Our dedicated public servants in the legislature have treated us to yet another series of tax increases and toll hikes in order to save public transit in the Chicago area from falling off the purported “fiscal cliff.” We in the Chicago area will be hit hard enough, but downstaters will once again be forced to content themselves with a few cleanly picked bones tossed in their direction by their overlords in the Northeast corner of the state.
The further extractions from our wallets and disincentives to locate or stay in Illinois are bad enough, but the insults to the intelligence of the taxpayers being used to justify such fiscal chicanery pour salt in our financial wounds. We are told that all the tax hikes and toll increases are necessary to avoid “service cutbacks” on the CTA and commuter rail around Chicago. However, one of the reasons we are told that the CTA and commuter rail are headed to financial ruin is that, according to the Tribune (“Democrats push through massive $1.5B transit plan,” Nov. 3), “ridership numbers that simply haven’t recovered to pre-pandemic levels.” If ridership is down, aren’t service cutbacks justified? If fewer people are riding trains and buses, do we need as many train and bus routes and the hardware and people involved in servicing those routes? How many half-empty busses and train cars do we need in the Chicago area?
And do we still need all the bureaucracy involved in transit? Most people legitimately wonder if such bureaucracy was needed long before ridership fell.
Did anybody think in any more than a perfunctory manner about ways that transit money could be saved before concluding that the answer is, as always, more revenue? Does the concept of cutting costs mean anything to those who run mass transit and the politicians who funnel our money to them?
— Mark M. Quinn, Naperville
We deserve more
So the state of Illinois managed to cobble together a transit package to save all of Chicagoland from the impending “fiscal cliff.” That is good news for the engine that drives the state. But I can’t applaud the effort by our legislators. Cramming a solution through in the wee hours of the morning with no public scrutiny or time to reflect is a poor way to govern. The citizens of our state deserve more. The fall veto session was never intended to address and vote on legislation of this magnitude.
It’s not as if we all didn’t know a fiscal cliff was on the horizon, and yet our governing bodies passed a bill that most of our legislators had no time to read, let alone study the implications of. Certainly, they had no opportunity to see what their respective constituents felt about the proposal. This is no way to govern.
They say laws are like making sausages, it’s best not to see them being made. The result here may be good (only time will tell), but the process left a lot to be desired.
— Dean Gerber, Chicago
E-bike tradeoffs
The editorial “Teens on e-bikes are having accidents in the suburbs. We need real rules” (Sept. 24) correctly identifies the urgent need for statewide regulation following the tragic Mount Prospect fatality. Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias is right that the current hodgepodge of local ordinances is problematic. As a Buffalo Grove resident, I watched our village board grapple with this complexity in October.
But the focus on licensing and speed limits, while necessary, misses a fundamental question: How did devices marketed as “bicycles with a little boost” evolve into 40 mph vehicles functioning as unlicensed motorcycles?
The answer lies in what economists call the Jevons paradox: When you make something more efficient without systemic constraints, consumption increases rather than decreases. E-bikes were supposed to replace cars. Instead, studies show they displace conventional cycling (around 27%) and public transit (around 33%) more than they displace car trips (around 24%). They also displace walking (around 10%), confirming that not all trips are sustainable replacements.
For teenagers, this trade-off is particularly troubling. The Mount Prospect victim’s e-bike likely replaced walking or a regular bike. In removing physical effort from transportation, we’ve eliminated one of the few remaining sources of daily exercise for young people already facing a physical activity crisis. Kids who would have walked or biked are now motorized passengers, sacrificing both safety and health.
The speed escalation wasn’t an accident. It was inevitable. Lower effort attracted more users — kids, in this case — who demanded higher speeds. The original efficiency gain created demand for something entirely different: motorized vehicles blurring the line with motorcycles.
I’ve seen this firsthand with my own kids’ e-scooters. Replacing a single tube costs $80, and I couldn’t find a local bike shop or sporting goods store willing to work on it. This experience highlights the challenges of maintaining these devices. Moreover, we’re now consuming energy to power these e-bikes and scooters, whereas walking and biking require zero energy consumption.
The problem isn’t e-bikes themselves, but the pattern of prioritizing convenience under the guise of sustainability. We’ve traded physical activity and environmental benefits for the sake of ease, without addressing the underlying issues. Efficiency gains without consumption limits don’t reduce impact; they just make us consume faster, move less and risk more.
Statewide rules will prevent future tragedies. But let’s regulate with clear eyes about what we’ve created.
— Nathan Libbey, Buffalo Grove
Teen deserved more
On Halloween night, Chicago lost a remarkable young man — John Thomas, 15.
If you only read the brief reports about his death, you might have missed who he truly was. John was not just a boy shot. He was a bright, kind and deeply compassionate student whose life was filled with promise.
I had the privilege of being John’s teacher. He was valedictorian of his eighth grade class, a leader among his peers and a tireless helper in every service project we organized. He never sought recognition — he simply wanted to make a difference. His mother is a woman of immense strength and grace, who devoted herself to raising a son who would do good in the world.
Yet when John was fatally shot, his story was reduced to a few sentences in the news. That is not enough. The murder of a child should never be treated as routine, and the lives behind these headlines deserve to be honored fully.
When we fail to tell these stories with depth and humanity, we risk becoming numb to the loss of our children. Chicago’s violence epidemic cannot just be measured in numbers — it must be felt in the hearts of those who knew these young people, who loved them and who mourn them.
John’s life mattered. His kindness, his leadership and his generosity mattered. And he deserved far more than a passing mention in a crime report.
— Brianna Bullock, former Chicago Public Schools teacher, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Motormouth
I was disappointed last week in not finding Bob Weber’s weekly Motormouth column. Now I know why I was saddened to learn of Weber’s passing in Bob Goldsborough’s obituary in the Nov. 2 paper (“Longtime ‘Motormouth’ columnist ‘knew his stuff’”). Thanks to Goldsborough for helping us know more about Weber’s life and accomplishments. I only wish that I would have had the opportunity of knowing him personally.
Not only am I a “car guy” but also a Harley rider. Weber was a gifted writer and obviously a person who cared about helping others.
My sympathy to his family and friends.
—Steve Kellough, Wheaton
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.