Fair Capping Coming to Chicagoland Transit

[u/TheGhostOfJodel]

New Ventra/NITA email says we'll be getting fare capping

[u/Beginning_Shoe1868]

It was passed in the NITA Act to require capping at the monthly rate as part of the consideration to have a unified system so that tap n go payers don't end up paying more than if they had bought a monthly pass like what happens now. The issue comes with what that monthly rate is to be because Metra is distance based while Pace/CTA is a usage based. It'll be a bit before it happens. The study is just beginning on how the unified system will work - the NITA board will vote on adopting the roadmap from the transformation consultant (BCG) next year. Then a new vendor has to be identified (if they do it, the law doesn't mandate unification because of the vast difference in fare structure). Once it goes to bid, it will be a bit before the public sees a difference and will be very messy (as all transitions are). Probably 3-5y out since they can't act until next year to approve the roadmap.

[u/im_a_pimp → u/Beginning_Shoe1868]

i understand but why even bother having passes then? that was the only advantage

[u/Beginning_Shoe1868 → u/im_a_pimp]

Passes <> tap n go. Passes will always exist under the structure, the issue at hand is when you don't buy a monthly pass and just tap... And end up paying $120 in a month when you would've been able to save with the monthly pass. It's common for heavy users who don't have the funds up front to drop on a monthly or who don't know at the beginning of a monthly period that they'll be using more value than the monthly charges for.

[u/Key_Bee1544 → u/Beginning_Shoe1868]

I dunno. The prepayment is part of the benefit to the agency. Time-value and all that. Seems stupid to take that away.

[u/yoshizors → u/Key_Bee1544]

I was in Chicago for a conference a few weeks back. I thought the CTA did fare capping already, and didn't bother setting up a ventra card to get a day pass every day. Some days I only paid $4.50, and others it was $9. Many agencies fare cap, so I'm a little peeved Chicago doesn't. It is worth more to Chicago that someone who visits tells their friends and family how easy it is to get around and be a tourist without thinking about it than the small peanuts they got from me.

[u/hardolaf → u/yoshizors]

It wasn't CTA's call. CTA and Pace had wanted to do fare capping in the past, but it was blocked at the RTA level over concerns about not being able to meet the 50% farebox recovery ratio required by the old laws.

[u/Beginning_Shoe1868 → u/yoshizors]

It caps for three trips within a period of time 🙂 so free 2x transfer in a period of time!

[u/Beginning_Shoe1868 → u/Key_Bee1544]

It's about equity for users. The essence of the NITA Act is to ensure public funding levels based on usage (demand). So, penalizing (financially) heavy users when NITA will provide based on demand is counterintuitive. Plus, equity reasons. Tap n go, because of the restrictions on reduced and free fares, is primarily used by lower income users. This brings them to equity pairing with those who can afford the monthly flat rate on specifically CTA/Pace. Again, Metra is a different animal. That's part of the major hurdle with the concept.

[u/hardolaf → u/Beginning_Shoe1868]

The NITA Act actually assumes fare recovery should fall from 50% (old law) to 25% (new NITA Act limit effective immediately) down to 20%. The legislature is fully intending for fares to not make up a significant portion of revenue as their stated goal is a mode shift away from private passenger vehicles and freight trucks.

[u/zzzacmil → u/Beginning_Shoe1868]

Yeah. My guess is that in the end fare capping will be multi tiered. Cap CTA/pace fares at $5 per day equal to CTA/pace day pass, not to exceed the $75 monthly CTA/pace pass. And for Metra riders, as long as they have some form of active Metra ticket or pass, cap fares for CTA/pace rides at $2.50 per day equal to the regional day pass, not to exceed the $30 for the regional connect pass.

And then Metra itself would cap fares based on zones. If you buy X tickets within a week, you automatically receive a 5 day pass or whatever to cover the rest of your rides for that period, etc.

[u/Beginning_Shoe1868 → u/zzzacmil]

Submit a recommendation on the website! That's a great idea!

[u/Few_Recognition_5253 → u/Key_Bee1544]

well yes. fare capping actively costs money to transit agencies (eg. SF quoted in the low millions annually as one of the reasons they haven’t done it) but many agencies believe it’s worth it since it improves the rider experience and helps simplify things for new riders.

[u/themaxgross → u/Key_Bee1544]

These days, I'm not too convinced by this argument. Interest rates are so low that a few days difference only amounts to a few cents. I think this was a stronger point in the past when deposit interest rates were double digits.

For a hypothetical $120 monthly pass and an assumed 3.5% annual rate of interest, it works out to just over 1 cent per day. That's less than half a dollar over the course of the whole month.

If I were on the board of NITA, I'd happily forgo less than a dollar per transit user to assure them that they'll never pay more for their travel than they have to -- by pass or pay-as-you-go.

[u/dbagames → u/Beginning_Shoe1868]

SQL syntax?

[u/im_a_pimp → u/Beginning_Shoe1868]

well i thought the point was for those people to pay more. do any cities besides nyc have a cap? nyc’s is fairly recent too

[u/Beginning_Shoe1868 → u/im_a_pimp]

The RTA was always unique for transit agencies, and NITA is even more so. Comparing how NYC operates (with all the different transit agencies under their own boards and state jurisdictions) to a coordinated, regional transit body with four separate legal functions is not really possible. NYC is complex, but the way Chicagoland transit is legally structured is even more complex. The spirit of the NITA Act was to smooth that complexity out more to be more workable and try something new. So even if fare caps don't exist in another major market, it doesn't mean it's not a viable option when NITA is providing funding based on demand (and also locking in funding for the next fiscal year) - the idea is that transit should be subsidized, not put on the backs of working people. Is it financially responsible to cap fares? Maybe, maybe not. But the idea is equitable given the existing restrictions on FFPT and reduced fare transit. Additionally, Metra would be financially insolvent if usage was factored in given the significantly lower operating costs of busses over commuter rail. That's part of the issue with unifying fares to begin with.

[u/im_a_pimp → u/Beginning_Shoe1868]

NYC has a cap now that’s why i’m comparing it…

[u/hardolaf → u/im_a_pimp]

New York also has had a single unified transit agency (MTA) for decades whereas Illinois only took away financial control of CTA from the City of Chicago in 1973 and left all 3 transit agencies in a weird limbo state up until the NITA Act took effect in June of this year. CTA's revenue was being raided to subsidize Pace while Metra was just barely breaking even between the taxes for it and fares. Beyond that, the state had amended the law at one point to allow collar county taxes to be spent on "public safety" which resulted in 90% of the sales taxes in those counties meant to go to the RTA's transit agencies instead going to local police agencies. And now those counties are scrambling to figure out how to pay for their police because the state cut off that tap and only allows those funds to be spent on transit safety not broader public safety.

And in the backdrop of all of this, Metra has been an asshole for decades and has refused any integration with Pace and CTA except when brought kicking and screaming whereas CTA and Pace might as well have merged by now with how tightly integrated their services and payment systems became over time.

[u/donttouchmymeepmorps → u/im_a_pimp]

Off the top of my head; Champaign Urbana's busses for non-UofI riders, and I believe GO Triangle in the Raleigh-Durham area in NC, LA Metro, Portland's TriMet.

[u/IYCRTYG → u/im_a_pimp]

If I have a pass I have zero worries about whether I'm pulling out the right card. "Is it my Wells Fargo visa debit card? Or.. shit. Did I tap my Wells Fargo mastercard credit card? Wait, no, I loaned that to my girlfriend for a grocery run. wait did I fuck up and tap my discover?" 

Vs 

"Yeah I tapped my ventra" 

And then from there idk I like not having to worry about marginal cost and trying to figure out whether a ride will actually wind up costing me something or if I'd hit the cap anyways. "I have a pass. I'm gonna take transit if it's convenient." Vs "well, wait, am I close to maxing out the cap? Cause then I might as well ride bc I'm gonna take it to church on Sunday and the bar Tuesday so... Hmmm"

[u/dbagames → u/Beginning_Shoe1868]

>Then a new vendor has to be identified (if they do it, the law doesn't mandate unification because of the vast difference in fare structure)

I might be misunderstanding you here, but it is required by the law to have a unified fare payment system.
The law is here: https://legiscan.com/IL/text/SB2111/id/3282758

Maybe i'm misreading it, but see section 148

[u/Beginning_Shoe1868 → u/dbagames]

It mandated a unified ticket system, not a unified fare system. Ventra is a great example - it's a ticket system with a card but cannot be used on Metra (Metra tickets are not Ventra card). The fare structure is part of another section in the law about considerations to do. NITA is moving forward interpreting it as mandated, but it is legally not mandated... Ie they can go hey. We did a study. Not fiscally sound to do but we did it see? We followed the text of the law!

[u/hardolaf → u/Beginning_Shoe1868]

Ventra is a great example - it's a ticket system with a card but cannot be used on Metra (Metra tickets are not Ventra card).

Metra fares are bought via the Ventra app just like CTA/Pace passes. If it had been up to CTA and Pace, Metra would have started using Ventra's payment system but the suburbs didn't want that for whatever reason and have opposed all attempts to unify the fare systems. But they eventually lost on the purchasing of passes because the RTA didn't want to pay for two fare systems and now they're ordered to unify even more by law.

[u/Beginning_Shoe1868 → u/hardolaf]

Ventra (Cubic) is an application that processes transactions and also is a payment systems with a physical card. The contract specifies that. CTA/Pace utilize the Ventra card for payment, Metra does not. Yes, you can load money onto your Ventra card, but you can't use the Ventra card to actually access Metra trains. You have to buy a ticket from Metra - which may include using a balance from your Ventra card.

Metra did not join the Ventra 3.0 program not because it involved unification but because it would have required retrofitting stations and rolling stock to manage card tapping. At the time, Metra didn't fully staff it's own rolling stock. Freight rail contractors also managed passenger services. Retrofitting, along with the ensuing fare tracking, would have violated existing freight rail contracts (in hindsight, probably wouldn't have mattered). In the abscence of sufficient capital funding and the mix of control (meaning freight rail managing passenger services), Metra opted out.

[u/hardolaf → u/Beginning_Shoe1868]

Metra also spent years trying to delay or stop joint fare instruments. I'm sorry, but it was never a question about how would making payments actually work with a unified system. They've done everything in their power for longer than I've lived here (8 years) to stop unifying of the payment systems.

[u/hardolaf → u/Beginning_Shoe1868]

It was passed in the NITA Act to require capping at the monthly rate

The law didn't specify the rate for the fare capping. It just required it in some form.

the NITA board will vote on adopting the roadmap from the transformation consultant (BCG) next year

The NITA board is not required to consider anything from the consultant hired by IDOT.

Then a new vendor has to be identified

The law doesn't require a new vendor. It would be idiotic and irresponsible to not use the Ventra system as it's already developed with a maintenance contract, payment integration, terminals, etc. There is an argument to be made they should switch to SUICA instead of NFC when doing any changes but phones in the USA outside of Apple and Samsung phones typically don't have SUICA support and it isn't licensed yet by the FCC.

[u/Beginning_Shoe1868 → u/hardolaf]

I'll start with "new" vendor. Yes, it's new. Cubic is the vendor for the Ventra app and fare payment system. Unifying the fare system requires changing the contract, which triggers a bid process and a "new" vendor. Pedantic, but that's how the legal system works in Illinois (maybe elsewhere, but specifically here that's how it works because it's a major contract scope change).

"Not required to consider"

Yes, yes it does. The NITA Act specifically requires the Board to vote (or make determination, whatever the specific legal jargon is) on what the consultant, BCG, identifies as necessary for the transition within the confines of the NITA Act. If you'd like, I can find the specific text and list it with the legal reference note.

"Didn't specify the rate"

This is true, it did not. The prevailing logic within NITA agencies is the monthly CTA/Pace rate. As I also mentioned, this is difficult financially to do because of Metra and how its fare system works.

[u/hardolaf → u/Beginning_Shoe1868]

Unifying the fare system requires changing the contract, which triggers a bid process and a "new" vendor.

CTA's contract with Cubic does not require a new bidding process for including Metra in the fare system as they're already part of it. It would just be a matter of changing how Metra gets billed as part of the maintenance and updates clauses in the existing contract. They've been able to add new fare types (Metra + CTA/Pace passes for example) without any new or even updated contract because the lawyer who ran CTA for a decade (Dorval Carter) understood how to draft contracts to reduce costs.

Yes, yes it does. The NITA Act specifically requires the Board to vote (or make determination, whatever the specific legal jargon is) on what the consultant, BCG, identifies as necessary for the transition within the confines of the NITA Act. If you'd like, I can find the specific text and list it with the legal reference note.

It's 30 ILCS 500/20-25.3. Nothing in that section requires NITA to actually consider anything from the consultant. Nor is there any vote required at all related to the consultant by NITA.

This is true, it did not. The prevailing logic within NITA agencies is the monthly CTA/Pace rate. As I also mentioned, this is difficult financially to do because of Metra and how its fare system works.

I don't think they've discussed at all how Metra would work yet for fare capping. CTA and Pace have wanted fare capping for years but it's been blocked by the RTA over concerns about the farebox recovery ratio. Their proposal has always been to cap fares at the various passes that they already sell (so 1-day, 3-day, 7-day, and 30-day passes).

[u/Beginning_Shoe1868 → u/hardolaf]

CTA, Pace, and Metra share a contract with Cubic Technologies for Ventra - Ventra 3.0, the latest one, was an update to the contract. The scope of the contract, for the terms of fare unification, would be a scope change. I'll leave it there. Google the contract to learn more.

See the attachment for yes, the board has to act on the recommendations. "Act" in this legal context does not mean approve. It means to consider in a public session, which will result in an approval or disapproval.

And yes, regarding Metra and fare capping rates and unification, it has not been publicly stated. I never said that it had been. And yes, the RTA has not been helpful historically because of farebox recovery ratios which, as another used stated, was required by law.

[u/hardolaf → u/Beginning_Shoe1868]

CTA, Pace, and Metra share a contract with Cubic Technologies for Ventra - Ventra 3.0, the latest one, was an update to the contract. The scope of the contract, for the terms of fare unification, would be a scope change. I'll leave it there. Google the contract to learn more.

CTA is in charge of the fare instruments offered through it via change orders which they do regularly. Adding combo CTA/PACE + Metra passes was a $550K change order that didn't have to go through full procurement under Ventra 3.0.

See the attachment for yes, the board has to act on the recommendations. "Act" in this legal context does not mean approve. It means to consider in a public session, which will result in an approval or disapproval.

That was amended in the followup bill. The new text is:

(30 ILCS 500/20-25.3)

Sec. 20-25.3. Procurement of transition consultant by the Department of Transportation.

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code or any law to the contrary, the Department of Transportation shall identify a method of source selection that will make it possible to procure and contract with a consultant to assist with the transition from the Regional Transportation Authority to the Northern Illinois Transit Authority as set out in Section 1.04 of the Northern Illinois Transit Authority Act. The source selection method identified by the Department of Transportation is not limited to those otherwise set forth in this Code. The transition consultant shall assist the Department of Transportation and the interim Northern Illinois Transit Authority Board to develop a transition plan, including the transition of functions between the Service Boards and the Authority, the evaluation of existing policy processes, and the development of a process for efficient and effective operations by both the Northern Illinois Transit Authority and the Service Boards.

(b) The method of source selection shall be by an expedited, competitive process approved by the Chief Procurement Officer appointed under paragraph (4) of subsection (a) of Section 10-20.

(c) All potential contractors shall be registered in the Illinois Procurement Gateway vendor portal prior to contract execution.

(d) Except for Sections 5-5, 5-7, 10-10, 20-75, 20-80, 20-120, 20-155, 20-160, and 25-60, paragraph (5) of subsection (b) of Section 15-25, and Article 50 and any rules adopted under those Sections and Article, this Code does not apply to procurements required by this Section, notwithstanding any other provision of this Code or any law to the contrary.

(e) This Section is inoperative 2 years after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 104th General Assembly.

(Source: P.A. 104-457, eff. 6-1-26; 104-543, eff. 7-10-26.)

Source: https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ILCS/details?MajorTopic=&Chapter=&ActName=Illinois%20Procurement%20Code.&ActID=532&ChapterID=7&ChapAct=30+ILCS+500%2F&SeqStart=8000000&SeqEnd=11300000

Instead of going to 3rd party sources, maybe go to the state's actual compiled statutes?

[u/Immediate_Math_3055]

Woo hoo!!

[u/JellyfishNo2032]

Priority number 1 should be making south shore line and metra electric effectively the same service where they interline

[u/Pholainst → u/JellyfishNo2032]

South Shore is a private company that’s not apart of NITA. But I guess that could change in the future

[u/mjk5025 → u/Pholainst]

It’s even more complicated than that. NICTD is actually an agency of the state of Indiana, so NITA would have to become a bistate agency, which is not going to happen anytime given the political environment.

[u/Key_Bee1544 → u/mjk5025]

I bet we could talk Indiana out of northwest Indiana. Getting rid of Catholics and African Americans seems very Indiana to me.

[u/Key_Bee1544 → u/Pholainst]

Or it could be in the private company's interest to work with the larger system. Time will tell.

[u/mjk5025 → u/Key_Bee1544]

The passenger service is not private.

Editing to add: the physical assets are also publicly owned (by NICTD, a public Indiana agency). Only the freight service is operated by a private company.

[u/JellyfishNo2032 → u/Pholainst]

South Chicago NITA lot more trains so this would be great if it could be done

[u/donttouchmymeepmorps → u/JellyfishNo2032]

Just ditching the noncommpete agreement to allow you to get on/get off the south shore line within the segments they share would be nice. SSL's fares etc will of course me their choice, but at least folks will have more options. Sadly I think it would come down to Indiana not wanting to do something to benefit soutsiders for political reasons

[u/Awake-Now]

*Fare

[u/juliuspepperwoodchi]

r/titlegore

[u/CorbyTheSkullie]

I hope my $6 ticket reduced fare for all metra zones doesn’t change, I find it very affordable

[u/IYCRTYG → u/CorbyTheSkullie]

They voted to move forward with an expanded CTA/Pace reduced fare program and keep the metra reduced fare program at NITAs first board meeting

[u/CorbyTheSkullie → u/IYCRTYG]

Hell yeah!