away, whereas before the Great America Express was the only Pace special event bus to have an assigned route number, which we know is 284. Even the special event service on the 221 and 386 is being called 221 Allstate Arena Express and 386 Toyota Center Express respectively. Fares on those of course are $1.50 because these are regular service routes outside of events at the respective arenas they serve.

[Busjack]

Yes there must be something to this because not only are they called express routes now, they all now have route numbers, except the Auto Show Express which already had it's service obviously in February and the Soldier Field Express which doesn't yet have a schedule because Bears season is months away, whereas before the Great America Express was the only Pace special event bus to have an assigned route number, which we know is 284. ...

Not true, at least with regard to the destination signs. See, for instance, this topic. I believe another few were added to the 77X series for the Sox.

Now, whether they were previously on the Route Finder, that may be another issue.

[jajuan]

Not true, at least with regard to the destination signs. See, for instance, this topic. I believe another few were added to the 77X series for the Sox.

Now, whether they were previously on the Route Finder, that may be another issue.

I don't ride them so I wouldn't be sure of the destination signs on the actual buses themselves. I'm speaking of actual published route numbers on the Pace website when describing the service.

[OSUITS]

The change from “shuttles†to Express buses (and drop in fares to express bus fares) is most likely due to FTA regulations. The FTA prevents any federally funded transit agency from chartering buses to make money. The idea is that federal money should not be going to make money (crazy I know); it should be going to provide a public service…on routes, not to ball games. Chartering out federally funded buses is also considered to be under cutting private business (because it can provide services cheaper), and is thus prohibited. Its late...I hope I explained this good enough

EDIT: In short...they changed them to "express routes" to get around the regulations.

http://www.masstransitmag.com/online/artic...8&pageNum=2

[Busjack]

The change from "shuttles" to Express buses (and drop in fares to express bus fares) is most likely due to FTA regulations.

Possible, but we discussed that elsewhere.

Notably, though, Pace didn't change the substance of the operation itself, just the name and fare structure.

If the Bucky article has any relevance, we should see the end of the 154, because it was doing almost exactly the same as Bucky--transporting people from the parking lot, and only charging $5 parking--not bus fare. (cubs.com now says $6.) I also saw, it's still on the system map, but not on the schedule pull down. Does that indicate anything?

[trainman8119]

As promised, I have a reply from my contact :

New FTA regs created problems with our Special Events fares plus, this service is now falling into the "charter" category based on new regs.

So...we decided to call them express buses, use the fare we charge for express buses, so they are fall more properly into a transit service category.

Although the fare is "reduced" there are also no multi-purchase discounts any longer so it all evens out - so they say.

So, all of what we suspected is true (osuits was right on). Now, does this put the CTA Soldier Field 'shuttles' and Wrigley Field express into this category?? Should it ??

[Busjack]

As promised, I have a reply from my contact :

So, all of what we suspected is true (osuits was right on). Now, does this put the CTA Soldier Field 'shuttles' and Wrigley Field express into this category?? Should it ??

Depends on what you mean by "this category." As I noted in the preceding post, the 154 is indistinguishable from Bucky, in that it is open only to those who pay for parking. Hence, there is no way it can be classified as transit service.

On the other hand, the 128 seems like any other depot shuttle--you pay your fare at the train station and get on. (Both routes are on the current farecard.)

And, as I implied in prior discussions with ibebobo, maybe the answer is what is in the FTA agreements, which may go beyond what is in the statute, and which we haven't read. Maybe the transit authorities are in CYA mode, although I don't see how this superficial change changes the substance of the Pace operation. But, as in my discussion of TAs painting their buses white before selling them and CTA going overboard in disabling its junk, it is the TAs decision how to protect themselves, which is distinguishable from whether that was legally necessary.

However, with the CTA taking over the U of Cs from (I believe) Laidlaw, and NU having no problem with Pace dropping 426 and contracting with Royal American, the fact that a charter operator is willing to do the job can't be in itself sufficient.

[trainman8119]

Depends on what you mean by "this category." As I noted in the preceding post, the 154 is indistinguishable from Bucky, in that it is open only to those who pay for parking. Hence, there is no way it can be classified as transit service.

On the other hand, the 128 seems like any other depot shuttle--you pay your fare at the train station and get on. (Both routes are on the current farecard.)

As for category, at least in the case of the Wrigley Shuttle, the potential classification as a charter. It really is all a game isn't it? I mean, in the Pace case, it is the same thing, they haven't changed anything, its all lingo, the service is the same, the operation practice is still the same...all that changed here is that the fare more or less got regulated.

[Busjack]

Maybe a necropost, but the Press Release on today's CTA board meeting indicates that the 154 will be open to those who pay the fare, even though they aren't parking at DeVry. So, I guess another "technical charter" isn't.

[ibebobo]

Maybe a necropost, but the Press Release on today's CTA board meeting indicates that the 154 will be open to those who pay the fare, even though they aren't parking at DeVry. So, I guess another "technical charter" isn't.

Yes....another loophole was found. The Cubs went out to bid on the DeVry service this year and it was made very clear to them that what they were doing was basically a charter service and was illegal for the CTA to be doing it. I'm sure that the CTA felt that with so many service cuts, they would be under scrutiny to devote so many artics to the Cubs during prime time. Another waste of taxpayers $$$ as those buses could be serving the general public routes.

[jajuan]

Yes....another loophole was found. The Cubs went out to bid on the DeVry service this year and it was made very clear to them that what they were doing was basically a charter service and was illegal for the CTA to be doing it. I'm sure that the CTA felt that with so many service cuts, they would be under scrutiny to devote so many artics to the Cubs during prime time. Another waste of taxpayers $$$ as those buses could be serving the general public routes.

Well from the way I'm seeing this one, they're now more in line with it being transit service. The service is also restricted to night and weekend games. How many artics are really needed at any of those times that the few used on 154 will really have that much effect on other service? The way the service structure stands at this point, routes 6, 12, 14, 15, 22, 82, 145, 146, 147 and 151 operate exclusively with artics on weekends now because of the fact that they aren't really needed elsewhere at those times and would probably otherwise sit parked in their respective garages taking up space all weekend. At this point, I'm inclined to say point out someone else who is willing and can efficiently move all those people to and from Wrigley Field without the need for more car traffic than there already might be with the buses on the road or let it go.

[Busjack]

Well from the way I'm seeing this one, they're now more in line with it being transit service. .... At this point, I'm inclined to say point out someone else who is willing and can efficiently move all those people to and from Wrigley Field without the need for more car traffic than there already might be with the buses on the road or let it go.

While, admittedly, they got within the regs, which are easily circumvented except for the Indianapolis 500, I did concur that there is an issue of competing with private enterprise, if the Cubs actually put this out to bid. While the Cubs may be subsidizing it, the question is whether they are subsidizing operating 100% (like the U of C supposedly does), or are only "paying the fares," maybe providing 50% of the operating cost, or whatever is the CTA's recovery ratio these days. In that case, it isn't fair to the sales taxpayers who would be subsidizing that, rather than, say, a few more buses on Western Ave.

I also noted putting the "school trippers" under that route number, but I guess that if Rochester NY found a way around that regulation, anyone can.

[jajuan]

While, admittedly, they got within the regs, which are easily circumvented except for the Indianapolis 500, I did concur that there is an issue of competing with private enterprise, if the Cubs actually put this out to bid. While the Cubs may be subsidizing it, the question is whether they are subsidizing operating 100% (like the U of C supposedly does), or are only "paying the fares," maybe providing 50% of the operating cost, or whatever is the CTA's recovery ratio these days. In that case, it isn't fair to the sales taxpayers who would be subsidizing that, rather than, say, a few more buses on Western Ave.

I also noted putting the "school trippers" under that route number, but I guess that if Rochester NY found a way around that regulation, anyone can.

If it's not 100% subsidized, I'll agree. If it is I'll stand by the position of let it go. It's get people from point A to B, though it is admittedly Wrigley Field, open to all paying the fare, and in the service area.

[rmadisonwi]

From what I understand, U of C does not subsidize their service 100%, but only to the average cost-recovery of the system.

[Busjack]

From what I understand, U of C does not subsidize their service 100%, but only to the average cost-recovery of the system.

You are on the inside, and I'm not, but every time there is a doomsday, the list says that the 170s don't get cut because they are fully funded. 173 and 174 were eventually cut, but not part of doomsday.

If any of these are recovery ratio, then what I said about the sales taxpayers stands--unless CTA would voluntarily put a community system in Hyde Park, which I doubt, and certainly not if they let some student do the planning for it, which was previously reported that the U of C does.

[ibebobo]

The only thing for sure is that they (CTA) made this change for a specific reason(and I don't think it was to make extra revenue from the non parking people). It's a shame that this loophole exists and is being taken advantage of by the CTA and PACE when they should be responsible for the public $$$. And I'm sure there are private companies that could move the people to Wrigley field just as efficiently, but for a higher price.

[jajuan]

You are on the inside, and I'm not, but every time there is a doomsday, the list says that the 170s don't get cut because they are fully funded. 173 and 174 were eventually cut, but not part of doomsday.

If any of these are recovery ratio, then what I said about the sales taxpayers stands--unless CTA would voluntarily put a community system in Hyde Park, which I doubt, and certainly not if they let some student do the planning for it, which was previously reported that the U of C does.

Of course though it can be argued that the 170s and 192 are on stronger footing to fit as transit service than 128 was before CTA got through that loophole since they were always open to anyone who paid a CTA fare. Now if you went with iebobo's thinking on all of it past 128 still existing, somebody could argue that Champaign-Urbana's transit system shouldn't exist when that system is built around the University of Illinois campus schedule down there. When the University is in session the system as a whole operates later. When it's not, the system shuts down for the day at least two hours earlier especially weekends. Sundays there would be no buses in service beyond 5:30pm when the semesters were done. At least this was the case when I lived down there for about a year.