The NYTimes had an interesting, if brief, commentary piece on a phenomenon I've observed many times riding trains, subways, and buses all over the city of Chicago: white people tend, on average, to have an aversion to sitting next to black men.
I've pointed this out and thought about this many times on the CTA in Chicago. I can't even count the number of times I've clawed my way into a jam-packed subway car at rush hour, only to find an empty seat (or two, or three) where a young, black man is sitting. Amazed to have found a seat on a packed train, I sit down. And like the author of the article I do actually appreciate the free seat on crowded trains, since, as I say, I tend to eagerly snatch up the free space to sit down where many riders, strangely, fear to tread. But though there is a small, individual-level silver lining, we need to be clear here that the context is an oppressive one. This phenomenon is due to racism.
When I say this is due to racism, note that I'm not insinuating that every single white rider consciously decides that they just hate the black person on the train and therefore avoid sitting next to them. Notice that I'm not calling all these fearful white passengers "bad, mean people", though it is no doubt true that at least some of them are. No, instead, I'm describing an oppressive set of social norms, practices, and forms of consciousness in our society which devalue and subordinate blackness (note that I do think that racism has an institutional and material element as well, but it's not as prominent or directly relevant in this case).
As the political philosopher Tommie Shelby has pointed out, racist ideology shifts throughout history. As he puts it, "in the present phase of capitalist development, blacks are often viewed as parasitic, angry, ungrateful, and dangerous" (whereas they'd been characterized as "docile, superstitious, easily satisfied, and servile" under the conditions of plantation slavery). This seems to me accurate. But I would add to this description of the newer forms of racist ideology the contributions made by the "culture of poverty" non-sense that has wide informal currency among white folk, and which is also still passed off as scientific in some sociology departments. At any rate, this cluster of ideology no doubt underpins the aversion and anxiety white people have in sitting next to a black man on a train. Rather than seeing black passengers as fellow city-dwellers getting from A to B... black passengers, and black men in particular, are treated like pariahs. We should be part of dismantling this phenomenon, and calling it for what it is.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
White fear of blackness on trains
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Markets and Transportation
"Let us first turn to other sectors of the economy to which the "straight" market criteria do not apply without very considerable modification. Transportation is a case in point. Thus most of the world recognizes that urban transit benefits those who do not use it (e.g. by reducing congestion and increasing property values), and that it should be provided by a public authority, with a sizable subsidy to cover inevitable losses. Even in Reagan's United States, docks, airports, and rapid-transit systems remained publicly owned. Involved here are external economies (time-saving, convenience) and diseconomies (congestion, pollution) and also elements of system, of network, which render the conventional neoclassical marginal-cost and marginal-profitability analysis both misleading and irrelevant, and the public-service aspect of high importance. Of course, in making decisions one should always compare costs and results, but one can do so only in the context of network, on the one hand, and the purpose of the activity on the other." - Alec Nove, "Central Planning in Capitalism and Socialism"This last sentence is crucial. This is the antidote for those who confusedly lament the "inefficiencies" of public institutions like urban transportation and extol the alleged virtues of profit-driven markets. First of all, marginal-cost/marginal-profitability analysis is basically useless here and distorts matters considerably. Secondly, asking that public transit be run "like a business" evinces a deep misunderstanding of the function of public transportation.
This is the crux of the issue. To demand that public transit networks "turn a profit" is to misunderstand what a public transit system is.
What, then, is the function of urban public transit? Quite obviously, it is to most effectively facilitate movement of everyone, on a city-wide systemic basis, in a way that is sustainable, comprehensive, egalitarian, efficient, organized, and user-friendly in the broadest sense. It is decidedly not to exploit certain needs that are profitable while ignoring those that aren't, which is precisely what for-profit transportation does. For example: if you're a capitalist, why invest in means of transportation for, say, poor pensioners who are not a good source of profits? Why not just ignore them completely and focus on markets where there is "effective demand" and the potential for hefty returns? This is, incidentally, what happens with health insurance when it is fully commodified: the poor and sick are left by the wayside whereas private insurers "cherry pick" the wealthy and healthy patients that will better aid the company in maximizing profits.
Now, obviously, rejecting neoclassical marginal analysis here doesn't mean that there isn't some cost/benefit analysis to be undertaken at the system-level by a public transit authority regarding how to allocate funds, service, etc. But this analysis will not look much like the rent-seeking behavior of capitalist investors, first and foremost because the relevant benefit here is not "profit" for the transportation authority, but the extent to which the public transit network fulfills its function well. We need to know what the relevant good is that we're trying to maximize before we can begin an analysis of what an optimal public transit system would consist in. Assuming the metric of cash returns on a balance sheet in the ways that capitalist firms do here is to completely miss the issue at hand (yet, this is precisely what neoclassical economic theory does: it elevates the tendentious, narrow logic of the capitalist firm to a universal and quasi-natural status).
A good transportation system is not one that runs a surplus every year. A good transportation system is one that fulfills its function well. Making efficient use of resources is of course of value, but of purely instrumental value. Contrary to the dogmas of deficit-hawks and those who fetishize balanced budgets, a "cheap" but anemic transit system is not a good one.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Against those who complain about public transportation
The recent Metro train tragedy in D.C. has got me thinking. Its scary to think that what happened could happen again, or in another city. Its disturbing to think that it happened, of all places, in D.C. where the rapid-transit rail system is one of the best in the country.
But we must keep this tragedy in perspective.
Like airplane crashes, this tragedy is high profile. And for good reasons: mass transit in the U.S. is woefully underfunded and does not receive the investment that it deserves given the rising ridership, social need, and environmental imperatives justifying its superiority to the "one person one car" mentality that infects so much of the U.S.
But how many headlines focus on the deaths of pedestrians in large cities who are either injured or killed by careless drivers? Who keeps track of cyclists killed by cars on a weekly basis in the U.S.? Who actually considers that stepping into a motor vehicle of any kind represents an increased risk (versus walking or taking buses/trains (or airplanes)) that they might be killed?
So the crash in D.C. has brought to light a deficit in investment and emphasis on public transportation. Which brings me to the raison d'etre of this post.
People love to complain about public transit. It's too slow. It smells bad. It's insufficiently convenient. It's 'sketchy'. It isn't as nice as its international counterparts.
In Chicago it's something of a sport. Even people who purportedly support the idea of public transit in principle are quick to unravel a long litany of complaints and grievances about the CTA to anyone who will listen.
But at present there is immense progressive potential in resisting this tendency and becoming a staunch advocate of the transit status quo. Here's why. It is undeniably true that public transit is underfunded, undernourished, in disrepair, insufficiently comprehensive, and often prone to inconvenience riders. It's also undeniably true that it could feasibly be much, much better than it is (e.g. take a look at other systems internationally). It's also the case that in a country as rich and purportedly 'advanced' as the U.S., the state of its public transportation infrastructure is an embarassment to say the least.
Nonetheless, the most progressive thing defenders of public transit can do at the moment is resist the temptation to focus on these shortcomings. Those who would dwell on the smells, the breakdowns, the inconveniences, the express trains that wizz by you when you're in a hurry, the slow zones, the shenanigans, and so on, are priming the pumps for the cutting of services and the further deterioration of mass transit. Moreover, there is not much seperating these complainers from those who draw the inference "well, if its this bad, I guess there is nothing wrong with driving most everywhere", or "well who cares if they cut it, it wasn't that good anyway".
Unfortunately, the present is not a time to make trenchant critiques of the transportation infrastructure in the interests of totally revamping it. The present is a time to dig in one's heels and hope that it doesn't get worse.
Despite its many problems, the public transit infrastructure we have in Chicago is solid gold. It is the fruit of another era. If it were up to those in power today public transit would look something like this: a privately-operated shuttle-bus company (running buses from 9am-6pm) that is partially funded by regressive taxes, supplemented by a reduced-fare taxi-voucher program for low-income seniors. Perhaps we might even have a public taxi service to give taxi consumers another 'option on the market' and 'keep the private taxi businesses honest'. Everyone else would be too busy running over bikers and pedestrians with their SUVs to bother worry about the shabby shuttlebuses. The Republicans would probably be complaining that the legislation to create this tepid 'transit solution' was tanatamount to 'totalitarianism', and Max Baucus and Ben Nelson would probably be threatening not to vote for the bill.
If were up to those in power now, you can bet the farm that we'd have no 24-hour elevated trains in Chicago. We'd have no comprehensive bus service. The ambitious reformism which built these institutions is anathema to those in control of Government today. They, i.e. Obama and Co., can't even be bothered to simply maintain the assets of what more audacious reformers of the past produced. They're, at present, sitting by as these crucial institutions endure punishing cuts. Yet they continue to pursue new and expanded imperialist ventures abroad which show no signs of slowing down in terms of body count or increasing price tags. Many Chicagoans probably take it for granted that we have a comprehensive rail service, but if it were only a matter of how government institutions operate today then it wouldn't even be imaginable that such a massive public service could be built at all. Think here of how single-payer looks more and more like a pipe dream every day, whereas its feeble cousin Medicare is taken for granted as a neutral part of the backdrop of the status quo. If Truman would've succeeded in implementing single-payer in the 1940s, it would be unfathomable today that we could actually put up with not having universal health care. Instead, in a business-driven society which has no consciousness of history beyond the returns of last quarter, it is precisely the other way around.
If it were up to those in power today, we'd have no subway system, no elevated rails, no commuter trains. Anyone who's primary prerogative is to sound-off about the problems of mass transit ignores this crucial fact. The most progressive thing those who'd like a better public transit system can do at the present moment is to not abandon it in its moment of need. That means, first and foremost, rejecting the opportunist mentality that liscences 'giving up' on mass transit in favor of driving a car. And I'm quite aware of the fact that this injunction not to 'give up' is hardly class-neutral, but then neither is the impulse to complain and whine about the problems that CTA has. I can tell you that you won't hear this sort of whining from the swaths of people who simply couldn't afford a car (myself included) anyway and take public transit out of necessity.
CTA is going to be taking a $35 million dollar cut to its (already inadequate) funding this year. CTA operates the second-largest transit system in the entire USA. That the Federal, State and Municipal governments are allowing this to happen (although their respective indicies of responsibility are not equal) is a travesty.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Urban life, planning, and mass transit in wide context
I have a kind of fascination with public transportation. There are so many things about it that I believe in: sharing space and seeing the faces of your fellow city-dwellers; the egalitarian spirit of everyone getting on the same trains and buses and sharing moments of inconvenience and convenience alike; being able to relax and retreat from the cut-throat mentality of drivers; never having to worry about parking; the environmental benefits. The CTA (train and rail), which I typically ride every single day in one way or another, is in many ways an example of these virtues. I feel invested in its future and the condition its in; when someone trashes CTA literally (e.g. vandalism) or figuratively (e.g. a disparaging remark), I take it personally. Despite all its problems and shortcomings, it is a resource that I've never really had access to in any other place I've lived. Unless they live in San Fran, New York, Boston or D.C., most every American doesn't have access to this kind of resource. I feel really fortunate.
But laying on the table what one is fortunate to have should in no way impact their propensity to demand more from their current situation. Like some liberal's posture toward Obama, I sometimes sense that people mistake bold calls for more audacious reform than the present exhibits as "not being thankful for what we are getting now". For instance, I can recall making a critical comment about the poverty of current ways of funding higher education (e.g. heavy reliance on loans and lotteries instead of progressive taxes and grants), for which an Obamahead mildly chastised me since my criticism suggested that I wasn't sufficiently 'thankful' for the low-hanging fruit Obama snatched by massively increasing education spending on Pell Grants and so forth. I am pleased that Obama did that, it is a huge improvement over the outlook of the last 30 years which has been cut taxes, cut education spending. But, it should go without saying, that doesn't meant that there aren't MUCH more audacious reform measures that could be undertaken were the current outlook not so circumscribed by our country's relatively business-leaning conservative political culture. This becomes very apparent when, contrary to the inclinations of most American commentators, you take a look at policy in other countries.
The two most heavily used and largest systems in the Europe are the Paris Metro and the Moscow Metro. The world's most heavily used system is the Tokyo Subway and 8 of the top-10 most heavily used systems in the world are outside of Europe. The complete list is here, and although the CTA has the third busiest rapid transit rail system in the USA (behind NYC and DC, although when you add buses, CTA is a close second to NYC in terms of overall use), it doesn't even make the top 30 worldwide. That's crazy. But not totally unbelievable when you consider how much of the metro area surrounding Chicago is car-centric, strip mall, parking-lot heavy suburbs. Nonetheless, the Chicago area does (at least) offer commuter-rail service to these areas, which is more than can be said of most US cities.
Compare this to the Moscow Metro. The Moscow Metro is the world's second most heavily used rapid transit system. Moscow has about 5 times the population of Chicago, so its really not fair to compare gross transit use (although, Chicago's metro area is roughly equal to Moscow's population, which makes me wonder what things might've looked like if greater-Chicagoland had developed in a less haphazardly suburban-centric way in the 50s and 60s which peaked with the intense 'White-flight' of the late 60s).
Structurally, the Moscow Metro is very similar to the way the Chicago "L" is set up. It has a center and spoke layout, although just glancing at the map of the rail system you can gleam that the Moscow Metro is far more comprehensive (there are more spokes and less gaps between spokes) and it has a crucial connecting rail running in a circle which links up all of the spokes with one another. Since I've lived in Chicago, I've heard murmurs about how such a development (a spoke-connecting ring) is on the distant back-burner somewhere, but there is basically no possibility of this happening any time soon. The CTA has annual budget crises (despite increases in ridership) due to an unjust funding scheme and the fact that CTA pays ever year for upkeep and deterioration allowed in years past, although funding works on a year-to-year basis. If you didn't maintain something during 1975-79, for example, and you continue to rely on it today... there is a sense in which the current yearly budget is being hit by a particular instance of neglect that occurred many years ago. I'm sure there are more recent examples, and this can become really tough when the CTA is expected to keep things running at the same time it struggles to keep up with snowballing maintenance needs.
So, my first impression glancing at the Moscow rail is that it is extremely well-planned and comprehensive, in a way that Chicago's system aspires to be.
Began in 1931 with the first line opening in 1935, the Moscow Metro still bears many of the aesthetic characteristics of Stalinism and the ideology of that era. The Moscow Metro has a large number of excellent examples of socialist realism, and is world-renowned for its astoundingly ornate stations. It's not difficult to place these characteristics within the logic of Stalinism (traditionalist reaction against modern forms of architecture, regression to neo-Baroque and neo-Classical forms, etc.). But I will say that there is something impressive about the unabashed exaltation of public space (setting aside the ways in which this facade function under conditions of Stalinist oppression) and the almost opulent decorative quality of the stations. You could almost mistake some of the stations for pictures from the halls of a 18th century palace.
Its as though the idea was that, in repudiating the privatization of this sort of opulence (inside the guarded walls of the Palmer House, or the Waldorf Astoria, etc.), the stations were meant as an intense reminder that what was supposed to matter was people sharing these spaces together in public settings. I'm not trying to defend any sliver of Stalinism on its own terms, only pointing out that (despite the opulence Stalin surrounded himself with while many others suffered) when we compare the ethos of theses structures (I mean, quite literally, the stations themselves) with capitalist counterparts of the same era (especially in the US) there is not the same audacious push to celebrate public space as the pinnacle of where the social surplus should be invested. Probably the only time that we see similar developments in the US were during the New Deal (take a look at a post office built during this era, or a school, and tell me it doesn't strike you as a building struggling to win over public enthusiasm and cast itself as a monument to civilization itself). But we shouldn't forget that this was an era when the US lived under the shadow of the USSR in the sense that it felt it had to compete economically and socially with a regime that was basically immune to the Great Depression and was, by means that were brutal and savage, able to provide full employment, comprehensive health provisions and education services for free.
I don't think you have to accept any aspect of Stalinism as such to look at some of the things (technologically, logistically) that the Soviet regime was able to accomplish in the 30s and 40s in terms of public amenities and structural urban planning and wonder in an exploratory spirit, if these things were accomplished then and there, why couldn't they also be accomplished here and now? Why can't we have full employment, unconditional and universal provision of health services and comprehensive education as well as a system of public space and transportation that is commensurate with the best technological and productive capacities civilization has to offer? Many people wondered similar things in the 1930s in the US, and most of them weren't Communists or committed Leftists but rather, like the caste of bureaucrats who ran the Soviet Union at the time, technocrats and economists who were after any instrumental value embodied in the Soviet economic/technological model.
To make sense out of the Soviet system, we have to totally abjure the Cold War logic of good/evil and take a sober look at the economic details of different sytems (different worlds?) that had elements of overlap. I'm not calling for some crude 'half-way' between Soviet-style Communism and the US captialism of the 1920s, I'm only pointing out that on the side of technical organizing and producing schemes, there are important lessons to be drawn from the experience of the Soviet economy, particularly for anyone interested in the possibility of an alternative to capitalism.
Whatever else we may say about the Soviet system, the social surplus was not siphoned off by capitalists and reinvested in frivolous consumerist undertakings (e.g. Coke, Pepsi, Hersheys, et al. who spend billions each year in advertising alone) in order to make as much profit as possible. Despite the myriad inefficiencies and misallocations that comprised the Soviet model, the social surplus was invested heavily in social institutions that corresponded to social needs (education, transporation, housing, healthcare, etc.) rather than the imperatives of proit maximization. One thing that frustrates me about US Cities is that all too often, our government allows them to crumble and deteriorate, after which the haphazard opportunism of private developers and gentrification are billed as the only path to economic and structural recovery. In what comprised a nation-wide pattern in the 60s, nearly every single major US city experienced a peripheral suburbanization and "White flight" from urban centers which meant in concrete terms that money, tax revenue, capital investment, and economic activity fled from urban centers to the white-washed, detached, sprawling Suburban dystopias such as Levittown and the like. This also meant that housing stock, roads, municipal institutions, schools, infrastructure, and mass transit declined in major cities while crime and economic hardship rose. The result is that much of the lifeworld in the US underwent a structural transformation that changed the way people get around (i.e. during the same period the personal car was billed as a 'must have' for every American), the way we conceive of public space (if there is any... the closest thing in many locales are shopping malls), the way we interact with other people and view our fellow human beings, the way we consume, even the aesthetic and visual landscape of our surroundings. Is it any surprise that Suburbs are, by electoral standards, bastions of reaction, conservatism and individualistic 'me-first' types shouting at each other from their Suburbans and Tahoes? Is it surprising that there is basically now an entire genre of films dealing with the deadening social landscape of the American suburb and the alienating circumstances they create? The draining of life and particularity out of every corner of the US is a process that is well underway, leaving a suffocating trail of Wal-Marts, McDonalds, Applebees and massive parking lots in their wake.
We can't explain this phenomenon on locale-by-locale basis, nor can we rectify it on such a basis. This is a widespread transformation that has fundamentally altered the social, cultural and political landscape of life in the US. As Mike Davis explained in a different context, one reason that the sort of labor militancy of the 1930s is so unfathomable today is literally physical: the working classes are no longer to be found living in tight-knit urban communities in dense areas where the sort of quick-mobilization and organizing tactics of that era were part of daily life. In other words, there is something thoroughly disempowering about the actual way that suburbs are physically constructed.
Sticking to this theme about seeing these trends as part of larger economic and social forces occurring over long periods of time, this suggests to me that any deep changes will have to have a similar kind of breadth (although this hardly precludes local struggles against gentrification, zoning parks for parking lots, etc.). One thing that hurts city governments all around is that they are at the mercy of state governments for funding, and they face the threat of "White flight" tactics by the rich should they try and raise city-taxes (consider what happened when Chicago tried to institute a living-wage ordinance and Target claimed it would simply move all of its stores a half-mile outside city limits). There has to be a commitment from the Federal Government to support cities and urban development, so that the threatening tactics ("we'll close factories and leave if you don't do what we say") of capitalists and the wealthy lose their sting.
Whew. I guess I've rambled on long enough.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Can a manifesto be written in 45 minutes? If so, this is my Transportation Manifesto.
Miriam's post On Transportation has generated a pretty interesting thread over at Feministing, and made me realize once again how strongly I feel about public transit. I don't want to misrepresent Miriam's reflections on public transit in Washington DC, nor do I want to deny the frustrating nature of her experience with DC. buses. Her post is thoughtful, and it's certainly not pro-car. But I was pretty disappointed in the main thrust of her argument.
To give a reductive summary, Miriam essentially said: "Man, it's tough to be poor, because then you can't afford a car, so you have to take public transportation. And sometimes public transportation really sucks and makes you late for work and makes your already tough life even harder."
Yep. Public transit advocacy foiled again -- on a progressive blog. Instead of uplifting public transit as a sustainable, social and affordable means of getting around, Miriam added her voice to the chorus of millions of car-dependent people who complain about the slow, inconvenient, terrible public transit in their cities.
The funny thing is, many of my fellow Chicagoans feel the same way about our transit system. Although I sing the praises of the Clark bus, taking me through my bustling neighborhood for errands, other people say the Clark bus "makes them suicidal." Although I safely take the Red Line to points far South and far North, many people avoid the Red Line's homeless solicitors and late-night riders. Although I commute car-free to the South Side, north suburbs, and everywhere in between, many people claim they could "never make it" without their car.
So that's the difference between Us and Them? Between the public transit lovers, and the haters? I'm starting to think it's a matter of principle. And some of the principles I hold most dear are below.
1. Basics. I believe that the "one person, one car" model of transportation is bullshit. It's environmentally disastrous, it's antisocial, and it's a waste of resources. We have a massive body of scientific evidence which supports this belief, and our city and state governments need to start responding. So do we.
2. The Rest Of The World. I also believe, and have seen from experience, that the "one person, one car" is a standard to which most of the world does not adhere. More specifically, it is largely an American construct. People all over the world -- in Africa, Asia, Europe -- manage to live happy, productive lives without getting whisked around in an upholstered, air-conditioned bubble which plays the music of their choice. They ride rickshaws and daladalas. They walk places. They take high-speed rail. They wait for the bus. These experiences do not traumatize them.* These experiences do not suck. These experiences do not ruin their day.
3. Road Rage Sucks. I believe that driving a car creates dangerous beliefs and attitudes in drivers: namely, that we are in control, that we have a right to proceed quickly and smoothly, and that other people (especially pedestrians and bikers) are obstacles in our path. These beliefs are symptomatic of a fast-moving, impatient culture in general, but they create a particularly dangerous environment on our roads. I believe that these aggressive attitudes have poisoned some segments of bike culture as well.
4. Patience, Sharing and Community Rock. Conversely, I believe that riding public transit can increase your patience, increase social contact with your community, and build willingness to relinquish some control over your own transportation. Drivers and bikers need to slow down. Transit riders need to take a breath and bring a book. These changes can bring increased tranquility to our daily lives, if we allow that to happen. I know this part sounds really Zen and silly, but I think it's true.
4. This Stuff Matters. I believe your selected mode of transportation says something about your values and priorities. Not only environmentally, but also financially: how do you want to spend your money? What is most important to you? And frankly, being able to get from place to place faster, blasting the environment with carbon each time I start my car, is not important to me. I would rather wait twenty goddamn minutes in the cold for that cursed bus you're complaining about so much.
Giant Caveat: Did I mention I'm privileged to live in a place with access to these options? I know, I know, I know. When you live in suburbia (et al), it's damn hard to think of anything you can do besides drive. I'm mostly talking about my fellow city-dwellers. But I think there are changes that can be made (more carpooling, more biking, more ride-sharing, fewer car trips, more activism in suburban planning) across our country, whether in urban, suburban, or rural communities.
* One commenter on Miriam's thread, a public school teacher, sounded convinced that her students were arriving to school grumpy, tired and anxious because they have to take the bus to school. Dude. In Boston public schools, do you really think these kids don't have bigger problems in their lives than waiting fifteen minutes for a bus? I respectfully refer this person to Item 2.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
On The Street: This Sucks! Edition
Here we begin a series in which we share snapshot moments that matter: the little day-to-day interactions that reveal political, social, and economic forces at work in our communities.
We stood at the Grand Red Line station in downtown Chicago. The paint was peeling, the ceiling was leaking, and the bare bulbs dangled from their chains. They haven't quite gotten around to repairing this station yet. Tonight, there were significant delays, as both Northbound and Southbound trains had to run on the same track.
When our long-awaited Northbound train arrived, and passengers hurried off the train, a sweaty, crazed-looking white man could be seen and heard shouting: "CTA sucks! THEY SUCK!" Presumably he'd been stuck on that train for quite awhile.
Just another frustrated advocate for capital funding for mass transit.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Rewarding citizens for eco-friendly decisions
On my lunch break on Saturday, I chatted with one of my fellow teachers about his new, zippy little car. As it turns out, because his new car is more fuel-efficient than his previous one, he will receive a tax credit around 10% of the car's value. I can't find state-specific information on the credit my friend received, but our government also offers tax credits to folks who purchase gas-electric hybrids and other eco-friendly vehicles.
Today, Sunday, I learned that Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) intends to increase fares in 2009 by more than 20% in some cases. This means that, instead of spending $75 per month for my unlimited monthly pass, I'll have to spend $90. I don't relish the idea of spending more on transportation, and I'm well aware that many Chicago residents can barely afford their present transit costs. Chicago has some of the highest fares in the nation.
(soapbox alert)
So where is the tax credit for public transit riders? Where's the government-sponsored, monetary reward for people who commit to a car-free life?
Car-free residents help ease traffic congestion and pollution. Car-free residents do not contribute to expensive wear and tear on our roads. Car-free residents give their cities freedom to build something besides a new parking garage. (Indeed, car-free residents are the only people who do not bitch about parking.) Car-free residents patronize local businesses within walking distance of their homes. Car-free residents, by riding CTA, help create public-sector jobs with living wages and good benefits.
Thousands of Chicagoans are making these earth-friendly, economical, constructive choices every day. And what do their local, state, and federal governments do? Punish them with higher fares, crumbling infrastructure, and slow service.
Hell, CTA riders don't even want a tax credit! They want stable fares and reliable transportation. And yeah, a little more appreciation and a little less bullshit would be nice.
