CTA Tattler

"And you never directly addressed my point of why someone going one mile on the 'L' should have to pay the same rate as someone going 10. "

Yes I did. I addressed it extreamly clearly. What about my argument was confusing?

" You pay a milage-based rate on Metra."

So what? How could you even begin to compare the two? For whatever reason, you seem to consider transit riders simply to be "transit riders" and don't see any difference between any of these people in terms of who they are or why they are travelling. The passengers on public transportation, far from being exactly the same to one another, have very different levels of convenience in terms of driving vs. transit use. They also often use transit for very different reasons than one another. I explained very clearly in my last post why those travelling to near vs. far stations will have a different level of demand. Metra makes a much higher percentage of its revenue from peak direction rush hour trains than the CTA (I believe it is something llike 90% vs. rougly 50%). As I explained in my last post (and as you would know just by common sense) those who commute to work downtown are highly unlikely to drive. And, of course, people travel much bigger distances on Metra so the difference in gas cost based on how far you are travelling is going to be higher. Also, during rush hour someone travelling a farhter distance on Metra will probably be using an express train, which the CTA does not have (except for the purple line express). So this means that everything I mentioned im my last post does not apply to Metra. It is naive to act as if all transit systems are the same and that if something is done on one system it should be done on another. And during the weekends, Metra has a flat fare that is the same price no matter how far you are travelling. This makes complete sense because people are far LESS likely to use the train from farther distances during off-peak times for the reasons I stated earlier.

I don't know much about the layout of Washington D.C. so I cannot really say whether a zoned based system works there. Would you care to explain why it does? You haven't done so yet. How does it help the transit agency run more efficiantly and receive a better revenue stream?

"So why is it a good idea? Well, the increase in revenue, the fact that it would still be cheaper than driving and paying parking, and it would still be better than sitting in traffic."

Increase in revenue? We are not discussing anything about something that would have an increase in revenue. We are just discussing whether it makes sense for a flat fare or a zone based fare. If you have a zone based fare you will charge lower for shorter trips and higher for longer trips. Of course, you could raise the fare on longer trips while keeping the shorter trips constant. That may increase revenue. But the question is whether (since a fare increase is imminant) you raise the fare for everyone or raise it even more than you would for everyone (probably about three or four times more) just for those who are going the farthest. For the reasons I have stated, it makes no sense to do the ladder. These are the people who have the most elasticity of demand. They are the most likely to be deterred from using the CTA from it being more expensive. And this would have a profoundly negative effect on the CTA's financial health.

Privatization doesn't work that well; Stockholm has had horrible experiences with it. And the reason we have the CTA in the first place is that the private companies running the system couldn't make it work. I think the only transit system operating (in the US anyways) in the red is San Diego's light rail system. As has been pointed out here and elsewhere amply, transit is a public service and requires subsidies.

No one has given a good reason yet why distance based/zone fares are a bad idea or wouldn't work here. The big reason for not doing it here is physical, all the stations would have to be rebuilt with exit and entrance turnstyles - most of the older el stations (and the new ones too) would have to be gutted and substantially enlarged. Another problem is whether it would apply to bus fares - how would you collect zoned fares easily on the bus? People have mentioned BART, however, the CTA equal in SF, Muni, charges a flat fare as does the CTA. It's of course, historical and traditional that American transit systems, for the most part, do not charge distance based fares.

"No one has given a good reason yet why distance based/zone fares are a bad idea or wouldn't work here."

OK. Well, I gave some pretty comprehensive reasons why it is a bad idea here. If you don't think that my argument was good, that is perfectly fine. But the least you could do is explain what exactly about the reasons I stated were not convincing. If you don't do that and simply state "nobody has given a good reason", you don't advance the discussion at all. And it suggests that you cannot come up with anything to dispute what I said.

(By the way, I think you meant "in the black", not "in the red". "In the red" means operating at a loss. Of course, most transit systems don't really operate in the black or the red because they are required to have a balanced budget.)

Robin,

MK is a troll on this site. Don't bother dignifying his idiocy with a response. I too am in favor of zoned fares, but given what FG says, it would probably logistically be impossible to do here. You answered him well in that, given what gas and parking cost, $3.00 to ride from 95th, $4.00 from Linden, and $5.00 from O'Hare. People would still gladly pay that vs $5.00 per gallon and $25.00 to park.

MK, you are what Homer Simpson accurately calls a "Know-Nothing-Know-It-All". Figure it out for yourself how BART and Washington Metro do it--it's not difficult. (Heaven forbid you might actually learn something).

FG--Per San Diego Trolley, I think you mean "in the black". "In the red means you are losing money." But getting to the privatization issue, I still haven't made up my mind about it. But times have changed and if I am not mistaken, the reason that transit in Chicago was failing prior to the creation of the CTA was because of a politically imposed fare. The Chicago Rapid Transit could not legally charge anywhere near what it actually cost to run the system.

Another problem was that they were slow to change as the city changed. The CRT was still operating with stations every two blocks, and its speeds were barely faster than the streetcars.

A private company free of the top-heavy management and the political nonsense (cough Blago giving away free rides while cutting the means to pay for them) could maybe turn things around. Nothing else has worked.

I'm not going to waste my time responding to the absurd suggestion that I am a troll. I don't think that any of the regular posters here are trolls. But if someone were to analyze who comes closest, I highly doubt that I would not be near the top of the list.

"You answered him well in that, given what gas and parking cost, $3.00 to ride from 95th, $4.00 from Linden, and $5.00 from O'Hare. People would still gladly pay that vs $5.00 per gallon and $25.00 to park."

First of all, not every spot in the city has expensive parking. In fact, quite a few places have free parking. For example, those who shop in the North/clybourn corrider can park their cars for free. Even in east Lincoln Park many businesses will provide free validated parking for customers. And the majority of people who work in areas that are not downtown can park their cars for free. You seem to be basing your argument on those who commute to and from work in the normal peak-times. My argument, as I've said, focuses mainly on non-peak times and peak times in non-downtown areas (which I believe constitutes at least half of all CTA trips). We are not really arguing about the same thing. In addition to the free or low cost of parking in non-peak times, those who travel during this period are also likely to travel with other people. So even if someone does face a parking cost of $15.00, if they are travelling with one other person this is $7.50. If they are travelling with two people it is $5.00. But the fare on CTA is per person. So the more people in a group, the higher the cost of the CTA versus driving. On weekends and often on evenings, you will generally notice that more than half of the people who use the CTA are not travelling alone. So it would not be correct to simply compare the cost of parking vs. a CTA fare.

I suppose an argument can be made that it would not be a bad idea, if it were cost-effective and logistically simple, to have a distance-based system only for those who travel to and from the loop during rush hour. But I don't really see much of a benefit either. The distance within the city is not all that great so as to have much of difference in gas prices. And there are people who commute to and from the loop during rush-hour who do not work there. For example, someone who lives downtown and is taking the train to a restuarant on the north side in the afternoon rush period. That person is likely to be an elastic customer who may not use the CTA as a result of a higher fare. But, the reality is, even if you wanted to have this limited zoned-based system the benefits would not outweigh the costs and logistical issues.

I hope you feel that having a discussion over whether this is a good idea is not trolling. It is beneficial, I think, to have discussions.

>>>
MK is a troll on this site. Don't bother dignifying his idiocy with a response.
<<<

Even though MK and I do not agree on a lot of things (no, I'm not keeping score), I would hardly call him/her a troll. In fact, I would say that someone who's calling MK a troll is, in fact, trolling.

And if calling him/her a troll is the best you can come up with to counter MK's, then I think the discussion is over.

And for the record, I'm going to side with MK on this one. I'm not 100% aligned, but I'm not going to make a big deal out of the minor differences in our opinions when the discussion has taken that ugly turn into calling a respectable contributor a troll.

When I disagree with MK, I'm going to attack his/her points and/or opinions. And he/she does the same when disagreeing with me. Calling someone a troll simply because they have a different opinion kills any credibilty you might have had.

Thank you, Rusty. It is pretty sad that some people seem to think the definition of a troll is someone who makes an argument that they disagree with.

My guess is that most, if not all, of the people on this thread who are arguing for a distanced based fare system are doing so because it would benefit them. They likely, like most people, generally ride buses and trains for short distances. So they somehow hope that this idea will spare them from or reduce any fare hikes. This is likely why nobody has made any arguments as to why they think this system would be better for the CTA's bottom line or why it is more efficiant or even why it makes more sense based on fairness. Robin W. incorrectly states that it will bring in "more revenue". That is, of course, not true since all we are talking about is an allocation of fares not their level. By definition, if all other things are equal it would bring in the same amount of revenue.

Let me also respond to this part of PE's post:

"MK, you are what Homer Simpson accurately calls a "Know-Nothing-Know-It-All". Figure it out for yourself how BART and Washington Metro do it--it's not difficult. (Heaven forbid you might actually learn something)"

Putting aside the obvious unneccessary rudeness of these statements, I'll point out that it is incorrect to compare the CTA with BART. It is my understanding that the BART rail system has long distances between stations and is more similar to Metra than the CTA. And I've already stated that I think that distance based fares make sense on Metra. The overwhelming majority of urban transit systems have a flat fare. And it works well. The argument that "such-and-such a place has zoned fares so we should as well" is not persuasive. Like I said, I don't know very much about the layout and demographics of Washington D.C. so I can't say whether what they are doing makes sense. I certaintly haven't read anything here that convinces me that it does. The poster who said "I have always wondered why" the CTA doesn't have a similar system did not explain why she thinks the D.C. fare structure makes sense.

MK,

Perhaps if you would be a little more respectful in your tone, you might realize that not everyone is the "self-appointed expert" like you are.

I do not need to explain why the DC fare structure makes sense. Except to say that several cities do it and it makes good fiscal sense. It means that additional revenue is generated, based upon the distance that people travel. And unlike CTA riders, BART and DC Metro riders simply accept this as a way of life. And despite what you say, I think it is a very valid comparison to the distance-based fare schedule that Metra uses.

It only makes sense that I pay more for my ride everyday from Foggy Bottom to New York Avenue/Gallaudet than someone who rides from Gallery Place to Union Station just as on Metra, it makes more sense for someone to pay more to go from Woodstock to Ogilve than for someone to go from Des Plaines to Jefferson Park (I am not an expert, but it's called "economics" you jackass--it costs more to move a person a greater distance).

You're a big boy, MK, do some research on your own. Figure out for yourself how the Washington Metro fare system works (or would that actually involve work and OMG prove you wrong?).

======
I do not need to explain why the DC fare structure makes sense. Except to say that several cities do it and it makes good fiscal sense.
======

Ummm, if you're going to assert that it makes good fiscal sense, then yes, you do need to explain why you think that.

Giving a different opinion, and not explaining why you're of that opinion is far closer to trolling than disagreeing with some random opinion, and explaining why.

====
(I am not an expert, but it's called "economics" you jackass--it costs more to move a person a greater distance).
====

Obviously you're not an expert. The marginal cost of transporting a passenger on a fixed rail line from one end to the other end is actually no different than the marginal rate of transporting them between just the two closest stations on the line.

=====
You're a big boy, MK, do some research on your own. Figure out for yourself how the Washington Metro fare system works
=====

You're the one who says it works. That means the burden to explain why falls on you.

Of course if you *can't* explain your opinion because it's not based on anything substantial, that's a different story. If you can't explain your opinion, then I want to assure you that your smoke screen of calling people who disagree with you "trolls" and "jackasses" tells us everything we need to know about you, and your inability to add any substance to the discussion. No further research by anyone else is needed. You've explained all we need to know.

"Perhaps if you would be a little more respectful in your tone, you might realize that not everyone is the "self-appointed expert" like you are." Huh? I am not a self-apponted expert. I am just explaining my opinion as to why I think a flat fare system is better than a distanced-system. Does attempting to back my opinion with reasoning make me a "self-appointed expert"? I don't think so. If my tone gives off a sense of annoyence it is because, like I said earlier, the several posts here that have advocated a zoned system have not even attempting to really explain why it is a good idea. One person even stated that "no one has explained why it is a bad idea" without explaining either why it is good or why the arguments here explaining why it is bad are incorrect.

"I do not need to explain why the DC fare structure makes sense. Except to say that several cities do it and it makes good fiscal sense. It means that additional revenue is generated, based upon the distance that people travel."

No, it doesn't by itself mean additional revenue is generated. As I said, all we are discussing is the allocation of fares, not their level. If you want additional revenue you would have to raise the level of fares at the same time. But that is a different discussion. So it is not persuasive to use that as an argument for zoned fares.

"It only makes sense that I pay more for my ride everyday from Foggy Bottom to New York Avenue/Gallaudet than someone who rides from Gallery Place to Union Station just as on Metra, it makes more sense for someone to pay more to go from Woodstock to Ogilve than for someone to go from Des Plaines to Jefferson Park (I am not an expert, but it's called "economics" you jackass--it costs more to move a person a greater distance). "

The cost to the CTA should only be a small factor in how things are priced. One reason for this is because there are few cases where the marginal cost affects how the CTA will allococuate service. The CTA rail lines are going to operate the entire distance no matter what. And, in general, so will all the bus routes. I don't really see how the CTA's cost per mile should be a major factor in how it operates efficiantly. It also costs more to operate bus service than rail service. Should buses have a higher price because of this? I certainly don't think so. And the reason is because the bigger factor is demand. The rail system, all other things equal, is much more user-friendly and will get people to their destinitation faster. It is also generally more user-friendly when you travel short distances rather than longer distances for the reasons I explained earlier. So a flat fare makes sense.

"You're a big boy, MK, do some research on your own. Figure out for yourself how the Washington Metro fare system works (or would that actually involve work and OMG prove you wrong?)."

I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about. First, if you think it works in D.C., as you have stated, it is incumbant on you to explain why. When someone suggests you do that, it is really silly to try to insult them and say "you're a big boy" and then suggest that if they really want to know they should find out for themselves. You were the one who brought it up. Supposidely, you would already know about it. Also, I was really not talking about "how it works" to say I didn't know enough to say whether it makes sense for them. I said I don't know enough about the layout and demographics of the city to say whether all the factors why a distanced based system in Chicago would not make sense are also prevelant in D.C. And that is not something that I really can find out with some internet research anyway. I would have to go the city to find that out. And no, I am not going to do that just so that I can make my post more complete.

I loves me a good old-fashioned pissing contest.

Seriously, flat fare or zoned fare...i don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer that suits every metropolitan area.

Populations relative to commercial/business districts, economic status of different neighborhoods...all these things and more need to be taken into account.

There is no ONE answer.

====
There is no ONE answer.
====

There may not even be one "best" answer, either.

And it's entirely possible for people to look at the same set of facts, and come up with different opinions. It's awfully pompus of someone to just toss out an opinion, not explain why they came to their conclusion, and then expect that anyone who does any research will come to the same conclusion. And then they have the nerve to call someone who hasn't come to the same conclusion a troll.

Darn right there's no one answer. And anyone who thinks their answer is the best answer had better be willing to defend their opinion. Don't even think of suggesting that someone else isn't thinking right until you're willing to explain your own thinking.

My opinion is that a transit system charged with operating multiple modes of transit choices in a densely populated area on close headways is best operated with a simple fare structure. Time spent calculating fares, even if it's done by a microcomputer, is time wasted.

Zoned fares require too much effort on both the part of the customer, and on the part of agency to work on a system like the CTA. And even more complex distance-based pricing would be worse.

Perhaps these fare schemes work on some other systems out there, but just because they work doesn't mean they're best, either.

Also, the longer a passenger is on mass transit, the greater the delta becomes between the convinience of using a personal vehicle becomes. Someone riding from Belmont to Fullerton on the Red Line may actually find it more convinient than driving, while someone traveling from Morse to 69th on the Red Line falls further and further behind the convinience of driving with each mile travled. The delta becomes even greater when we're not talking about straight line trips.

If you want to encourage people to take mass transit that makes multiple intermediate stops, you can't charge them distance-based fares. That just throws everything off!

So perhaps Robin W thinks that DC's system "works", but if a flat fare were introduced, the system there would work better.

The closest we came to getting a justification for his/her opinion is that he/she thinks it costs more to transport someone further, despite not being very good at understanding something as basic as the marginal costs of carrying those passengers different distances.

Same facts. Different conclusions.

But since I've expressed an opinion, and explained why I hold that opinion, since it's different, I'm probably next in line to be called a troll.

My bottom line in where this whole thread is going is this: If you have an opinion, it's your job to explain why.

Rusty,

The reason I got on MK's case is that he might be right, but he certainly appears to talk down to people. I am not an expert in mass transit. I just do not see the difference in transporting someone one mile on Metra vs. transporting someone on the CTA.

I chose the city that my husband and I moved to, Washington, DC as a prime example. The system works well, that much I do know. It is a simple fare system to understand. All you have to do is look at the map for the station you want to travel to. The fare is listed right on the chart. Then you buy your ticket. Like the CTA, the tickets are "stored value" and you can put as much money on your ticket as you want. You can even buy an all-day pass, valid for unlimited rides after 9am. I would think that Chicagoans are smart enough to figure this out. As I mentioned before, even the tourists can figure it out on the first try.

As for your comment about switching to a flat fare, it would NOT cause an increase in revenue because it would be very difficult to make up the difference in increased ridership.

Let's take an example of the route my sister takes every day because she lives in the Maryland suburbs. A one-way trip from Forest Glen to Foggy Bottom is $3.30. So if we were to cut that fare to $2.00, how much in increased ridership would you need in order to make that up?

All I know is that the system works here in DC because it works. Excuse me that I tried to come up with a suggestion for Chicago. I did not realize that I needed to be a "self-appointed-expert" in order to post here. Maybe it wasn't the greatest idea, but at least it is better than raising sales taxes and real-estate taxes in the middle of a bad economy. And at the same time giving away free rides to seniors (and then cutting the funding for that).

And as for my other comment about looking it up for yourselves, you are all grown-ups and if you are such experts in mass-transit, then it is clear you should have no problems getting the answers yourselves.

"The reason I got on MK's case is that he might be right, but he certainly appears to talk down to people."

I'm sorry that you think that. In my first post about this subject on the thread I stated "I want to scream" when people suggest distance based pricing without explaining why it is a good idea. The reason I said that is because this is something that I have seen many, many people suggest and very few times have I seen them try to make the case as to why it is better than the current system. You were certainly not the first to do that. Other people have done that on this and other blogs, on the Tribune commment system, and even (like I said earlier) the Tribune itself in some editorials. For some reason, this is an idea that many people seem to be predisposed to think is a good idea and they therefore don't feel the need to explain why it is. I expressed my annoyence at this in the hopes that people would try to analyze whether this is good policy. I was not talking down to people, just being honest about my bafflement as to the manner in which people think that distance based pricing is so obviously a good idea that they think any reasoning goes without saying. In your response directly after my first post about this on the thread, you then argued with a point that I never made (I never said anything about this creating confusion), told me I never directly addressed a point in which I spent around six sentences addressing clearly, and then said that distance based pricing would increase revenue. The latter point is incorrect. I would not talk down to you because you made this incorrect argument. It is actually perhaps a somewhat understandable mistake. But you then made the argument two additional times without attempting to even make an (inevidtably futile) case as to how I am wrong about it being incorrect. You also proceded to insult me, saying "be a big boy" and calling me a jackass, all without really even addressing any of the points I made. For example, you stated " despite what you say, I think it is a very valid comparison to the distance-based fare schedule that Metra uses" without explaining why or how you think my reasons for thinking the opposite are flawed. So no, I was not originally talking down to people. However, it would be very difficult for me to say that I am not, to a certain extent, talking down to you right now. I think it is pretty natural to talk down to someone when after making every effort to have a productive and reasoned discussion, this person, for no good reason, responds with insults and argues with things that were never said but makes no effort to specically address any points that were made.

"I chose the city that my husband and I moved to, Washington, DC as a prime example. The system works well, that much I do know. It is a simple fare system to understand. All you have to do is look at the map for the station you want to travel to. The fare is listed right on the chart. Then you buy your ticket. Like the CTA, the tickets are "stored value" and you can put as much money on your ticket as you want. You can even buy an all-day pass, valid for unlimited rides after 9am. I would think that Chicagoans are smart enough to figure this out. As I mentioned before, even the tourists can figure it out on the first try."

Like I said, I never stated anything about confusion or the lack of ability of anybody to figure out the system. And neither did anyone else. So you are arguing with things that were never said.

"just do not see the difference in transporting someone one mile on Metra vs. transporting someone on the CTA. "

Please read the post where I explained why I think distance based fares make sense on the Metra system but not the CTA. After you have done this, feel free to explain any disagreements you have with the two reasons I stated.

"As for your comment about switching to a flat fare, it would NOT cause an increase in revenue because it would be very difficult to make up the difference in increased ridership.

Let's take an example of the route my sister takes every day because she lives in the Maryland suburbs. A one-way trip from Forest Glen to Foggy Bottom is $3.30. So if we were to cut that fare to $2.00, how much in increased ridership would you need in order to make that up?"

For the fourth time (OK, the third time since it would be unfair to count the one earlier in the post), the amount of revenue has NOTHING to do with what we are talking about. The question of zoned vs. distance based pricing is a manner of how fares are ALLOCUTED, not their level. As I said, all other things being equal, the amount of revenue will by definition be the same. There will either be the same fare for everyone or a higher fare for some people and a lower fare for others. Taking your example, if you were to switch from a distance based fare system to a fixed system in D.C. (and all other things are constant)the fare would be closer to $2.40. That would probably be roughly the fare for the system if they wanted to obtain the same amount of revenue. If they needed additional revenue, then they would raise the LEVEL of the fares. And that is not the same discussion. What exactly about this is confusing? And, by the way, I didn't realize that the D.C. system even went to the suburbs. If it does, it sort of suggests it may be more similar to Metra than the CTA.

"All I know is that the system works here in DC because it works. Excuse me that I tried to come up with a suggestion for Chicago. I did not realize that I needed to be a "self-appointed-expert" in order to post here. Maybe it wasn't the greatest idea, but at least it is better than raising sales taxes and real-estate taxes in the middle of a bad economy. And at the same time giving away free rides to seniors (and then cutting the funding for that). "

Once again, whether the CTA uses a distance based or flat fare system has nothing to do with how much revenue it generates. This has nothing to do with how it may deal with its budget shortfall. I suspect that you are a short-distance commuter and have made this suggestion in the hopes that it would avoid a fare hike for yourself. I also am someone who commutes shorter distances yet I am looking out for the fiscal soundness and efficiancy of the system (and the resulting effects on the city's economy), not for myself.

"And as for my other comment about looking it up for yourselves, you are all grown-ups and if you are such experts in mass-transit, then it is clear you should have no problems getting the answers yourselves. "

Look up what? You stated that the D.C. fare system is so much better. You have never stated why. It seems strange to me why you wouldn't. And like I told you, in order to make a judgement about its fare structure, what I would need to know about the system is its layout and the area's demographics. Yes, I'm sure there are some basic things on the internet about that. But in order for me to have a truly informed opinion I would need to visit D.C. I am obviously not going to do that simply to argue a point with you. I'm sorry if you think that doesn't make me a grown-up. God forbid someone actually states they don't know enough about something to have an opinion. I think it's something we need more of. And this is a pretty ancillery point in this discussion anyway.

The reason that the CTA has a flat fare is because there are no conductors to boot passengers who travel outside the zone of their ticket. I believe that conductors used to collect an "express surcharge" between Howard and Belmont on the purple line, but that is no longer possible since there are no more conductors.

The Evanston Express became the Purple Line. It used to go express from Howard to the Merchandise Mart and it was truly express. The 20 cent surcharge was worth it back then.

The big problem with basing the fare on how far you travel is it's the poor people who live the farthest (generally) and would have to pay the most.

I don't know if the people who travel the furthest are generally the poorest. But I do know that a flat fare gives the poorest more options.

If all I'm qualified for is a very, very low paying job, I don't want to have to litterally spend half my paycheck on transportation. For example, if I lived near Ford City, but couldn't find a retail job there, I could try Old Orchard. But if there were zoned fares or some other distance-based fare, not only would traveling to Old Orchard take up a lot of extra time, it would take up more of my paycheck.

Of all the possiblities, there are two big ones that wouldn't help society in general: I could decide not to work if the limited jobs close to home are full. Or the stores at Old Orchard could raise wages to once again make it worth it for me to head up there. (And of course higher wages eventually means higher prices.)

The idea that people who ride the longest distances are some how getting a windfall because of a flat fare is a tad absurd.

Why do people ride transit? Because it's the best alternative for them. Would raising the fare for those traveling longer distances, and/or conversely lowering it for those riding shorter distances change that? Yes. But probably not in ways the distance-based fare advocates are imagining.

We're not talking about a system like a commuter train where long distances are covered quickly, and the longer your commute, the more you benefit. We're talking about an urban transit system where the longer your commute is, the less convinient it becomes.

Perhaps express premiums would be a better idea, however, the express portion had better be truely worth the extra money.

I'd also be open to discussing time-based fares, where boarding during peak periods require an additional premium. In that case, the premium isn't based on someone else's preception of your benefit, but rather is a negative incentive to urge you to plan your trip during non-peak periods if possible.

Perhaps, and I'm just tossing this out off the top of my head, a 10-cent premium for boardings between 4-5:30pm in the downtown area.

"We're not talking about a system like a commuter train where long distances are covered quickly, and the longer your commute, the more you benefit. We're talking about an urban transit system where the longer your commute is, the less convinient it becomes."

Exactly. I completely fail to understand why so many people don't see that. Somebody who commutes, for example, from their southwest side home on the orange line to a job in Skokie or Evanston does not have a convenient commute. They will need to transfer two or three times (maybe even four if they also take a bus) and will need be on trains that stop between a dozen to two and a half dozen times. On the other hand, a person who takes a train from say Southport to a job in the loop has an extraordinarally convenient commute. They have the opperatunity to pass at a very high speed numerous exstreamly dense residental neighborhoods where tens of thousands of people go to work at around the same time every day. If they drove, it would take around five times as long. And if the CTA didn't exist, the amount of people commuting at that time would cause the commute to be around thirty to fourty times as long (of course, that isn't quite true because if the CTA didn't exist many of these people wouldn't live in the area and there would be much fewer jobs, but we'll put that aside). The people on this thread (who clearly seem to commute short distances) should realize how lucky they are to have such a convenient way to get to work. But instead many of them act as if they are at a disadvantage because they are not going very far. Maybe they should talk to some of the people who commute from Midway to Morse or O'Hare to 87th street, or Oak Park to Ravenswood. Ask these riders if it makes sense for them to pay a higher fare than you. And as I and Rusty have said, these riders are the most likely to decide to drive instead. That, as you should be able to figure out, is not good for the fiscal soundness of the CTA. On the other hand, there is virtually no chance that anybody will drive from their home near the Southport station to a job in the loop (unless perhaps they work in the wee hours of the night). The CTA could do just about anything and they wouldn't lose these people's business. I think that is why, as has become fairly clear, there are very few regular posters here who are not the so-called "traditional" users of the system who commute a few miles to the loop during peak hours. The other people have an alternatve, driving. If it is not convenient to use the CTA they will generally do that instead of coming to a blog to vent. The "it costs more for the CTA for people to travel farther" argument, as I said earlier, is completely bogus. It costs the same for the CTA to transport a passenger from Grand to Clark/Division as it does to transport another person from Roosevelt to Howard. There is no doubt how far and to what locations the red line will travel to, so that is not a factor in its cost. The same is true with bus routes.

And Cheryl is correct that people who commute longer distances are more likely to be lower income (I'm not sure if that's what she meant by farthest or if she, exhibiting the loop commuter bias, meant "farthest from the loop"). That's not something I particularly care about. In fact, I think if there were some good way to target poor people for higher fares, I might be for that. That is because they are more likely not to have cars so there is little threat that the CTA would lose their business. But those people who are bleeding-hearts and who like to think of themselves as concerned about the poor should be against distance based fares.

I suppose I should be extra clear, since a few months ago something similar caused a couple people to start screaming at me and accusing me of saying only the poor rarely drive. Saying the poor are more likely not to have cars does not mean that only the poor do not have cars. That may seem obvious. But I learned here once that some people apparently have trouble understanding basic logic. So hopefully this post will prevent another one of those screaming matches about the subject of who drives rarely and who doesn't.

A flat fare effectively provides a greater subsidy to longer-distance travel compared to shorter-distance travel. That's good public policy because it provides a greater incentive to use public transit in places where public transit is, on the whole, less appealing.

Go to the edges of the city and you're more likely to find parking and less likely to pay much for that parking. And you're more likely to have to walk farther and transfer more to get where you're going via the CTA. You're also more likely to have to take some circuitous route if your destination is not the Loop.

The flat fare compensates for this somewhat by driving up as steeply as possible the differential between the cost of transit and the cost of driving. Increasing fares by distance drive up that differential more slowly (or eliminate it), decreasing the disincentive for driving in areas that are not transit dense.

That last sentence should have been:

Increasing fares by distance WOULD drive up that differential more slowly (or eliminate it), decreasing the disincentive for driving in areas that are not transit dense.

"In fact, I think if there were some good way to target poor people for higher fares, I might be for that. That is because they are more likely not to have cars so there is little threat that the CTA would lose their business."

Oh, MK, I was with you right up until that sentence.

As someone who has lived in D.C. and now lives in Chicago, I can also echo others and say that a zoned system in Chicago will never happen and would never work.

The D.C. system is much smaller and much more spread out than Chicago's. My el stop has two turnstyles. It would take ten minutes just to enter my station every morning as all the kids who attend the nearby high school are exiting. There would be a line down the block. The D.C. Metro was built in the 1970s and was designed to be zoned. The stations are gargantuan compared to Chicago's largest stations. The network of lines that is now the CTA el was built over a hundred years ago. Even "small" stations in D.C. have at least 6 exit turnstyles. In Chicago, Belmont is a large transfer point in a dense neighborhood and it only has six turnstyles. And the hundreds of people who use those revolving exit doors would be lining up to swipe out of the station too. It would never work here.