If I didn’t know better, I’d think there was a transportation-related conspiracy

As expected, the Chicago Transit Authority gave its approval this week to the implementation of a new system by which people would pay their fares for bus and elevated train rides.

Too costly a place to ride to, or park near?

One that would encourage people to pay larger sums of money up-front to purchase contactless cards. The way to persuade people to quit thinking in terms of paying for individual rides is to raise the fare – from the current $2.25 to $3 – for those customers.

OF COURSE, THOSE people catching an el train at O’Hare International Airport would get hit with a $5 fee for that single ride – all part of the rhetoric that says the only people who will really wind up paying the higher fare are those out-of-town tourists who decide to use the “el” during their Chicago visit.

As I wrote earlier this week, I sympathize with those activists who object to this new system, believing that people who rely on mass transit but don’t have the kind of cash to put up front into purchasing a card will get hit with the bulk of the higher fares.

I wasn’t shocked with the CTA approval. I would have been amazed if they could have been swayed.

But now I learn about how city officials also are considering changes in the fees that people pay when they use a downtown parking garage or lot.

AS IF THOSE fees weren’t already enough.

I know that the last two times I was in a situation where I had to drive an automobile into downtown Chicago and park it, I got hit with $34 fees – for leaving my car in a garage for not more than two hours each time.

CTA officials defended their own changes, in part, by saying that the new fare schedule will be complex – and that it is overly simplistic to portray anyone as having to pay an increased fare.

But after reading about the proposal made this week by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, I’m wondering if he’s determined to out-complicate the CTA.

FOR WHAT THE city has in mind, according to the Chicago Tribune, is to alter the taxes on parking fees from an escalating fee to a percentage-based system.

The people who literally are using the garages to park their cars for just a few minutes (or maybe up to 1 hour) could wind up paying less.

Like I wrote, my recent parking experiences in the downtown garages weren’t all that long – yet I still got whacked with what I consider to be a ridiculous fare. A fare that likely will be even higher when/if I get stuck paying it again.

All I know is that it truly discourages me from wanting to have my automobile with me when I have business to take care of in downtown Chicago.

YET THE THOUGHT of using mass transit to go downtown is something that could also become an expensive proposition.

I find Chicago’s downtown district too intriguing a place to want to avoid altogether (and I pity those people who claim they never set foot in or near the Loop). But it almost seems like certain people are determined to put financial obstacles to our ability to go downtown and stay there long enough to enjoy it!

You’d think these people with an interest in propagating the image of the city so as to bolster its economic potential to the max would be interested in avoiding moves such as these that wind up discouraging some people from wanting to come here.

  -30-

Are cash-less cards unfair for regular users of mass transit programs?

I remember the days when one actually got a reward at a gas station for using cash INSTEAD OF a credit card to pay for their motor fuel, I also recall the day when one dumped a token into the fare box on board the bus in order to get a ride.

So perhaps it is a sign of my advancing age that I see the new way in which the Chicago Transit Authority wants people to pay their fares for a bus or elevated train ride and can’t help but be repulsed by the change.

FOR IT SEEMS that the CTA is joining the ranks of entities that wants to view cash as a problem – largely because it requires real live employees to handle properly.

Having some sort of card that one scans, or perhaps even just swipes, may soon become the preferred way of paying one’s fare – to the point that the CTA may start penalizing people who pay for their individual rides with cash.

The Chicago Tribune has reported in recent days about the new Ventra system that the CTA wants to implement this year. It would entail purchasing special cards that would have credit pre-loaded onto them. Then, you just swipe your card each time you use the CTA for your transit needs.

You’d have to update your card periodically for more credit. But I’m sure the CTA likes the idea of you just giving them large sums of money – without thinking specifically about how much you’re actually spending.

THE FINANCIAL INCENTIVE to sway people to use this new system (rather than just reject it as some hokey, new-fangled gadget)? CTA officials are considering a plan by which the basic fare for a single bus or el train ride would rise to $3 – up from the $2.25 they currently charge.

Heck, I can remember when bus rides were 90 cents, with an extra dime for the transfer. And I know there is the older generation that can remember when CTA rides were even significantly cheaper than that.

I realize that costs increase with time. Inflation, after all. So I’m not necessarily complaining about the rise in price. Although it makes me thankful that I don’t use mass transit as often these days as I used to. I think I’d be perpetually broke if I were a daily user.

But I can sympathize with those activists who are taking up the cause of lower-income mass transit riders who aren’t going to want to have to shell out so much money at once and are more likely to pay for rides individually.

THEY’RE THE ONES who will wind up having to pay more money so that the rest of us will be able to have a “contactless fare card” with which to pay for those rides we take on those occasions when we’d rather not be bothered with having to park an automobile.

Considering the cost of legal parking in Chicago, they may argue that even a higher-costing CTA ride is still a financial bargain!

But it still is cheesy to hit certain people with a higher fare for not using the new device – whose main purpose like I wrote earlier is to reduce the amount of human staff necessary to process all that cash that would otherwise need to be counted out.

I don’t expect CTA officials to be swayed by any of this.

THE CTA’S BOARD is scheduled to meet Wednesday, and likely will vote on the matter at that time. I expect it will be regarded as a vote for technological progress, and all those activists who bother to show up to complain will be dismissed as somehow wanting to live in the past.

Yet there were some things about the past that were preserving – such as the idea of a bus ride and transfer that one could pay for with just a dollar bill (and not having to worry about juggling all kinds of extra change).

  -30-

Metra increases a fare, after saying there’d be no fare increases this year

I can’t say I’m surprised at the outrage some people might be feeling these days toward Metra, the commuter railroad system, for the increase in ticket prices it approved just a couple of days ago.

This increase comes just a couple of weeks after Metra officials told the Cook County Board (which reviews mass transit budgets) that they were preparing a budget for 2013 that calls for no fare hikes. Prices would remain the same, except when they don’t – it seems.

NOW FOR THOSE of you who are confused, keep in mind that Metra technically didn’t  break its word. They kept themselves within the “letter of the law,” so to speak, with regards to fares for the upcoming year.

For the basic fare for those people who ride Metra trains will remain the same. As will the prices charged for those people who purchase monthly passes to allow them to come and go every day without having to make a routine out of shelling out cash!

What Metra’s board increased was the cost of what they call a 10-ride ticket, one that gives you up to 10 rides on a Metra train for a period of up to six months.

The current fare is based on the cost of nine one-way rides, with the 10^th being a freebie on account of the fact that the commuter is coughing up their money up front. Metra gets theirs, and there’s always the chance you could lose a ticket with a ride or two remaining – meaning that they get a financial perk in the process.

BUT COME FEBRUARY, people are going to have to pay for the full 10 rides, which means the only bonus is that you won’t have to wait in the ticket line every single time you want to catch a train.

I honestly believe the fact that they were getting cash up front was a financial plus for Metra that they should have respected. Particularly since it was just this past year that all Metra fares went up – including the cost of the 10-ride tickets (it used to be that you paid the price of eight one-way rides for a 10-ride).

So excuse me for being a little less than sympathetic to Metra for slipping this increase through when their board met Friday.

And yes, I should disclose the fact that I am an occasional Metra train rider who always tries to have a 10-ride ticket on me so that I can just board a train without having to worry about paying for the ride.

CURRENTLY, I’M ON a ticket with three rides remaining. So there is a self-interest I am expressing in this particular rant of a commentary.

Keep in mind that this isn’t just a suburban issue (which is probably how some city dwellers want to view Metra since they probably use the CTA trains and buses for public commutes).

Go out to a neighborhood like Hyde Park where the elevated trains convenience skip by, and it becomes those Metra Electric trains (the ones that are getting new cars that finally will have lavatory facilities) that provide the direct connection to downtown Chicago – along with neighborhoods such as South Shore and South Chicago.

Swing out to the Southwest Side, and it becomes those Rock Island line trains that can take Beverly or Morgan Park neighborhood residents deeper into the city without having to drive a car. It's not just people coming in from Kenosha, Wis. (although there are a few of them as well).

THIS MOVE – WHICH Metra officials say is meant to raise $8.3 million to be used for repairs and maintenance – is going to have an impact on many people,

Which makes me convinced I’m not the only one who feels a bit of disgust – even if an increased cost of a Metra 10-ride is still probably cheaper than the cost of parking one’s car at a downtown garage!

But that’s a rant to be written for another day.

  -30-

A DAY IN THE LIFE (of Chicago): $75 now the price for getting cab sick?

I sympathize with the thought of a taxicab driver who has to take time out from what could be a busy night picking up passengers and making money to clean up a mess caused by a passenger who gets sick during the ride.

I say so because I remember one incident about two decades ago when I was that passenger.

MY STOMACH WAS feeling a bit queasy, but I thought I could keep it in until I got to a commuter train station in downtown Chicago. But instead of being the guy who threw up in a men’s room toilet, I wound up doing it within a half block of the train station, in the back seat of a cab.

I recall giving the driver an extra $20, in addition to paying the fare. It seemed the least I could do.

So imagine my reaction to learning that the cab drivers are seeking increases in various fares and fees associated with riding a cab – and one of the changes they want made is the right to demand $75 from anyone who gets sick inside the cab.

Fat chance they’ll actually be able to collect it. Or will it now become a police-worthy offense (as though they’re not busy enough already) to puke one’s guts up in the back seat of a cab?

I RECALL THAT night so long ago that I gave him $20 because it was all the cash I had on hand. Are cab drivers now going to start screening their potential passengers based on who looks like they might be carrying enough spare cash on hand that they could afford $75 if they become ill?

Or will they now “profile” people to avoid those individuals whom they think will become ill? Considering that we encourage people who become intoxicated to avoid driving and rely on a taxicab instead, it seems like a contradictory move.

Not that I’m excusing my behavior that night (as I recall, it was a night at the Billy Goat Tavern after a day’s work at the now-defunct City News Bureau of Chicago, and I took a cab to a train station because I was feeling too queasy to just walk). But there has to be something more practical than this proposal – which is something the City Council will get to consider in coming weeks.

What other events are occurring on the southwestern shores of Lake Michigan on this second day of Hanukkah?

THIS IS WALSH’S BIG ISSUE?:  Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill., is grossly offended that he’s not allowed to use his official Congressional newsletter to wish people a Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukkah.

RUSCITTI: The anti-Walsh?



The House rules that have been in place since the days when Congress was preoccupied with Watergate don’t want taxpayer dollars being used to promote anyone’s religion in particular. So they tell members of Congress to use general holiday greetings.

That has Walsh outraged, although I suspect much of his outrage is for show to get the kind of people who want to perceive a culture war against themselves to think of himself as the guy they should consider voting for come March 20, and again on Nov. 6.

I’m sure Walsh thinks he’s preparing for a general election fight between the winner of Raja Krishnamoorthi/Tammy Duckworth in the Democratic primary for the vacant congressional seat. Personally, I’d get a kick out of seeing GOP primary opponent Darlene Ruscitti (the regional superintendent of schools for DuPage County) beat Walsh, just so we could be spared his ideological nonsense come the general election.

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ’12 – WHO DO WE HATE MORE?: It really seems that people are preparing to vote against someone for president in next year’s election cycle.

OBAMA: For, or against?

I couldn’t help but notice the poll released Tuesday by the Gallup Organization. In hypothetical elections of Barack Obama against Mitt Romney, and against Newt Gingrich, Obama wins 50 percent to 48 percent – which is so close that it amounts to a statistical tie.

But Gallup claims many people say they’re voting against the opponent, rather than for the person they picked. Only 18 percent of those surveyed picked the Republican because they want either Romney or Gingrich to be president. By comparison, only 39 percent picked Obama over Romney because they want Obama. The same goes for the 34 percent who picked Obama over Gingrich.

That makes 30 percent (29 percent if it’s Gingrich) who are voting AGAINST Obama, with 11 percent (15 percent if it’s Gingrich) voting against the GOP. What do we get from an Obama/Gingrich battle? 44 percent of the people voting for the candidate they can’t stand.

Only in America!

  -30-