If you live near a Metra stop within the city and work downtown, the Sun-Times has a new money-saving suggestion for you: take the Metra. With more than 70 stops within city limits, the commuter train system could offer a cheaper alternative for transit riders, but what, specifically, are the savings?
Metra fares are determined by zones. The "A" zone is the cheapest -- a 10-ride ticket for an "A" zone stop, such as Clybourn or Western Avenue, costs $18.30, while a 10-ride for a "B" zone stop, such as Gladstone Park, Gresham or Rogers Park, costs $20.Dozens of city Metra stops are in the A or B zones. That means a round trip to and from those stops would cost less than a round trip on the L five times a week -- which costs $22.50.
Of course, as the Sun-Times also points out, there are limitations to the Metra services, such as fewer trains, timetable restrictions, fewer transfer options (i.e., buses), and fewer locations.



There are a lot of metra stops and lines that should also be CTA lines. If you put a new cta line on each metra line we'd have more lines than NYC.
I dont understand the point of this idea. Why would you have 2 different train systems on the exact same route? Not to mention how unfeasible this would be in the first place.
Tomorrow in the Sun-Times: the sky is blue. I take the Ravenswood Metra to the Loop in 15 minutes and I nearly always get a seat; it takes 45 minutes sometimes on the Brown Line. Who really cares about 25 cents when you're saving that much time?
While Metra is cheaper to my 'hood (Irving Park & Pulaski), it's not nearly as convenient. Between 4pm and 6pm, the normal hours I leave work, there's only 3 trains that actually stop at my stop. There's at least a dozen Blue Line runs during that period. So I'm willing to put up with all the "enjoyment" of the Blue Line to not have to wait 45 minutes for a train home.