CTA Tattler

Is there a timetable that tells when we won't have to deal with this crap anymore? I'm really dreading my trip to O'Hare a few weekends from now. I'm gone through that whole shuttle bus fiasco, and it's the most annoying thing I've ever encountered in my many years of riding the CTA.

The contract is supposed to wrap up by the end of 2008, so I'd expect the line cuts and shuttle service to continue until sometime in the fall. I'd bet the plan is to be done with line cuts by Thanksgiving so the system doesn't have any disruptions for the busy holiday season in December.

Technically, it's a streetcar, not a trolley. The streetcar ride up and down St. Charles Ave. is nice and scenic as long as it isn't too hot or humid (no A/C on the vintage 1920s cars) . You do get to open and lower your own window! Not sure if service has resumed on the Carrolton portion of the St. Charles line.

The cars on the Canal line (that will be running to JazzFest) are newer and I think have AC if required. They're great if you're not in a hurry - I think their max speed is 10 mph.

Does anyone know when the trackwork on the Red Line will be done? I see they now have wodden blocks in place and have poured some cement on northbound and southbound tracks.

Hopefully, this work will be suspended during major events this spring and summer(Taste, Blues Fest, etc.). I used to just park at Jeff Park when this was going on, but now there is a big sign saying that I have to have a permit to park there. Not quite sure what to do now. I don't know why anyone would care, anyway. The parking lot is empty on the weekends. Why not make an extra $1.25 off me?

Anyways, since the samples provided were not representative of the lot as a whole, I'm sure that the analysis is going to be off. Some tarts are simply going to have more raspberries than others. There isn't anything that can be done about that.

The other's comment (above) raises a good point about the CTA not taking advantage of revenue opportunities.

Before raising our fares, it would be nice to know that the CTA has systematically searched for ways to maximize its other revenue streams (and ridership). I get the sense sometimes that there are probably a bunch of little revenue opportunities that aren't being tapped. They may or may not raise a huge amount of revenue, but they would at least reduce the need for any fare increase. And in any event, a dollar's a dollar, right?

For example: The purple line express tracks basically sit unused on the weekends. On weekend days with Cubs games, offer a special nonstop Cubs train from Skokie to Sheridan (or Addison if the track-switching isn't too tricky?) just before the game and a return train after.

I bet you could find enough suburbanite Cubs fans who would pay $20 for:

-parking at Skokie

-a seat on the "Cubs train" that leaves (& returns) at scheduled times

-a fast trip to/from Skokie to the ballpark (nonstop it would probably only be ~20 minutes each way)

Fill most of the seats on a two-car train and the CTA would take in $1500 or more for such a round-trip. You'd think that would be enough to make it a worthwhile exercise.

And it's a scalable service - you could just offer one trip in each direction if interest is modest. Or you could have more such trains if interest is strong.

Add in some Cubs-themed advertising or baseball-oriented music on the PA system and make it fun.

I don't know if the CTA gets matching revenue from the state for fare revenue raised in this fashion, but if so that would make it particularly worthwhile.

Justin, Now youre thinking like Metra. The Bears special trains run extra for bears games. It's makes too much sense, so the CTA would never do it!

>>>
and the CTA would take in $1500
<<<

If you'd think that would even cover the cost, let alone result in a profit, you must not have considered things like paying the extra employees, including the clean-up crew, or the power consumption cost.

I also think you're being very optimistic in your assumptions for demand for this service as well.

Any additional service cost more than it makes -- especially one that involves parking a manned train out of revenue service for the length of a ballgame, or one that involves the kind of clean-up that a train needs after fans leave behind all their crap.

People going to Wrigley Field from an area where the Skokie terminal is convenient currently have these options.

1. Attempt to find very expensive parking somewhere around wrigley field after traveling through extreamly congested streets to get there. After the game, of course, it will probably take around 45 minutes just to get back to the highway.

2. Drive downtown or somewhere else, park in a pretty expensive parking lot, perhaps do some other things downtown, and then take the red line to Wrigley Field.

3. I believe they still have that shuttle parking lot somewhere way west where they can catch a shuttle bus that travels through congested streets to the ballmark. I don't know how much that costs (but obviously it is not that much).

4. Drive their car to the skokie terminal. Take a yellow line and then the red line. Just $3.50 (or $4.00) per person for a round trip which takes roughly 40-45 minutes each way.

You are proposing:

5. $20.00 for a trip that will take about 20-25 minutes and IN WHICH EVERYBODY MUST GET TO THE STATION AT A SET TIME.

I cannot imagine that there would be anybody who would choose option 5 over option 4 (or any other option). There are several things you are ignoring. First, speed is not a huge factor that people consider when deciding how to get to a cubs game. People do not like being stuck in traffic, but, when going on leisure trips rather than work, it is the hassle and the unpredictability that results from it which annoy people much more than the lack of speed. And that issue is solved by taking the train whether it takes 40 minutes or 20 minutes. Nobody is going to pay an extra $16 just to save 15 or twenty minutes. That's about the amount of time that people spend in line at the concession stand to get something to eat. Third, and probably most important, any time saved from your idea is likely to be completely offset if not even worse by the fact that everybody must arrive at the Skokie terminal (and even more less conveinetely on the way back) at a set time in order to catch the train. This means that they need to plan for such things as heavy traffic near the terminal or other unforseen things (or just a lack of familarity with the area) in order to make sure they arrive in-time to take the train. To be safe, they would need to make sure they get there roughly 15 minutes ahead of time, which is about the amount of time they save by using it instead of the regular service. On the way back, I just cannot even express how inconveinant it would be. People like to relax when they go to cubs games. They don't want to have a set timetable to do things.

I have always thought that it was silly that the purple line express tracks are never used on weekends. There are many ways to use them. Probably the best idea is to run the purple line express on weekends. The cost will no doubt be covered from the increased economic activity from the additional shopping in the city. But your idea is not sensible. And, of course, it is very easy for the person who replied immedietely after you to say that your idea "makes too much sense" and therefore critisize the CTA. But if he had thought it through he would know that it doesn't.

>>>
Probably the best idea is to run the purple line express on weekends. The cost will no doubt be covered from the increased economic activity from the additional shopping in the city.
<<<

Which, of course, aludes to why we have mass-transit, and tollerate it not being profitable in the first place. It sure doesn't pay directly for itself!

I'm not sure whether your assumption in this case is true or not. That's far too complex of a computation, unlike the computations needed for the "Cubs Special Express". That one's easy, considering that you're not going to see more ticket sales, and you won't see increased economic activity in the city from it. (And I doubt that the increased economic activity in Skokie would make up for it. The patrons of such a train wouldn't be the kind to hang-out in Skokie before or after taking the train.)

As for a Saturday Purple Express, even though I'm not aware of any study, my gut feeling is that it might have a positive economic effect downtown during the winter holiday season, but the rest of the year, I don't think that many extra people will choose to head downtown just because of an express train.

As for Metra and the Bears trains, they're not running them to make money. They're running them to meet demand. If they were smart, they'd be threatening to cancel them unless Da' Bears or some other private entity volunteered to subsidize the extra expense.

the other -
what are you talking about? The CTA doesn't have a parking lot at Jeff Park. The nearby parking structure is owned and operated by a private entity. The CTA isn't making (or losing) any money off of you or anyone else there.

If a local business entity chooses to close their business on the weekends - or only lets permit holders park there - that's not something the CTA can control.

People, really, you can't make an effective argument - or look like anything other than a bunch of whiners - if you have no idea of the facts.

read-

It looks like the parking lot at Jefferson Park is managed by Imperial Parking. I think that Metra must own the lot. After all, why would Imperial Parking care who parked there so long as they paid? I did park there last year once to take the Blue Line downtown. I don't remember any sign about needing a permit, though.

Anyway, that last paragraph of The other's post is rather cryptic. I'm not sure what it means, but I find myself hungry for a raspberry tart!

While it is true that the CTA's labor, electricity, and cleaning costs are not negligible, it is hard to see how the marginal cost of operating an additional 40 minute train run could come anywhere close to $1500.

By comparison, consider the Charter Train program advertised on the CTA's website, which offers to charter a CTA train for a minimum of 3 hours (that's 180 minutes) at a cost of $1200. Unless the CTA is offering to charter trains at a loss, one would imagine the cost of operating a special train for 3 hours is therefore not greater than $1200.

Keep in mind that I threw $20 out there just for the sake of argument. Since many of the costs (train operator, electricity) of operating the train are proportional to the duration of the run, the $1200 for three hours fee suggests that 40 minutes of a special train service might only need to take in around $400 to break even. If so, then we're talking about something more like $5 per person for 80 seats.

In any event, the real question is whether there's enough of a market for whatever the break-even fare is. (And by 'break even' I really mean to suggest something that exceeds the operating costs by a bit, since the point here is to generate revenue for the CTA.) If the answer is no, then so be it. If the answer is maybe or yes, then I think it's something the CTA should try out.

The idea doesn't have to appeal to all that many people in order to be potentially feasible. To fill the seats on a two-car train, we're talking about something like 80 people. There's no reason the CTA necessarily has to decide to operate 15 runs of a "cubs express" train. If we're talking about a scheduled service, there could be one run. Or two. Use the CTA website to sign people up in advance to get an idea of what the demand is.

So, I will readily concede that, for whatever reason, most people will likely prefer to either spend well over $30-40 in gas and parking in order to sit in traffic for over an hour each way driving to/from Wrigley, or else spend $4 to stand cheek-by-jowl on the red & yellow lines for 45 minutes each way (with a wait for a transfer in between). But is it really that far-fetched to suspect that there's at least a tiny fraction of people who would be willing to pay something in the middle for a significantly faster ride with a guaranteed seat?

Also, remember that not everybody chooses transportation like an economist or a robot. Put "Take me out to the ballgame" on the speaker system and hand out free soda and it the novelty of it will attract people.

>>>
While it is true that the CTA's labor, electricity, and cleaning costs are not negligible, it is hard to see how the marginal cost of operating an additional 40 minute train run could come anywhere close to $1500.
>>
But is it really that far-fetched to suspect that there's at least a tiny fraction of people who would be willing to pay something in the middle for a significantly faster ride with a guaranteed seat?
<<<

In this situation, yes, it is. And I think MK did a pretty good job of explaining why already.

Here's a suggestion: If you think it's such a good idea, why don't you charter a train, and sell the tickets yourself!

I admit that it was a good idea if you make a profit -- even though you'll have the chance to sell advanced tickets, too. Hustle those tickets as hard as you want. Put in all the effort you can muster. I won't even challenge you if you use volunteers to do some of the hustling, and you're entitled to use as much free publicity as you can generate.

And your idea of free soda sounds interesting. I'm sure you could find a sponsor to give you free soda in exchange for the promotional oportunity. And if the CTA doesn't charge you extra for the cleaning, I won't count their extra cleaning expenses, either.

But you'll have to pay to charter the train, and you'll have to include any paid marketing on your income statement. (I'll even be generous enough to let you adjust those paid advertising costs to the same costs that the CTA gets when they buy advertising.)

If in the end you make any kind of profit, I'll admit that you have a good idea. Do you believe in the idea enough to do that? If you're right, not only will you put MK and I in our places, proving us to be wind-bag, dream killers, AND make a few bucks, too.

Up to now you seem pretty confident that it's a good deal, so go ahead and take the risk. Show us that it's a money maker. I've even spotted you a whole bunch of allowances and adjustments that you can make to fudge the numbers in your favor.

So go for it. We're not talking about something that's too hard to put together. The work involved isn't much different than what tavern owners do when they charter a bus to go to the game.

So it's not like we're talking about something impossible. It's very possible to do it. I just don't think you'll make a profit doing it, but (so far) you think you would. So go for it!

Rusty, I'm not sure if your post was intended to be rude, but it certainly comes across that way. I'm not sure what purpose you think is served by a response whose MO is to mock someone else's post, but if your goal was to be persuasive it's probably not the most effective way to accomplish that.

To the extent you're relying on MK's post to explain your view: It seems that you're adopting the following rationales:

1) "speed is not a huge factor" in people's choices about how to get to a Cubs game; and

2) what people are really annoyed by is "hassle and the unpredictability that results from it"

It's hard to imagine why #1 would be true (and true nearly unanimously, which is what the argument requires) - especially since no justification was given for the claim - but for the sake of argument, let's assume it's true: People are pretty much indifferent between trips of, say, 30 minutes and 75 minutes.

That suggests that the issue boils down to hassle and unpredictability. What reason is there to think a scheduled train service where you are guaranteed a seat is more 'unpredictable' than an unscheduled service where you aren't?

If it makes it simpler, let's suppose this is a one-way service, to the game. Although some people may arrive whenever, there are quite a few people who do make a point of seeing the start of the game - which is a scheduled event. What basis is there for the claim, then, that such an overwhelming majority of people are not on a schedule already?

And, please, if you have a point to make, try to stick to substance rather than ridicule.

Points have been made. You don't agree with them.

Testing your hypothosis would be fairly easy to do. Like I said, there are dozens of out of town tavern owners who undertake similar ventures for most games already, so we're not talking about something that is beyond your means to do. In fact, testing your hypothosis in the real world is a fairly simple undertaking for one person.

So why all the speculation if it can be so easily tested? Let's just do it!

But if we're just going to do it, the burden falls on you because you're the one who thinks it's a money maker. It would be foolish for MK or I, or anyone else who thinks it's a losing idea to test it. Why would we put up money we're sure we'd lose.

But you, and perhaps others, think this is a money maker. If the expenses of such a venture are as low as you're speculating, there shouldn't be a problem putting up the money. And if the revenues are as high as you think they'll be, then you'd be foolish not to take on the challenge.

My point is that we don't have to speculate. You can prove us wrong -- easily, if you're right!

I'm not trying to be rude. If your speculations are correct, not only can you prove me wrong, but you can make money doing so!

And if you don't have the cash to try it, if you're right, it should be pretty easy to find a few people to chip in to make it happen, especially when you're seeing such a big pay-off that you can share with them after the game.

I could continue to give you all kinds of speculative reasons why I think you're wrong, but would my words mean anything? And you could speculate about how right you are, and your words wouldn't mean anything to me.

We're not going to convince each other with words or speculative numbers. So is it really so out of line for me to ask you to just go ahead and prove it in the real world? Especially if you think the cost of doing it is so low?

I'm not trying to ridicule. I'm trying to go for more substance than speculative words could ever bring. I'm saying that if you're right, it would be easy to get me to admit I'm wrong, and make a few bucks doing so.

So what do you say we make the basis for all our further claims on this be real-life, real-world, actual experience instead of our assumptions? Is it rude to propose we settle a disagreement in the real instead of the imaginary world?

If you're right, I don't see any significant barriers for you not to prove it, and make yourself some money in the process.

Heck, you might be able to make money just by selling tickets to the people who want to get me to admit I'm wrong about something!

Taking at face value your statement that you're not trying to be rude, it must be that a few things have not occurred to you: 1) the CTA requires a minimum 3 hour purchase for charter trains increasing the demand necessary for a chartered service to be viable; 2) the CTA is, needless to say, unlikely to guarantee that a private individual can insist on a specific route and schedule for a charter train; 3) the CTA can build on sunk costs and resources (expertise, equipment, marketing resources, etc.) that a private individual can't; 4) a private individual running such a service would have to charge considerably more than the CTA would, including a 10% sales tax and additional fare to cover the >30% in self-employment tax and federal and state income taxes that would be due on any net revenues, making the economics of a charter less likely to be viable; 5) the state's transit funding formula provides the CTA a dollar-for-dollar match of fare revenue, an economic incentive I don't see anybody providing a private individual; and 6) it's not actually clear that it's legal for a private individual to resell CTA service via a charter train.

I harbor no hopes of getting you to admit that you're wrong about anything. I've read your posts over the months, and even my optimism has limits.

1) Trip from Skokie + arriving early enough for customers to get to their seats for the first pitch + game time + reasonable time for customers to return to the train + trip back to Skokie... How can that NOT meet the 3 hour minimum???

2) Of course someone chartering the train gets to choose a route and aproximate schedule. CTA reserves the right to adjust it, but charters are usually for specific purposes, not just a trip someplace random at some random time.

3) I already said you can adjust the costs of paid advertising to the rates that the CTA would have gotten based on their volume. This isn't a significant factor. Heck, there are plenty of small business owners who are better marketers than the marketing people at CTA. Not sure what "sunk costs and resources" means. Well, I know what sunk costs are, but the way you're using the term doesn't make any sense.

4) Okay. I'll give you the sales tax thing. But there's no self-employment tax on a profit unless there's a profit to begin with. As you've noted, you're taxed on the net, not the gross.

5) No, the state does not provide matching funds. Were you not paying attention to how funding works during all the pre-Doomsday discussion?

6) You're joking, right? Most charters are by groups that then sell tickets for the charter trip. Of course it's legal.

Any more excuses? So far your excuses are as sound as your original plan.

I could continue to push this, but let's just admit it: Your plan does NOT have the profit potential you originally gushed about. If it did, instead of making lame excuses, you'd be just doing it.

>>>
They may or may not raise a huge amount of revenue, but they would at least reduce the need for any fare increase. And in any event, a dollar's a dollar, right?
<<<

I think we've now conclusively shown that this plan not only doesn't raise a "huge amount of revenue", but it sure isn't going to reduce the need for a fare increase. If anything, it's going to piss-away a few more bucks on a whim that has no chance of making a profit, and every chance of putting them further in the hole.

Rusty you're kind of missed the point of most of what he said and are lunging at straw men now.

Most of your post doesn't really require a response, but on the funding point, you may have forgotten about how the state RTA funding bill worked. The CTA and other agencies don't just automatically receive whatever revenues result from the additional sales taxes authorized by the law. There's a farebox recovery ratio built into the law that has the effect of making the sales tax more or less a 1:1 match (although the law provides some other matching funds from general state revenue, as well). Due to the five year phaseout of the $200 farebox recovery exemption, the CTA (and the others) are going to have to raise more fare revenue in the coming years in order to continue to receive all of the available sales tax revenue.

The upshot of this is that if the CTA takes in an extra $1000 of fare revenue, it will also prevent the CTA from losing a comparable amount of matching revenue from the sales tax. What this means is that even if a Cubs train loses money, it could still be worthwhile because effectively every dollar taken in is worth two.

That said, I haven't committed the entire law to memory. Perhaps you know of some reason why revenue from a special train would not count towards farebox recovery requirements? (If so, perhaps you could deign to share it with the rest of us rather than just rant incoherently?)

The remote parking that someone above called "way west" of Wrigley is at Lane Tech--basically within walking distance for a lot of people. There's a shuttle bus from there. I have no idea what it costs to park or to ride the shuttle.

Now, Belmont and Western isn't exactly the middle of nowhere, but "walking distance" is a bit of a stretch at almost 2.5 miles from Wrigley Field.

I think the lot is on Addison at Artesian. I used to live in Roscoe Village and would often see people walking from the lot to the game if it was nice out.

The Wrigley shuttle costs something like $7.50 per car. That includes parking AND bus fare for everyone in the car. While one could walk the nearly 2 miles, since you've already paid for the bus, and they have buses there waiting for you at virtually all times, it'd be a little silly.

That service is subsidized by the Cubs, and possibly by bar owners. I work near there, and often see the lot nearly full (might be 250-350 cars.)

Re: the skokie express cubs train......

....Let them drink beer and on the train, and you'll have a huge increase in demand :)