As Illinois considers transportation reform, one thing is painfully clear: The CTA won’t improve under decision-makers who don’t ride the “L.”
The people shaping transit policy seem woefully disconnected from the daily realities of our system. When was the last time any of them stepped onto an “L” train, stood on a station platform or even glanced at a CTA schedule? Judging by the current state of affairs, it feels like it’s been since before the term “MAGA” entered our collective vocabulary.
Visiting other cities only underscores how dire things are. European systems such as Madrid’s Metro, the Paris Métro and the London Underground operate at an entirely different standard. Even Washington’s Metro — another U.S. system in a city with many parallels to Chicago — puts the “L” to shame.
The “L” is filthy, unsafe and unreliable. Subway stations reek of urine and worse. Riders contend with train cars that feel like danger zones, filled with yelling, solicitation, smoking and occasional violence. Schedules seem like a suggestion at best. Cleanliness and upkeep are afterthoughts. And then there’s the presence of so-called security: officers with dogs stationed downtown. How effective are they? And how much are we paying for this theater?
It’s infuriating to think that those holding the purse strings — those with the power to enact meaningful change — aren’t subject to the indignities of the system they oversee. Even the CTA’s CEO seems to avoid public transit entirely.
A functioning public transportation system is critical for Chicago’s economy, equity and environmental sustainability. But reform won’t happen until leadership experiences the reality of the system firsthand.
So here’s my challenge: Let’s require our state lawmakers and CTA leaders to ride the “L” — not as a photo-op but regularly. Because only when they see, hear and smell the problems we endure daily will there be hope for the CTA to become the world-class transit system Chicago deserves.
— Clara Capasso, Chicago
Value of congestion tax
Regarding the editorial “New York’s congestion tax is no model for Chicago” (Jan. 8): The Tribune Editorial Board would “rather see attention paid to … clean, efficient and safe public transit systems.” We would all like to see this, but how should we pay for it?
Following the pandemic, public transit ridership and farebox revenue are down nationally.
With fewer paying transit riders, New York City’s congestion charge represents a new, dedicated funding source for the MTA, the city’s transit agency; it is expected to generate $15 billion for infrastructure investments. Even that wasn’t enough — New York recently introduced a new “mansion tax” to further support the MTA.
If New York needs multiple new funding sources to support public transit, again: How should we pay for it?
Today, rider fares and sales tax make up most of Chicago’s public transit funding. Raising per-trip fares reduces ridership and burdens those who most need public transit. And while new or higher sales taxes could raise more money, why shouldn’t Chicago and state lawmakers consider a revenue-raising scheme to both encourage public transit ridership and reduce the public costs of driving?
Traffic congestion is one obvious externality, and the editorial recognizes that traffic on New York City expressways outside the congestion zone experienced significant reductions in travel time. It is too early to draw conclusions from New York City, but imagine faster expressways in Chicago!
Air pollution is another major externality. As the Tribune reported in March, Chicago ranked second nationally for air pollution in 2023. According to the Chicago Metropolitan Agency For Planning, 29% of the Chicago area’s air pollution comes from vehicles. And a 2020 report by the city of Chicago found that vehicle pollution disproportionately affects minority groups in Chicago. Replacing a drive by yourself with a public transit trip can reduce emissions by 60%.
Congestion charges could reduce travel times for public safety vehicles, reduce pollution and incentivize greater public transit use, bringing more farebox revenue.
The editorial mentions that Chicago has a bigger traffic problem than London. Perhaps this is because London itself has a congestion tolling program, plus a separate toll for high-polluting vehicles. There are many successful congestion tolling examples globally.
What about the parent driving their sick child to an appointment at Lurie Children’s Hospital or the business owner who fears fewer people downtown? We must carefully consider impacts of any new tax, but we should also consider asking drivers to pay the real cost of their trips.
— Claude Lockhart Jr., Western Springs
Subsidizing the Loop
Just take a ride through the Loop any weekday; the lack of foot and car traffic is alarming. Chicago needs incentives to get people downtown, both workers and visitors, not another reason for them to skip it. The congestion is on the expressways that feed into downtown, not the central business district itself.
Manhattan is an island with 1.6 million inhabitants. More than 1 million workers commute to it daily from New York City’s boroughs and suburbs. The streets of Manhattan are a parking lot all day, every day. Let New York experiment with a congestion tax.
Chicago should be looking for ways to convince companies to stay or move back, workers to commute to the Loop using the best public transit system in the country and visitors from near and far to spend more of their discretionary cash downtown. Subsidize those who want to work downtown; don’t tax them.
It is not wise to reimagine the Loop as a residential neighborhood that would eliminate the substantial office space infrastructure currently in place. Get smart and find ways to invest in and subsidize the vibrant commercial center it was built to be.
— Frank Moroni, River Forest
Overstating the burden
Yes, Chicago traffic congestion needs fixing, but the 102 hours per year the Tribune Editorial Board cites as lost to a typical commuter is hardly “whopping.” That is less than two hours per week, less than 24 minutes per weekday.
Annoying, sure, but whopping?
— Richard Weiland, Evanston
Where are the solutions?
Thursday’s op-ed by Cook County Board of Review Commissioner George Cardenas is another reminder of what’s wrong with Chicago’s elected officials (“Chicago must create a relief mechanism for property taxpayers”).
We know our property tax system is in shambles. Nowhere in his piece does Cardenas explain what he’s doing to help the situation. Instead, he offers routine phrases suited to win an election: “Imagine a city.” “We need bold leadership.” “Let 2025 be the year Chicago begins to thrive.” “Together, let’s commit to Chicago working again.”
The commissioner won the election a while ago and should already be implementing new ideas and policies, not writing platitudes in the Tribune.
— Martin Shaw, Chicago
ComEd’s customer service
It’s impossible to complain about a ComEd bill because you can never talk to a customer service representative.
— Bob Bennett, Arlington Heights
Editor’s note: We’d like to hear from you about your hopes for the new year — whether for our country, our state, your community or your family. Submit a letter of no more than 400 words to letters@chicagotribune.com. Be sure to include your full name and city/town.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.