CTA Tattler

The biggest freebies are the subsidies of the auto and sprawl system. Autosprawl costs trillions for: oil wars, carbon dioxide pollution, congestion, drainage problems, medical costs, bureaucracy, etc. The oil, coal, natural gas, and auto industries make profits while taxpayers clean up the mess.

I just cannot believe how disrespectful Blago is to pretty much everyone. He just seems to bitter and it he puts off this feeling that his sole purpose is to cause trouble for the state, its lawmakers, and its constituents.
I understand that it is very difficult to even try to remove him before his term is up, but really this is not the time to mess around.

I read both editorials, and I definitely agree with them. The CTA can't afford the free rides right now, and with the prices of everything else going up, there's no reason CTA fares shouldn't go up, too. I'd much rather pay higher fares than deal with the possibility of reduced service.

On the flip side, if the CTA has found more staff cuts now, why didn't they make the cuts last year? The bureaucracy must still be bloated if they choose to fire employees before raising fares.

Blaming Blago for the CTA's woes is simply not based on any empirical evidence. While free rides was and continues to be poor public policy that was intended to pander to voters, it's hardly the primary reason for the budget shortfall. Higher fuel and labor costs are the main culprits, and the CTA admits to exceeding fare box revenues despite issuing more free rides.

If you extrapolate the sales and real estate transfer tax receipts through years' end, both of which are lower than expected, the budget shortfall actually exceeds the projected numbers provided by the CTA.

Yes, Blagojevich cost the CTA revenue by mandating free rides for certain groups and reducing the state subsidy to support these changes. However, let's place the brunt of the blame where it belongs - Mayor Daley.

Daley's consistently failed to prioritize or invest in mass transit, and has only recently done so as it relates to getting the 2016 Olympic bid pipe dream. Millions wasted on the Block 37 boondoggle. Billions sucked into his unilaterally controlled and disbursed TIF funds. Billions spent on sweetheart no-bid contracts and corruption settlements. All while the city continues to invest a paltry $3 million dollars per year to fund the CTA.

Blagojevich is a corrupt, misanthropic sociopath who has performed miserably as governor, but let's place the onus where it belongs - Hizzoner.

I saw Daley and Blago's soundbites. You know what, I think they're both right. Let's jettison both of them and get some new people in office who will actually fix things in this city and state, instead of these unimaginative blowhards who feel entitled to office, arguing on TV, doling out free rides to people who don't need them, and trying to boot taxpayers' cars after two tickets.

I agree that Chicago should pony up more money for the CTA, but the worst thing Blago did was eliminate the subsidies for these free rides ($32 million), which causes more of a shortfall for the budget. We probably can't overturn his free rides, but why not put some income stipulations on the rides for seniors and/or military personnel. Since these people seemed pretty apathetic about them to begin with, it shouldn't be that hard to pass.

"All while the city continues to invest a paltry $3 million dollars per year to fund the CTA. "

This is only the annual operations subsidy from the city. A 2004 CTA press release (http://www.transitchicago.com/news/archpress.wu?action=displayarticledetail&articleid=102965) pointed out that the city spends $22 million annually on the public transit division of the police department, and has spent over $825 million since 1989 on capital construction projects.

Having said that, I do believe the city should be more invested financially in providing operating capital, especially considering the mayor appoints more than half the CTA board, as well as the president.

I use the CTA to get everywhere, all the time, and I think we are due for a fare hike too, as fuel and operating costs go up.

The free-rides-for-seniors idea was the dumbest thing to come out of Springfield ever. Was there a huge contingent of seniors pounding on the door demanding it? No. It was a decision made for pure political expedience, that's it.

I think if the CTA ever instituted a system by which their employees were let go based on a merit rating, they would both save money and see customer service go through the roof. The employees that I come into contact with are either very, very good with customer service, or they are ABYSMAL - there is no middle ground.

Looked at through the lens of historical underfunding, blame for the CTA's woes can be shared pretty liberally with hundreds of individuals as well as a few social movements. Ultimately, though, the American preference for suburban sprawl, and private automobile-only travel that has defined this country since the 50's is what's really to blame, and we all share in that. But even if those generations hadn't gotten off of trains and buses and into cars and planes, I think we'd still have these perennial funding woes (though we'd have faster, cleaner, and more extensive mass transit - think London and Tokyo), especially with energy prices skyrocketing.

That being said, I wouldn't mind paying an extra $5 or $10 a month for my 30-day pass. It would still be an eco-friendly bargain, and I as a transit rider would be doing my (still small) part to share the burden of rising commuting costs.

I'd go with a combination of poor funding and gross mismanagement at the CTA.

How does a project like the loop signal upgrade get 377 days behind schedule and yesterday is the first time we've heard of it.

All 377 of those days are on Rons watch.

It just proves what I've suspected all along that there is no adult supervision at the CTA.

When I saw some of those salaries for all the Daley cronies it just stuck in my craw.

I mean exactly what function could you be performing in the CTA that's worth over $100K?????? I know that powerpoint people are in high demand , but good lord, this is not a fortune 500 company and it's a non-profit to boot.

Salaries and benefits account for about 70% of the operating costs according to some of the things I've read about the CTA. I wonder why??????

Carole Brown again should be ashamed of every one of the dollars that she's collected for "looking the other way" during the Frank years and the Gov should be looking at replacing her and the other 3 of his appointees right away with ones who would fight tooth and nail for every dollar and cut every job that is not "essential to rail and train operations".

KevinB

I think passengers have some responsibility to help with the costs. But if we do, then the CTA shouldn't cut maintenance or even leave it at the status quo of neglect that can render the customer experienee so unpleasant. So, I would accept a quarter per ride fare increase IF the CTA will commit to replace the bench on the Monroe Street subway platform that was broken over a year ago, removed and never replaced. Deal, Ron?

Let's gouge the tourists who make our lives hell, shall we? How about doubling up the price of the 5- or 7-day passes? And if you've got an ID with a Chicago address, you get it for the original price. Tourists are here to spend money; let's oblige them.

Aside from that I'm all in favor of one particular fare hike and one alone: Cancel every single free ride plan out there and let that money flow back into the CTA's bank accounts. Even back in the day when everyone paid something, the "discounted" fares were too low. Instead of half-fares, let's just go with the idea that once you qualify for a discount, you pay 50¢ less than the top fare.

It looks like the CTA ended up awarding the loop signal work to a firm without proper experience in such projects. I'd say that was a signifigant mistake on their part considering the importance that stretch of track.

I'm sure they are looking at ways to speed the contractor up or replace them for non-performance by now.

As to revenue the Governor needs to take his lumps on this for acting like a spoiled child who wants to eat his cake and have it too. But I know that's too much to ask. I have less than zero confidence in him appointing anyone decent to the CTA board.

For its part the CTA needs to increase fares. Costs have gone up on everything under the sun and they're going to need to follow suit to keep afloat.

I also think it would be fair for the CTA to raise fares, or many of the reasons outlined above. Honestly, take the example of going from O'Hare to Midway - why one would WANT to do this is irrelevant - the fact that it would only cost you $2 is really kinda nuts. Just in terms of the area that ride would cover, I would expect to pay much more than $2. I really wonder if a zone-type system wouldn't be an idea that's worth thinking about. The increments wouldn't have to be astronomical, so it could still be affordable.

One thing I have difficulty understanding is the reactions of people (usually on the news) when the idea of a fare increase, nomatter how minimal, is floated. Even in the case of a quarter or God forbid 50¢, people get to moaning and saying that they can't afford it, it's too expensive already, etc. I know even living paycheck to paycheck that I could find an extra quarter a ride...with my schedule, it would be roughly an additional $10/month, which means I bring my lunch to work another day that month. *shrug* And, it's my opinion that $2 for pretty much anywhere isn't too expensive already.

Eh.

Fares should not be raised. The price of transportation should reflect its social costs. Those of public transit are, on balance, positive - decreasing congestion, pollution, and accidents by taking cars off the road and facilitating environmentally sustainable high-density, mixed-use living. The social costs of cars, on the other hand - from global warming to oil wars - are covered by massive government subsidies and hidden costs in the price of things like health insurance rates. Increased public transit funding should come in part from higher gas taxes, road tolls, or licensing fees, or we'll continue to maintain perverse and socially destructive incentives to drive.

Raising fares would also hit low-income people especially hard. In the middle of a recession this is a particularly bad idea. If we need to raise funds, they should come from those most able to pay - the top twenty percent of the population, which has seen its income skyrocket and tax rates plummet over the last 30 years, while everyone else's wages have stagnated. Illinois should abolish the flat income tax (which is, unaccountably, required by the constitution), institute a progressive income tax, and use those funds to pay for the long-delayed capital bill.

I also agree that a 25 cent increase seems on par with the rising cost of transportation.

Erin, I had a similar thought to you that possibly the CTA could assess fares by zone, like the Metra does. I would just wonder how the would implement that idea. Have people use their fare cards when they get on the train and then once again when they get off so the fare can be assessed? Interesting to think about but I think it would be beneficial in the long run.

-RK

I hate the idea of zoned fares, but only because people who ride the farthest are more likely to be poor or at least not well-off. That would be my guess anyway, I'd like to see that studied before they start talking about zones.

A 25 cent hike would be fine, with commensurate increases in the various passes, but it'd be nice to keep the bus fare at a flat $2 as I think there are many "discretionary" trips taken when someone happens to have two one dollar bills handy. Making the bus fare a non-integer will discourage some of those trips.

Also, there should be surcharges at the farthest reaches of the system, where feasible. At minimum, trips from O'Hare (and maybe even including Rosemont and Cumberland) should probably be $3 or even $4, since the train is still far and away cheaper than any other option and that is a great deal of trackage and miles on the railcars to pay for to serve the airport(O'Hare employees could maybe get passes to ride for the base fare). I'd suggest the same for Skokie, 95th and Midway but then you run into some social equity concerns given that many low-income people use some of these stations and you couldn't put a surcharge on one without the others.

Also, a surcharge for the rush hour-only express buses to downtown (the 130s, 140s, 14, etc) seems pretty defensible as well. Back in the old days, CTA had a 25 cent surcharge when boarding the express routes downtown, and I don't see why that couldn't or shouldn't be brought back.

The CTA can't have zoned rides because the L was never designed to have them. It requires a very large station area to force all the exiting riders to line up & have their cards read a second time. If this were done now, there would be huge backups at the exits & there would be people opening up the wheelchair gate & just leaving without going through the turnstile. With that many people piled up at either the downtown or other major stations you're guaranteeing injuries.

And why would Power Point people be in high demand?
That's probably the single most useless program ever created.
I taught myself to do a very basic Power Point presentation in a few minutes.

I would advise those people suggesting the looney idea of zoned fares to read the discussion we had about that, starting somewhere near the middle of this thread: http://www.ctatattler.com/2008/08/sour-economy-co.html

For the record, we did not have a fare hike in 2006. Yes, technically we did. But practically, the last fare hike was around 8 years ago when they increased the fare from $1.50 to $1.75. Anybody who wanted to avoid the 2006 fare hikes easilly could do so. The fact that it really has been so long since the last hike is even more reason to support it. Glad to see that, unlike the bizarre people who scream about everything under the sun on the Tribune comments section, almost everyone here realizes that the fares need to increase at some point.

"If we need to raise funds, they should come from those most able to pay - the top twenty percent of the population, which has seen its income skyrocket and tax rates plummet over the last 30 years, while everyone else's wages have stagnated."

Why would you want to punish people who have been successul? And what exactly do you suggest they do? Should people be required to show their tax returns every time they pay a fare in order to prove what income level they are in?

Bob S.,

I surely hope you were not being serious when you stated that tourists "make our lives hell". They, probably more than anyone, is what makes Chicago's economy thrive. If it weren't for tourists, the city would probably be about as poor as Detroit, and our infrastructure and city services would be comparable to them. But I don't think you were being serious so I'll give you a break.

UC:

For some reason the system didn't like my brackets. I had put: (insert extreme sarcastic mode here)about the whole powerpoint thing and I didn't notice till I reread my post..

I figured my sarcasm would have shown though anyways :)

KevinB

"Why would you want to punish people who have been successul? And what exactly do you suggest they do? Should people be required to show their tax returns every time they pay a fare in order to prove what income level they are in?"

I thought I was fairly clear - everyone should pay the same fare, but income taxes should be raised on the rich and some of the funds devoted to transit.

The reason these people have been "successful" is that the power of working people has been battered by free trade and the destruction of unions. So even tho we've seen steadily increasing productivity, the gains in wealth have been mostly captured by those at the top. At the same time, the taxes on investment income (the income you don't actually work for) have been reduced below taxes on labor, so that many corporate executives now pay lower effective tax rates than their secretaries.

One way to fix this mess is to restore sharply progressive income taxes, which would also allow us to generate the revenue we need to invest in infrastructure without resorting to temporary or socially destructive solutions like privatization or gambling.

"The reason these people have been "successful" is that the power of working people has been battered by free trade and the destruction of unions."

Really? You don't think that hard work has anything to do with it at all? You don't believe that people who are able make a fair amount of money as lawyers, investment bankers, restuarant owners, doctors, or corporate executives at all got to that point because of spending years of their lives in school and working long hours to get ahead? Do you realize the long hours that lawyers in entry level positions work? From what I have heard, they often have 20 hour days. At that point, they don't make very much money. They do this so that they will eventually have a chance to be a partner in a law firm and become successful. Medical school and the entry level jobs immedietely afterwoods are also very hard and encompass long hours. Yet you seem to think that these people get to where they are because of luck or privallage. And you don't even call them "working people". There are very few high paying jobs where there is not a lot of work. The destruction of unions (and certainly free trade) has helped the nation's economy. It has not hurt it. Companies and organizations cannot run efficiantly if they are hamstrung by obligations that provide them with inflexibility. The unions may help the limited people they serve but they kill jobs by preventing employers from expanding and making them more likely to be in a financially perilous position.

MK - that was hardly a discussion about zone-based fares. That was you dismissing common sense in regards to a zone-based fare structure. I lived in DC for a good deal of time and zone-based fares worked well, it didn't cause delays for those that rode the Metro, and it's just common sense that you should pay more if you go farther. It seems that you and the blog's resident communist, Jake, are the only two that can't see this.

Now hold on a minute. I'm not a communist (but I do believe in an egalitarian society). And I can't remember ever coming out against zoned fares.

I've used zoned transit systems pretty often - in DC, San Francisco, and Tokyo - and they seem to work just fine. And if we did have an egalitarian society, I think it would probably make sense to charge by distance. But I think Cheryl made a good point - in Chicago (with the exception of the Purple Line and the farthest reaches of the O'Hare Blue Line), the people traveling the farthest are also likely to be low-income. So given the major expenses that instituting a zone system would involve and the negative effects on low-income people, I think we should forget about zones for the time being.

"and it's just common sense that you should pay more if you go farther. "

Do you have any real arguments for zone based fares? Just saying "common sense" without explaining why is not an argument. If you want to discuss this it is more convincing to look at my (and others) arguments in the other thread against distance pricing and then actually try to dispute these specific arguments. Just saying "common sense" suggests you are right without explaining why gets you nowhere. If you do decide to do that, it probably makes sense to make your arguments in that thread so everybody can see everything at once.

MK, I'll put my comments where I see fit. Subsequently, I'd rather they be in this thread so not to get lost in the endless hyperbole that is shown in your posts in that thread.

If you are using the more of the system, you are using more resources, and therefore you should be paying more.

You are using more resources in a ride from Sedgwick to Midway than you are in a ride from Sedgwick to Washington/Wells. Consequently, the cost should rise.

I am not insinuating that the cost should go down for shorter rides; rather, the cost should rise for longer rides.

Sorry, MK and jimbo, but jake's totally right on this one. Zoned fares only work over great distances, like plane travel. Being able to afford living close to downtown doesn't mean that you're somehow entitled to pay less to travel there.

And re: free markets. Rubbish. The freer the market, the more people live in poverty. Deregulation of businesses in the 80's did help the economy grow faster, but sent millions of people who were middle class into the ranks of the working poor, and consolidated most of the wealth from that economic increase in the hands of a very small number of people. No amount of hard work entitles anyone to make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, not while a poor kid born today to a single mother on the south or west sides of the city has a 0% chance of becoming a lawyer one day, no matter how hard she works at her decrepit, crumbling, underfunded and gang-ridden public school.

The fact is, someone who makes $100k a year, even if they paid 50% income taxes, would still have $50k left over after they paid their income taxes, which is almost twice what I make in a year - before I pay my income taxes. And I have a bachelor's degree and I raise money for orphans for a living. No one is 'entitled' to have scads of disposable income, no matter how hard you work, not as long as millions of hard working people struggle to pay the rent because they never had the option of a safe neighborhood or a decent education. So FUCK rich people who whine about paying taxes. They will find no sympathy here.

@ the Doc regarding Daley:

THANK YOU! Christ I've been saying this for years now. Daley doesn't doesn't give a hoot about the CTA unless it DIRECTLY benefits businessmen/women or tourists (ie: anything regarding the airports or the downtown Loop). Other than that the CTA can crumble and die (unless it costs Him votes) as far as He is concerned.

Daley needs to step up and give the CTA more attention...the only time I have EVER (EVER!) heard him talk about the CTA is regarding the Olympics, and last year when the CTA was threatening a strike. I'm glad he had such a blast in Beijing riding their system, but please, does he even ride OUR system (ever in his life?!)? Modern rail cars? High speed service to the airports? Pleeaaaassseee....how about keeping the northside from literally crumbling under the 100 year old concrete embankment, or some signaling that isn't outdated and faulty? The list could go on.

It seems that you and the blog's resident communist, Jake, are the only two that can't see this.

Posted by: jimbo | September 11, 2008 at 03:53 PM

Excuse me--I'm the commie, not Jake.

"MK - that was hardly a discussion about zone-based fares. That was you dismissing common sense in regards to a zone-based fare structure. I lived in DC for a good deal of time and zone-based fares worked well, it didn't cause delays for those that rode the Metro, and it's just common sense that you should pay more if you go farther. It seems that you and the blog's resident communist, Jake, are the only two that can't see this."

BRAVO JIMBO!

MK is a troll who cannot stand anyone else's opinions but his. I proposed the same thing as you did and instead of pointing out why he felt it would not work IN A FAIR, RATIONAL, AND RESPECTFUL MANNER, he chose to act like a "mightier-than-thou" a$$hole about it.

MK, I may have been wrong in my assesment of zoned fares, but you really need to learn tolerance of other people's views, whether you agree with them or not. Also, MK, I showed your posts on that thread and a few others to my husband and after totally laughing at them, he said that you railfans and transit fans are all alike. You all think your views are the only ones that matter.

MK, other people have opinions too. Learn to respect them. And have a nice day!

Oh, and Jimbo, I live and work in DC too now. The zoned system works very well here (and on BART) and MK is too blind to realize that!

Where to start?

My father is 83; he needs a free ride like he needs a hole in the head. Yet, our "governor" thinks his getting a free ride is a "great thing," as G-Rod said during his retirement home photo-op last January. My father has yet to disagree with the little sociopath. Padre's reasoning is that it's offered; why not take it?

At the same time, our Gubernatorial Majesty has a point about CTA waste. I think it greatly ironic that spudart's photos of the Wabash L Extreme Makeover appear in the margin of this post. I remember the first time I noticed the lovely new paint job while walking away from the Art Institute. "Must have done it to impress the tourists or at least keep them from getting lockjaw," I thought to myself. There are tressels in Evanston that are being held up with what are basically steel sawhorses and jersey barriers. The Brown Line is being renovated, but the infrastructure upon which the renovation is taking place is flaking steel and paint. "Silk purse out of a sow's ear," I think every time I ride the #11 under the Paulina stop.

In summary, there needs to be a means test for the seniors ride free program; the rest of us need our fares raised 25 cents to keep up with inflation and fuel costs; and, spudart is right, it did look like Christo decided to wrap the Loop during the L paint job.

Oh, yeah, and Mayor Mumbles has to stop telling RonH to do stuff just to impress the IOC.

"If you are using the more of the system, you are using more resources."

Sorry, but that just isn't true (as I stated in the other thread). If you take the red line tomorrow from Chicago to Fullerton, it will cost the CTA exactly the same to transport you as it would if you take it from Roosevelt to Howard. The train is going from 95th to Howard regardless of where you get and and off.

Sorry, obviously I meant "on and off".

"Deregulation of businesses in the 80's did help the economy grow faster, but sent millions of people who were middle class into the ranks of the working poor"

Well, if the economy grows it means that there are people in the working poor who are able to move up to the middle class. Yes, when policies are changed or there is some other fundamental shift in the structure of the economy, there are transitions that occur. Sometimes, these transitions involve job losses. But when the net effect is a stronger economy, there are much more jobs that are created than are lost. And the jobs that exist have better pay and benefits. Of course, when people quickly lose their job because of a transition it is more noticable than the jobs that are created. The jobs that get created from a stronger economy occur more gradually and it is not as easy to pinpoint good policies that created them. There is more of an emotional reaction when things are clearer. That's unfortunetely why people on my side of this debate are sometimes at a disadvantage.

"No one is 'entitled' to have scads of disposable income, no matter how hard you work, not as long as millions of hard working people struggle to pay the rent because they never had the option of a safe neighborhood or a decent education."

I guess you are talking about income tax rates. You aren't really arguing with me since I never said anything about income tax rates. I actually am not neccessarally against raising the highest income tax rate a bit. That would likely not have very much of an effect on the economy (and it would essentually just move the rate back to around what it was a few years ago). But you do seem to be a little too optimistic as to the effect that simply raising taxes would have on the problems you mention. The issues in the inner-city are increadibly complicated. I think even if you quadrouple the revenues to inner-city schools, social programs and other things like that it would not come anywhere close to solving, or probably even substantally improving, these problems. If there was very strong evidence that raising taxes on everyone would have major benefits to the poorest areas of the country, I think the overwhelming majority of the people in the country would be glad to give up more of their income. But right now, there really is not anything to convince people that this money would be spent wisely.

MK,

You are an extremely DISRESPECTFUL person when it comes to being on this thread. Would it make you feel any better if the whole wide world agreed with you 100%?
Here are some of your "Greatest Hits":

"Jesus Christ. There are so many stupid comments on this thread that I don't know where to begin."

"No, stupid. You are actually showing even more ignorance than UCC. I have heard several people make the argument you are making. Where on earth is it coming from? That is a serious question. It certainly isn't coming from reality."

"A distance-based fare system is an utterly stupid idea for the CTA. I always want to scream when I see people suggest that. Perhaps that's a bit of an overstatement. In reality, I only want to scream when, like in this thread, people make that suggestion and act as if it is something so obvious that they don't even need to explain why it is a good idea. And it is even worse when, like Robin W., they seem not to understand that this would cause as much as three minutes of extra commuting time since people would need to get in line for the exit turnstiles"

MK, you were extremely disrespectful to Robin W. on that thread. You would have done better to say something like, "Robin, I understand your perspective on this, but here's why it wouldn't work...!" Much better than taking your attitude, don't you think?

Like Robin W., I've been on zoned fare subway systems and I've NEVER noticed delays at the exits because people are smart enough to figure out how it works. But in case you're not, here's how it works:

1) Insert fare card in slot.
2) Pass thru turnstyle.
3) Collect fare card on other side.

Takes only about a second. Maybe someday MK, if you get your self-righteous head out of your a - -, you can even learn it!

To Kiel,
Sorry your dreams didn't come true, but don't bash people beacause we work hard for our income. If you don't like your income level, get another job. I've known MANY educated, successful and highly paid individuals who have come out of gang/poverty neighborhoods.

Sorry, parisrunner - you missed my point. I like my job and make plenty of money. But my point wasn't about me.

But this is a CTA website, so I won't argue this particular tangent;)

After today, I'm thinking the CTA should just give up.

I know they're working on pretty much every line, trying to get them back into shape. Good. So, like I good user, I look at the CTA's customer alerts, to
see if there are any problems on the Blue Line. Nope! Closed this weekend Jeff-to-Irving-Park, but at noon Friday, just fine. Hop on at Logan Square to get to Clark.

40 minutes later, we pull into Grand. Turns out that basically the entire subway is a 6mph slow zone today. We'll, I have to be back on at 1PM, so turn around and wheeze my way back home. Lunch date? Gone.

If I'd known -- if the CTA had said anything -- I could have taken the bus, or driven, or rode my bike. But I walk into the station, with the CTA's blissful assurances that everything running, and lose 80 minutes of my life for no reason.

Running at 6mph is *not* normal operation. This is track that was supposedly cleared of slow zones last year.

I'm tired of this. All I ask is that you tell me your working on the track, and let me decide if I can gamble on the extra time or if I need to reroute. Stop doing this in the middle of the day without warning.

So (to get on topic) when the CTA tells me the slow zone work is done -- and yet, other areas that the slow zone work is done are still full of them -- why should I believe them? It's a crapshoot if you get on a train as if the CTA has decided that they need to do some work, and thus, it's 10 minutes from Division to Grand.

My mistake, wrong thread.

Oh, I do NOT like the idea of zoned fares. Who lives close to the city? People who can afford to live in River North, Streeterville, Lincoln Park. Who doesn't? People who can afford places in Albany Park, Rogers Park, and I know I'm being very northside-centric here, but I simply don't know anything about the southside. So let's make the people who can't afford to live closer pay more for the privilege of getting to work. Bad idea.

MK, let's leave aside your idea that growth automatically enlarges the middle class - the last 30 years have made that theory completely untenable. When workers are weak, they can't demand their fair share of wealth, which is instead captured by their bosses. Incidentally, the American economy grew much faster in the '50s and '60s, when unions were strong and the middle class actually did expand.

Let's also leave aside the question of how much income people deserve. (I'm certainly not against lawyers and doctors who work long, hard hours getting paid for it - but then janitors, food service workers, and factory workers who work equally hard, long hours should get the same pay.)

What's relevant to the transit debate is how we're going to fund the major infrastructure investments we desperately need. We either raise taxes on those who can most afford to pay them (and who have unfairly captured most of the wealth from productivity increases in the last 30 years), which means abolishing the flat income tax and instituting a sharply progressive income tax. Or we resort to quick-fix solutions like privatization or expanded gambling that leave us worse-off and more unequal in the long run. If you have some other solution, I'd love to hear it.

Like Robin W., I've been on zoned fare subway systems and I've NEVER noticed delays at the exits because people are smart enough to figure out how it works. But in case you're not, here's how it works:

1) Insert fare card in slot.
2) Pass thru turnstyle.
3) Collect fare card on other side.

Takes only about a second. Maybe someday MK, if you get your self-righteous head out of your a - -, you can even learn it!"

OK. Well, that could be true in D.C. I haven't seen it so I can't say whether, in terms of passenger flow, it works well or not. I was never really saying that there would be massive delays of a few minutes when people are leaving the stations (at least I think I didn't say that). But it does seen to me that in high volume stations, such as those downtown, there will be a wait while people exit. The train comes at the same time so everyone needs to leave at the same time. Much of the discussion on this blog is about the need to have an efficiant transit system. There have been several people who have complained (not wrongly) about slow zones that add probably 25 to 30 seconds to the commute. So every second saved is worthwhile and noticable to many people. And it adds to the attraction of transit, which will encourage ridership. So it does seem that a delay, whether small or big, leaving the stations to use a farecard should be avoided. And it would cost the CTA a fairly significant amount to add these turnstiles. But these weren't my main arguments against
zoned based pricing anyway. I'll just take the high road and ignore your personel attack of "self-righteous head out of your a - -". I find it odd you did that after lecturing me about manners, but we'll put that aside.

"You are an extremely DISRESPECTFUL person when it comes to being on this thread. Would it make you feel any better if the whole wide world agreed with you 100%?
Here are some of your "Greatest Hits":"

If you look at all those comments, you will see that I was not annoyed at all by people having a differing opinion than me. I was annoyed because, in each of those cases, I felt the individuals had quickly come to a conclusion that they had not really analyzed. Their opinion seemed to clearly be a result of either a knee-jerk reaction to something or some arguments they had heard, without supporting evidence, from somewhere (there had been some activist groups who, when the fare change was made in 2006, made very unconvincing arguments that the poor would be most likely not a have a frecard). In the case of the distance based argument, I responded the way I did not because someone stated a differing opinion but because they did so without explaining why they had that opinion. And you might notice that, despite this, that person acted dismissive of the opposing opinion when she first posted. Yes, I do get frustrated when people state strong opinions without apparently spending the time to think them through or even to provide some reasons. And I will express my frustration when this occurs. If you notice places like the Tribune comment boards you will see that probably more than half of the posts are of that nature. There is much less of it here. And that allows for much more meaningful dialogue rather than just a collection of rants and complaints. I think one of the reasons why there is so much less of that here is because many posters (not just me) challange those types of posts and call it for what it is. As a result, this is more of the place to have real discussions.

I would agree that a small fare increase is probably better than painful service cuts.

But to say that a fares "should" go up? Why on earth should they?

The purpose of public funding for the CTA is NOT to move its passengers around. If that was the only purpose, then there ought to be no public subsidy at all: people could rightly be expected to pay for what they use.

That sort of thinking simply misses the point that public transit is a public good: the primary purpose of having society at large subsidize it is that the more people us the CTA, the better-off we all are, environmentally and economically.

Raising fares provides a greater disincentive to engage in socially positive behavior. It means more people will use their cars than they otherwise would, there will be more traffic and lost productivity than there otherwise would, and a lot of people who are just getting by will have to spend a little less every year on food or clothing or whatever in order to afford to get to work or to the supermarket.

How could any of that be a good thing?

A number of people keep mouthing, without any justification, this idea that fares "should" go up because the cost of other things (gas, etc.) is going up. What does that have to do with the price of beans? If anything, the fact that the cost of gas is going up makes it all the more important to keep fares low, since it provides people who can't afford gas with a better transportation alternative.

Did the right wing seize control of the CTA Tattler?

By the way, KPF, I think it is worth pointing out that the poster on that thread that I called "stupid" had said to someone else "brilliant idea...yeah right" and "do you ever think before you type?". So I was certainly not just calling someone stupid simply for having a different, or even ignorant, opinion. Despite having an ignorant opinion he was belittling those who did not share it.

Yes, stillwaiting, exactly right. Increasing fares accomplishes nothing positive except raising revenue that could be raised in other ways with far fewer drawbacks. And that's why I keep emphasizing the need to get rid of the flat tax and start distributing the tax burden in a more fair manner.

This isn't just about transit, either - the flat tax distorts public expenditures in all kinds of other ways because it forces the legislature to either underfund key public services or raise revenues some other way. That's why the sales tax is so high, and why state and local government have been considering all kinds of bad ideas, from expanding casino gambling to privatizing the lottery and Midway.

What country do you live in that has this flat income tax you're speaking of? The income tax is most definately progressive.

And despite a plethora of credits and exemptions that are by their very nature usually only taken by those who have higher incomes, the effective rate is still progressive, though perhaps not quite as much as the basic tax tables would suggest.

I'm talking about Illinois's flat income tax, which is required by the constitution.