In Chicago the whole system was designed for you to pay before you get on. There’s a turnstile to get into the station, and you can only get on the front of the bus and tap before you enter. So fares are actually a large percentage of the budget (I looked it up, it’s about 35% pre-pandemic, post pandemic the numbers got all weird). I have no idea why the system is designed in SF where you can essentially “jump” on for free and never pay.
Speed, space, and cost usually. With busses it is way faster to board if you can just open all the doors at a busy stop and everyone paid on the platform or online. They just get on and sit down and go. The busses in Chicago let you pay by credit card (tap) to get on, which is not particularly common in the US, which helps with this.
It’s also much more expensive and challenging to build a system separated by fare and non fare zone. CTA runs a very old system that was designed ages ago so its pretty easy to keep it that way. Many newly built systems are dealing with expensive right of way acquisition and high construction cost. It’s way easier just to slap a few pay stations around and call it a day. Most people pay to ride voluntarily anyway, and those that can’t afford it weren’t going to pay if there was a fence in the way.
Source: enthusiastic about public transit and city politics, feel free to correct me please
Yes, allegedly $1 billion per year over the next fifteen years plus $500 million for the tolling infrastructure. However, the MTA board could override the governor if they really need the money.
🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
After her “largely debunked” comment, Tai went on to note that the “inflationary dynamics” linked to supply chain challenges were primarily related to Covid and also from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Biden announced on Tuesday increased tariffs on $18 billion in Chinese imports, focusing on steel, aluminum, legacy semiconductors, electric vehicles, battery components, critical minerals, solar cells, cranes and medical products.
A senior administration official tells CNN that the White House believes the new tariffs introduced this week won’t raise prices because they apply to product groups that are symbolic, but represent only a small amount of US imports.
But the Biden administration is also leaving in place Trump’s sweeping tariff program affecting some $300 billion in Chinese imports, which JP Morgan economists in 2019 estimated would cost American households $1,000 each year.
In April 2022, near the height of inflation, a senior aide raised the question at an event hosted by the Bretton Woods Committee of why some tariffs remained in place that could hurt consumers.
David Kelly, chief global strategist at JPMorgan Asset Management, warned that not only do tariffs raise prices, they mess with supply chains and invite retaliation.
🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
This November, I am voting for a decent person I disagree with on policy over a criminal defendant without a moral compass,” Duncan, a CNN contributor, wrote in an opinion piece published in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
While Duncan admitted Biden’s age is a concern for many and his “progressive policies aren’t to conservatives’ liking,” he wrote he was left with no alternative as he argued a second Trump term would hinder the Republican Party from moving forward.
“The GOP will never rebuild until we move on from the Trump era, leaving conservative (but not angry) Republicans like me no choice but to pull the lever for Biden,” Duncan wrote.
Chris Sununu, calling it “disappointing to watch an increasing number of Republicans fall in line behind former president Donald Trump.” “This mentality is dead wrong,” he added.
Duncan also slammed Bill Barr, once an attorney general for the former president who has since emerged as one of Trump’s most prominent critics, for recently saying he would vote for the presumptive Republican nominee over Biden in November.
Barr’s declaration that the Justice Department uncovered no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 election infuriated his boss and set off a chain of events that ended with Jan. 6,” Duncan wrote.
Stroud was raised for the majority of his life by his mother after his father, Coleridge Bernard Stroud III, pleaded guilty in 2015 to charges of carjacking, kidnapping, robbery, evading an officer with reckless driving and misdemeanor sexual battery. As a repeat offender, he was sentenced to 38 years in prison.
Sounds like a real winner.
Also not sure how “the majority of his life” is the ages of 14-19. The dude was born in 2001.
Gentlemen, it is with great pleasure I inform you that I have just been hired onto a new job and it is a 3-day work week. Am much pleased. Believe me, my whole life I’ve been working 5 or 6 day work weeks working my ass off for very little pay, finally I have this reprieve. In these three days I am earning as much as I would normally earn in five or six days. Again I express my gratitude and I hope someday everyone in the world may feel this reprieve.
Man, I’d kill for a 3 day work week. I’m on a 9-80 schedule but also have to go into the office (1hr each way) 2 days a week, so I end up spending around 10 hours per day on avg Mon-Thurs and it’s absolutely miserable.
Even just a 32 hour 4-day work week would be life changing. As is, I feel like I’m just wasting time half the time i spend working because I’m so burnt out that I’m not as productive as I would be otherwise.
Good for you though. Glad to hear some employers are trying out something more conducive to how human beings actually function.
Despite the favorable polling on housing reforms, local political opposition to new housing development in single-family neighborhoods often can remain strong. People tend to be supportive of more housing in general, just as long as it’s not right next to them.
Judge Timothy Gilligan gave her the choice of a 90-day jail sentence or a 30-day sentence on top of 60 days working in a fast food job.
After watching the video of her assault, I think she got it too easy.
If Judge Gilligan believes that the trauma of being assaulted at work by a customer lasts only 90 days, perhaps she should try working in a fast food job, too.
I think the idea here is to force them to develop some sort of empathy for what people who work in fast food have to deal with on a day to day basis and learn from it (which should reduce recidivism) as well as some punishment, hence the 30 day jail sentence and 60 days working in the job (or just 90 days in jail).
I’m personally in favour of this. A jail sentence is purely punishment, whereas this feels like a combination of punishment and rehabilitation which is rare but tends to provide better outcomes (this tends to be contentious so I won’t provide links, but please do look it up if you get the chance).
Yes, I totally agree, but a few months isn’t enough.
I’m of the belief that the consequences of a crime should never be shorter than the effect it had on the victim.
Someone who’s been assaulted at their place of work may develop ongoing trauma beyond a few months. It’s unfair to the victim if they have to suffer longer than the instigator.
I don’t see it as revenge justice, but more like siding with victims.
You can’t “rehabilitate” an abuser by having them work 60 or 90 days as a fast food worker. It could be part of a broader, long-term strategy to turn a horrible person into a normal one, but that doesn’t seem to be what’s happened here.
The problem really isn't the choice to get divorced, it's stuff like child support and alimony crossed with a court system very biased towards giving those to women when they probably shouldn't be
Divorce has or had become a "no fault" leave and make money system. I see literally zero reason to get married the way things are now. All loss and no gain.
I think you might have a fair point. I have a different opinion though.
If men are treated unfairly, although I don't take sides on this exact issue, that's a separate thing that should be fixed. Doesn't mean to abolish no fault divorce. In theory. I don't know enough to decisively argue how practical that theory is.
cnn.com
Top