![\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File%3ACTA_red_line_rerouted.jpg;](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/533\/2016\/08\/CTA_red_line_rerouted.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
A headline in today\u2019s paper: \u00a0\u201cSocial service agencies, homeless feel pinch of Ventra single-ride pass surcharge<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n The story: \u00a0several years ago by now, the CTA implemented a new payment system, Ventra, a reloadable card that costs $5 to purchase, with that $5 only converted into transit value if the card is registered online, a process that requires and address, phone number, and e-mail. \u00a0It is still possible to travel without purchasing a Ventra card, but a single-use ticket has a 50 cent surcharge.<\/p>\n The complaint: \u00a0ever since the new system\u2019s implementation, homeless shelters and other social service agencies which are accustomed to providing their clients with transit tickets to get about town, to travel to attend school or look for work, face a strain on their budget, as the extra 50 cents, client after client, adds up.<\/p>\n Why can\u2019t they just provide the funds for clients to load their own Ventra cards? \u00a0With respect to the homeless, reportedly because they don\u2019t have the necessary address, phone, and e-mail \u2014 though I had always had the understanding that one of the objectives of social service agencies working with the homeless was to provide them with those items, even if it meant using the agency\u2019s address and phone number, and internet accessed at an agency.<\/p>\n Beyond that, they report,<\/p>\n If the cards are registered to the agencies, clients can run up negative balances \u2014 one agency got stuck with $500 in debt on just 25 cards, said Eric Halvorson, policy and communications director for the Jobs Council.<\/p>\n Social service recipients also lose the cards or walk off with them, providers say.<\/p>\n \u201cWith the population I\u2019m serving, there is a challenge to do their due diligence with everything in life,\u201d Hardwick said. \u201cThat\u2019s why we call them clients.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But here\u2019s something else to consider:<\/p>\n Chase said the agency already provides $100 million annually in free and reduced rides to the elderly, students, military members and the disabled. Because of Illinois budget problems \u2014 the same problems hurting the service agencies \u2014 the CTA gets back only about $28 million of that from the state.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Specifically, the disabled and individuals over age 65 receive\u00a0reduced fares<\/a>, and those who meet income limits ($27,610 or less for individuals, $36,635 for two-person households, $45,657 for households of 3 or more), receive free rides<\/a>.<\/p>\n Now, on the one hand, it is I suppose just a part of what people mean when they use the label \u201cpathology\u201d to speak of the poor, that they can\u2019t manage a reloadable card and require single tickets instead. \u00a0(Though we never fret that they can\u2019t handle EBT cards, and need to be given daily food rations instead.)<\/p>\n But, at the same time \u2014 why do we give free rides to poor seniors, and reduced rides to everyone who\u2019s attained the age of 65, but cannot make any provision to provide transit (free or reduced) for the poor?<\/p>\n That\u2019s all, folks!<\/p>\n UPDATE:<\/p>\n OK, a few more thoughts.<\/p>\n First, I asked myself, is it standard practice that transit systems give half-price for seniors and the disabled, but nothing for the poor? \u00a0And I checked various systems:<\/p>\n D.C.<\/a>: \u00a0bus fares $1.75 basic fare, $0.85 seniors and the disabled, subway fares by distance but with the same reductions available.<\/p>\n Boston<\/a>: \u00a0$2.25 basic fare, $1.10 for seniors\/the disabled.<\/p>\n New York<\/a>: \u00a0$2.75 basic fare, $1.35 reduced for seniors\/disabled.<\/p>\n Detroit<\/a>: \u00a0$1.50 basic fare, $0.50 senior\/disabled.<\/p>\n Now, the consistency of the reduction for seniors and the disabled\u00a0is dictated by federal requirements<\/a>, as a condition of receiving federal funds. \u00a0Offering a reduction for low-income folk is purely a local initiative \u2014 and one that exists in a small number of places, among them Seattle<\/a>, Tuscon<\/a>, and San Francisco<\/a>. \u00a0Another approach is that of Portland<\/a>, which offers grants to community organizations with which they can purchase transit fares for their clients.<\/p>\n So one could easily make the case that it\u2019s even more important for the poor, especially the unemployed, job-hunting, cashless poor, to receive subsidies for mass transit \u2014 they\u2019re the ones that need to go places every day, to pound the pavement looking for work.<\/p>\n But at the same time, you could make a different case.<\/p>\n Look at Detroit\u2019s fare: \u00a0it\u2019s only $1.50. \u00a0Now, digging out the degree to which this cheaper cost is the result of a greater subsidy vs. simply a cheaper system (no trains, running routes only when they collect relatively more passengers than in other systems that would be content with buses trundling along with one or two passengers). \u00a0But in a city like Detroit, it\u2019s a given that nearly all\u00a0bus system users\u00a0are poor. \u00a0You might, in fact, consider the fare to already be a subsidized-for-the-poor fare<\/em>, given the existing norm (so far as I know) that only 50% of operating costs are paid for from the farebox. \u00a0Middle-class riders, accordingly, are essentially \u201cmarginal riders\u201d \u2014 who pay their marginal costs, as secondary users of the system, whose use is valuable to the degree that it keeps the system healthy, and who receive the \u201cpre-subsidized\u201d fare as a sort of incentive to use the system.<\/p>\n Oh, and by the way, implementing reduced fare programs always have a bit of unfairness to them. \u00a0In the ideal case, in the same way as Food Stamp benefits phase out (imperfect, but better than nothing), such a subsidy would likewise phase out, rather than being a hard and fast cut-off that again feeds into the \u201cmarginal tax\u201d issue of subsidy programs, when a pay raise or increase in work hours can make a person worse, rather than better off.<\/p>\n So what do you think?<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n image: \u00a0https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File%3ACTA_red_line_rerouted.jpg; By Daniel Schwen (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-sa\/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A headline in today\u2019s paper: \u00a0\u201cSocial service agencies, homeless feel pinch of Ventra single-ride pass surcharge.\u201d The story: \u00a0several years ago by now, the CTA implemented a new payment system, Ventra, a reloadable card that costs $5 to purchase, with that $5 only converted into transit value if the card is registered online, a process […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2209,"featured_media":5254,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[460,456],"class_list":["post-5252","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-cta","tag-mass-transit"],"yoast_head":"\n