CHICAGO — An Illinois legislator has proposed lowering fares on Metra’s Electric District, and the commuter railroad says it’s willing to discuss the proposal.
The Chicago Tribune reports State Rep. Marcus Evans Jr.’s bill would make rail service more affordable for South Side residents by lowering Metra Electric trips within Chicago to rates equal to Chicago Transit Authority fares. CTA trains have a regular rate of $2.50 per ride; Metra Electric fares, determined by zone, range from $4 to $5.50 within Chicago.
Metra spokesman Michael Gillis told the Tribune that the agency “would look forward to working with Rep. Evans and others to determine whether doing this is feasible and affordable.”
Lower-cost, increased Metra Electric service could provide an alternative to the proposed expansion of the CTA’s Red Line from 95th Street to 103th Street, estimated to cost about $2.3 billion. The CTA does not yet have funding for that extension.
Gerald, there is no way only 2% of the traveling public would be taking the plane on long trips. Even if the SW Airlines senior Want-to-Get Away fares (usually the cheapest out there) would double or even more its not worth all the driving or the lengthy bus or train rides to go 1,400 or 1,600 miles which is the driving miles to my 2 children’s families. This summer I’m going on a 12 day trip to CA and NV. No way would I drive the 2,600 miles each way.
There’s no way the public would stand for major increases in air fares like you suggest. All Senators and Representatives would be in trouble.
The most justified increase in taxes for air services support would be on non-commercial air operations. These are the less than 1% who get the most non-justifiable subsidy to support their passion/hobby.
Curtis – Yes I have seen this. Actually “these”. Both legs of the Dan Ryan, I-94 and I-57 appear to have allowance for extension of the CTA.
6/7 decades as far as I know nothing has been announced for either leg.
Curtis, the above is as far as I know from what I think I see. I have never lived in Illinois but like you I drive through it.
Interesting parallel in Detroit and the Macomb County suburbs. When many years ago Michigan was planning to build the Hwy M-53 freeway, M-DOT announced a central reservation for future transit. However the M-53 freeway was never built. No one ever explained what good would be a transit line getting no closer to downtown than East Seven Mile, connecting to absolutely nothing.
Curtis, I have a problem with transit lines down the middle of a freeway. Is that where people really want to board a train? Wouldn’t a transit line be better where there’s a neighborhood? Housing, stores, restaurants, sports venue, etc.
Perhaps someone can offer real news on this…. having driven thru or around Chicago for the last 6/7 decades and observing what appeared to be CTA’s planned extension eastbound.
The beat goes on. On You Tube watch Aviation 101 with Josh Flowers a young man who flies his family’s Cessna 172 out of San Marcos Tex. The network of great traffic controllers and the billions of taxpayer dollars to make the air system work comes to mind in almost every video.
The replacement of radar based control vs the new gps based systems is requiring the installation of a totally new system that will benefit us as airline passengers and a lot of well to do private pilots, This infrastructure change is considered progress that is needed to bring the system to 21st century standards while investment in Metra; the CTA ; Amtrak is viewed as a form of welfare because it benefits poor neighborhoods and in Metra and Amtrak’s case does not travel at 5 miles a minute so is not considered modern or cutting edge. It would be funny if ti were not kind of sad.
If they lower the fares for Metra Electric that means that loss of funds will have to be made up somewhere else which will be the other Metra Lines. That sounds to me like a big case of discrimination to me. There is quite a bit of difference in the comfort of the equipment between the Metra Electric and the CTA to justify the higher fares. I totally agree with Mr. Klass’ third statement that this is a politician pandering for votes. I also agree with Mr. Landey and Ms Harding. If the commuters of South Chicago want to pay less for less comfort they take the CTA if they want more comfort for a higher fare they take Metra Electric. More people wanting someone else to pay for their commute. In my opinion all the fares should be increased until the cost of the service is covered.
They’ll need a portion of the$2.3 billion to fund the increased subsidy for Metra.
Metra service frequency also won’t match CTA’s likely frequency.
Me thinks this is another politician thinking there is such a thing as a free lunch.
Anna and I agree on something?? Means one of two things (or both). Either the end of the world and/or the Second Coming of the Messiah.
That I know of Metra Electric fares are the same as any other Metra route, supporting Metra which is near bankruptcy.
The politician should be happy about all the $$$$$$ that have been poured in Metra Electric, once one of the worst Metra routes and now quite likely the best.
Fine, great, what is the cash flow for Metro Electric like? The service needs to be funded somehow.
The above comments are general in nature and do not form the basis for an attorney/client relationship. They do not constitute legal advice. I am not your attorney. Find your own damn shyster.
No need to extend Red Line, ME is already there, just a few blocks or a couple mile apart. 2.3 billion can be used to extend the Blue Line to Oak Brook.
Gerald. The “2%” will fly. Really
Gerald, really. Having just bought a ticket on Delta Airlines from MKE to the Richard Anderson Memorial Northwest/ Delta Terminal at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport in Romulus, Michigan, I know that price.
For comparison for this post, I checked out a comparable fare on Amtrak, Milwaukee Airport Station to Dearborn, Michigan, the two closest stations to the two airports, changing at Chicago.
Coach on Delta, it’s only an hour. On Amtrak, there’s only one class on the Hiawatha but I checked both business and coach class on the Wolverine.
Comparing Delta coach fare to Amtrak business class fare. Delta is cheaper. Comparing coach to coach, Amtrak is a bit lower but not anywhere near lower as to compensate for my time. Time which would easily have required another hotel night at Warren, Michigan, my destination.
Gerald, if you’ve been to an airport any time in the last two generations you’d know that it’s not just the 1% or the 2% who fly. A ticket adder for Air Traffic Control won’t change that.
Mr. McGuire,
You’re incorrect on one point…the airlines pay zero cost of the Air Traffic Control system…it’s one hundred percent funded by our taxes. There’s a reason the airlines do not want it privatized…because the cost would force them to increase fares so much that the only people who could afford to fly would be the 2%(incorrectly called the 1% by the ignorant). Secondly, the subsidies to airlines for regional air service has been drastically reduced over the years, so much so that most of the services no longer exist. Not going to try and convince you about Amtrak, because people like you can’t be convinced by facts as they believe fake news.
I believe Robert is essentially correct. Public transportation is in general heavily subsidized whereas air and highway user fees come closer to the cost.
There are so many variables – and so many stakeholders with agendas – that no agreement can ever be reached about the degree of subsidy to road and air. For example, who pays for the Milwaukee County sheriff freeway patrol, or the Wisconsin State Patrol in the other counties, highway user fees or general fund taxes? You can get a lot of different answers.
The amount of subsidy to local transit, suburban rail, and intercity rail is, however, not subject to dispute. It’s enormous. The environmentalists and rail advocates (I’m in the latter category) will tell you that a reasonable subsidy pays big dividends. The enormous subsidy for some of the dodgy trolleys, not so much.
The other issue is the externalities. Environmentalists, urban planners, etc. will tell you that freeways wreak such and such costs to the environment and to the urban fabric, creating suburban sprawl and other damage. Of course there’s something to this. If the average trip length on Milwaukee County Transit System is measured in the low single digit miles, suburbanites think nothing of driving three times that distance because they believe Supermarket A, a distance from home, has better meat (or lower prices or whatever) compared to Supermarket B next door. Of course there is something to this. Hey, I have an Urban Planning degree and I heard all this in Urban Planning school long before today’s environmentalists were even born. The question is, what to do about this and how to improve it. Spending billions of dollars on a transit line no one will take is not always the answer.
Anything environmentalists or new urbanists tell you, look into it before agreeing with them. It’s like the jihad against “SUV’s”. Mrs. Landey and I each drive a Subaru SUV. SUV’s are the most efficient vehicles on the road, which is why that’s all anyone buys any more. They carry people in more comfort, and more cargo for sure, than a sedan on a bigger chassis therefore less mpg’s. The size of the car or the SUV isn’t what causes the wastage, it’s the number of miles driven.
Mr. McGuire transit can help reduce congestion taking cars off the road thereby reducing wear and the need to expand freeways plus saving energy. I take the bus to work in the last 25 yrs since the gas tax was raised I have experienced over a half dozen fare increases in addition to service cuts. The actual amount to date to keep the HTF solvent is over $140 Billion from the General Fund. As for air service the taxpayers subsidize regional air svcs to small airport at a substantial loss not to mention the cost of security screening for distances that could be travelled by other means. Also, the billions spent on state of the art security screening cannot be recovered solely by ticket fees. As for the “subsidies” to Amtrak passengers don’t be fooled by Amtrak “accounting” numbers the biggest money pit title still goes to the NEC.
Mr. Riley and Mr. Else you are way off base here. I agree that the gas tax should be raised to keep the gas tax fund solvent but if that is going to be done then the government will have to stop raiding the gas tax fund for transit projects and return all the billions it has taken since the first raid many years ago. The air traffic control system is certainly a government operation but it is paid for by the airlines through taxes and landing fees some of which are past onto passengers but they are still paying for their transportation unlike Amtrak passengers who do not pay any taxes on their tickets. In addition automobile users pay licensing fees, property taxes, sales taxes, state and federal gas taxes, highway tolls and other user fees while Amtrak passengers are the most heavily subsidized passengers on a per passenger basis. Nobody will ever convince me otherwise.
You are correct Mr. Else. While on the subject of covering ones costs lets raise the federal gas tax so it covers its own expenditures from the Hwy Trust Fund instead of robbing the Treasury and adding to the deficit every year to keep it from becoming insolvent. Raise it enough to also repay the Treasury the 60+ Billion that has been taken since 2008 plus a little extra to fund the naval presence in the Middle East protecting the corp oil assets.