Money Makes the World Go Around

I take it back.

I will forever be grateful to the convenience of the NJ Transit.

At this current moment, however, I'm feeling pretty antagonistic towards it.

As of May 1st, the NJ Transit is raising fares by 25 percent, to compensate for the revenue it has lost due to the recession (as there's a decreased number of people commuting—and traveling in general, I imagine).

I understand the need to raise prices, as most businesses and organizations are suffering, and need to find a way to stay afloat. However, I think there's a difference between a slight price inflation, and the extreme degree to which changes will be occurring by the following month.

Here's the problem: It has now become too expensive to take the train into New York—or anywhere on the Transit line, for that matter. In fact, unless you're commuting for work, it's (generally) cheaper to drive in and park in the City. It's significantly cheaper if you're traveling to a place other than New York, as the cost of parking isn't astronomical.

For most people who work in Manhattan, but live well outside of the city, driving is not a realistic method of getting to work. They depend on public transportation the way most people depend on their cars; it's a necessity. Forcing people to pony up so much more just so they can get to their job is a little unfair. Commuters don't really have an alternative, but here they are, essentially being punished for having to rely on state-run transportation.

A lot of families are struggling, and wages aren't increasing enough (if at all) to compensate for rising costs; this price hike just causes a lot of further stress and difficulty for people.

The Transit also eliminated round trip tickets, so passengers who previously paid a lesser price for say, a weekend trip to the City, can now prepare themselves to pay for two one-way tickets at the new (but not improved) price.

I long for the days of high school, when I could buy a round trip ticket to New York for $14.95.

Lest I sound like a big fat whiner, I should say that I wouldn't mind the inflated prices if consumers were benefitting from it in even the smallest way. Prices have marginally increased over the years, and I haven't really minded, because it resulted in some really nice things, most notably, the double-decker trains.

Furthermore, the Transit is decreasing the number of trains it runs everyday, as the trains that currently run aren't being filled to capacity. NJ Transit hopes that in running fewer trains, the ones that do run will get filled to the maximum. This particular change affects me less, as the trains they are eliminating are primarily those that run during rush hour.

However, I'm angered by thinking about it on principle. Rush hour on the NJ Transit is always chaotic. How is offering fewer choices to passengers going to help with anything, other than disgruntling already weary commuters? In running fewer trains, they might cut monetary costs overall, but at what cost to the corporation's customer satisfaction?

Wedding Bell Blues

Two of my closest friends are getting married this summer, so weddings have been a popular subject of conversation for the past year or so.

My friends are a lot like me, in that they don't enjoy being the center of attention. So the idea of a day that focuses primarily on the bride is a little discomforting and horrifying for all of us. The idea of a super small wedding is amazing, but we're all realistic enough to know that this isn't a possibility.

We've spent more than a little time lamenting the fact that grooms are decidedly less important, and that weddings in close proximity to home necessitate inviting family and friends you'd (secretly) not have at your wedding at all.

The latter of these things also inflates the number of people in attendance, thereby complicating that idea of a small wedding.

Those clever cats at the New York Times have a column in their Travel section called "Practical Travel." This is clearly of great interest to me, because it combines two of my favorite things: practicality and travel.

In a recent entry, columnist Michelle Higgins discusses an interesting subject: destination weddings.

In theory, destination weddings seem like a fantastic idea. You'd get the opportunity to travel to a really wonderful location, whether you're the guest or the to-be married couple. Of course, I am an extremely rational person, so theories have a very small place in my world. A destination wedding would be fantastic, but it's just not practical.

One, I don't have an endless supply of money at my disposal to spend on some extravagant island wedding.

Two (and more importantly), I'm not comfortable with asking people to shell out a bunch of money to fly out to x location just to watch me get married. For all those people who could be considered a polite invite, there are just as many, if not more, who I genuinely want there. I would hate for them not to be able to attend or go broke because they feel obligated to, just because I'm crazy enough to hold my wedding on the likes of Bora Bora (though seriously, how beautiful would that be?).

The article specifically discusses weddings held on cruise ships, which are described as a "less expensive alternative" to regular destination weddings.

But there are all sorts of additional things that can complicate a cruise ship wedding—as though planning a wedding isn't already stressful enough. The article mentions the likelihood of receiving marriage licenses from other countries (such as Malta), the legal requirements of applying at destinations, and the difficulty of getting married at sea if you're Catholic.

That's a lot of complications for a pretty location. I'll stick to my land-based, oversized (and at this point, hypothetical,) wedding.