Possible New Fares In The Future

[sw4400]

I just heard of possible new fares coming sometime down the road(presumably if the CTA doesn't get emergency funding). Let me know what you think...

CTA Buses: $2.00/ride

CTA "L" Trains: $4.00/ride

No word on reduced fares, so this may be for all CTA riders regardless of age and/or disability.

[trainman8119]

I just heard of possible new fares coming sometime down the road(presumably if the CTA doesn't get emergency funding). Let me know what you think...

CTA Buses: $2.00/ride

CTA "L" Trains: $4.00/ride

No word on reduced fares, so this may be for all CTA riders regardless of age and/or disability.

Another sky if falling fiasco. If I were a legislator, I would call the bluff...then would work on a plan. There has to be some sort of solution here. If Hubie intends on implementing $4 L rides, he might as well make it $6, because there will be nobody riding the damn thing !!!!!

The reason I would call the bluff...because every time they get money, the still don't have it. You can give them 4 billion and they will want 8. If things are this bad, go ahead and implement it. Remember the last time the state bailed them out. They still raised fares and cut service. Let the agencies implement doomsday and then give them some money as a subsidy and not total funding !!!!

[Busjack]

I sort of agree with trainman on the sky is falling and if more money is given, the union will absorb it. I also agree that L fares should be higher that bus fares, since you can transfer for free while staying on the L system. That might also force more demand off the North Side Main.

The disparity in Transit Card fares was somewhat diminished by the fact that now the L takes $2.00 off a transit card, while a bus takes $1.75; however, with a cash fare (probably few remain) you pay $2.00 for the bus and don't get a transfer.

While I suppose that the legislature won't get out of town without doing something, the service boards do have to have a contingency plan, since the RTA Act says that the budget must be balanced. However, Huberman should be allowed to introduce it himself, instead of us relying on rumor. Also, since the recovery ratio indicates that fare payers have a stake (and the state Auditor General says that CTA's actual recovery from the farebox is about 33% once statutory gimmicks are eliminated), I agree with the Tribune that higher fares should be on the table in some form (such as during rush hour, when CTA says it is scheduled to capacity).

[Busjack]

As it turns out, the Tribune has just published that Huberman has trotted out the same doomsday plan as in 2005. No originality there. Also some fare increases, including some time based pricing, which I mentioned above. Good luck trying to get on a bus during the rush hour, though.

The Crain's article, cited on the home page, at least lays out what tax increases the RTA wants. Nothing about Frank's proposal to just raise the sales tax in the collar counties to the Cook County rate and give it to the CTA. I don't support raising the sales tax rate in suburban Cook, but fear that that will happen. I do support the real estate transfer tax in Chicago, since property there primarily benefits from the CTA. A real estate transfer tax seems to have worked in New York State.

[trainman8119]

You know, I was looking at the "proposed" cuts and was left scratching my head.

I am trying to figure out if the proposal is incompetence or just politicans playing

games. There are some cuts that would make sense, and others that would make

more sense. The playing games with the fares depending on time of day I also

don't agree with. The proposal includes some 220,000 lost rides. Well when you

eliminate the rides with the most people on them, yeah, you are going to lose

riders.

What I am not accepting here is the across the board Sunday thing...to me that

is just an easy copout..its doomsday, see we are doing something. How can you

eliminate routes that use the La Salle St corridor (the ones with the most people

on them) for example, but keep stuff like the 97 (for example) running, because

it operates on Sunday. Rush hour only operation on the 156 itself would blow away

anything on 97. What we are talking about here is 25,000+ riders here in a mininal

amount of time. And, just about anything on the 97 would be covered by something

that Pace would run. Yet, we eliminate routes that benefit thousands, operate minimally

in terms of time and keep something that is duplicate (see route 90 south of Grand).

And, elimininating the routes with the most people on them will of course reduce

the maximum amount of fare revenue produced. It is like firing the top salesman

in the company because he brings in the most money (and therefore costs the most).

So is the sky falling...hmmm. I wonder. I still say, State politicans let it fall. Call

the bluff. I think there are a lot of people out there who are just plum tired of these

guys whining about funding. Hey...maybe Ronnie, TJ and Phil can get their cups and

stand outside the train stations downtown with their cardboard signs begging for money.

After all, that is basically what they are doing. Funny, they would still have to compete

with those who are more competent at doing it and they would probably still fail.

I know I would still just walk on by.

[Busjack]

There is a lot of truth here. Two years ago, when the same Sunday only plan was trotted out, people on Ask Carole said it was a political ploy, to put pressure on Julie Hamos, since it proposed ending local bus service in Evanston. Now we have essentially the same plan (the only thing not clear in this one is whether the remaining routes will run on the Sunday schedule, as proposed in 2005), and see the reaction in the Crain's article "Local leaders decry CTA proposal" cited on the home page (Skokie and Evanston will be hurt). The choice for the 2005 Doomsday plan inexplicably was the one of I believe 3 alternatives that had the greatest ridership loss. We don't know what alternatives Ron studied, but this one also probably has the greatest loss.

Tit for tat, I hope there is some truth to pace2322's prediction that Pace will stop serving local passengers between 95th and the city line.

I don't know if I would go so far as to sanction the transit Armageddon suggested by trainman (you might get laid off, too), but I wasn't around during the transit shutdown of 1981, and maybe that flushed the system, for a while. However, it is clear that Ron hasn't cleaned out the clueless payrollers in CTA management yet, nor have the reforms suggested in amended HB 1841 been enacted. The state legislature has sat in Springfield for 5 months and has done nothing of substance, except satisfy the Tribune with regard to teenage drivers, who can't vote. Unless Madigan and Jones agree and tell them how to vote, the legislators are paralyzed. With the May 31st deadline coming, they will have to deal with the Republicans on such issues as the budget, capital plan, electric rates, and casinos, as well as transit, and they have done nothing yet on any of these.

I see that this will eventually shake out as the business community agreeing with the legislature that individuals have to pay higher sales and income taxes. Daley has already suggested that. That is why I ask (especially the children) who ask for more funding, what taxes are they paying and willing to increase on themselves. And the inefficient transit managers (like Pace suggesting bringing back Route 636) will soldier on. At a minimum, Reilly and Schlickman should resign from the RTA for telling the three service boards to budget the $226 million they were assured the legislature would provide, when no such assurance was given.

[RIPTA42]

How can you

eliminate routes that use the La Salle St corridor (the ones with the most people

on them) for example, but keep stuff like the 97 (for example) running, because

it operates on Sunday.

Shouldn't the 97 see lots of new ridership with the elimination of the Yellow Line?

What's most amusing about this plan is that Huberman seems to have included limited-stop runs on routes that do have Sunday service in his 61 eliminted routes. Aren't some of those funded locally and independent of the RTA, like the X80?

[Busjack]

What's most amusing about this plan is that Huberman seems to have included limited-stop runs on routes that do have Sunday service in his 61 eliminted routes. Aren't some of those funded locally and independent of the RTA, like the X80?

When the 2005 Doomsday plan was revealed, X80 was exempted from being cut because it was fully funded (either CMAQ or an earmark from Rahm Emanuel). The others weren't. U of C and Avon routes were also exempted because the employers paid for them.

Routes such as X9, X20, and X54 were part of the West Side Restructuring, not any earmark. One would assume that if CTA again tries to completely eliminate transit service in parts of West Rogers Park, for instance, people on the arterials can live without the overlaid X routes, since the supposed justification for the Sunday schedule is to maintain the primary grid.

P.S. With the federal money invested in it, I doubt that the federal government will allow CTA to just drop the Yellow Line. That wasn't even part of the 2005 Doomsday plan.

[Busjack]

Shouldn't the 97 see lots of new ridership with the elimination of the Yellow Line?

As trainman indicates, Pace 215 could handle it. Of course, coordination with Pace hasn't recently existed in CTA's world; the last time it happened was the 1997 CTA cutbacks, when CTA let Pace take over some of routes 49A, 56A and 108 that overlapped with 349, 270, and 352, respectively, and let Pace have Saturdays on 204 and 254 (subsequently both eliminated in the North Shore restructuring).

[qwantae]

As trainman indicates, Pace 215 could handle it. Of course, coordination with Pace hasn't recently existed in CTA's world; the last time it happened was the 1997 CTA cutbacks, when CTA let Pace take over some of routes 49A, 56A and 108 that overlapped with 349, 270, and 352, respectively, and let Pace have Saturdays on 204 and 254 (subsequently both eliminated in the North Shore restructuring).

Why not eliminate U of C Route 173 and 174: 173 riders may as well take Route 1, 2, 6, X28/ And for 174 riders should just take 55 or X55, to me those two route is a waste of money.

[qwantae]

As trainman indicates, Pace 215 could handle it. Of course, coordination with Pace hasn't recently existed in CTA's world; the last time it happened was the 1997 CTA cutbacks, when CTA let Pace take over some of routes 49A, 56A and 108 that overlapped with 349, 270, and 352, respectively, and let Pace have Saturdays on 204 and 254 (subsequently both eliminated in the North Shore restructuring).

About Pace Rt#254. They should just replace CTA#54A North Cicero, just add Weekday service on Pace 254.

[Busjack]

About Pace Rt#254. They should just replace CTA#54A North Cicero, just add Weekday service on Pace 254.

You didn't read the above. Pace 254 was discontinued in March, 2005, when the North Shore restructuring was implemented.

[RJL6000]

What's most amusing about this plan is that Huberman seems to have included limited-stop runs on routes that do have Sunday service in his 61 eliminted routes. Aren't some of those funded locally and independent of the RTA, like the X80?

Well, those overlaid X routes are funded directly by the RTA. The X80, because it runs on Sundays, will simply be shortened (it will operate east of the Kennedy Expressway only) as a result of the doomsday cuts. Other X runs will simply not be run. Also implied by the doomsday cuts is that all Blue Line trains will be routed to the Forest Park (Congress) branch, and will not operate on the Cermak (Douglas) Branch (which will then become exclusive to the Pink Line).

[Busjack]

Why not eliminate U of C Route 173 and 174: 173 riders may as well take Route 1, 2, 6, X28/ And for 174 riders should just take 55 or X55, to me those two route is a waste of money.

The U of C pays for them. Tell the U of C to save its money. And as a graduate, I know you won't be admitted.

[Busjack]

Well, those overlaid X routes are funded directly by the RTA. The X80, because it runs on Sundays, will simply be shortened (it will operate east of the Kennedy Expressway only) as a result of the doomsday cuts. Other X runs will simply not be run. Also implied by the doomsday cuts is that all Blue Line trains will be routed to the Forest Park (Congress) branch, and will not operate on the Cermak (Douglas) Branch (which will then become exclusive to the Pink Line).

Have you seen the plan, or are just making assumptions based on the press release? And who is responsible for such illogic as pointed out by trainman (assuming that such things as retaining 90 south of Grand, something the Auditor General has criticized, is included in the plan)?

[RIPTA42]

As trainman indicates, Pace 215 could handle it...

Sure, but the 215 is over a mile away from the Dempster terminal, and I would gather that most of the Yellow Line's clientele from the east would park & ride at Howard Street instead. Customers from the west might go to the 210, or simply brave the Edens.

[trainman8119]

Sure, but the 215 is over a mile away from the Dempster terminal, and I would gather that most of the Yellow Line's clientele from the east would park & ride at Howard Street instead. Customers from the west might go to the 210, or simply brave the Edens.

Precisely my point. There are plenty of options for the 97. There are little or none for all of the express routes along the La Salle corridor. So, why would you maintain a route like the 97, but eliminate a route where there is need, not to mention something that would max out your fare box revenue intake. The point is that Ronnie layed out a plan that appears to take nothing into account other than shock value.

[Busjack]

The point is that Ronnie laid out a plan that appears to take nothing into account other than shock value.

Correctomundo. If you look at the current Ask Carole the tone has changed from all of you should ask your legislators (Pace's current position) to Ron and [Carole] and Mayor Daley have been down in Springfield, but now the blog is to take "suggestions you have as we prepare to submit our contingency plan to the RTA. Everything you submit will be compiled and given to each Board member for their review."

Does anybody really believe that? With the arrogant way the CTA has acted up to now?

Also, while Carole's post had a link to a very colorful pdf, it didn't have anything new other than the numbers of dollars supposedly saved toward the $97 million goal for various scenarios. It didn't confirm or deny the various methods of implementing this one suggested by people in this topic.

[trainman8119]

...the tone has changed from all of you should ask your legislators (Pace's current position)

Ever wonder how if times are so hard, and cuts need to be made, and we have no money...

WHY is Pace spending money to run a commercial over and over and over. WHY are they

spending money for air time when they have so little to part with ??? I will continue to doubt

the severity of things with all agencies until silly spending like this stops.

[Buslover88]

I don't know about all of you, but i've been making my feet getting used to walk from one place to another because i'm going to end up walking. Face it people, there won't be anymore buses around after October. Protests and Riots won't work, so we'll just have to shut up it and just appect Transit is not good. If people lose their jobs, then so be it. We'll have a crisis and always live life in a crisis. Say goodbye to the CTA, i'll be sure glad they leave. There'll be less poullation, and half the traffic jams will be gone. We'll one day tell our kids to walk, it's the only thing to do.

P.S. If I sound mad, i'm not, I just give up on helping the CTA.

[Busjack]

As far as the original topic of this thread, the proposed fare structure in an a pdf attached to the Press Release. Half fares are retained, as I suppose they must be under state and federal law.

I don't argue with the concepts of time sensitive pricing and pricing an L ride equivalent to a bus ride plus a transfer. I don't know if the proposed level is appropriate, but some fare increases seem inevitable.

Also, some of you may get a chuckle (in a perverse sort of way) to the bureaucratese in Schlickman's letter. Apparently, the RTA sought cover for its legal hiney.