This is an important issue. If rolled out, the cost of providing safety must be at the top of the list or it will become Cabrini green on wheels (I’m dating myself).
Also, let’s not call it “free”, the city pays for it with our money.
One pro for free transit: quicker bus boarding -- through two doors, no delays for card-swipes (or failed card-swipes).
For this to work, however, there needs to be strong security. I can see fare elimination leading to more of the kind of thing scaring people off the CTA now -- rowdy kids, "mobile homeless shelter" conditions, loud music and smoking, crime. As a group, are we Chicagoans as mature as Estonians?
When student loan forgiveness was passed, any opposition was met with “Don’t you want to help others?” With that I thought, if given $400 billion of tax dollars to spend, and a menu of dozens of ways to help others (affordable housing, health insurance, climate, mental illness, etc), where would student loan forgiveness land on that list? Answer: not very high, at least how it was done.
Free public transportation is much more compelling, theoretically helping everyone, but would it work in Chicago? Just like most topics, comparing to smaller, homogenized cities & countries is misleading. Before throwing everything out, a pilot program would make sense. All that it would take is an increase in crime, drunks, homeless, etc. and it could completely backfire. Maybe start with some city bus routes. Buses are harder to keep on schedule, and this would help with efficiency. Near empty buses driving around the city are also a complete waste.
Maybe I missed a meeting or an announcement about hijabs, but along the way, I got the impression that hijabs were to assure a woman's modesty in Muslim societies. (Notwithstanding the fact that modesty can be faked, of course.) At the same time, are we to understand that the absence of a hijab is tantamount to dressing sexily; to be deliberately immodest? Surely this applies only to Muslim societies. For the sake of clarity and understanding between cultures, what are the real ground rules? Is omitting a hijab a sign of a liberated mind and spirit, or a marker of being a slut?
Likewise, are we to understand that failure to wear a hijab is tantamount to wearing a mini skirt, or fishnet stockings, being deliberately flirtatious, even though the rest of the standard Muslim costume for a woman fits like a flour sack?
And what of wearing makeup? Allowed, like for movie stars, or disallowed, like for nuns? What are the ground rules? And do they vary between orthodox vs. reformed denominations of Muslims?
What are the ground rules OUTSIDE Muslim societies, where the Muslims are in effect subcultures, with the dominant culture making the rules or setting the standards?
Are Muslim women sentient human beings with equal rights, or mere vassals to be bossed around by men? And if going without a hijab is "immodest," are Muslim men being immodest when not covering THEIR faces?
Moreover, since the look of a woman without a hijab risks bestirring carnal thoughts in men, why not reverse the burden and berate (or beat) men seen to have lascivious thoughts about women upon seeing them without a hijab? It's not as if the woman is in public nude, or skimpily (provocatively) clad.
The entirety seems centered on what occurs in a MAN'S mind, seeing no hijab, but is projected onto the woman.
In Western societies, a woman would have to go out dressed like Madonna in her early days, or a circus acrobat to trigger the approbation heaped on a Muslim woman in public in a Muslim society for not wearing a hijab. Is fairness to women not an issue? After all, 100% of the fantasizing is occurring in the man's mind, not necessarily in the woman's presumed coquettishness, otherwise dressed like a nun. Logic seems the least of it.
If a Muslim woman is considered to be of unacceptable moral character without a hijab, does that carry over to Western women temporarily in a Muslim society? Would a wife of a visiting head of state be ostracized for being in public without a hijab? That would be symbolism gone berserk.
Would any Muslim man care to offer clarification acceptable to all?
I love the idea of free public transportation but worry about 2 things: 1: As you mentioned, buses and trains would become rolling, unsupervised residences for the homeless and mentally ill; and 2. Money allocated to fund it would be cut and whittled away over time forcing the CTA cut staff and defer maintenance year after year until no one except the homeless and mentally ill would use it. Our country does not like to sustain or improve services that help poor people over time.
Sure, free CTA. The last normal fare year, 2019, had about $655 million in fares. Replacing that would be a 38% property tax increase. Lightfoot chickened out on a 2.5% increase. And then Eric also suggests that service will be expanded. Assuming that is busses and trains then there is also another increase to cover new capital costs and another increase for the operations. Cue the fairy stories about how someone else will pay. Or maybe adding a city income tax, like Tallin, is what we need. No downside to a city income tax, right? And of course, we can revive the toll-streets idea. Or new taxes on business, that wouldn't blunt any of the purported improvements in business climate? And let's not forget that the city still has not covered the pension costs and the CPS will also be coming back for annual increases. And since it is such a benefit, shouldn't we give non-CTA people the same benefit and offer free bikes or scooters? Both really need to be offered to people for the trip to the CTA station. This also removes the only discipline on routes. No route will ever be reduced or eliminated, regardless of ridership.
I am also skeptical about the 'vast increase in ridership' but if it happened it would require vast improvements in operations, but it would not magically 'make' the CTA more efficient or attractive. But the reason that I am skeptical is because the fares are already laughably low compared to all other transportation alternatives. The only new ridership would be people that can't afford the current fares because anyone that can afford them will not be enticed by such a small increase in price differential. The current $2.50 CTA fare is equal to the lowest one-hour parking meter rate. Daily parking in a garage downtown is $30 to $50. The minimum Uber charge is $5, which would take you about three miles. Price is not the barrier to ridership.
"Free" stuff always sounds good. A proponent of making CTA transportation free frames transportation as a "human right". So now transportation is added to the list of healthcare, food, housing, heating fuel, education, access to and equipment for Wi-Fi, as things which should be regarded as a human right.
As more and more things become "free", how long until increasing numbers of people are going to tire of working to pay taxes to provide "free" stuff to others, and simply join those on the receiving end of all the "free" stuff?
One way to finance free CTA would be to increase the tax on monthly parking in the Loop area. The rationale is that those who prefer to contribute to congestion and pollution can subsidize efforts to mitigate them.
This is an important issue. If rolled out, the cost of providing safety must be at the top of the list or it will become Cabrini green on wheels (I’m dating myself).
Also, let’s not call it “free”, the city pays for it with our money.
one of my favorite podcasts, Freakonomics, supports eric's argument on making public transit free - https://freakonomics.com/podcast/should-public-transit-be-free/
One pro for free transit: quicker bus boarding -- through two doors, no delays for card-swipes (or failed card-swipes).
For this to work, however, there needs to be strong security. I can see fare elimination leading to more of the kind of thing scaring people off the CTA now -- rowdy kids, "mobile homeless shelter" conditions, loud music and smoking, crime. As a group, are we Chicagoans as mature as Estonians?
When student loan forgiveness was passed, any opposition was met with “Don’t you want to help others?” With that I thought, if given $400 billion of tax dollars to spend, and a menu of dozens of ways to help others (affordable housing, health insurance, climate, mental illness, etc), where would student loan forgiveness land on that list? Answer: not very high, at least how it was done.
Free public transportation is much more compelling, theoretically helping everyone, but would it work in Chicago? Just like most topics, comparing to smaller, homogenized cities & countries is misleading. Before throwing everything out, a pilot program would make sense. All that it would take is an increase in crime, drunks, homeless, etc. and it could completely backfire. Maybe start with some city bus routes. Buses are harder to keep on schedule, and this would help with efficiency. Near empty buses driving around the city are also a complete waste.
Maybe I missed a meeting or an announcement about hijabs, but along the way, I got the impression that hijabs were to assure a woman's modesty in Muslim societies. (Notwithstanding the fact that modesty can be faked, of course.) At the same time, are we to understand that the absence of a hijab is tantamount to dressing sexily; to be deliberately immodest? Surely this applies only to Muslim societies. For the sake of clarity and understanding between cultures, what are the real ground rules? Is omitting a hijab a sign of a liberated mind and spirit, or a marker of being a slut?
Likewise, are we to understand that failure to wear a hijab is tantamount to wearing a mini skirt, or fishnet stockings, being deliberately flirtatious, even though the rest of the standard Muslim costume for a woman fits like a flour sack?
And what of wearing makeup? Allowed, like for movie stars, or disallowed, like for nuns? What are the ground rules? And do they vary between orthodox vs. reformed denominations of Muslims?
What are the ground rules OUTSIDE Muslim societies, where the Muslims are in effect subcultures, with the dominant culture making the rules or setting the standards?
Are Muslim women sentient human beings with equal rights, or mere vassals to be bossed around by men? And if going without a hijab is "immodest," are Muslim men being immodest when not covering THEIR faces?
Moreover, since the look of a woman without a hijab risks bestirring carnal thoughts in men, why not reverse the burden and berate (or beat) men seen to have lascivious thoughts about women upon seeing them without a hijab? It's not as if the woman is in public nude, or skimpily (provocatively) clad.
The entirety seems centered on what occurs in a MAN'S mind, seeing no hijab, but is projected onto the woman.
In Western societies, a woman would have to go out dressed like Madonna in her early days, or a circus acrobat to trigger the approbation heaped on a Muslim woman in public in a Muslim society for not wearing a hijab. Is fairness to women not an issue? After all, 100% of the fantasizing is occurring in the man's mind, not necessarily in the woman's presumed coquettishness, otherwise dressed like a nun. Logic seems the least of it.
If a Muslim woman is considered to be of unacceptable moral character without a hijab, does that carry over to Western women temporarily in a Muslim society? Would a wife of a visiting head of state be ostracized for being in public without a hijab? That would be symbolism gone berserk.
Would any Muslim man care to offer clarification acceptable to all?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Ted Manuel
Bailey is “an unreflective populist boob” who wants to impose his religion on everyone in the state.
I love the idea of free public transportation but worry about 2 things: 1: As you mentioned, buses and trains would become rolling, unsupervised residences for the homeless and mentally ill; and 2. Money allocated to fund it would be cut and whittled away over time forcing the CTA cut staff and defer maintenance year after year until no one except the homeless and mentally ill would use it. Our country does not like to sustain or improve services that help poor people over time.
Sure, free CTA. The last normal fare year, 2019, had about $655 million in fares. Replacing that would be a 38% property tax increase. Lightfoot chickened out on a 2.5% increase. And then Eric also suggests that service will be expanded. Assuming that is busses and trains then there is also another increase to cover new capital costs and another increase for the operations. Cue the fairy stories about how someone else will pay. Or maybe adding a city income tax, like Tallin, is what we need. No downside to a city income tax, right? And of course, we can revive the toll-streets idea. Or new taxes on business, that wouldn't blunt any of the purported improvements in business climate? And let's not forget that the city still has not covered the pension costs and the CPS will also be coming back for annual increases. And since it is such a benefit, shouldn't we give non-CTA people the same benefit and offer free bikes or scooters? Both really need to be offered to people for the trip to the CTA station. This also removes the only discipline on routes. No route will ever be reduced or eliminated, regardless of ridership.
I am also skeptical about the 'vast increase in ridership' but if it happened it would require vast improvements in operations, but it would not magically 'make' the CTA more efficient or attractive. But the reason that I am skeptical is because the fares are already laughably low compared to all other transportation alternatives. The only new ridership would be people that can't afford the current fares because anyone that can afford them will not be enticed by such a small increase in price differential. The current $2.50 CTA fare is equal to the lowest one-hour parking meter rate. Daily parking in a garage downtown is $30 to $50. The minimum Uber charge is $5, which would take you about three miles. Price is not the barrier to ridership.
"Free" stuff always sounds good. A proponent of making CTA transportation free frames transportation as a "human right". So now transportation is added to the list of healthcare, food, housing, heating fuel, education, access to and equipment for Wi-Fi, as things which should be regarded as a human right.
As more and more things become "free", how long until increasing numbers of people are going to tire of working to pay taxes to provide "free" stuff to others, and simply join those on the receiving end of all the "free" stuff?
One way to finance free CTA would be to increase the tax on monthly parking in the Loop area. The rationale is that those who prefer to contribute to congestion and pollution can subsidize efforts to mitigate them.