Letters: To save mass transit in the Chicago region, we must think long term
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
7 hours ago
- New York Times
Your Questions (and Criticisms) of Our Recent Shows
This is an edited transcript of an episode of 'The Ezra Klein Show.' You can listen to the conversation by following or subscribing to the show on the NYT Audio app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts. Ezra Klein: Welcome to another subscriber-only 'Ask Me Anything.' You all sent in a ton of questions. We are going to respond to a small fraction of them. Joining me is our amazing executive producer, Claire Gordon, who has chosen a bunch of questions that I mostly wouldn't want to answer, if I had my druthers. But Claire, thanks for being here this morning, jet-lagged from a late-night flight back from California. Claire Gordon: Hopefully, it will make this more interesting. The first bunch of questions are really synthesized from a ton of responses we got from the last few episodes, which really flooded our inbox. Klein: These are the Mahmoud Khalil and Philippe Sands episodes. Gordon: That's right. And the episode with Yoram Hazony got a lot of responses, too. But definitely the winner in terms of volume of response was Mahmoud Khalil's — not only in our inbox, but it got a lot of response out in the world. In a first for the show, there was a whole New York Post cover story in response to the interview, with a big headline: 'Deport Him!' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Forbes
5 days ago
- Forbes
Can America Achieve 'Abundance' In Apprenticeships?
In Abundance: How a Revolutionary American Idea Is Losing Ground, and How We Can Fix It, Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson argue that well-meaning policies and regulations have slowed or stopped us from building the things we need. They offer a slew of examples from clean energy infrastructure to public transit to – most obviously – housing, and advocate a 'liberalism that builds.' We've all been impacted by America's failure to build. Tens of millions of lives have been upended from derelict disaster response, power outages, inhumane commute times, and the housing shortage. (As Rahm Emanuel pointed out last week in the Washington Post, a generation ago 'the median age of first-time home buyers was 28. Today, it's 38. In 2000, the typical price of a single-family home was three times a family's annual income — today, it's six times.') Meanwhile hundreds of millions are periodically perturbed, like my recent Amtrak trip on the Northeast Regional: 90 minutes late, no seats, spotty wi-fi, and crawling along at 10 mph for tedious stretches. Abundance is the liberal response to Marc Andreessen's Time to Build Covid-era manifesto decrying shortages of masks and vaccines. But while Andreessen's argument extended to attacking Harvard for failing to educate 100,000 or 1 million students a year, his non-physical infrastructure argument stopped at the classroom door. Abundance goes further. We need to peel back anti-growth rules. But we also need an energetic government to define and help build the infrastructure we lack. This includes abundant energy, transportation, and housing, but also career launch infrastructure. Klein and Thompson contend an abundant society wouldn't limit pathways to opportunity to teacher-led classrooms. The answer is faster + cheaper pathways to good jobs and work-based learning like apprenticeships. It's so obvious, some college leaders have begun thumping the abundant pathways drum. Perhaps Andreessen's Time to Build didn't progress beyond the classroom because he was skeptical of government long before he began supporting President Trump, but also because no country has scaled apprenticeships without government leading the way. Without government prompting or incentives, few employers will hire (or waste time engaging with) workers who'll be unproductive for an extended period of time i.e., until they are trained and experienced. If we want lower risk career pathways for millions – if we want as many apprentice jobs as seats in college classrooms – government has to lead. If we want alternatives, there's no alternative. Andreessen would agree with Abundance acolytes that the first step is to eliminate unnecessary regulation. Shockingly, registered apprenticeships still operate under the aegis of the National Apprenticeship Act of 1937 when apprenticeships were synonymous with the building trades and safety was the alpha and omega. As a result, registering an apprenticeship program is a cumbersome process requiring companies to document compliance with a litany of labor laws. For example, a new cybersecurity apprenticeship program needs to implement an apprentice safety and health training program, among dozens of other new policies and procedures. There are also defined ratios of experienced workers to apprentices. As I've noted, outside of jobs with material physical risks, applying a consumer protection ethos to apprenticeship is misguided because pretty much any work-based learning opportunity that pays a living wage and provides career progression is economically safer (i.e., lower financial risk, lower employment risk) than a tuition-based pathway. And we don't make tuition-grubbing schools promulgate purposeless policies or maintain archaic teacher-student ratios. But eliminating unnecessary regulation is the easy part. It's a harder task to build the apprenticeship infrastructure we lack. So in response to President Trump's April executive order setting a federal goal of '1 million active apprentices, including avenues for expansion to new industries and occupations' – about a 40% increase – Apprenticeships for America (AFA) has released a series of reports providing a blueprint for what's needed. At the center of AFA's recommendations are the apprenticeship intermediaries that do the heavy lifting of selling, setting up, and operating apprenticeship programs for the benefit of companies, apprentices, and educational institutions. While countries that are way ahead of us on apprenticeship have robust ecosystems of intermediaries, America doesn't. Therein lies the source of our lagging performance in the apprenticeship league tables. AFA's recommendations to get to 1 million apprentices and beyond (AFA's stated goal is 4 million to put the U.S. on par with other developed countries) boil down to the following: 1) Dramatically streamline the registration process. 2) Rather than trying to pick winners – which hasn't worked well – do what other countries have done and shift funding to a predictable, formula-based, pay-per-apprentice model (i.e., defined support for every apprentice hired and trained). 3) Position states as drivers of expansion by funding through states for apprenticeship programs that are within a single state while launching a similar federal program for apprenticeships that cross state lines. States can provide additional support via tax credits. 4) Build data infrastructure so we can track outcomes and know what works best for employers and apprentices. 5) Build an earn-and-learn culture, starting by increasing awareness of apprenticeships among employers and prospective apprentices. While the lot may sound daunting, unlike high-speed rail or high-density housing, no one is objecting in principle. Scaling apprenticeship is popular among Democrats like Klein and Thompson, as well as an Republican Administration that has already set an historic apprenticeship goal. Even the new Undersecretary in the Department of Education, which plays no formal role in the apprenticeship ecosystem, seems to be prioritizing apprenticeship growth. But none of this will happen without funding. On a per capita basis, American investment in apprenticeship is one- or two-orders of magnitude lower than other developed countries. We have dramatically over-invested in classroom-based, tuition-based, debt-based career launch infrastructure and correspondingly underinvested in work-based, earn-and-learn career launch infrastructure. And new infrastructure requires investment. The good news is that the Trump Administration's apprenticeship executive order had a kernel of an idea for increasing investment at a time of unprecedented cuts to discretionary spending: directing departments to 'consolidate and streamline fragmented Federal workforce development programs that are too disconnected from propelling workers into secure, well-paying, and high-need American jobs' and to identify 'workforce development and education programs… that are ineffective or otherwise fail to achieve their desired outcomes.' In its new workforce development strategy released this week, the White House doubled down on 'reforming or eliminating ineffective programs and redirecting funding to programs that demonstrate success in connecting Americans with high-wage jobs.' This is lightly veiled code for Job Corps, the $1.8 billion DOL program that has been producing dismal employment outcomes for decades. A residential program for low-income youth ages 16-24 with built-in job training, Job Corps spends more than $80K per trainee per year and over $150K per graduate. Despite all this spending, researchers have found that teenagers see no long-term benefits in earnings or employment while 20-24 year-olds see minimal employment benefits and income growth that is not statistically significant. A 2018 audit by the DOL's Office of Inspector General (OIG) found Job Corps 'could not demonstrate beneficial job training outcomes.' OIG tracked Job Corps graduates and found more than half returned to the same jobs they were doing before Job Corps with most of the rest taking minimum wage entry-level jobs unrelated to their training. Job Corps counts these as successful 'placements.' According to DOL, average post-Job-Corps annual income is $16,695. It's an ineffective and highly inefficient train-and-pray program. So the Trump Administration has proposed cutting Job Corps and attempted to close centers (as with other cuts, Job Corps centers remain open due to a court order). Nevertheless, the same week we learned the job market is much weaker than previously reported, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted down the cuts, restored full funding to Job Corps, and kept apprenticeship support at the same $285-million-level as last year. The Senate's bipartisan (26-3) vote to preserve Job Corps – a program the Administration singled out again in the newly released workforce development strategy – suggests an additional hurdle to achieving abundance. While dismantling growth-inhibiting rules is a food fight specific to the Democratic Party, increasing investment in an era of record deficits is a problem for both parties because it involves shifting funding away from ineffective legacy programs. Once we start down a path, once we begin funding something, entrenched interests make it hard to stop. It's been true from time in memorial in defense, agriculture, and energy; welcome to the club, workforce development. As Anne Kim noted in Washington Monthly, Job Corps' entrenched interests include a number of companies which have been awarded large contracts to operate centers. Plus in some rural areas, Job Corps programs are the principal economic engine, so it's not a heavy lift to get elected officials onboard. Senate Minority Leader Schumer has leaped to the defense of Job Corps, pointing out how many people New York Job Corps centers employ and how important they are to local economies. But none of these interests have much to do with the program's purpose: career launch and socioeconomic mobility. (Senator Schumer has been silent on Job Corps' train-and-pray outcomes.) It seems that unless the ruling party can make political hay out of attacking an entrenched interest – as selective universities have learned over the past six months – abundance requires elected representatives who can step back and reallocate resources to programs and infrastructure that will do the greatest good. This isn't a partisan issue. How could it be? We don't make progress regardless of which party is calling the shots. It also requires elected representatives who vote on more than anecdote. Some trainees have clearly benefited from Job Corps; the New York Times and other outlets have recently reported inspiring, heartwarming stories with a clear subtext: it would be tragic if Job Corps closed. Naturally, the primary beneficiaries of Job Corps funding are intent on making those voices heard. (Note that not long ago, the New York Times espoused a very different view. In 2018, the Times reported that Job Corps was failing: 'Job Corps doesn't work… The adults are making money, the politicians are getting photo ops. But we are all failing the students.' It's unclear whether the journalist who wrote the 2025 article read the 2018 article.) So it's not surprising that in announcing that the Appropriations Committee had voted to preserve Job Corps, Chair Senator Collins referenced 'Adais Viruet-Torres, a graduate of Loring [Maine] Job Corps Center and Husson University who overcame homelessness and now works as a nurse practitioner.' But there's still hope. While the Senate has weighed in, we're waiting on the House to return in September. If the White House signals to House Republicans that Job Corps for increased investment in apprenticeship is an acceptable trade, it could change the calculus on the Republican side. Just as there are some beneficiaries from growth-killing regulations, some benefit from Job Corps. But our collective inability to look at the bigger picture of whether it's a good investment, whether we should be spending six times as much on Job Corps as we do on apprenticeship, or whether we'd better off going down a different path entirely, may be the biggest barrier to abundance and an Apprentice Nation. Abundance isn't only about undoing decades of rules and regulations. It's about honestly reevaluating programs that are past their sell-by dates. It's also about being prepared to deal with interests that will attack changes as a heartless assault on the needy. The fact is that any education or training program – no matter how ill-formed – is going to have successes, often that have more to do with the student or trainee than the program itself. But policymaking-by-anecdote is no way to run a country. That is unless you're against abundance and apprenticeship.
Axios
5 days ago
- Axios
"Abundance" movement sparks Dems' identity fight for 2028
The fight over the future direction of the Democratic Party has begun. The first battlefield is the trendy center-left "Abundance" movement. A growing number of left-wing politicians and thinkers are labeling it a clever rebrand by the party's corporate wing, which they blame for driving working-class voters from the party. Why it matters: The escalating feud is a preview of the 2028 presidential primary, as the Democratic Party grapples with its identity — including whether to moderate to attract independent voters, or counter Trumpism by leaning into progressive economic populism. State of play: "Abundance" was popularized by this year's bestselling book of the same name by New York Times columnist Ezra Klein and journalist Derek Thompson. The idea: Democrats have lost voters' trust because of governing failures in blue cities and states, and need to respond by cutting excess regulations to build more housing, energy projects and more. "Liberals speak as if they believe in government — and then pass policy after policy hamstringing what it can actually do," the authors wrote. As Democrats continue to reckon with how Donald Trump returned to the White House and the ongoing fallout from the 2024 elections, many in the party are enthusiastically embracing Abundance. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a potential 2028 presidential candidate, signedlegislation in June to change environmental rules to make it easier to build more housing. He posted on X that "we're urgently embracing an abundance agenda by tearing down the barriers that have delayed new affordable housing and infrastructure for decades." Tech billionaire and prolific Democratic donor Reid Hoffman said in late July that he's sending everyone he knows a copy of the book, and that he'll be backing pro-abundance candidates. Open Philanthropy, a deep-pocketed funder with roots in Silicon Valley and liberal-minded politics, announced in March it would back the movement by spending $120 million in the next three years through an "Abundance and Growth Fund." Between the lines: The abundance buzz hasn't been universally accepted — and has drawn some backlash from the Democratic Party's left wing. Those Democrats argue: Getting rid of excessive regulations is good, but doesn't address — and in some ways could exacerbate — the more pressing issues of wealth inequality and corporate power. Voters are angry, and a deregulation agenda isn't a compelling political message. What they're saying: Progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) told CNN on Sunday that removing some regulations would be good, but "that is not the fundamental problem facing America," pointing instead to income inequality and the billionaire class. "Much of what abundance supporters are saying is fine: Yes, there's red tape that doesn't make sense, and let's get rid of it," Dan Geldon, a former senior adviser to Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), told Axios. "But abundance supporters generally ignore red tape that's there because of corporations protecting their own interests. As a whole, it's really just recycled incrementalism and a call to make the party less ambitious and milquetoast, despite the scale of the economic problems voters care about." Mike Konczal, a former member of then-President Biden's National Economic Council, said: "Fixing government procurement is not exciting people. It's a burn-it-all-down electorate and Democrats need to offer people more." The other side: Klein has been taken aback by the intensity of some of the criticism, and believes that populists who want to enact ambitious government programs need to show voters they're capable of implementing such programs. "I expect there will be a number of politicians in 2028 that are running on abundance, populist and anti-oligarchal themes," Klein told Axios. "The idea that someone is going to just pick one of these things is stupid — talented politicians aren't just one thing." Alexander Berger, the CEO of Open Philanthropy, said in a statement the group is proud of its funding efforts: "The first step to solving a problem is recognizing it's real. Blindness to the regulatory constraints that choke off growth directly limits access to affordable housing, energy, and health care." Some progressives and Thompson, the book's co-author, argue that most of the backlash to the abundance movement is from hyper-online people trying to pick fights.
