logo
Letters: To save mass transit in the Chicago region, we must think long term

Letters: To save mass transit in the Chicago region, we must think long term

Chicago Tribune07-05-2025

The Regional Transportation Authority's new ad campaign has people fuming. There's a lot to criticize about transit management. We think the RTA is missing the mark on the scale of reforms needed to improve transit, but the agency is right about one thing: Funding is urgent.
If lawmakers kick the can down the road, we'll see a lot more public money wasted, economic opportunity squandered, riders ghosted and city streets gridlocked. If we hit summer with no solution, the agencies would immediately roll back service improvements that are currently underway, including Metra's Regional Rail plan, Pace's Pulse bus rapid transit and the CTA's new 10-minute frequent bus network. Instead of making things better, staff members would have to devote their summer and fall to planning for funding cuts, mass layoffs and 40% service cuts by early 2026.
Transit is the backbone of our economy, so this would affect millions of people who never set foot on a bus or train. In just the first year, our region could lose $2.6 billion in gross domestic product, and 500,000 bus riders would be cut off from their local stops. Putting that figure in perspective: The Kennedy Expressway carries only 250,000 cars a day!
Travel needs have changed since COVID-19, but cities around the world have increased transit ridership by serving many trips outside work: school, doctor, family, recreation, etc. That's how transit used to work in Chicago too, before austerity dwindled capacity to a focus on commuters.
Resilient systems diversify! Fast, frequent, safe service throughout the day and week would connect communities across the region, while unified schedules, fares and service planning would save money and improve the rider experience. To make these shifts, we need governance reform, time and stable finances.
Public transportation serves the public good. It is in our collective interest to ensure it works well. Every day we delay in finding a fiscal solution is another day wasted planning cuts instead of planning improvements.
The RTA is not alone in calling for a funding fix. Environmental, business and labor leaders agree. At the Environmental Law & Policy Center, we can see the stakes for our air quality and climate impact if we pushed thousands of people into driving more. We must think long term about what's best for the region, and that means saving transit.
— Lena Guerrero Reynolds, communications and policy advocate, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Chicago
Transforming Chicago
The 'abundance' movement is taking U.S. politics by storm. Named after the recently released book by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, its advocates argue that America has the capacity to provide housing, health care and transportation for all, but is held back by regulatory barriers, institutional inertia and a scarcity mindset. More controversially, Klein and Thompson argue that fixing these issues is the key to reviving healthy governance in blue states — and thereby winning back the trust of voters who have gone over to Donald Trump.
The diagnosis could not be more spot-on here in Chicago, where Trump surged in 2024 relative to 2020. So what do these ideas mean here?
First and foremost, abundance means building housing. A lot more housing. Chicago's restrictive zoning rules and high construction costs have led to a virtual collapse in housing development. The results: Rents are spiking, with some outlets reporting a 12% increase in average rents between 2024 and 2025. If the city had trouble retaining people before, a major increase in rents might tip it into serious population loss.
Simply building more homes would keep rents down and generate more tax revenue for the city, but our politicians refuse to make obvious changes. At a minimum, Chicago must eliminate its parking minimums — as cities like San Francisco; Austin, Texas; and Minneapolis have done — and permit four-flats in all residential areas. Beyond that, we should permit larger developments by right in neighborhoods with the transportation infrastructure to support them.
Beyond changes to zoning rules, an abundance approach to land use would move away from the grubby, small-scale thinking of City Hall culture. Arbitrary decision-making among aldermen makes business unpredictable and difficult. Rather than have officials negotiate every little point with individual businesses, the abundance approach would be to simplify the rules, allow more things by default and not make exceptions.
The biggest idea in the abundance movement is that for government to be trustworthy, it has to deliver. Chicago is clearly falling short of that goal — but it doesn't have to.
— Lionel Barrow, Chicago
Austin versus Chicago
In his op-ed ('Austin, Texas, figures out affordable housing while Chicago postures,' May 1), Micky Horstman writes, 'This year, rents in Austin (Texas) dropped again to $1,436 per month. How?' Could it possibly be because of the recent surplus in rental properties and the slowdown in population growth in Austin?
Austin sits on 325 square miles of land and has about 980,000 residents, and Chicago sits on 234 square miles of land and has 2.7 million residents. Could it possibly be because Austin has 40% more land to build on and 37% of Chicago's population? Could it possibly be because of supply and demand, i.e., simple economics?
Definitely has to be policy, right?
— Brian Collins, Orland Park
The tax wagon returns
With respect to the editorial 'Believe it or not, Springfield is mulling a jobs tax' (May 1), I can't believe state Sen. Ram Villivalam. This is the same person who recently pushed for exploring a miles-driven tax. I seem to recall him saying, in typical politician speak, something such as this won't affect anyone since it's a study. Sure, and if the tax passes into law, we are all getting hit with more taxes.
Well, here he is again suggesting more taxes. Sure, he, along with other politicians, will play it off as a 'small' 1% fee, insignificant. We are already one of the highest taxed states in the union. Government's job is not charity, and this sure smells like forced charity. He has only been in office since 2019, but I think he needs to go already. If all he can offer is more taxes, his vision is limited.
Anybody can roll out the tax wagon. Time for new leadership that offer ideas other than taxing the people who are already being taxed into oblivion in Illinois.
— Keith Mockenhaupt, Chicago
Thank a nurse this week
Regardless of their specialty or where they practice, nurses play critical roles in treating injuries and illness, as well as keeping people healthy and safe. They are often at the front line of health care, at the stretcherside delivering expert care while comforting and advocating for their patients and families.
Throughout my years in emergency nursing, I have had the privilege of meeting and working with nurses across many aspects of our profession. My career has taken me through the intensive care unit, the emergency department, flight nursing, hospital leadership, research, advocacy and as a leader at many levels of the Emergency Nurses Association.
Throughout this time, I have learned from and been inspired by nurses from all walks of life, who each traveled a unique path into nursing and have riveting stories to tell about their journeys. I also love presenting at student nursing events and sharing in the excitement of young people who are getting ready to dive into this rewarding, challenging, humbling and amazing profession.
During National Nurses Week, May 6 through 12, I want to express appreciation on behalf of myself and the Emergency Nurses Association for all nurses and the work they do.
Nurses use their expertise to respond to the most traumatic injuries and care for patients in all fields — from oncology to obstetrics to orthopedics. They educate the public about illness and injury prevention, conduct research that leads to better patient outcomes, and teach today's students who are working to be tomorrow's nurses.
I encourage everyone, when they have an opportunity, to thank their nurses for all they do to make communities healthier and safer.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Pulse massacre survivors are set to revisit the nightclub before it's razed

time16 hours ago

Pulse massacre survivors are set to revisit the nightclub before it's razed

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Survivors and family members of the 49 victims killed in the Pulse nightclub massacre nine years ago are getting their first chance Wednesday to walk through the long-shuttered, LGBTQ+-friendly Florida venue before it's razed and replaced with a permanent memorial to what was once the worst U.S. mass shooting in modern times. In small groups over four days, survivors and family members of those killed planned to spend a half hour inside the space where Omar Mateen opened fire during a Latin night celebration on June 12, 2016, leaving 49 dead and 53 wounded. Mateen, who had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State group, was killed after a three-hour standoff with police. At the time, it was the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history. The Pulse shooting's death toll was surpassed the following year when 58 people were killed and more than 850 injured among a crowd of 22,000 at a country music festival in Las Vegas. The city of Orlando purchased the Pulse property in 2023 for $2 million and plans to build a $12 million permanent memorial which will open in 2027. Those efforts follow a multiyear, botched attempt by a private foundation run by the club's former owner. The existing structure will be razed later this year. 'None of us thought that it would take nine years to get to this point and we can't go back and relitigate all of the failures along the way that have happened, but what we can do is control how we move forward together," Orange County Mayor Jerry Demings said two weeks ago when county commissioners pledged $5 million to support the city of Orlando's plan. The opportunity to go inside the nightclub comes on the ninth anniversary of the mass shooting. Outside, over-sized photos of the victims, rainbow-colored flags and flowers have hung on fences in a makeshift memorial, and the site has attracted visitors from around the globe. But very few people other than investigators have been inside the structure. Around 250 survivors and family members of those killed have responded to the city's invitation to walk through the nightclub this week. Families of the 49 people who were killed can visit the site with up to six people in their group, and survivors can bring one person with them. The people invited to visit are being given the chance to ask FBI agents who investigated the massacre about what happened. They won't be allowed to take photos or video inside. Brandon Wolf, who hid in a bathroom as the gunman opened fire, said he wasn't going to visit, primarily because he now lives in Washington. He said he wanted to remember Pulse as it was before. 'I will say that the site of the tragedy is where I feel closest to the people who were stolen from me,' said Wolf, who now is national press secretary for the Human Rights Campaign, a LGBTQ+ advocacy group. 'For survivors, the last time they were in that space was the worst night possible. It will be really hard to be in that space again.' Mental health counselors planned to be on hand to talk to those who walk through the building. Survivors and family members had hoped to have a permanent memorial in place by now. But an earlier effort by a private foundation to build one floundered, and the organization disbanded in 2023. Barbara and Rosario Poma and businessman Michael Panaggio previously owned the property, and Barbara Poma was the executive director of the onePulse Foundation — the nonprofit that had been leading efforts to build a memorial and museum. She stepped down as executive director in 2022 and then left the organization entirely in 2023 amid criticism that she wanted to sell instead of donate the property. There were also complaints about the lack of progress despite millions of dollars being raised. The original project, unveiled in 2019 by the onePulse Foundation, called for a museum and permanent memorial costing $45 million. That estimate eventually soared to $100 million. The city of Orlando has since outlined a more modest proposal and scrapped plans for a museum. 'The building may come down, and we may finally get, a permanent memorial, but that doesn't change the fact that this community has been scarred for life,' Wolf said. 'There are people inside the community who still need and will continue to need support and resources.'

Pulse massacre survivors are set to revisit the nightclub before it's razed
Pulse massacre survivors are set to revisit the nightclub before it's razed

Hamilton Spectator

time18 hours ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

Pulse massacre survivors are set to revisit the nightclub before it's razed

ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — Survivors and family members of the 49 victims killed in the Pulse nightclub massacre nine years ago are getting their first chance Wednesday to walk through the long-shuttered, LGBTQ+-friendly Florida venue before it's razed and replaced with a permanent memorial to what was once the worst U.S. mass shooting in modern times. In small groups over four days, survivors and family members of those killed planned to spend a half hour inside the space where Omar Mateen opened fire during a Latin night celebration on June 12, 2016, leaving 49 dead and 53 wounded. Mateen, who had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State group, was killed after a three-hour standoff with police. At the time, it was the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history. The Pulse shooting's death toll was surpassed the following year when 58 people were killed and more than 850 injured among a crowd of 22,000 at a country music festival in Las Vegas. The city of Orlando purchased the Pulse property in 2023 for $2 million and plans to build a $12 million permanent memorial which will open in 2027. Those efforts follow a multiyear, botched attempt by a private foundation run by the club's former owner. The existing structure will be razed later this year. 'None of us thought that it would take nine years to get to this point and we can't go back and relitigate all of the failures along the way that have happened, but what we can do is control how we move forward together,' Orange County Mayor Jerry Demings said two weeks ago when county commissioners pledged $5 million to support the city of Orlando's plan. Visits coincide with the shooting's ninth anniversary The opportunity to go inside the nightclub comes on the ninth anniversary of the mass shooting. Outside, over-sized photos of the victims, rainbow-colored flags and flowers have hung on fences in a makeshift memorial, and the site has attracted visitors from around the globe. But very few people other than investigators have been inside the structure. Around 250 survivors and family members of those killed have responded to the city's invitation to walk through the nightclub this week. Families of the 49 people who were killed can visit the site with up to six people in their group, and survivors can bring one person with them. The people invited to visit are being given the chance to ask FBI agents who investigated the massacre about what happened. They won't be allowed to take photos or video inside. Brandon Wolf, who hid in a bathroom as the gunman opened fire, said he wasn't going to visit, primarily because he now lives in Washington. He said he wanted to remember Pulse as it was before. 'I will say that the site of the tragedy is where I feel closest to the people who were stolen from me,' said Wolf, who now is national press secretary for the Human Rights Campaign, a LGBTQ+ advocacy group. 'For survivors, the last time they were in that space was the worst night possible. It will be really hard to be in that space again.' Mental health counselors planned to be on hand to talk to those who walk through the building. Original memorial plans for Pulse fell short Survivors and family members had hoped to have a permanent memorial in place by now. But an earlier effort by a private foundation to build one floundered, and the organization disbanded in 2023. Barbara and Rosario Poma and businessman Michael Panaggio previously owned the property, and Barbara Poma was the executive director of the onePulse Foundation — the nonprofit that had been leading efforts to build a memorial and museum. She stepped down as executive director in 2022 and then left the organization entirely in 2023 amid criticism that she wanted to sell instead of donate the property. There were also complaints about the lack of progress despite millions of dollars being raised. The original project, unveiled in 2019 by the onePulse Foundation, called for a museum and permanent memorial costing $45 million. That estimate eventually soared to $100 million. The city of Orlando has since outlined a more modest proposal and scrapped plans for a museum. 'The building may come down, and we may finally get, a permanent memorial, but that doesn't change the fact that this community has been scarred for life,' Wolf said. 'There are people inside the community who still need and will continue to need support and resources.' ___ Follow Mike Schneider on the social platform Bluesky: @ . Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

Red Tape Isn't the Only Reason America Can't Build
Red Tape Isn't the Only Reason America Can't Build

Yahoo

timea day ago

  • Yahoo

Red Tape Isn't the Only Reason America Can't Build

The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. The buzziest idea in Democratic politics right now is the 'abundance agenda,' which criticizes liberals for saddling government programs with bureaucratic red tape that delays those programs to the point of never delivering. Few examples seem to illustrate the point better than rural broadband. As part of the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law, Congress allocated $42.5 billion in subsidies to a new Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program. Its required 14 procedural steps to actually get this funding to internet service providers, or ISPs—companies such as AT&T, Verizon, Charter, and Frontier—along with significant labor, environmental, and domestic-production requirements, seem to fit the pattern of a well-intentioned program that has been stuffed with too many bells and whistles. (One of us, Asad Ramzanali, worked on broadband issues including BEAD in both the House of Representatives and the White House.) Thus, three and a half years after the law passed, shovels have still not broken ground on any project funded by this program, as the New York Times columnist Ezra Klein recently explained to an incredulous Jon Stewart, who lamented the 'incredibly frustrating, overcomplicated Rube Goldberg machine that keeps people from getting broadband.' Figuring out how to provide high-speed internet to all Americans has been an important public-policy goal for decades. As the coronavirus pandemic made painfully clear, broadband is crucial to full participation in society. And multiple empirical studies have shown that increased broadband access is correlated with stronger economic growth. Yet more than 7 million homes and businesses still do not have access. But the current political debate misunderstands the nature of the problem at almost every level. When it comes to broadband, procedural simplicity on its own hasn't worked in the past and won't work in the future. The deeper issue is that the United States government has abandoned the full range of policy tools that would actually get the job done. Any effort to achieve 'abundance' must start by recognizing that red tape isn't the only reason America can't seem to build anymore. The BEAD program does seem overcomplicated. It requires the Federal Communications Commission to complete a national map of where broadband is currently missing, the Commerce Department to distribute funding to states, state-level broadband offices to allocate subgrants to internet service providers, and the ISPs to deploy cables to connect homes to the internet. The numerous intermediate steps—initial planning grants, five-year action plans, map challenges, final plans, and more—sound like the kind of red tape that blocks progress and generates distrust in government. The solution seems glaringly obvious: simplify the steps. Cut out all the middlemen and empower the FCC to provide money directly to ISPs as efficiently and quickly as possible. Any reasonable person would reach that conclusion. The first Trump administration had the same thought. In 2020, the FCC rolled out a multibillion-dollar program called the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF). To allocate the money, the FCC quickly identified areas that had insufficient service. It then held a reverse auction of small geographic plots, awarding the subsidy to whichever ISP submitted the lowest bid for each plot. There was no notice of funding opportunity. No planning grants. No five-year action plans. No subgranting process. No state broadband offices. And no labor, environmental, small-business, or diversity requirements. ISPs quickly bid a cumulative $9.2 billion to serve high-speed broadband to 5.2 million homes and businesses. [Jerusalem Demsas: Not everyone should have a say] In many ways, RDOF was a neoliberal economist's dream—an efficient allocation of scarce public resources distributed through a competitive process. But removing bureaucratic steps turned out not to result in a better outcome. Without accurate mapping data to understand where need existed, RDOF allowed ISPs to bid on serving such locations as an empty patch of grass, industrial-park storage tanks, and a luxury resort that already had broadband. Without proper due diligence, other providers committed to projects that were not technically or financially feasible. As a result, the RDOF program still hasn't delivered much broadband to Americans. More than one-third of the bids have already been deemed in default, according to the FCC. In other words, nearly 2 million of the 5.2 million promised locations will never get service under the program, and that number is likely to keep growing. Worse, many of these locations may not get service from BEAD, either, because RDOF was assumed to cover them. Within that context, Congress's approach to the BEAD program—making sure that broadband maps are accurate; that state governments, who know their residents and needs best, develop thorough plans that will ensure long-lasting service; and that communities have opportunities to provide input—is less baffling. With the benefit of hindsight, the process should have been simpler. But Congress was clearly responding to the failures of RDOF, which meant more checks in the system. Why is internet service a problem that the government needs to solve, anyway? The answer is that private-sector companies seek to maximize profits, but in many rural areas, building networks is unprofitable. There might not be enough customers to offset the onetime costs of construction or even the ongoing costs of repairs, customer service, and overhead. To date, the federal government's approach to promoting service in unprofitable areas has almost exclusively been to subsidize private companies. The first federal broadband subsidies go back to at least 1995. Since then, the U.S. has put more than $100 billion into broadband expansion, primarily into rural areas, across more than 100 federal programs. Like RDOF, many of these programs have severely underperformed. This is what happens when government loses the ability, or the will, to undertake more direct interventions in the market and to challenge, not merely subsidize, corporations. A century ago, America faced a problem almost identical to the broadband shortage: rural electrification. Well into the 20th century, life in much of rural America was little changed from the 19th. Without electric appliances—refrigerators, washing machines, even lamps—running a farm was backbreaking, round-the-clock work. By 1935, private providers had electrified more than 80 percent of nonfarm households but only 11 percent of farm households. That year, as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, Congress created the Rural Electrification Administration to address this problem. At first, REA Administrator Morris Cooke hoped to partner with private electricity companies, not unlike our current subsidy-heavy approach for broadband. However, those companies argued that rural electrification would not be financially self-sustaining. Even with government support, they proposed building out to only 351,000 new customers, which would leave millions unconnected. The New Dealers recognized that subsidies to private firms could only go so far. So they turned to three other strategies. First, when the private sector was unable to serve all Americans, the REA organized communities across the country to develop their own, cooperatively owned electricity-distribution networks, funded by the federal government. The REA encouraged state laws to charter these cooperatives, provided engineering support to build infrastructure, and assisted cooperatives in negotiating for sources of electrical power. Second, the New Deal created public options. Federal government–owned providers, most famously the Tennessee Valley Authority, were established to generate electricity at affordable rates. These public options functioned as an important 'yardstick,' in Roosevelt's words, to evaluate the performance of the private sector. If the private sector refused to offer electricity at affordable rates, the TVA could step in to sell electricity directly to cooperatives instead. Third, private-sector electricity providers were classified as public utilities subject to strict regulation. The government couldn't build public plants to generate power across the entire country or successfully organize every community. So it required electric companies to expand services to cover everyone in their existing and adjacent service areas, even households that were unprofitable to serve. These utilities were required to set prices that allowed them to turn reasonable but not excessive profits. [George Packer: How Virginia took on Dominion Energy] The REA was a success. By 1940, a quarter of farm households were electrified, and by 1953, that figure had risen to 90 percent. That same year, retail rural electricity rates approximated rates found in urban areas. A similar approach could be applied to rural broadband today. Local governments could offer public broadband—as happened in Chattanooga, Tennessee, which has one of the fastest broadband networks in the world, run by the municipally owned electric company, a public option that competes with Xfinity and AT&T. Cooperatives could purchase internet service in the same way as they buy electricity. And public-utility regulations could require broadband providers to cover areas adjacent to their service areas at a reasonable price in exchange for rate regulation. So why has the federal government focused on subsidizing for-profit ISPs rather than using the mixed approach that worked during the New Deal era? Consider what happened in Chattanooga. After its municipal model proved successful, ISPs saw a threat and mobilized. They successfully lobbied lawmakers to pass laws restricting public options in broadband. Twenty-five states, including Tennessee, had such laws on the books in 2019, according to a report by BroadbandNow. In Congress, Democrats have repeatedly proposed federal legislation to preempt such state laws, but those proposals have languished. And although some of the state limits on public options have been repealed, 16 states still restrict municipal broadband. Lobbying from ISPs might likewise explain why the FCC has never used its existing legal authority to require ISPs to expand service at mandated affordable prices. (A conservative appeals court foreclosed that option for the FCC only recently.) The lesson of rural broadband is that some government failures are due not to procedural excess, but to giving up on regulatory tools that might antagonize Big Business. Unfortunately, learning this lesson again may now cost us $42.5 billion. Last week, the Department of Commerce rolled back many procedural hoops of the BEAD program—ostensibly with the same goals as RDOF. It's tempting to think that America can learn how to build again without having to wage difficult battles against powerful corporate interests, simply by eliminating bureaucratic red tape. But if efficient building were really so easy, we'd already be doing it. Article originally published at The Atlantic

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store