Transit-friendly DuSable Lake Shore Drive is critical to improving bus service

I am writing to commend the Aug. 20 letter to the editor “Bus-only lanes on DuSable Lake Shore Drive could work” written by two local transportation experts. The rebuild of North DuSable Lake Shore Drive represents a monumental opportunity for the lakefront and the region, and transit riders deserve to be included in that vision.

Every day nearly 70,000 people ride CTA buses on this corridor, making it one of the most heavily-used transit corridors in the Chicago region. But unfortunately, priority for bus lanes is not in current plans for redesigning the Drive despite the call for more bus-only lanes by both the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning and in Mayor Brandon Johnson’s Transition Report.

Dedicated space on roads is critical to improving bus speed and reliability. The Regional Transportation Authority is committed to advocating for more transit-friendly streets because we know it improves travel times and safety for riders and drivers alike.

Compared to our peers, the Chicago region is falling behind when it comes to dedicating roadway space for public transit. Los Angeles, Seattle, Miami, Minneapolis, Houston and Phoenix all have over 100 miles of transit-only or transit-priority roadway lanes. Chicago has less than 15.

We have a once-in-50-years opportunity to redesign this corridor to serve all the region’s residents. We must seize this moment to prioritize the tens of thousands of daily bus riders who deserve faster more reliable service. We urge planners to incorporate best practice, multimodal bus and bike priority into the NDLSD corridor, and reject alternatives that will enhance or worsen the status quo.

Kirk Dillard, chair, Regional Transportation Authority

More children need to learn a second language

Hae Min Yu’s July 30 op-ed, "Bilingual preschoolers shouldn’t automatically be tagged with 'at-risk' label" brings up a very important point about bilingual education that needs more attention in public schools.

Very often, educators' focus on children who speak more than one language is to offer ESL (English as a Second Language) lessons. Sort of in the way that children with speech impediments get speech therapy lessons (as I did, in the mid 1950s) in special sessions outside of regular class instruction. Thus, their first language is viewed as a problem, an "at risk" situation, rather than an advantage.

Public education, and Chicago Public Schools especially, is missing a terrific opportunity to teach a second language to most or all of their students, regardless of whether it’s English, Spanish or Chinese. Education studies established years ago that learning and speaking more than one language before the age of puberty increases a person’s lifetime ability to learn and speak even more languages. So in fact, bilingual preschoolers have an advantage, not a "risk."

My 9-year-old grandson and 5-year-old granddaughter (whose first and only language is English) attend a CPS elementary school that is majority Latino. The classes do have some Spanish instruction, but according to my grandson, it is not aimed at all the students, just the Spanish-speaking children. I consider it a tremendous lack of opportunity that, in his first four years at the school, my grandson hasn’t learned much Spanish at all. The Latino and white students don’t share their languages at play, in the lunchroom or in the classroom. I don’t understand why they aren’t encouraged to learn from each other, as well as in the classroom.

In case I buried my point: In addition to teaching English as a second language, CPS elementary schools should be teaching Spanish as a second language, and maybe more languages, if they are being spoken in the neighborhood. Make bilingual education, as well as early childhood education, part of free public education. It would require some adjustment in curriculum and teaching strategy, but it would be a terrific addition.

Virginia Gilbert, Andersonville

Downsize government, cut waste

If you live in Illinois you should be talking about government consolidation or elimination. Why?

• Illinois has 8,529, units of local government, according to the Illinois Comptroller's office. 
• 46 states have fewer than 2,500 units of local government. 
• Illinois’ effective property tax rate is 2.2%, second in the nation to New Jersey’s 2.25% 
• The median property tax bill in Illinois is $4,529. 
• The median property tax bill in the U.S. is $2,551. 
• Illinois has one government agency for every 1,800 people.
• California has one government agency for every 8,800 people. 
• Illinois has 45 types of government (population 12,830,652). 
• Texas has three types of government (population 29,143,505).  
• If Illinois eliminated 6,000 units of its 8,529 units of local government, it would still have more than the 46 states that have fewer than 2,500 units.

Illinois government consolidation or elimination should begin with the 1,800s townships, which most states do not have, as well as 17 of 102 counties. Taxpayers are forced to fund 1,425 township governments,1,391 township road districts and 321 multi-township assessment districts. This represents over 36% of the 8,529 units of local government. Township supervisors, assessors,road commissioners, clerks and trustees (each township has four) do not want you to know this, or that 90% of township revenues come from your property tax bills, way more than what county, municipal and other governments collect.

Bob Anderson, Wonder Lake