Slashdot Mirror


Chicago Transit System Fooled By Federal ID Cards

New submitter johnslater writes "The Chicago Transit Authority's new 'Ventra' stored-value fare card system has another big problem. It had a difficult birth, with troubles earlier this fall when legitimate cards failed to allow passage, or sometimes double-billed the holders. Last week a server failure disabled a large portion of the system at rush hour. Now it is reported that some federal government employee ID cards allow free rides on the system. The system is being implemented by Cubic Transportation Systems for the bargain price of $454 million."

9 of 196 comments (clear)

  1. $454 million?? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For that amount, they could have failed at health care for most of the country. How does one city get that far lost?

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  2. What's wrong with Tokens? by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why are all cities moving from easy-to-use tokens to these expensive, complicated systems?

    1. Re:What's wrong with Tokens? by runeghost · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well-connected corporations don't get paid hundreds of millions for existing, functional systems.

    2. Re:What's wrong with Tokens? by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The old fashion subway token produces little meta-data the NSA can use to track your every move.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    3. Re:What's wrong with Tokens? by volstok · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why are all cities moving from easy-to-use tokens to these expensive, complicated systems?

      Cities move away from tokens to fare cards so they can charge variable rates based on supply and demand. During peak usage, they can make the fee higher and during times of lower ridership, fares can be made cheaper to encourage more ridership. Also general rate hikes cannot be done as quickly with tokens because people can buy a mass of tokens just before the rate hike yet still ride with their pre-hike token after the hike goes into effect.

    4. Re:What's wrong with Tokens? by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Chicago Transit Authority provided 620 million rides in 2011. A $454 million system thus represents a cost of just 7 cents per ride over 10 years, compared to the typical $2-$5 fare per ride. I think the vast majority of public transport riders would say an extra 7 cents per ride is worth it for the convenience of a card which they can buy/refill online vs tokens they have to stand in line to buy. Even if the average rider has to fumble around just 10 seconds per trip to buy a token, that represents over two hours per person in lost time each year, and a staggering 196 man-years lost each year for the entire city.

  3. London Oyster by sugar+and+acid · · Score: 4, Informative

    The reason that everybody is trying to move to this type of things is the success of the London oyster card system. Not perfect, but good enough, and is widely adopted.

    The key with the London system was the transit fare system was very well integrated to start with. If you bought a zone 1-4 weekly pass, you could take buses tube and trains everywhere within zone 1-4.

    The trick to getting adoption was the cash "penalty" fare. For instance a cash bus fare is nearly twice the price of an oyster card fare. And if you buy a season ticket it gets loaded onto an oyster card. So anybody in London needs an oyster card, and so has one.

    The other effective thing that was done was to only have oyster top up and ticket sales at stations and offered exclusively to local independent corner stores. The advantage to the store holder is 2 fold, it gave a small financial return to the store owner, but more importantly for the store owner it got people in the store. Topping up oyster cards and at the same time getting a drink or chocolate bar etc. So very quickly every store had one, and in London there are a lot of them so it was widely accessible with very little staffing costs.

  4. Could this be streamlined? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I just now hopped over to the CTA website and checked out their budget.

    In broad terms, they take in about $650 million from fares, $650 million in public funding (from taxes), and an operating budget of $1.3 billion.

    Hypothetically speaking, what would the budget be if they eliminated fares? The budget doesn't break out the expenses in a way to examine this (at least - I couldn't find it), but it would eliminate a big chunk of the expenses. Not only are there turnstyles and fare sellers, but collection and counting of the money, maintenance on the styles and ticket machines, and so on. Even the financial cost of maintaining a bank account and driving the money to the bank for deposit could be eliminated.

    On the flip side, a person making $15/hr delayed by waiting in line at the turnstyle or purchasing tokens/tickets loses $0.25 worth of time for each minute of delay. A commuter would lose this much twice a day, and the loss would be more valuable if the commuter made more money.

    And this change would benefit poor people the most. It's an efficient way to preferentially give them the benefit of a public service.

    It seems like a more efficient method might be to eliminate the fares and increase public support to cover the difference. The net gain in customer time plus eliminating the fare network might be more than the increase in taxes. Just eliminating the fare mechanisms alone might reduce expenses enough to cover the loss of revenue.

    Has anyone looked into this?

    1. Re:Could this be streamlined? by scamper_22 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's interesting is the question on why public transit is viewed so differently than other public functions.

      I'm in Canada. Land of public healthcare. We cannot charge people to see a doctor or anything like that.

      Ditto for public education.

      Yet, even in Canada, transit remains that elusive thing that while it is publicly run and subsidized, it is 'unthinkable' that people shouldn't pay for it.
      This is even true of roads, with increasing calls for more tolls to make drivers pay...

      For the life of me, I cannot fathom why we treat public infrastructure (like roads and mass transit) so much differently than we do healthcare and education.

      Yes, there are various nuances. Things like making sure people don't overuse or congest the system. Of course you could just as easily make that argument for healthcare :P But I think the overwhelming argument is simply that transit is not viewed on the same social level as healthcare or education despite the fact that transit is something we used every single day in and out... and quite frankly relative to the size of government budgets, transit itself is fairly inexpensive.

      I laugh with despair when my home province of Ontario spends like 40% of its budget on healthcare, throws billions and billions into education... then people fight and squabble over a hundred million here or there with transit.

      It's ridiculous quite frankly.