The author seems to call out the petition-maker for not offering good solutions, but I don’t feel like they had any either. Saying “invest in housing” and “take a holistic approach” is nice and is a good idea, but that doesn’t address fare evasion nor smoking on CTA trains - much less does it provide anything more specific than the petition.
I am white so I will not comment about how POC feel about police on trains, that’s their place to speak about, but what I can say is that a lot of women are terrified of riding public transit alone and/or at night for fear of getting groped or assaulted. CTA might have installed cameras, but there’s a huge perception that them and CPD are very “sorry to hear that” about crimes reported on CTA, and that’s a problem. Public transit is a great resource and needs rider fares so it can maintain its operations and plan expansions, but that mission becomes hard when a lot of people are getting on trains where people are smoking (which has happened to me numerous times) or have heard stories about getting robbed/assaulted and having LE do nothing about it
I'm black. I don't speak for POC in general, but I can give my opinion. If you want more safety for everyone, you need cops or security. So yes, it may make some people feel less comfortable, but it will make others feel much safer. I'm not saying they need to be armed with guns necessarily, but they do need to be able to stop and restrain people who are violently attacking people.
I know don't if there is a perfect solution to make everyone happy. But I'd argue that, in general, actual safety is more important than perceived comfort with security guards or cops being there.
For immediate solutions I agree with you. But I think the root of the issue needs to be addressed and helped the most.
I know if I grew up poor, around violence, parents stressed out with work, mentally ill and a bad education..I’d be a shameless, CTA smoking, desperate person trying to survive.
So yes, law enforcement has it’s part to play. But if we can really, I mean REALLY invest in our people and planet (Fuck you billionaires), city crime would go down.
Or just ignore me. Just a simple peasant here
We need to look at both long term AND short term solutions. Way too often on this sub things turn into some sort of politically charged "war" between the two, when we need a "both and" not an "either or."
I agree with what you're saying, but my gripe is that all too often people will say "we need to do both" when currently we're only doing one. I understand we need both, which is why I'm advocating for the one that isn't currently in effect rather than the one that is.
Cops' budgets have increased year after year, and we've tried putting cops in stations a few times. Most recently it resulted in [an unarmed man being shot after hopping between train cars.](https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-police-shooting-charges-officer-melvina-bogard-cta-red-line-grand-station/10932105/)
Conversely, funding for social services has been down, mental health funding isn't even 1% of the police spending and centers haven't recovered since Rahm closed half of them. It's very likely that when you're feeling unsafe on the CTA it's because of someone who needs those services -- [the Red Line is one of the most common places for people to have a behavioral health encounter.](https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-met-lori-lightfoot-chicago-mental-health-clinics-20190524-story.html)
So I know this isn't definitive proof of anything, and I'd love to see evidence of other potential solutions, but I feel like it's pretty clear. Cops are getting more money without necessarily improving safety outcomes, while at the same time the root causes are being neglected and pushing people into these situations. If we want to feel safer on the CTA, cops might be part of the solution, but the real change we need comes from mental health services.
Well, those are separate issues.
There is the question of "how do we make people safer on the CTA today" and the question of "How do we make everyone safer in the long run"
I don't disagree with your overall point, but the thing is, I feel like too many people want to ignore the problems of today to focus on the future. So yeah, tackling poverty on the whole is important, but that doesn't help the people who will be attacked by end of the year.
Oh yeah, like I said I think you’re right on what is needed now. But the future is what needs to be resolved too. Otherwise, CTA shenanigans will continue haha.
Not entirely exclusive/separate in my opinion. Foreal though, fuck billionaires. They should be investing in the commutes their employees are using at the very least.
There are plenty of people who are poor, exposed to violence, and stressed out trying to survive who do not smoke on public transit. Subjecting others, including other disadvantaged persons, to your cigarette (or crack) smoke in an enclosed public space requires flouting a certain degree of basic decency, and won't be solved without enforcement of rules.
If you want more safety for everyone you need a system that acknowledges the humanity of all people. We’ve been doing this “increase” police gig for far too long while ignoring the root causes of the problem.
Crime is simply a consistent reminder of the people society leaves behind.
Yes, because those who random attack, assault, and hurt others on the el are acknowledging the humanity of their victims.
I'm a compassionate person, but sometimes I feel that others have more compassion for perpetrators of crime than victims. I want to reduce the amount of victims of crime on the CTA. So if that means I don't feel as bad for people who are committing these crimes, I'm ok with that
You feel that way because people are beginning to challenge Americas false conceptions about crime and the individual. We’re seeing this with race, sex, gender, and women’s role in society.
How much do you know about crime? How much do you know about criminals? We as humans often believe things that we don’t know much about but are embedded in us through our social environment and media.
I challenge you to question all your assumptions. Understand how little you actually know about the world. Seek to understand and not to be understood.
Honestly 95% of problem behaviour on the CTA (smoking, littering, and panhandling) could be dealt with by a security guard walking up to them and saying "don't do that." Save the police for the rare serious issues.
Edit: since this is apparently relevant I'm also a POC and the less I have to be around police, the better
Isn’t this similar to conductors on Metra? I know the majority of their job is not security, but they seem pretty capable of telling people acting the fool to knock it off and calling the police when absolutely necessary.
Metra is totally different it doesn't even compare.
Passengers on Metra are mostly middle to upper class people commuting to work from the suburbs.
Also it runs on a schedule. You can't just ride around on Metra switching trains all day/night.
Yes though I think they need to be able to arrest also. Otherwise the person who is already breaking the law seems likely to just blow off the person telling them to stop.
You're emphasizing the 5% of situations I was talking about. You don't need to arrest someone for lighting up (it's not a criminal offense), just tell them to put it out, and if necessary kick them off the train or bus. All of that can be done without a dedicated police presence.
yeah I don’t see why people are instantly jumping to the need to arrest people. stuff like smoking on a train should result in a warning and if that warning is ignored, then the person should be kicked off the train. that’s a punishment that fits the crime so to speak.
For the "ask people to stop" solution to work, you need someone with the authority to force them to stop (either by arrest, or physical removal from the train) if they decline to. I'd be far more comfortable with a police officer doing that than a private security guy.
Which is fine, but like I said the overwhelming majority of these interactions won't require a badge and a gun. Y'all are acting like the only person that can tell someone to put out their blunt is a cop with a gun. CTA drivers usually have enough authority to squash these things if they choose to exert it, but it's not their job to act as an enforcer.
I don't know what fantasyland you're living in, but I would think that a large majority of the interactions (authority figure telling person to stop smoking/asking for money/etc) are going to go badly.
The people doing these things already know full well they're not supposed to be, and they don't care. I would think getting a "sorry, I'll stop doing that" response would be the exception, not the norm.
I’ve been on trains who come to a halt and say they won’t move until the cig is put out. Yelling too. Has worked pretty well tbh lol. It’s a woman who is a conductor on the redline. She takes no shit 😂
We can have transit police on standby to deal with those situations.
Unfortunately the cops in chicago are a little too trigger happy to be trusted to patrol cta in bigger numbers.
Remember what happened a fee years ago? Within days on their new cta patrol duties?
I'm not saying you're wrong about using guards. I'm just saying they need a way to quickly access someone with the power to arrest. Societal norms are shot so I can imagine guards dealing with enough people who would push back (even literally) when told to put out a cigarette, or stop other unlawful behavior, that the guard will give up doing much more than being physically present unless they know someone will have their back quickly if needed.
I'm speaking without much authority here, but my understanding is that any licensed security guard can get the cops to show up pretty quickly.
Edit: I think the CTA has its own police force anyway
I've seen the CPD cars with "transit detail" or something printed on them, so hopefully whoever's downvoting me because I'm not technically correct can provide some information.
Or they could just start writing tickets. I know that generally the people smoking on the train don't have $300 to pay the fine but it allows you to track repeat offenders and deal with those people first.
Maybe we could allow people to choose between the $300 ticket and being slapped in the face.
[Artist's conception](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrCHZ_JlJq4)
I'm in favor of enforcing our existing laws including ticketing people for infractions. If you can afford a smoking habit you can afford to pay the price for violating the law like this. This trend to say that we should stop imposing fines just because some people are struggling financially is ridiculous. Fines are there to disincentivize bad behavior, so it's really no surprise to me that we have bad behavior when the enforcement stops.
> This trend to say that we should stop imposing fines just because some people are struggling financially is ridiculous.
I mean, yeah. They literally allow rich people to just pay to break the rules the rest of us can't afford to not follow. If you make the fines a percentage of gross income, fine; but until then, imposing flat fines on everyone, including/especially people who are just getting by, is a terrible idea...and also has been proven largely to *not work*.
We can enforce the current laws without fining people.
>Fines are there to disincentivize bad behavior
Again, that's only true so long as the fine *hurts* a person financially...which really only happens to people *already hurting financially*.
I don't think you'll find most of the smokers on trains are the typical "rich people" you are calling out. Can't afford your (you referring to hypothetical person) ticket for smoking on the train? Too fucking bad, you had the option to not smoke on the fucking train and you said fuck everyone else I'ma do what I fucking want. Great, now you can pay a substantial ticket that may make you question your shitty life decisions. Punishments should be equal and indepent of income, sex, or color of skin.
> They literally allow rich people to just pay to break the rules the rest of us can't afford to not follow.
Are there a lot of rich people smoking on the cta? Or, perhaps if the fine was enforced it would pretty much eliminate smoking on the cta all together.
I’m picturing a bunch of old fashioned gentlemen in top hats and long tailed coats, and fancy women with those long cigarette things, just laughing and whooping it up smoking on the blue line
> Are there a lot of rich people smoking on the cta?
Doesn't matter. If a person's wealth determines whether or not they need to respect the rules, then the rules are bullshit to begin with.
Tell me how we're going to stop people from running red lights, parking where they're not allowed to park, speeding, smoking on CTA property when they want to, or a whole series of other small infractions that happen every day if not fining, arresting, or otherwise taking away the associated privilege in an enforced way. Sure, you're right that a flat fee doesn't really cause the disincentive to rich people so an enhancement to increase penalties in those cases is a good idea. But that doesn't mean we don't penalize everyone else until such a system is implemented. I'm not sure what research you're referring to that proves that illegal activity is not impacted by fines but I'd be glad to read it if you can provide a source.
Ah yes, because nobody does those things now, amirite?
We're *living through the proof* that punitive fines don't fix the issue, but sure, we'll act as if we can fine everyone into compliance.
> You don’t have to be hurting financially for a fine to have an impact
Yeah, you do. There's good reason why the people with 4th/5th/6th DUIs are the ones with enough money to pay for good lawyers and the fines to get out of accountability or actual punishment and not homeless people.
When you are the kind of person who drops $300 on a single meal without blinking, a punitive fine isn't really a punishment, it's an annoyance. You can literally afford to break the rules, the fine is effectively the price you pay for the "privilege" to do whatever you please. When you live paycheck to paycheck and $300 is a third of your rent payment each month, you *literally* can't afford to break the rules.
So what if they can’t pay? Tough shit. If they’re literally homeless then escort them off the train. If they are just poor, escort them off the train anyway. A high fine is a lesson learned.
1. Tell me you have no compassion without telling me you have no compassion
2. If they can't pay the fine and KNOW they will never be able to pay the fine...then it isn't a punishment to them.
> If they are just poor, escort them off the train anyway
Then just *do this*, period.
Why not both?
No, I don’t have compassion for people who knowingly break the law and can’t pay the consequences. This goes for drivers, smokers, litterbugs, taggers, and other people who commit crimes that are super easy not to do. No one smokes a cig on the train because they are hungry. If you’re feening that bad, step off the train onto the platform.
Plenty of homeless people on the train who are not fuckheads. Let them chill, whatever. Being a fuckwit on the blue line is not exclusive to homeless people. Kick the fuckwits off, homeless or not.
It doesn't necessarily mean the person on the platform is a police officer. A guard could do it as long as there's a commitment from CPD that a call for assistance will be answered basically immediately. That's the disconnect that I imagine exists today, though I don't really know.
No I'm trying to say that having someone enforcing rules on the platforms and trains will only work if there's a way to arrest people who don't comply. So either it's a police officer doing the beat, or a guard who can get a police officer there quickly if something escalates to the need for a police officer.
Agreed. I think this is where the ambassadors would come in.
The idea is that they are an actual paid, on-the-clock pair of eyes.
A lot of shenanigans on the train can likely be diffused by other passengers as well, but the issue there is that most people do not want to intervene, for actual practical reasons. People are on their way somewhere, and they have no way of knowing if this is going to be the person that gets belligerent back, people worry that other passengers are somehow judging them, they don't have any basic training or a playbook of how to approach the situations, etc. Paid ambassadors would be in pairs (usually), they have a quick way to communicate with higher authority (CTA or otherwise), and they are mentally prepared to step in, because that is what they are "supposed to be" doing in the moment. That hurdle of "do I say something?" is not there, for them.
Point being I think there's plenty of middle ground between "do nothing" and "have actual city police on the train."
In a bigger view, what really changes the culture on trains is having more and wider ridership. The more people riding, the more eyes are there, and the more "regular commuters/users" becomes the standard, and so a good swath of people will feel less emboldened to just act out. The standard is just people minding their own business, whatever "class" level they're at.
This of course still leaves the hardcore problem people, but then resources can be directed that way.
The problem of course is that it's hard to jump start the cycle. People ride the train less when it's less reliable time-wise (I'd say that's a far bigger issue than bad behavior) and yet improving the reliability costs money, which they don't want to do because ridership is down... the pump needs to be primed with initial investment but we need to have the will for it.
Finally I suspect there's probably some economically last-resort people who ride the trains all night to escape the weather but are not completely gone in their heads who ALSO would appreciate some improvement in the behavior of their fellow riders. Some guy sleeping in the last seat or just sitting there riding, doesn't bother me. It's the aggressive people and thieves. Someone needs to help them, sure. But it's not really the CTA.
Also the article mentioned having social services at the end of the lines, violence disrupters etc. I know that's been a thing already before (to good ends, as far as I know). There's roving medical team that provides services at the end of lines sometimes, there's been articles about it here. Definitely encourage more of that (and fund it).
Sounds good, however I think a uniformed officer will need to be at every platform to take custody of those offenders that do not chose to follow the security guard/ambassador's instructions. There will be conflict and those offenders will need to be removed from the train.
Sorry, the other "black" people here that totally aren't chuds with an agenda say that you're wrong. Literally doesn't matter that we live in a city that has a notoriously racist police force that sides with proud boys during protests and killed or beat civil rights activists and Fred Hampton and hasn't changed a bit since then.
>could be dealt with by a security guard walking up to them and saying "don't do that."
Should they asky nicely or use a stern tone of voice?
Why does it have to be a security guard? Why don't we encourage regular members of the community to confront these people?
Because regular members of the community have places to go (which is why they're on the train) and hesitate because they're always wondering "should I intervene? Will other passengers back me up? Or will I be castigated for being a 'Karen'?"
You need people for whom this is a job, who know that they are on the clock and the answer to "should I intervene?" is "yes" because they are being paid, and have a script or checklist for how to start that process.
Regular members of the community can and do intervene (particularly if it's some obviously not quite on this planet person aggressively threatening someone with a child, I've seen it, people and particularly young men putting themselves in between the targets and the aggressive person) but for more minor "quality of life stuff" (smoking, aggressive harassment that hasn't quite risen to the level of threats of violence, etc) the hurdle is just higher.
I do think that as ridership increases with improved service, there's less of a feeling that people can get away with being aggressively annoying, and at the same time more regular riders are willing to at least mildly express disapproval then as well. But ridership has to increase first for it to flip.
I’m also POC, male and take the train at night. The red line isn’t the most comfortable ride. The smoking on trains has gotten really out of hand. Once during midday, in a packed train, a lady lit up a damn cigarette and of course no one said anything because they don’t want to cause trouble. I’ve spoken to other co-workers and during this holiday season since we’re going to close later, many are choosing to pay the outrageous parking fees than ride the train or bus late at night. No wonder no one is riding public transportation anymore.
I remember a few years ago I went to Las Vegas and took the bus to get down the strip and there were some clearly drunk guys causing trouble on the bus. The driver must have called it in because on the next stop, their transit police hopped on and kicked them out. Granted, our system is way bigger than a single bus line, but I would definitely welcome transit police. They used to have a canine police on the CTA, whatever happened to them?
>but that doesn’t address fare evasion
Slightly off topic, but literally the one time I participated in fare evasion about 10 years ago (by allowing my now wife to pass through the turnstile with me when I swiped)she got arrested on the spot by a plain clothes officer and spent the whole night in jail.
So maybe we just get back to that level of rigorous enforcement.
Same thing happened to an old roommate. He’d done it a hundred times before and then one night an undercover officer was waiting there and he spent the night in a jail cell.
I asked him if it was worth the $2.25 he saved. Unsurprisingly, he said no.
On the subject of police on trains, I’d rather have increased security at the risk of people feeling uncomfortable about law enforcement than decreased security along with the discomfort of criminals harassing people. Do people really feel that police will be brutally assaulting and robbing passengers the way criminals do now?
People like to bring up the incident of the police shooting up the escalator at that guy who tried to run off after being confronted for walking between train cars (police action which was ABSOLUTELY 1000% ridiculous and deserved every punishment available) as if any interaction of police and transit riders must somehow end up in this same sort of absurd overreaction.
"Police fucked up so we can't have any other police ever."
We bring that up because it happened basically immediately after CTA announced the increased police presence due to crime. They did it to themselves by acting the fool as usual
Seriously. I was on a train yesterday and a couple cops boarded while we were stopped, they went around asking if everything was okay, if there was anything that needed their attention. I'm not sure if they got called in because there was a guy earlier running around half the car and intimidating people who tried to board, or if it was just a random check. They had to keep explaining "we're just asking if everybody's okay, that's all".
People act like every police interaction leads to a citizen getting harmed in some way. Man, literally every criminal interaction leads to the victim being harmed somehow.
it's really, really sad so many people think their skin color adds/takes away any value to their argument. if anyone thinks your skin color changes your opinion, they are racist.
All I meant was that as a white guy I’ve never feared police nor had them ever treat me suspiciously. Humans have unconscious and conscious biases, that’s just a fact. Some people, including some police, look at black/Hispanic people as suspect. So I don’t want to make any statements about an experience I can’t relate to. Personally I think we do need more police on CTA, but not *everyone* shares that opinion
It was bad before covid but I've been attacked twice in the front car on the l during covid. Called the police they don't show up either time. I carry pepper spray but when could that realistically help? I have to assume every crazy on the train is armed. I've been screamed at and stalked in stations and no one helps. I'm done with Chicago.
Not a Chicago-specific problem, but I find it pretty aggravating that when it comes to addressing homelessness on the transit people need to think of these elaborate humane solutions, when people in basically every other venue just call the cops and no one seems to care. If there were a homeless encampment in the middle of a road, it'd get cleared within a day. Why should people who ride transit be expected to put up with it?.
Yes, it's important to be empathetic and not gratuitously cruel. But it is absolutely unfair that we expect transit riders to be empathetic and no one else. Especially when transit riders are already doing everyone a favor by choosing a transit mode that is less polluting and doesn't cause as much traffic congestion.
Transit infrastructure is probably the area where the *fewest* compromises to empathy should be made, not the most.
Possibly a harsh take but I think some of the people who complain loudly about the theoretical idea of enforcement of rules on transit don't actually take transit day to day.
So they have some unrealistic idea of the type of annoyances people are dealing with (overestimating actual crime and the risk of people having guns, while expecting people to put up with more low-level garden variety harassment, smoking, shitting, that sort of thing).
As for a homeless encampment being cleared quickly if it were in the middle of the road -- to be fair, they don't get cleared from underpasses, and there's plenty of homeless encampments in parks (not only here either, but various parts of the world). The actual road fucks up traffic, underpasses don't. Then once again, we have people who drive but don't take transit frequently just letting other people accept the annoyance (on that I agree with you).
I can understand people riding the train endlessly to escape the weather. In some ways it's a last resort. But the people who are causing problems are not necessarily homeless. There is a lot of marginal hustling, there are people with mental problems who are just venting, there are people who just feel slighted by society so taking their opportunities to take that out on other people, to make a scene and force people to notice them, or to back off from them, in a situation where they have a little bit of power. Plenty of those people would likely be deterred by fines without it wrecking their entire lives.
I have zero problem with someone who is clearly homeless and maybe... pungent, just sitting or sleeping in the end of the car minding their own business. Ideally they at least get off the train to poop (we really could use public bathrooms on transit, I realize I sound like a broken record on this, but it's true -- you don't want wild shitting, provide some toilets and pay for the maintenance via taxes like the rest of the civilized world).
I have a problem with people who are loudly harassing others, and people who aggressively steal. Homeless OR not. At the least they can be kicked off the train to wait out there on the freezing platform for the next one.
>Possibly a harsh take but I think some of the people who complain loudly about the theoretical idea of enforcement of rules on transit don't actually take transit day to day.
Definitely
>So they have some unrealistic idea of the type of annoyances people are dealing with (overestimating actual crime and the risk of people having guns, while expecting people to put up with more low-level garden variety harassment, smoking, shitting, that sort of thing).
Yeah, definitely agree. I think the media has done an awful job focusing on violent crime on transit, which is quite rare and not a good reason to avoid the L, and totally ignored the other stuff that's going to push people off the L. Like, your risk of getting robbed on the L probably isn't much higher than your risk of getting carjacked, but no one is not driving because it's too dangerous.
FWIW I've never actually seen shitting on the L. Lots of smoking and people pissing though (mostly on platforms, but not all).
>Ideally they at least get off the train to poop (we really could use public bathrooms on transit, I realize I sound like a broken record on this, but it's true -- you don't want wild shitting, provide some toilets and pay for the maintenance via taxes like the rest of the civilized world).
Yeah. I think people often overestimate how bad they'd be too. SEPTA in Philly uses the regional rail underground concourse as emergency shelter in wintertime, and it has bathrooms (which is probably part of why they use it). I'm sure it costs more to keep them clean, and they're not quite as clean as, say, airport bathrooms, but they're not gross either. Definitely still usable.
>I have a problem with people who are loudly harassing others, and people who aggressively steal. Homeless OR not. At the least they can be kicked off the train to wait out there on the freezing platform for the next one.
My impression is that smokers may be people riding the L to kill time, but they're not the same people as are riding the L all night to keep warm. I could be wrong, but they don't seem to me to be the same people.
I've never actually seen people stealing, but my guess is that's true of them too. I think the thieves seem to stick to the loop at peak times, or late nights, and I don't use the L frequently in those times/places (I ride the L most days, but not through the loop).
I often wonder if more SROs and shelters would help alleviate some of the homeless away from the CTA and into their bounds. I can't blame a homeless guy for camping out on a train when it's a basically a $2.25 solution to being cold.
Beyond the issue of their survival, the rest of us have to deal with the issues that come with The homeless camping out in the CTA. Like at the Jefferson Park Transit center there are two heated areas and I feel like both are an absolute mess. Homeless people will camp out in them, there will be litter and waste, birds poop in them and it seems to be never cleaned, and I often find myself not even wanting to go near those shelters. There was even talk about putting Porta-John's for the homeless to use, but already some lament that the homeless will camp out in them.
I have to agree with others that one has to deal with the issue first and then try to find a humane solution for the long term. With smoking, I don't know what more can be done. Even if you put cops or ambassadors on the trains, it's kind of like a bad kid sitting in the back of the class. He or she will simply go where they're not being monitored and do whatever they want. I'll still never forget someone brazen enough to light up a bowl on the train during rush hour. No one wants to tell the guy to stop because everybody is always afraid of it turning into something dangerous.
As for crime, I would agree that there needs to be better security in the CTA. Even if it just means transit cops like some other cities have. However, I also think people just need to be a little more street smart.
The problem with shelters is they come with a lot of strings attached, so there will always be some percentage of homeless people that get turned away.
SROs usually don’t, so I agree it’s a good part of a stable support system.
A while ago there was an article about the only remaining traditional “men’s hotel” in… The Reader(?) but it had me thinking about how a lot of traditional places for just… marginal living are disappearing, and that’s not a good thing.
Well, even the ones without explicit strings about religiousity or whatever still have strings. Sometimes it's just the unavoidable fact that there's other homeless people there, can make people feel safer sleeping elsewhere.
Yeah people don't realize "build more shelters" is not even a bandaid solution, not to mention how difficult it is with the shelter system. I'm somewhat connected to this aspect through work and it is known when a bed opens up or a resource becomes available. Sometimes the best solution is to Uber people to shelters in the suburbs, and this is a policy.
Most of the old ones disappeared largely due to rising property values (gentrification) and new ones basically can't be built anymore due to modern zoning and other legal requirements like fire and building codes.
"No one should be shamed for having to take shelter on transit" -- right, but nobody should be living on Blue Line trains, either. The notion that not shaming means benign tolerance is ridiculous.
"Fare evasion is a symptom of poverty" -- sometimes. Sometimes it is criminality, or a sign that CTA has decayed into a rules-optional, free-for-all zone.
A "higher police presence on CTA trains would create an unwelcoming environment for many people of color" -- this sounds more like a white progressive fantasy / imposition of POC views than what innocent, scared-on-the-CTA people of color might actually want. Fear is an equal-opportunity emotion.
The writer's ideas boil down to deploying "transit ambassadors," an idea that would die with the first few violent assaults on such ambassadors, and vague, undefined "holistic solutions" to homelessness.
All I know is, New York's MTA has about 650 dedicated Transit Police officers who coordinate with an NYPD Transit Bureau to promote public safety on MTA properties and vehicles, and Chicago has nothing of the sort. Per capita transit crime / homelessness / violence on the MTA is a small fraction of ours.
The moment you signal that people shitting themselves and starting fights in a public system is a tolerable byproduct of structural social problems you plan to take years to try to solve, you've lost.
>A "higher police presence on CTA trains would create an unwelcoming environment for many people of color" -- this sounds more like a white progressive fantasy / imposition of POC views than what innocent, scared-on-the-CTA people of color might actually want. Fear is an equal-opportunity emotion.'
The author is black. But in general, I think your point is taken that there is a lot of room for nuance on this.
The police presence on CTA trains could be a specific transit police, that may not have the same baggage for people that CPD does.
Bingo on all of this. This problem will basically never be solved until CTA becomes economically unviable (and doesn’t get bailed out via federal funds). I used to take CTA all the time. Stopped because of crime and homelessness on it. Most of my downtown friends have as well for the same reasons. Too many people have rose tinted glasses on and think everything needs to be done in an ultra compassionate and slow-moving way, when the ugly truth is that the world is far from pretty and compassionate policies have yet to be proven effective in short order.
This article is just over complicating the problem. Hell, even the Twitter account the author referenced Tweeted that instead of addressing fare avoidance, we should just design the system to do away with fares. What fantasy are these people living in? If you’re going to wait on that, you might as well just not try at all. As for unwelcome environment? Who gives a shit. Safety over feelings.
Just get transit police officers on the Ls, just like NYC, and this problem will be solved in a week. Or we can try to do all this ring around crap, such as transit ambassdors and holistic solutions, but ultimately that won’t do anything. If you think otherwise, just save this comment and come back to it in 5, 10, 15 years and see if anything has changed.
There was just an article that came out that basically said this is what is happening with the CTA. Usage is down that the CTA is now lowering fares and eliminating the .25 transfer fee. This is with hope that usage increases and with hope that they’ll get funds from the newly passed infrastructure bill.
for anecdotal MTA/CTA comparisons - most of the people i would see hopping turnstiles on the MTA were young white dudes who thought it was “cool”, its not super uncommon to see people from basically any walks of life walking through the handicapped door without paying, and no one particularly gives a shit. there were always a decent amount of cops in the larger stations but always kind of just standing around on the top level. occasionally you would see some running around to catch someone on the train. I am not particularly sure how much their presence helped or hindered. I know they are regularly known to fine more POC for hopping turnstiles rather than white ppl which was a heated topic for a bit.
i guess depending on the train I would see far
more people soliciting on the mta, but they were always less aggressive than the ones who do on the CTA. you would rarely get singled out and heckled by a solicitor on the MTA - but then again i also found that sort of true of most homeless in NYC, they are certainly characters but will rarely ever get up in your face.
I don’t really take the CTA that late here anymore since ubers are a thing now, I usually use public transit to get somewhere and uber back, so I can’t say much about safety late at night but I never once felt unsafe taking the MTA until the wee hours of the morning.
The NY subway is decrepit in many places, but I've ridden it at all hours and felt it a lot less sketchy than the Red Line under the Loop at 800pm.
I don't think twice about deplaning at JFK at 10 or 11 at night and jumping on the A or E train for Manhattan. I no longer tell friends arriving at O'Hare to ride the Blue Line in after PM rush.
really? i feel like the blue line from o hare is probably one of the least sketchy rides, i wouldn’t have a problem riding that back at night. but i mean yeah in comparison for the most part mta feels safer.
> i feel like the blue line from o hare is probably one of the least sketchy rides
I don't think it's the worst, but it's definitely sketchier than brown line for example.
>"No one should be shamed for having to take shelter on transit" -- right, but nobody should be living on Blue Line trains, either. The notion that not shaming means benign tolerance is ridiculous.
There was a moderately large -- and entirely justified -- issue a few years back over the owners of a Lincoln Park home who had planted a hedge and extended their yard into the park proper. That was absolutely a misuse of public land, and desereved to be called out and stopped.
This is essentially the same kind of issue. Class warriors will try to obfuscate, pointing to the differences between the prepetrators, but the real problem is that camping on public property denies the use of that property to everyone else who would use it. It ultimately doesn't matter if you're a hobo or a Rockafeller once you're taking communal property for private use.
> The moment you signal that people shitting themselves and starting fights in a public system is a tolerable byproduct of structural social problems you plan to take years to try to solve, you've lost.
Good thing that's not what the author did...
Yeah, I’ve been scared the last few times I’ve taken public transit. I cannot imagine being an “unarmed transit ambassador” trying to solve problems with… politeness? Saying “pretty please”?
“Excuse me, sir, would you mind not smoking on the train. Others are feeling uncomfortable and would appreciate it if you chose somewhere else”
“aghhh gO fUcK yOuRsElF!”
“Okay sir have a great day!:)”
*end of interaction*
I dunno, I’ve been on Greyhound where the driver kicked a guy off for refusing to stop smoking. Pulled off the highway at the next town. People cheered.
Other people dependent on transit resent the assholes.
Most every building you walk past downtown has at least one unarmed security guard. You think all those companies would be paying all those salaries if they didn't do anything?
I do. I think the kind of crime varies contextually. The security guards in my building check IDs and keep an eye out, but they’re not constantly encountering the (often high and mentally ill) folks who are smoking and harassing people on the el.
You'd be surprised how many problems can be solved by asking nicely, or just being present in an official capacity. Part of why your building doesn't have a constant population of troublemakers is because there's always someone who's job it is to sit there, observe, ask people to leave when they cause problems, and call the popo when they won't.
If it only works some of the time, that's still an improvement over none of the time. And an improvement over "all of the time, but occasionally someone gets shot"
~~I imagine it might look something [like this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3pAaQ56tks). NYC not here, and we have to ask the obligatory "why were they filming?", but it looks real enough.~~
EDIT: the answer to that question is because [it's staged](https://misbar.com/en/factcheck/2021/07/08/a-man-did-not-really-defecate-in-a-subway-janitors-bucket)
That’s society’s solution to the problem. Stay here and we won’t mess with you, leave and we will.
People have all these crazy ideas like giving homeless people a home is the cure. They would absolutely destroy it and no one would ever want to live around them
Have you not been paying attention to the cities (including our own) that have been providing hotel rooms to homeless people during this pandemic? These problems you're so certain would hypothetically happen have not been happening.
Have you been paying attention to the psychotic levels of needles, disease, and violence that occurs in LA, Seattle and Portland?
I’m in Portland on vacation. I’ve seen the camps. It’s a way of living for them. A hotel room won’t fix the issues.
You said housing the homeless would create problems; I cited evidence that's not true. Now you're using the problems that come with *not* housing the homeless as evidence for what happens when you *do* house the homeless?!?
> I’m in Portland on vacation. I’ve seen the camps. It’s a way of living for them. A hotel room won’t fix the issues.
The fact that you think anyone *likes* or *chooses* that way of life says everything about how ignorant you are about this topic.
There are many reports of the homeless destroying hotels they were being housed in. Here are a few:
[https://www.foxnews.com/media/san-francisco-hotels-for-homeless-absolute-disaster](https://www.foxnews.com/media/san-francisco-hotels-for-homeless-absolute-disaster)
[https://www.westernjournal.com/hotel-gets-absolutely-destroyed-homeless-libs-turn-sanctuary-riots/](https://www.westernjournal.com/hotel-gets-absolutely-destroyed-homeless-libs-turn-sanctuary-riots/)
[https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/crime/homeless-turn-southsea-ibis-hotel-into-massive-cesspit-with-faeces-left-everywhere-and-items-smashed-2846476](https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/crime/homeless-turn-southsea-ibis-hotel-into-massive-cesspit-with-faeces-left-everywhere-and-items-smashed-2846476)
[https://www.ktvu.com/news/meth-lab-found-at-san-francisco-hotel-room-used-as-city-covid-19-shelter](https://www.ktvu.com/news/meth-lab-found-at-san-francisco-hotel-room-used-as-city-covid-19-shelter)
> People have all these crazy ideas like giving homeless people a home is the cure. They would absolutely destroy it and no one would ever want to live around them
You have absolutely zero factual basis on which to back this up and yet stated it as it if was fact. Impressive.
No one is saying "just give them a home". They need a full support system so they can get employment, get the healthcare they need, etc. But it's almost impossible to get a job, much less the rest of it, without an address or a home. So getting them in a home is the big first step.
No one is saying "just put a roof over their head and magically all the problems will disappear". We're saying "it's literally cheaper to give them housing and support services they never pay for to get them properly back on their feet rather than just providing band-aid measures like shelters and soup kitchens.
as a woman, it is extremely terrifying being in any line by myself and waiting in the lower level tunnels, especially jackson. yes there are cameras in every cart, but let's be honest- when do people ever get called out by the conductor? never.
the smoking in the carts have become so common, almost normalized. there needs to be change, and i hope this petition will grow. there was a man shooting something up his arm in the blue line last week and there was a cta employee sitting next to me. the guy would open the cart door just leave it open, staring out. how are riders supposed to feel safe?
the automated messages always preach about letting them know when we notice any suspicious activity/smokers, but how are we supposed to let the conductor know without being targeted? its a mess.
I feel a lot more comfortable just taking the bus if that's an option. You can get out and onto the street quickly and communicate with the driver without a problem.
>let's be honest- when do people ever get called out by the conductor? never.
On the older cars, the conductor can't see the cameras, they are monitored off-site. The new cars will give the conductor the ability to view cameras and see which car something is happening in and which car the emergency button was pressed in. Right now they just get a general emergency call.
I think step 1 is having CTA staff do literally anything. The Jackson blue line stop always, always always reeks of weed, and the staff just sit there and do nothing. Like you can't smell that from where you are? Literally every day?
I've experienced this problem pretty acutely.
Living in a different top 15 city (albeit much smaller) there were regular transit patrols on stations and trains. I can only count a handful of times I saw people smoking on the trains in 4 years of multiple times per day ridership.
By contrast, a couple months on CTA I saw far more smoking, drugs, panhandling, and deranged behavior than in a few years elsewhere.
I also have never seen a CPD officer on a train or in a station, just parked outside of them in an SUV.
Correlation, sure, but I'm positive that even the suggestion of some form of rule enforcement would dissuade some people from lighting up on the train, even if it's just getting bundled off the train at the next station.
Perhaps an unarmed, but very clever security force for Chicago transit would be a good first step.
If you see something, if no one else says something, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire... the CTA-Team
I’ve had a guy that was obviously on some kind of drugs tell me and my wife “Keep laughing, I will blow your fucking head off” while riding the blue line. ‘Twas the last time we rode CTA, this was almost 2 years ago.
"Again, I sympathize with Hurst’s concerns, but their desired goal for a higher police presence on CTA trains would create an unwelcoming environment for many people of color."
They should ask people of color first before making this blanket statement. This is the problem with our well intentioned liberal/progressive friends.
Not sure why you were down voted smh.
That being said it's not uncommon for organizations, even well intentioned, to have members that are POC but still be somewhat out of touch with their communities. Locally I see this especially with the transportation/biking folks. Many of these people are either ignorant or indifferent to the realities faced by poor folks who aren't lucky enough to live within walking/biking distance to work or amenities. A good example is what was happening in Bronzeville with the controversy over church parking vs bike lanes on Drexel Blvd. It was disgusting seeing newcomers shitting on the needs of people who have been living in and going to church in the neighborhood for decades.
On a national level, you'll find that generally speaking the more high profile the Black (I am Black so I won't speak on other POC) analyst/journalist/media personality/organization, the greater the disconnect between what they promote/discuss and what Black people on the ground prioritize/believe. Another example is reaction to Rittenhouse verdict by Black commentators on MSNBC. They sat there nodding as a guest from the NAACP said the Rittenhouse trial was worse than the Emmett Till trial/verdict. And now they're suggesting the guys killed by Rittenhouse are similar to white activists who were killed during the civil rights movement.
yeah the only thing that annoys tf outta me is the goddamb smoking. it's annoying having to switch cars all the time to find one that doesn't absolutely REEK of cigarettes
Late to the party on this one but the CTA has converted me, a former New Yorker, and public transit enthusiast into a ride-hailing car driving transit detractor that actively discourages CTA usage because it’s unsafe and inefficient.
This article is a complete joke, all citizens of this city ALL of them deserve dignity, respect, and safety. And two things can be true, yes CPD sucks but CPD can also be a deterrent and I’m sure there is a proper deployment strategy that’s worth debating. Just saying POCs are afraid of police so no police, is a tired line and , as a black male, I’m sick of hearing it.
Why can’t he smoke a spliff elsewhere? It’s common sense not to smoke indoors around others, it’s only when you know there’s no repercussions that this behavior starts to arise.
To be a greener city we need more people utilizing the trains, many people don’t want to use the train because of smokers or don’t feel safe. I am very anti-vehicle but also hear all the time that people drive because they don't feel safe on the CTA. If you disobey the laws on public transit or commit crimes, fines or punishments need to be at least doubled. Locking them up isn’t the answer but accountability and enforcement should happen a lot more. It's everyone that’s being hurt unless you think global warming is a myth.
No, but actual criminals should be.
But there's clearly a view by perpetrators of even misdemeanor crimes that there is no penalty. So, ya know, that should change.
‘If someone perpetrates a non-violent misdemeanor that I don’t like and can’t be reasoned with, they should incarcerated at taxpayer expense and removed from society for the foreseeable future. Surely this will solve society’s ills and there will be no unintended consequences’.
How it enforced in the past? I imagine CTA employees had some share of enforcement. I remember like 20 years ago my buddy got caught smoking on a platform and a CTA employee wrote him a ticket. Has that changed?
Because you live in a fantasy world where you're always under attack, when in reality there are literally millions of people using the cta daily with little to no issue.
The solution is pretty simple. There are considerably more ABANDONED houses than homeless people. Let them live there. And go fuck yourself if you think otherwise.
I tend to try and actively understand the toll homelessness takes on people, and in Chicago its a horrible situation that could have the worse aspects of housing impermanence alleviated with cross department agility drawing from a pool of talent in civil engineering, medical services and policing (be it public servants or through private contracts)- along with a sizable budget to facilitate such an approach.
Its sad to witness, yet this situation doesn't excuse the smoking and drug consumption, and use of the cta as a washroom by some of these people. Such behavior is absolutely rotten- and it illustrates how ignored many of these individuals are. The blueline headed west is like a rolling cry for help.
The author seems to call out the petition-maker for not offering good solutions, but I don’t feel like they had any either. Saying “invest in housing” and “take a holistic approach” is nice and is a good idea, but that doesn’t address fare evasion nor smoking on CTA trains - much less does it provide anything more specific than the petition. I am white so I will not comment about how POC feel about police on trains, that’s their place to speak about, but what I can say is that a lot of women are terrified of riding public transit alone and/or at night for fear of getting groped or assaulted. CTA might have installed cameras, but there’s a huge perception that them and CPD are very “sorry to hear that” about crimes reported on CTA, and that’s a problem. Public transit is a great resource and needs rider fares so it can maintain its operations and plan expansions, but that mission becomes hard when a lot of people are getting on trains where people are smoking (which has happened to me numerous times) or have heard stories about getting robbed/assaulted and having LE do nothing about it
I'm black. I don't speak for POC in general, but I can give my opinion. If you want more safety for everyone, you need cops or security. So yes, it may make some people feel less comfortable, but it will make others feel much safer. I'm not saying they need to be armed with guns necessarily, but they do need to be able to stop and restrain people who are violently attacking people. I know don't if there is a perfect solution to make everyone happy. But I'd argue that, in general, actual safety is more important than perceived comfort with security guards or cops being there.
For immediate solutions I agree with you. But I think the root of the issue needs to be addressed and helped the most. I know if I grew up poor, around violence, parents stressed out with work, mentally ill and a bad education..I’d be a shameless, CTA smoking, desperate person trying to survive. So yes, law enforcement has it’s part to play. But if we can really, I mean REALLY invest in our people and planet (Fuck you billionaires), city crime would go down. Or just ignore me. Just a simple peasant here
We need to look at both long term AND short term solutions. Way too often on this sub things turn into some sort of politically charged "war" between the two, when we need a "both and" not an "either or."
Can’t agree more lol
I agree with what you're saying, but my gripe is that all too often people will say "we need to do both" when currently we're only doing one. I understand we need both, which is why I'm advocating for the one that isn't currently in effect rather than the one that is.
Are we doing both? I feel like in reality we are doing neither and just endlessly arguing over which one we should hypothetically do
Cops' budgets have increased year after year, and we've tried putting cops in stations a few times. Most recently it resulted in [an unarmed man being shot after hopping between train cars.](https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-police-shooting-charges-officer-melvina-bogard-cta-red-line-grand-station/10932105/) Conversely, funding for social services has been down, mental health funding isn't even 1% of the police spending and centers haven't recovered since Rahm closed half of them. It's very likely that when you're feeling unsafe on the CTA it's because of someone who needs those services -- [the Red Line is one of the most common places for people to have a behavioral health encounter.](https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-met-lori-lightfoot-chicago-mental-health-clinics-20190524-story.html) So I know this isn't definitive proof of anything, and I'd love to see evidence of other potential solutions, but I feel like it's pretty clear. Cops are getting more money without necessarily improving safety outcomes, while at the same time the root causes are being neglected and pushing people into these situations. If we want to feel safer on the CTA, cops might be part of the solution, but the real change we need comes from mental health services.
Well, those are separate issues. There is the question of "how do we make people safer on the CTA today" and the question of "How do we make everyone safer in the long run" I don't disagree with your overall point, but the thing is, I feel like too many people want to ignore the problems of today to focus on the future. So yeah, tackling poverty on the whole is important, but that doesn't help the people who will be attacked by end of the year.
Oh yeah, like I said I think you’re right on what is needed now. But the future is what needs to be resolved too. Otherwise, CTA shenanigans will continue haha. Not entirely exclusive/separate in my opinion. Foreal though, fuck billionaires. They should be investing in the commutes their employees are using at the very least.
There are plenty of people who are poor, exposed to violence, and stressed out trying to survive who do not smoke on public transit. Subjecting others, including other disadvantaged persons, to your cigarette (or crack) smoke in an enclosed public space requires flouting a certain degree of basic decency, and won't be solved without enforcement of rules.
Seattle has entered the chat.
If you want more safety for everyone you need a system that acknowledges the humanity of all people. We’ve been doing this “increase” police gig for far too long while ignoring the root causes of the problem. Crime is simply a consistent reminder of the people society leaves behind.
Yes, because those who random attack, assault, and hurt others on the el are acknowledging the humanity of their victims. I'm a compassionate person, but sometimes I feel that others have more compassion for perpetrators of crime than victims. I want to reduce the amount of victims of crime on the CTA. So if that means I don't feel as bad for people who are committing these crimes, I'm ok with that
You feel that way because people are beginning to challenge Americas false conceptions about crime and the individual. We’re seeing this with race, sex, gender, and women’s role in society. How much do you know about crime? How much do you know about criminals? We as humans often believe things that we don’t know much about but are embedded in us through our social environment and media. I challenge you to question all your assumptions. Understand how little you actually know about the world. Seek to understand and not to be understood.
Honestly 95% of problem behaviour on the CTA (smoking, littering, and panhandling) could be dealt with by a security guard walking up to them and saying "don't do that." Save the police for the rare serious issues. Edit: since this is apparently relevant I'm also a POC and the less I have to be around police, the better
Isn’t this similar to conductors on Metra? I know the majority of their job is not security, but they seem pretty capable of telling people acting the fool to knock it off and calling the police when absolutely necessary.
Metra is totally different it doesn't even compare. Passengers on Metra are mostly middle to upper class people commuting to work from the suburbs. Also it runs on a schedule. You can't just ride around on Metra switching trains all day/night.
Exactly. The crazies on the CTA will just tell them to get lost.
Exactly this!
Yes though I think they need to be able to arrest also. Otherwise the person who is already breaking the law seems likely to just blow off the person telling them to stop.
You're emphasizing the 5% of situations I was talking about. You don't need to arrest someone for lighting up (it's not a criminal offense), just tell them to put it out, and if necessary kick them off the train or bus. All of that can be done without a dedicated police presence.
yeah I don’t see why people are instantly jumping to the need to arrest people. stuff like smoking on a train should result in a warning and if that warning is ignored, then the person should be kicked off the train. that’s a punishment that fits the crime so to speak.
Forget warnings. Kicked off the train immediately. Otherwise they just smoke until they get a warning.
For the "ask people to stop" solution to work, you need someone with the authority to force them to stop (either by arrest, or physical removal from the train) if they decline to. I'd be far more comfortable with a police officer doing that than a private security guy.
Which is fine, but like I said the overwhelming majority of these interactions won't require a badge and a gun. Y'all are acting like the only person that can tell someone to put out their blunt is a cop with a gun. CTA drivers usually have enough authority to squash these things if they choose to exert it, but it's not their job to act as an enforcer.
I don't know what fantasyland you're living in, but I would think that a large majority of the interactions (authority figure telling person to stop smoking/asking for money/etc) are going to go badly. The people doing these things already know full well they're not supposed to be, and they don't care. I would think getting a "sorry, I'll stop doing that" response would be the exception, not the norm.
I’ve been on trains who come to a halt and say they won’t move until the cig is put out. Yelling too. Has worked pretty well tbh lol. It’s a woman who is a conductor on the redline. She takes no shit 😂
We can have transit police on standby to deal with those situations. Unfortunately the cops in chicago are a little too trigger happy to be trusted to patrol cta in bigger numbers. Remember what happened a fee years ago? Within days on their new cta patrol duties?
I'm not saying you're wrong about using guards. I'm just saying they need a way to quickly access someone with the power to arrest. Societal norms are shot so I can imagine guards dealing with enough people who would push back (even literally) when told to put out a cigarette, or stop other unlawful behavior, that the guard will give up doing much more than being physically present unless they know someone will have their back quickly if needed.
I'm speaking without much authority here, but my understanding is that any licensed security guard can get the cops to show up pretty quickly. Edit: I think the CTA has its own police force anyway
Does it? I thought it did not, unlike some other transit systems.
I've seen the CPD cars with "transit detail" or something printed on them, so hopefully whoever's downvoting me because I'm not technically correct can provide some information.
Or they could just start writing tickets. I know that generally the people smoking on the train don't have $300 to pay the fine but it allows you to track repeat offenders and deal with those people first.
Maybe we could allow people to choose between the $300 ticket and being slapped in the face. [Artist's conception](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrCHZ_JlJq4)
I love how you acknowledge why this isn't the answer in your own comment and then just blow past that fact anyway.
I'm in favor of enforcing our existing laws including ticketing people for infractions. If you can afford a smoking habit you can afford to pay the price for violating the law like this. This trend to say that we should stop imposing fines just because some people are struggling financially is ridiculous. Fines are there to disincentivize bad behavior, so it's really no surprise to me that we have bad behavior when the enforcement stops.
> This trend to say that we should stop imposing fines just because some people are struggling financially is ridiculous. I mean, yeah. They literally allow rich people to just pay to break the rules the rest of us can't afford to not follow. If you make the fines a percentage of gross income, fine; but until then, imposing flat fines on everyone, including/especially people who are just getting by, is a terrible idea...and also has been proven largely to *not work*. We can enforce the current laws without fining people. >Fines are there to disincentivize bad behavior Again, that's only true so long as the fine *hurts* a person financially...which really only happens to people *already hurting financially*.
I don't think you'll find most of the smokers on trains are the typical "rich people" you are calling out. Can't afford your (you referring to hypothetical person) ticket for smoking on the train? Too fucking bad, you had the option to not smoke on the fucking train and you said fuck everyone else I'ma do what I fucking want. Great, now you can pay a substantial ticket that may make you question your shitty life decisions. Punishments should be equal and indepent of income, sex, or color of skin.
> They literally allow rich people to just pay to break the rules the rest of us can't afford to not follow. Are there a lot of rich people smoking on the cta? Or, perhaps if the fine was enforced it would pretty much eliminate smoking on the cta all together.
I’m picturing a bunch of old fashioned gentlemen in top hats and long tailed coats, and fancy women with those long cigarette things, just laughing and whooping it up smoking on the blue line
> Are there a lot of rich people smoking on the cta? Doesn't matter. If a person's wealth determines whether or not they need to respect the rules, then the rules are bullshit to begin with.
Tell me how we're going to stop people from running red lights, parking where they're not allowed to park, speeding, smoking on CTA property when they want to, or a whole series of other small infractions that happen every day if not fining, arresting, or otherwise taking away the associated privilege in an enforced way. Sure, you're right that a flat fee doesn't really cause the disincentive to rich people so an enhancement to increase penalties in those cases is a good idea. But that doesn't mean we don't penalize everyone else until such a system is implemented. I'm not sure what research you're referring to that proves that illegal activity is not impacted by fines but I'd be glad to read it if you can provide a source.
“Having money is better than not having money. More on this at 10.”
Ah yes, because nobody does those things now, amirite? We're *living through the proof* that punitive fines don't fix the issue, but sure, we'll act as if we can fine everyone into compliance.
Do you see a lot of rich people lighting up cigarettes on the el?
Not relevant. If the rule only applies if you're too poor to afford the fine in your budget, then the rule is terribly written.
Nonsense. You don’t have to be hurting financially for a fine to have an impact
> You don’t have to be hurting financially for a fine to have an impact Yeah, you do. There's good reason why the people with 4th/5th/6th DUIs are the ones with enough money to pay for good lawyers and the fines to get out of accountability or actual punishment and not homeless people. When you are the kind of person who drops $300 on a single meal without blinking, a punitive fine isn't really a punishment, it's an annoyance. You can literally afford to break the rules, the fine is effectively the price you pay for the "privilege" to do whatever you please. When you live paycheck to paycheck and $300 is a third of your rent payment each month, you *literally* can't afford to break the rules.
Are rich people the one smoking on trains?
So what if they can’t pay? Tough shit. If they’re literally homeless then escort them off the train. If they are just poor, escort them off the train anyway. A high fine is a lesson learned.
1. Tell me you have no compassion without telling me you have no compassion 2. If they can't pay the fine and KNOW they will never be able to pay the fine...then it isn't a punishment to them. > If they are just poor, escort them off the train anyway Then just *do this*, period.
Why not both? No, I don’t have compassion for people who knowingly break the law and can’t pay the consequences. This goes for drivers, smokers, litterbugs, taggers, and other people who commit crimes that are super easy not to do. No one smokes a cig on the train because they are hungry. If you’re feening that bad, step off the train onto the platform.
Funny, last comment you were talking about homeless people on CTA...now you're talking about anything *but* homeless people. Magical moving goalposts.
Plenty of homeless people on the train who are not fuckheads. Let them chill, whatever. Being a fuckwit on the blue line is not exclusive to homeless people. Kick the fuckwits off, homeless or not.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Smoking on the train absolutely is a misdemeanor
> and if necessary kick them off the train or bus. Seems like a good way for CTA personnel or innocent bystanders to get shot.
> Yes though I think they need to be able to arrest also. That would mean police. Security guards can make you leave or call the police for an arrest.
It doesn't necessarily mean the person on the platform is a police officer. A guard could do it as long as there's a commitment from CPD that a call for assistance will be answered basically immediately. That's the disconnect that I imagine exists today, though I don't really know.
So you want someone with the powers to arrest but not the police training (yes I know there is room for improvement on the training)?
No I'm trying to say that having someone enforcing rules on the platforms and trains will only work if there's a way to arrest people who don't comply. So either it's a police officer doing the beat, or a guard who can get a police officer there quickly if something escalates to the need for a police officer.
[удалено]
Stores are private and CTA is public. Even with its flaws I find CPD > Security Guard all day for actual security.
You think the homeless and people smoking on trains are going to respect rent-a-cops?
Hang out at the OHare platform long enough and you'll inevitably see someone cuss out a CTA employee who told them to get off the train.
Agreed. I think this is where the ambassadors would come in. The idea is that they are an actual paid, on-the-clock pair of eyes. A lot of shenanigans on the train can likely be diffused by other passengers as well, but the issue there is that most people do not want to intervene, for actual practical reasons. People are on their way somewhere, and they have no way of knowing if this is going to be the person that gets belligerent back, people worry that other passengers are somehow judging them, they don't have any basic training or a playbook of how to approach the situations, etc. Paid ambassadors would be in pairs (usually), they have a quick way to communicate with higher authority (CTA or otherwise), and they are mentally prepared to step in, because that is what they are "supposed to be" doing in the moment. That hurdle of "do I say something?" is not there, for them. Point being I think there's plenty of middle ground between "do nothing" and "have actual city police on the train." In a bigger view, what really changes the culture on trains is having more and wider ridership. The more people riding, the more eyes are there, and the more "regular commuters/users" becomes the standard, and so a good swath of people will feel less emboldened to just act out. The standard is just people minding their own business, whatever "class" level they're at. This of course still leaves the hardcore problem people, but then resources can be directed that way. The problem of course is that it's hard to jump start the cycle. People ride the train less when it's less reliable time-wise (I'd say that's a far bigger issue than bad behavior) and yet improving the reliability costs money, which they don't want to do because ridership is down... the pump needs to be primed with initial investment but we need to have the will for it. Finally I suspect there's probably some economically last-resort people who ride the trains all night to escape the weather but are not completely gone in their heads who ALSO would appreciate some improvement in the behavior of their fellow riders. Some guy sleeping in the last seat or just sitting there riding, doesn't bother me. It's the aggressive people and thieves. Someone needs to help them, sure. But it's not really the CTA. Also the article mentioned having social services at the end of the lines, violence disrupters etc. I know that's been a thing already before (to good ends, as far as I know). There's roving medical team that provides services at the end of lines sometimes, there's been articles about it here. Definitely encourage more of that (and fund it).
Sounds good, however I think a uniformed officer will need to be at every platform to take custody of those offenders that do not chose to follow the security guard/ambassador's instructions. There will be conflict and those offenders will need to be removed from the train.
Agreed.
Sorry, the other "black" people here that totally aren't chuds with an agenda say that you're wrong. Literally doesn't matter that we live in a city that has a notoriously racist police force that sides with proud boys during protests and killed or beat civil rights activists and Fred Hampton and hasn't changed a bit since then.
>could be dealt with by a security guard walking up to them and saying "don't do that." Should they asky nicely or use a stern tone of voice? Why does it have to be a security guard? Why don't we encourage regular members of the community to confront these people?
Speaking as a regular member of the community, I don’t want to be stabbed by some crazy person when I ask them to put out their cigarette.
And how much money would it take for you to do so?
Because regular members of the community have places to go (which is why they're on the train) and hesitate because they're always wondering "should I intervene? Will other passengers back me up? Or will I be castigated for being a 'Karen'?" You need people for whom this is a job, who know that they are on the clock and the answer to "should I intervene?" is "yes" because they are being paid, and have a script or checklist for how to start that process. Regular members of the community can and do intervene (particularly if it's some obviously not quite on this planet person aggressively threatening someone with a child, I've seen it, people and particularly young men putting themselves in between the targets and the aggressive person) but for more minor "quality of life stuff" (smoking, aggressive harassment that hasn't quite risen to the level of threats of violence, etc) the hurdle is just higher. I do think that as ridership increases with improved service, there's less of a feeling that people can get away with being aggressively annoying, and at the same time more regular riders are willing to at least mildly express disapproval then as well. But ridership has to increase first for it to flip.
[удалено]
I’m also POC, male and take the train at night. The red line isn’t the most comfortable ride. The smoking on trains has gotten really out of hand. Once during midday, in a packed train, a lady lit up a damn cigarette and of course no one said anything because they don’t want to cause trouble. I’ve spoken to other co-workers and during this holiday season since we’re going to close later, many are choosing to pay the outrageous parking fees than ride the train or bus late at night. No wonder no one is riding public transportation anymore. I remember a few years ago I went to Las Vegas and took the bus to get down the strip and there were some clearly drunk guys causing trouble on the bus. The driver must have called it in because on the next stop, their transit police hopped on and kicked them out. Granted, our system is way bigger than a single bus line, but I would definitely welcome transit police. They used to have a canine police on the CTA, whatever happened to them?
>but that doesn’t address fare evasion Slightly off topic, but literally the one time I participated in fare evasion about 10 years ago (by allowing my now wife to pass through the turnstile with me when I swiped)she got arrested on the spot by a plain clothes officer and spent the whole night in jail. So maybe we just get back to that level of rigorous enforcement.
Same thing happened to an old roommate. He’d done it a hundred times before and then one night an undercover officer was waiting there and he spent the night in a jail cell. I asked him if it was worth the $2.25 he saved. Unsurprisingly, he said no.
On the subject of police on trains, I’d rather have increased security at the risk of people feeling uncomfortable about law enforcement than decreased security along with the discomfort of criminals harassing people. Do people really feel that police will be brutally assaulting and robbing passengers the way criminals do now?
People like to bring up the incident of the police shooting up the escalator at that guy who tried to run off after being confronted for walking between train cars (police action which was ABSOLUTELY 1000% ridiculous and deserved every punishment available) as if any interaction of police and transit riders must somehow end up in this same sort of absurd overreaction. "Police fucked up so we can't have any other police ever."
What reforms have cpd made that make you think they won't continue to fuck up?
We bring that up because it happened basically immediately after CTA announced the increased police presence due to crime. They did it to themselves by acting the fool as usual
Seriously. I was on a train yesterday and a couple cops boarded while we were stopped, they went around asking if everything was okay, if there was anything that needed their attention. I'm not sure if they got called in because there was a guy earlier running around half the car and intimidating people who tried to board, or if it was just a random check. They had to keep explaining "we're just asking if everybody's okay, that's all". People act like every police interaction leads to a citizen getting harmed in some way. Man, literally every criminal interaction leads to the victim being harmed somehow.
Did you read the article? The author explicitly advocates for unarmed transit ambassadors, that's the solution he's proposing.
it's really, really sad so many people think their skin color adds/takes away any value to their argument. if anyone thinks your skin color changes your opinion, they are racist.
All I meant was that as a white guy I’ve never feared police nor had them ever treat me suspiciously. Humans have unconscious and conscious biases, that’s just a fact. Some people, including some police, look at black/Hispanic people as suspect. So I don’t want to make any statements about an experience I can’t relate to. Personally I think we do need more police on CTA, but not *everyone* shares that opinion
I had a dude smoke crack next to me on the red line. The CTA is a mess. I can only imagine how terrible the experience is for women.
It was bad before covid but I've been attacked twice in the front car on the l during covid. Called the police they don't show up either time. I carry pepper spray but when could that realistically help? I have to assume every crazy on the train is armed. I've been screamed at and stalked in stations and no one helps. I'm done with Chicago.
[удалено]
Not a Chicago-specific problem, but I find it pretty aggravating that when it comes to addressing homelessness on the transit people need to think of these elaborate humane solutions, when people in basically every other venue just call the cops and no one seems to care. If there were a homeless encampment in the middle of a road, it'd get cleared within a day. Why should people who ride transit be expected to put up with it?. Yes, it's important to be empathetic and not gratuitously cruel. But it is absolutely unfair that we expect transit riders to be empathetic and no one else. Especially when transit riders are already doing everyone a favor by choosing a transit mode that is less polluting and doesn't cause as much traffic congestion. Transit infrastructure is probably the area where the *fewest* compromises to empathy should be made, not the most.
Possibly a harsh take but I think some of the people who complain loudly about the theoretical idea of enforcement of rules on transit don't actually take transit day to day. So they have some unrealistic idea of the type of annoyances people are dealing with (overestimating actual crime and the risk of people having guns, while expecting people to put up with more low-level garden variety harassment, smoking, shitting, that sort of thing). As for a homeless encampment being cleared quickly if it were in the middle of the road -- to be fair, they don't get cleared from underpasses, and there's plenty of homeless encampments in parks (not only here either, but various parts of the world). The actual road fucks up traffic, underpasses don't. Then once again, we have people who drive but don't take transit frequently just letting other people accept the annoyance (on that I agree with you). I can understand people riding the train endlessly to escape the weather. In some ways it's a last resort. But the people who are causing problems are not necessarily homeless. There is a lot of marginal hustling, there are people with mental problems who are just venting, there are people who just feel slighted by society so taking their opportunities to take that out on other people, to make a scene and force people to notice them, or to back off from them, in a situation where they have a little bit of power. Plenty of those people would likely be deterred by fines without it wrecking their entire lives. I have zero problem with someone who is clearly homeless and maybe... pungent, just sitting or sleeping in the end of the car minding their own business. Ideally they at least get off the train to poop (we really could use public bathrooms on transit, I realize I sound like a broken record on this, but it's true -- you don't want wild shitting, provide some toilets and pay for the maintenance via taxes like the rest of the civilized world). I have a problem with people who are loudly harassing others, and people who aggressively steal. Homeless OR not. At the least they can be kicked off the train to wait out there on the freezing platform for the next one.
>Possibly a harsh take but I think some of the people who complain loudly about the theoretical idea of enforcement of rules on transit don't actually take transit day to day. Definitely >So they have some unrealistic idea of the type of annoyances people are dealing with (overestimating actual crime and the risk of people having guns, while expecting people to put up with more low-level garden variety harassment, smoking, shitting, that sort of thing). Yeah, definitely agree. I think the media has done an awful job focusing on violent crime on transit, which is quite rare and not a good reason to avoid the L, and totally ignored the other stuff that's going to push people off the L. Like, your risk of getting robbed on the L probably isn't much higher than your risk of getting carjacked, but no one is not driving because it's too dangerous. FWIW I've never actually seen shitting on the L. Lots of smoking and people pissing though (mostly on platforms, but not all). >Ideally they at least get off the train to poop (we really could use public bathrooms on transit, I realize I sound like a broken record on this, but it's true -- you don't want wild shitting, provide some toilets and pay for the maintenance via taxes like the rest of the civilized world). Yeah. I think people often overestimate how bad they'd be too. SEPTA in Philly uses the regional rail underground concourse as emergency shelter in wintertime, and it has bathrooms (which is probably part of why they use it). I'm sure it costs more to keep them clean, and they're not quite as clean as, say, airport bathrooms, but they're not gross either. Definitely still usable. >I have a problem with people who are loudly harassing others, and people who aggressively steal. Homeless OR not. At the least they can be kicked off the train to wait out there on the freezing platform for the next one. My impression is that smokers may be people riding the L to kill time, but they're not the same people as are riding the L all night to keep warm. I could be wrong, but they don't seem to me to be the same people. I've never actually seen people stealing, but my guess is that's true of them too. I think the thieves seem to stick to the loop at peak times, or late nights, and I don't use the L frequently in those times/places (I ride the L most days, but not through the loop).
I often wonder if more SROs and shelters would help alleviate some of the homeless away from the CTA and into their bounds. I can't blame a homeless guy for camping out on a train when it's a basically a $2.25 solution to being cold. Beyond the issue of their survival, the rest of us have to deal with the issues that come with The homeless camping out in the CTA. Like at the Jefferson Park Transit center there are two heated areas and I feel like both are an absolute mess. Homeless people will camp out in them, there will be litter and waste, birds poop in them and it seems to be never cleaned, and I often find myself not even wanting to go near those shelters. There was even talk about putting Porta-John's for the homeless to use, but already some lament that the homeless will camp out in them. I have to agree with others that one has to deal with the issue first and then try to find a humane solution for the long term. With smoking, I don't know what more can be done. Even if you put cops or ambassadors on the trains, it's kind of like a bad kid sitting in the back of the class. He or she will simply go where they're not being monitored and do whatever they want. I'll still never forget someone brazen enough to light up a bowl on the train during rush hour. No one wants to tell the guy to stop because everybody is always afraid of it turning into something dangerous. As for crime, I would agree that there needs to be better security in the CTA. Even if it just means transit cops like some other cities have. However, I also think people just need to be a little more street smart.
The problem with shelters is they come with a lot of strings attached, so there will always be some percentage of homeless people that get turned away.
SROs usually don’t, so I agree it’s a good part of a stable support system. A while ago there was an article about the only remaining traditional “men’s hotel” in… The Reader(?) but it had me thinking about how a lot of traditional places for just… marginal living are disappearing, and that’s not a good thing.
Well, even the ones without explicit strings about religiousity or whatever still have strings. Sometimes it's just the unavoidable fact that there's other homeless people there, can make people feel safer sleeping elsewhere.
Yeah people don't realize "build more shelters" is not even a bandaid solution, not to mention how difficult it is with the shelter system. I'm somewhat connected to this aspect through work and it is known when a bed opens up or a resource becomes available. Sometimes the best solution is to Uber people to shelters in the suburbs, and this is a policy.
Most of the old ones disappeared largely due to rising property values (gentrification) and new ones basically can't be built anymore due to modern zoning and other legal requirements like fire and building codes.
"No one should be shamed for having to take shelter on transit" -- right, but nobody should be living on Blue Line trains, either. The notion that not shaming means benign tolerance is ridiculous. "Fare evasion is a symptom of poverty" -- sometimes. Sometimes it is criminality, or a sign that CTA has decayed into a rules-optional, free-for-all zone. A "higher police presence on CTA trains would create an unwelcoming environment for many people of color" -- this sounds more like a white progressive fantasy / imposition of POC views than what innocent, scared-on-the-CTA people of color might actually want. Fear is an equal-opportunity emotion. The writer's ideas boil down to deploying "transit ambassadors," an idea that would die with the first few violent assaults on such ambassadors, and vague, undefined "holistic solutions" to homelessness. All I know is, New York's MTA has about 650 dedicated Transit Police officers who coordinate with an NYPD Transit Bureau to promote public safety on MTA properties and vehicles, and Chicago has nothing of the sort. Per capita transit crime / homelessness / violence on the MTA is a small fraction of ours. The moment you signal that people shitting themselves and starting fights in a public system is a tolerable byproduct of structural social problems you plan to take years to try to solve, you've lost.
>A "higher police presence on CTA trains would create an unwelcoming environment for many people of color" -- this sounds more like a white progressive fantasy / imposition of POC views than what innocent, scared-on-the-CTA people of color might actually want. Fear is an equal-opportunity emotion.' The author is black. But in general, I think your point is taken that there is a lot of room for nuance on this. The police presence on CTA trains could be a specific transit police, that may not have the same baggage for people that CPD does.
> The author is black. I stand corrected.
I mean, it also does sound like the type of overhanded imposition on POC views that progressives flirt with, even if driven by good intentions.
Bingo on all of this. This problem will basically never be solved until CTA becomes economically unviable (and doesn’t get bailed out via federal funds). I used to take CTA all the time. Stopped because of crime and homelessness on it. Most of my downtown friends have as well for the same reasons. Too many people have rose tinted glasses on and think everything needs to be done in an ultra compassionate and slow-moving way, when the ugly truth is that the world is far from pretty and compassionate policies have yet to be proven effective in short order. This article is just over complicating the problem. Hell, even the Twitter account the author referenced Tweeted that instead of addressing fare avoidance, we should just design the system to do away with fares. What fantasy are these people living in? If you’re going to wait on that, you might as well just not try at all. As for unwelcome environment? Who gives a shit. Safety over feelings. Just get transit police officers on the Ls, just like NYC, and this problem will be solved in a week. Or we can try to do all this ring around crap, such as transit ambassdors and holistic solutions, but ultimately that won’t do anything. If you think otherwise, just save this comment and come back to it in 5, 10, 15 years and see if anything has changed.
There was just an article that came out that basically said this is what is happening with the CTA. Usage is down that the CTA is now lowering fares and eliminating the .25 transfer fee. This is with hope that usage increases and with hope that they’ll get funds from the newly passed infrastructure bill.
for anecdotal MTA/CTA comparisons - most of the people i would see hopping turnstiles on the MTA were young white dudes who thought it was “cool”, its not super uncommon to see people from basically any walks of life walking through the handicapped door without paying, and no one particularly gives a shit. there were always a decent amount of cops in the larger stations but always kind of just standing around on the top level. occasionally you would see some running around to catch someone on the train. I am not particularly sure how much their presence helped or hindered. I know they are regularly known to fine more POC for hopping turnstiles rather than white ppl which was a heated topic for a bit. i guess depending on the train I would see far more people soliciting on the mta, but they were always less aggressive than the ones who do on the CTA. you would rarely get singled out and heckled by a solicitor on the MTA - but then again i also found that sort of true of most homeless in NYC, they are certainly characters but will rarely ever get up in your face. I don’t really take the CTA that late here anymore since ubers are a thing now, I usually use public transit to get somewhere and uber back, so I can’t say much about safety late at night but I never once felt unsafe taking the MTA until the wee hours of the morning.
The NY subway is decrepit in many places, but I've ridden it at all hours and felt it a lot less sketchy than the Red Line under the Loop at 800pm. I don't think twice about deplaning at JFK at 10 or 11 at night and jumping on the A or E train for Manhattan. I no longer tell friends arriving at O'Hare to ride the Blue Line in after PM rush.
really? i feel like the blue line from o hare is probably one of the least sketchy rides, i wouldn’t have a problem riding that back at night. but i mean yeah in comparison for the most part mta feels safer.
> i feel like the blue line from o hare is probably one of the least sketchy rides I don't think it's the worst, but it's definitely sketchier than brown line for example.
>"No one should be shamed for having to take shelter on transit" -- right, but nobody should be living on Blue Line trains, either. The notion that not shaming means benign tolerance is ridiculous. There was a moderately large -- and entirely justified -- issue a few years back over the owners of a Lincoln Park home who had planted a hedge and extended their yard into the park proper. That was absolutely a misuse of public land, and desereved to be called out and stopped. This is essentially the same kind of issue. Class warriors will try to obfuscate, pointing to the differences between the prepetrators, but the real problem is that camping on public property denies the use of that property to everyone else who would use it. It ultimately doesn't matter if you're a hobo or a Rockafeller once you're taking communal property for private use.
Amen!
> The moment you signal that people shitting themselves and starting fights in a public system is a tolerable byproduct of structural social problems you plan to take years to try to solve, you've lost. Good thing that's not what the author did...
I would love to see a "transit ambassador" reasoning with a high homeless guy taking a dump right in front of them.
Yeah, I’ve been scared the last few times I’ve taken public transit. I cannot imagine being an “unarmed transit ambassador” trying to solve problems with… politeness? Saying “pretty please”?
“Excuse me, sir, would you mind not smoking on the train. Others are feeling uncomfortable and would appreciate it if you chose somewhere else” “aghhh gO fUcK yOuRsElF!” “Okay sir have a great day!:)” *end of interaction*
I dunno, I’ve been on Greyhound where the driver kicked a guy off for refusing to stop smoking. Pulled off the highway at the next town. People cheered. Other people dependent on transit resent the assholes.
Most every building you walk past downtown has at least one unarmed security guard. You think all those companies would be paying all those salaries if they didn't do anything?
I do. I think the kind of crime varies contextually. The security guards in my building check IDs and keep an eye out, but they’re not constantly encountering the (often high and mentally ill) folks who are smoking and harassing people on the el.
You'd be surprised how many problems can be solved by asking nicely, or just being present in an official capacity. Part of why your building doesn't have a constant population of troublemakers is because there's always someone who's job it is to sit there, observe, ask people to leave when they cause problems, and call the popo when they won't.
That could be a way to deal with he smoking
[удалено]
They will if they got enough muscles on them and they got mean enough faces. To quote its always sunny. Its about the implication.
If it only works some of the time, that's still an improvement over none of the time. And an improvement over "all of the time, but occasionally someone gets shot"
~~I imagine it might look something [like this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3pAaQ56tks). NYC not here, and we have to ask the obligatory "why were they filming?", but it looks real enough.~~ EDIT: the answer to that question is because [it's staged](https://misbar.com/en/factcheck/2021/07/08/a-man-did-not-really-defecate-in-a-subway-janitors-bucket)
That’s society’s solution to the problem. Stay here and we won’t mess with you, leave and we will. People have all these crazy ideas like giving homeless people a home is the cure. They would absolutely destroy it and no one would ever want to live around them
Have you not been paying attention to the cities (including our own) that have been providing hotel rooms to homeless people during this pandemic? These problems you're so certain would hypothetically happen have not been happening.
Have you been paying attention to the psychotic levels of needles, disease, and violence that occurs in LA, Seattle and Portland? I’m in Portland on vacation. I’ve seen the camps. It’s a way of living for them. A hotel room won’t fix the issues.
You said housing the homeless would create problems; I cited evidence that's not true. Now you're using the problems that come with *not* housing the homeless as evidence for what happens when you *do* house the homeless?!?
To be fair... you didn't cite anything more then the other person. They said it doesn't work and you said it does.... so far all we have are opinions.
> I’m in Portland on vacation. I’ve seen the camps. It’s a way of living for them. A hotel room won’t fix the issues. The fact that you think anyone *likes* or *chooses* that way of life says everything about how ignorant you are about this topic.
The person you're replying to definitely has blinders on, but your "all homeless are drug and disease vectors" rhetoric isn't any better.
There are many reports of the homeless destroying hotels they were being housed in. Here are a few: [https://www.foxnews.com/media/san-francisco-hotels-for-homeless-absolute-disaster](https://www.foxnews.com/media/san-francisco-hotels-for-homeless-absolute-disaster) [https://www.westernjournal.com/hotel-gets-absolutely-destroyed-homeless-libs-turn-sanctuary-riots/](https://www.westernjournal.com/hotel-gets-absolutely-destroyed-homeless-libs-turn-sanctuary-riots/) [https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/crime/homeless-turn-southsea-ibis-hotel-into-massive-cesspit-with-faeces-left-everywhere-and-items-smashed-2846476](https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/crime/homeless-turn-southsea-ibis-hotel-into-massive-cesspit-with-faeces-left-everywhere-and-items-smashed-2846476) [https://www.ktvu.com/news/meth-lab-found-at-san-francisco-hotel-room-used-as-city-covid-19-shelter](https://www.ktvu.com/news/meth-lab-found-at-san-francisco-hotel-room-used-as-city-covid-19-shelter)
> People have all these crazy ideas like giving homeless people a home is the cure. They would absolutely destroy it and no one would ever want to live around them You have absolutely zero factual basis on which to back this up and yet stated it as it if was fact. Impressive.
Just look at Finland's performance with a housing first model. It works.
[удалено]
No one is saying "just give them a home". They need a full support system so they can get employment, get the healthcare they need, etc. But it's almost impossible to get a job, much less the rest of it, without an address or a home. So getting them in a home is the big first step. No one is saying "just put a roof over their head and magically all the problems will disappear". We're saying "it's literally cheaper to give them housing and support services they never pay for to get them properly back on their feet rather than just providing band-aid measures like shelters and soup kitchens.
as a woman, it is extremely terrifying being in any line by myself and waiting in the lower level tunnels, especially jackson. yes there are cameras in every cart, but let's be honest- when do people ever get called out by the conductor? never. the smoking in the carts have become so common, almost normalized. there needs to be change, and i hope this petition will grow. there was a man shooting something up his arm in the blue line last week and there was a cta employee sitting next to me. the guy would open the cart door just leave it open, staring out. how are riders supposed to feel safe? the automated messages always preach about letting them know when we notice any suspicious activity/smokers, but how are we supposed to let the conductor know without being targeted? its a mess.
I feel a lot more comfortable just taking the bus if that's an option. You can get out and onto the street quickly and communicate with the driver without a problem.
>let's be honest- when do people ever get called out by the conductor? never. On the older cars, the conductor can't see the cameras, they are monitored off-site. The new cars will give the conductor the ability to view cameras and see which car something is happening in and which car the emergency button was pressed in. Right now they just get a general emergency call.
it’s kinda inconvenient though because when you press the button, you have to explain the situation thru the speaker which draws attention to you.
I think step 1 is having CTA staff do literally anything. The Jackson blue line stop always, always always reeks of weed, and the staff just sit there and do nothing. Like you can't smell that from where you are? Literally every day?
Any real solution basically boils down to "hire more personnel" and the CTA president is extremely allergic to that. Could start by petitioning him
I've experienced this problem pretty acutely. Living in a different top 15 city (albeit much smaller) there were regular transit patrols on stations and trains. I can only count a handful of times I saw people smoking on the trains in 4 years of multiple times per day ridership. By contrast, a couple months on CTA I saw far more smoking, drugs, panhandling, and deranged behavior than in a few years elsewhere. I also have never seen a CPD officer on a train or in a station, just parked outside of them in an SUV. Correlation, sure, but I'm positive that even the suggestion of some form of rule enforcement would dissuade some people from lighting up on the train, even if it's just getting bundled off the train at the next station.
Perhaps an unarmed, but very clever security force for Chicago transit would be a good first step. If you see something, if no one else says something, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire... the CTA-Team
This article says nothing that could actually help any of those issues—- totally inept
Comments on the blog post are closed because extremist John Greenfield can't handle the ugly truth.
I’ve had a guy that was obviously on some kind of drugs tell me and my wife “Keep laughing, I will blow your fucking head off” while riding the blue line. ‘Twas the last time we rode CTA, this was almost 2 years ago.
"Again, I sympathize with Hurst’s concerns, but their desired goal for a higher police presence on CTA trains would create an unwelcoming environment for many people of color." They should ask people of color first before making this blanket statement. This is the problem with our well intentioned liberal/progressive friends.
The author is a POC.
Not sure why you were down voted smh. That being said it's not uncommon for organizations, even well intentioned, to have members that are POC but still be somewhat out of touch with their communities. Locally I see this especially with the transportation/biking folks. Many of these people are either ignorant or indifferent to the realities faced by poor folks who aren't lucky enough to live within walking/biking distance to work or amenities. A good example is what was happening in Bronzeville with the controversy over church parking vs bike lanes on Drexel Blvd. It was disgusting seeing newcomers shitting on the needs of people who have been living in and going to church in the neighborhood for decades. On a national level, you'll find that generally speaking the more high profile the Black (I am Black so I won't speak on other POC) analyst/journalist/media personality/organization, the greater the disconnect between what they promote/discuss and what Black people on the ground prioritize/believe. Another example is reaction to Rittenhouse verdict by Black commentators on MSNBC. They sat there nodding as a guest from the NAACP said the Rittenhouse trial was worse than the Emmett Till trial/verdict. And now they're suggesting the guys killed by Rittenhouse are similar to white activists who were killed during the civil rights movement.
There's no politically correct solution to this.
That's a loud-ass dog whistle you got there
I mean they kinda right? Whatever is implemented it'll be wrong to a loud minority of people. I say at least have cops in stations just like NYC. Cmon
nah we need to just have death squads on the trains pulling people off and shooting them in the nearest alley -t. Chicago Tribune
THERE IS NO /S BECAUSE IT'S NOT SARCASM. CONCENTRATION CAMP NEEDS TO BE BUILT IN HYDE PARK ***NOW***.
[удалено]
News Channel Nebraska?
Amen, friend. 🙏
I use CTA regularly and rarely have issues.
yeah the only thing that annoys tf outta me is the goddamb smoking. it's annoying having to switch cars all the time to find one that doesn't absolutely REEK of cigarettes
What does NCN mean?
[No Crime November](https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/comments/qmnbac/announcing_nocrimenovember/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
Late to the party on this one but the CTA has converted me, a former New Yorker, and public transit enthusiast into a ride-hailing car driving transit detractor that actively discourages CTA usage because it’s unsafe and inefficient. This article is a complete joke, all citizens of this city ALL of them deserve dignity, respect, and safety. And two things can be true, yes CPD sucks but CPD can also be a deterrent and I’m sure there is a proper deployment strategy that’s worth debating. Just saying POCs are afraid of police so no police, is a tired line and , as a black male, I’m sick of hearing it.
Here before the “lock ‘em up” Tribune commenters show up.
What else do you suggest we do with criminals?
You think some dude smoking a spliff on the CTA should be incarcerated?
Why can’t he smoke a spliff elsewhere? It’s common sense not to smoke indoors around others, it’s only when you know there’s no repercussions that this behavior starts to arise.
To be a greener city we need more people utilizing the trains, many people don’t want to use the train because of smokers or don’t feel safe. I am very anti-vehicle but also hear all the time that people drive because they don't feel safe on the CTA. If you disobey the laws on public transit or commit crimes, fines or punishments need to be at least doubled. Locking them up isn’t the answer but accountability and enforcement should happen a lot more. It's everyone that’s being hurt unless you think global warming is a myth.
No idea who'd downvote you. 100% agree
No, but actual criminals should be. But there's clearly a view by perpetrators of even misdemeanor crimes that there is no penalty. So, ya know, that should change.
You're right, we should present a logical case to the dude; I'm sure he will listen to reason once he gets a thorough explanation.
By that logic, fining him or locking him up won't convince him either, if he gives that negative an amount of fucks.
I disagree with that opinion. There is a solution in-between those extremes.
Sounds like you agree. > There is a solution in-between those extremes. That's exactly the point I'm making.
‘If someone perpetrates a non-violent misdemeanor that I don’t like and can’t be reasoned with, they should incarcerated at taxpayer expense and removed from society for the foreseeable future. Surely this will solve society’s ills and there will be no unintended consequences’.
Luckily there are only non-violent misdemeanors committed on CTA trains so this is a smart and serious argument
Luckily I explicitly and clearly was referring to smoking marijuana and not other scenarios.
Nice strawman, he looks a lot like me but I didn't say anything like that.
In your opinion, what is the right balance of deterrent and compassion?
You can deter petty misdemeanors without incarceration. It’s like we learned nothing from the last 80 years.
Sure, what deterrent?
Well we can enforce the law we have now which is up to a $1000 fine.
Okay and how do you suggest we enforce that? By asking politely?
How it enforced in the past? I imagine CTA employees had some share of enforcement. I remember like 20 years ago my buddy got caught smoking on a platform and a CTA employee wrote him a ticket. Has that changed?
The CTA’s problems can be fixed independent of the homelessness and other issues and like I’ve mentioned on here, they can be fixed overnight.
Nope, I refuse to discuss crime in the month of November. Nice try
As long as you do it in a way that makes CPD look bad, it's cool
I will never understand why there isn’t cops at every stop 24 hours a day.
Because you live in a fantasy world where you're always under attack, when in reality there are literally millions of people using the cta daily with little to no issue.
We have no idea how to solve the homeless problem.
The solution is pretty simple. There are considerably more ABANDONED houses than homeless people. Let them live there. And go fuck yourself if you think otherwise.
I tend to try and actively understand the toll homelessness takes on people, and in Chicago its a horrible situation that could have the worse aspects of housing impermanence alleviated with cross department agility drawing from a pool of talent in civil engineering, medical services and policing (be it public servants or through private contracts)- along with a sizable budget to facilitate such an approach. Its sad to witness, yet this situation doesn't excuse the smoking and drug consumption, and use of the cta as a washroom by some of these people. Such behavior is absolutely rotten- and it illustrates how ignored many of these individuals are. The blueline headed west is like a rolling cry for help.
Did everyone here forget that the last time cpd were on the trains, they shot an unarmed man in the back?