Larger Image

Cook County Forest Preserve District is tearing down the last of the toboggan slides:

The last toboggan slides in the Cook County Forest Preserve District will come down despite an impassioned plea to preserve the historic attractions enjoyed by generations of city and suburban residents.

The Forest Preserve Commission approved contracts Tuesday to demolish the storied, southwest suburban Swallow Cliff slides and a set of similar slides at Caldwell Woods on Chicago's Far Northwest Side.

Caldwell Woods is just a few minutes away, so I went over and took some pictures a few weeks ago. Then a lot of other stuff came up, so I didn't get around to posting them until just now.

Larger Image

Larger Image

Larger Image

Larger Image

Larger Image

Larger Image

Larger Image

Larger Image

Unless the City Council does something other than rubber-stamp the Mayor's nominee, former FBI agent Jody Weis will soon be the next police superintendent. As an observer and commentator and self-important blogger, I'd like to offer him the following advice:

• Your initial top priority should be to eliminate corrupt cops. Indict them, fire them, or convince them to quit. Your commanders will say they can't afford to lose the manpower, but you'll get a lot more done when everyone is on the same side.
• Use the money you would have paid the bad cops to give some overtime to patrol. Maybe use a little of it to repair some of Chicago's ancient police cars so the extra cops will have something to drive.
• Speed up the investigation of all allegations of police misconduct. If the complaints are legitimate, the victims have a right to receive swift justice, and you need to show that police are not above the law. On the other hand, if the complaints are not legitimate, the officers have a right to be out from under the cloud of suspicion as quickly as possible.
• When a cop is actually convicted of corruption, have someone make a big 8" by 10" photo of him and a sign explaining how he disgraced himself and post it in police headquarters where other cops will see it. A web page wouldn't hurt either. (TarnishedStar.com is available.)
• You may know a lot about law enforcement, but as an FBI agent-in-charge you've never had to deal with some of the issues you'll be facing now, such as real estate, hiring, training, procurement, and union negotiation. You need to pick staff that understand these things, otherwise you'll be doomed.
• You have no patrol experience, and a lot of people will tell you to do a few ride-alongs in police car to get an idea what it's like. It sounds like a good idea, but it's not. The ride-along will be stage-managed so you don't see a damned thing that's real. Also, right now you know you are ignorant about patrol, so you'll probably be careful and rely on your subordinates, but you could do an awful lot of damage if you start to think you understand patrol after a week of riding in a police car.
• No matter how well you do this job, the powers-that-be within the City will force you out in a few years. There's nothing you can do to avoid this, so there's no point worrying about pissing people off. Screw them all, and make changes that you can be proud of.
• Bust a few crooked politicians. Take over the investigations at the end and slap the cuffs on yourself. The rank and file will accuse you of grandstanding for the media, but it will keep a few cops out of the crosshairs after you're gone.
• Focus on the most emportant part of police work, fighting serious crime, and let everything else slide.
• No matter how tight your manpower, it's always worth assigning cops to clear the warrant backlog.
• No matter how many cops you have available, it's always a waste of time to bust a restaurant for selling foie gras.
• Use your SWAT teams to stop violent incidents, not to start them. Dynamic entry into a suspect's house may be a great way to gather drug evidence, but eventually one of your shooters is going to kill a 92-year-old grandmother or shoot a baby's fingers off. It's not worth the risk just to bag a few minor dealers.
• Teach cops how to exploit an arrest. They haven't done their job unless they've looked up the offender's probation status, asked him about his associates, and asked him if he knows someone who has an illegal gun. Someone should also ask him if he knows any crooked cops, or if a cop has ever asked him for a bribe.
• Speaking of bribes, you should offer rewards to cops for reporting bribe attempts. This doesn't have to cost money. The department can offer cops rewards that no criminal could ever match as a bribe, such as a bump in seniority when bidding for their next shift assignment. (I think CPD may already do this.)
• If the department was a business, analysts would say that almost the entire value of the department consists of human capital, also known as trained and experienced people. Within the department, training should never stop.
• At the low end, you need to make sure that training and mentoring skills are a requirement for promotion.
• You also need to retain the people you've trained, so treat them well.
• I don't know much about how the police contract works, but here's something you can give the working police without costing the city a dime: Eliminate the residency requirement. Let cops live in the suburbs and work in the city if that's what they want to do.
• You need a training program at the high end too. The U.S. army trains its generals, and big companies often rotate their managers through all the major functions of the business before putting them in charge. No one should be considered ready for a top slot unless they've spent time in patrol, detectives, human resources, and internal affairs.

Anybody else have some bright ideas? Leave a comment.

The So-Called Austin Mayor blog links to a Sun Times column by Mary Mitchell about some Chicago cops who were called in to do a welfare check on 82-year-old Lillian Fletcher and ended up tasering her.

I'm not particularly willing to let cops get away with stuff, and this sounds pretty awful, but...I think the cops might have done the best they could in a difficult situation. Here's how it all went wrong:

When Fletcher refused to open her door, police were called. Although Fletcher cracked the door, she still refused to let her visitors into the house.

But police officers wouldn't take no for an answer and pushed their way in. Fletcher ran and got the hammer she keeps beside her bed.

A few more facts paint the whole picture: Fletcher is only about 5 feet tall but weighs 160 pounds, so she's not exactly a frail old lady, and she has schizophrenia and dementia. The police say she became agitated and violent.

Let me put that a little differently: The officers were facing a crazy lady swinging a hammer. That could mess you up bad.

I don't know much about policing, but I think of all the ways the cops had of stopping her---gun, riot stick, fists, tackling, pepper spray---the taser may have been the least damaging. It sounds like a tough call.

I think part of my pro-police reaction to this incident is because I don't care for Mitchell's viewpoint. For example:

Unfortunately, despite Fletcher's documented mental condition, police officers -- including a sergeant -- resorted to the same tactics they use when they are dealing with violent criminals.

They were dealing with a violent criminal. She attacked them with a hammer. That she has a mental condition excuses her behavior as a legal matter---she stops being responsible for her behavior when she stops being in control of it---but it doesn't change the tactical situation the officers were facing. Once they were under attack, they didn't have a lot of choices.

On the other hand, I'm having trouble understanding why the officers entered Fletcher's home in the first place. They were sent to do a welfare check on a woman, and she met them at the door and refused admittance. Why did the officers insist on forcing their way into the property?

I really have no clue how police are supposed to handle a welfare check, but I'd hate to think that cops could enter my home against my will just because some third party told them to check on me. I'm hoping there's more to it than that.

However, if officers broke the law by entering Fletcher's home, then they lost their right to self-defense, just like any other home invader. When she came at them with a hammer, their only legal option was to stop trespassing and leave.

The ethics of violent confrontations often depend on very specific facts, and those facts often get left out of newspaper accounts. I'm filling in a lot of the gaps with guesswork about what was going on, so my opinion here could change on a dime if I learn better facts.

Update: Here's an example of how important missing facts are: According an AP wire story about the incident, when social workers came to see the woman, they saw through a window that she was swinging a hammer around, so they called the police. When the cops arrived, the landlord let them in. This suggests the police knew about her condition and were entering the home because the social workers were afraid she'd hurt herself.

These kinds of stories are less about principles or ideals or values than they are about what specific people did what specific acts. Tomorrow, another random fact could come out which swings the story the other way.

Yesterday I wrote about the moral perils of punishing people in a way that is profitable for the government. Today, the Gary Washburn of the Chicago Tribune gives me another example:

Driving-related fines and fees provided the city treasury with more than $210 million last year. That represented about 4 percent of the 2006 budget, a small, but significant amount. A projected 2008 revenue shortfall of a similar size, $217 million, has brought predictions of a menu of tax, fee and fine increases to plug the gap.

That's not an incentive that's going to favor the ordinary citizens of Chicago.

Daley administration officials insist their system is fair, and they say that motorists who think they've been cited in error are guaranteed due process.

They can contest their tickets by mail or in person before an administrative hearing officer, presenting photos or other proof to bolster their cases, officials say. If found liable, they can appeal the decision in Cook County Circuit Court.

An administrative hearing officer is a city employee, not an independant judge, so it's a stretch to call this due process. Consider the experiences of Heather Thorne, who found a police officer writing a parking ticket for her car:

"I asked him where the sign was," said Thome, 35, a temp worker. "He said there used to be a sign on 'that' pole, and it hasn't been there for two years. My logical question was, 'How can you write a ticket?' And he told me he doesn't want to, but his boss tells him he has to go out every day and write tickets."

Thome said the cop advised her to appeal to the city's Department of Administrative Hearings. She did, by mail, with a photo of the scene—sans sign—enclosed. She still was found liable.

Well, that just means that Thorne needs to appeal to the Cook County Circuit Court in order to get this matter heard before a real judge, right?

Not exactly. You see, the ticket was only $50, but the fee for filing the appeal would be $93.

They're not allowed to strike, but some Cook Country prosecutors aren't showing up to work today:

As many as two-thirds of the 520 prosecutors staffing Cook County's felony courtrooms are expected to be no-shows, officials in the state's attorney's office said. Prosecutors throughout the 835-lawyer office are being urged to attend today's County Board meeting instead.

"I told all the assistant state's attorneys for special prosecutions -- gang crimes, financial crimes -- to attend that meeting," said Scott Cassidy, chief of special prosecutions. "They're using their vacation time."

The coordinated day off by prosecutors demonstrates their fury toward the County Board and its president, Todd Stroger, over what they call broken promises to pay them as much as public defenders.

The board is offering the non-unionized prosecutors a one-time raise of 3 percent, plus a lump payment of $1,000. Meanwhile, the unionized public defenders are getting cost-of-living adjustments retroactive to 2004, amounting to a raise of more than 12 percent, according to Bernie Murray, chief of criminal prosecutions.

Some of the prosecutors are seeking more permanent time off from their jobs:

In a blistering letter to Stroger, State's Attorney Richard Devine said Monday that 52 prosecutors have quit since February, "twice the normal rate."

...

"I have more friends talking about quitting. And it's not the young people. It's the senior people. They have families. They have tuitions to pay."

That can't be good for the prosecution in Cook County. I'm guessing that most of the prosecutors who quit aren't going on to prosecute somewhere else, and I don't think criminal law experience is very helpful in civil litigation, so I figure a lot of them are just switching to the other side of the aisle.

The Chicago Police have been having a bad time in the media.

You probably already know about the first incident: Officer Anthony Abbate attacked Karolina Obrycka, a 24-year old bartender at Jesse's Shortstop Inn, because she wouldn't serve him any more drinks. I should probably say "allegedly," but there's video of the incident so I feel pretty confident. Everyone in the world can watch a drunken off-duty Chicago cop beat down young woman in a bar.

To my mind, however, the worst part of the incident is getting very little press. It is rumored that some cops offered Obrycka a bribe if she would back off, and then threatened to plant drugs in the bar and in Obrycka's car if she didn't back off. I suppose this could be anti-police spin put out by someone with a political motivation, but if there's any truth to it, this a very bad thing.

When Abbate attacked Obrycka, he wasn't on duty, he wasn't doing police work, and he wasn't using police powers. He was just a drunk jerk that beat up a woman, and he happened to also be cop. With 13,000 cops in this city, there are always going to be a few troublemakers. To borrow a phrase from the Rodney King trials in California, it appears Abbate didn't commit any of his crimes under color of authority. In a sane world, his barroom brawling has nothing to do with Chicago police in general.

But if Abbate's buddies really are trying to bribe and intimidate witnesses, we're no longer talking about one guy with a bad attitude. We're talking about a criminal conspiracy within the police department: They'd have to steal the drugs from somewhere, plant them on innocent people, and then perjure themselves to explain how they found them, all of this under color of authority. (And if word of this gets out in a big way, every defense attorney in the city will be telling the jury that the police framed their client.)

The attempted cover-up, if it's real, is a much bigger story than the original beating, but there's no video so it won't be making the national news.

There's also the question of why it took so long—about a month—for Abbate to be charged. My first thought was that the officers who took the complaint from Obrycka were understandably reluctant to investigate and charge one of their own. But that can't be right, because these kinds of incidents are investigated by the Internal Affairs unit (or maybe it's the Office of Professional Standards) which exists only to investigate and charge other police officers.

So what took so long? Well, for Superintendent Phil Cline and the rest of the Chicago police brass, the incident at the Jesse's Shortstop Inn was not about an injured woman. It was about an embarrassment to the department.

I think they were waiting to see how embarrassing it would be. The more press it got, the more severely Abbate would have to be punished to prove the department was tough on bad cops. Given that there's video of the incident all over the Internet, I think officer Abbate is in for a world of hurt.

Shortly after the Shortstop Inn video hit airwaves, the charges against Abbate were upgraded from a misdemeanor to a felony. Is that because police were trying to soft-pedal his crimes but couldn't get away with it once the video came out? Or is it because once the video came out the police brass wanted to show how tough they were by smacking Abbate around a bit more?

(I might even feel sorry for the guy. If something stressful happened in his life—divorce, death in the family—and if this was an isolated incident in response to that stress, it's possible he could be rehabilitated and returned to duty after punishment, treatment, and restitution. Possible.)

Speaking of smacking Abbate around, when Superintendent Cline was on a local talk radio show a few days ago, he had this to say:

He's been charged criminally, and we're moving to fire him and if I could hit him with a baseball bat, I would. But I can't.

Oops. I think maybe it's poor public relations to talk about beating an officer under his command with a baseball bat while trying to reassure the public that he won't tolerate police brutality.

Tom Needham, Abbate's lawyer, could use Cline's comments to paint the department as the villain, but that's not where he went with his response:

Needham also says he admires Superintendent Phil Cline and understands the frustration that apparently led to the comments Cline made on WLS radio.

...

"When people make comments like that, I think it emboldens other people to make comments like that, but I don't think the superintendent meant that literally,” Needham said.

My, how gentlemanly of him. Of course, there's an inherent conflict of interest when it comes to investigating police misconduct: The more misbehavior they find, the worse the department looks. I think Needham was just reminding Cline that they have common interests.

There's still more confusion related to this case: When Abbate appeared in court, police ticketed press vehicles and blocked access to the parking lot. Superintendent Cline responded by relieving the commander, which makes it sound like he was running press interference for a bad cop. However, the courtroom is located at Area 5 police headquarters, and the commander there has a responsibility to keep order. So maybe he was just keeping the police lots clear for police business, and Cline scapegoated him when the press started complaining. Or maybe not. I don't know how I can tell.

Meanwhile, another bar fight has come to light, this time at the Jefferson Tap. Apparently, a bunch of cops beat up a bunch of businessmen. This has taken a lot of twists and turns. Some people are saying the businessmen were well-known for making trouble, and that they made fun an officer who was crying because his father had just died.

I don't know a lot about the social protocols of the barroom, but I think that's probably the equivalent of walking up to the cops and saying "Hey, let's fight!" It's kind of unsporting for the losers to complain about it afterwards.

To add to the confusion, another version of events has surfaced in which an employee at the bar asked the officers for help throwing out the unruly businessmen. This could completely exonerate the officers involved and maybe even stick the businessmen with a charge of aggravated battery, but I'm suspicious that this story took so long to emerge.

The story continues (if I'm getting this right) that someone at the bar called 911, but when the patrol units arrived, they found an off-duty supervisor at the scene who told them they weren't needed. Now, because they trusted the word of a fellow officer, they're being sucked into the investigation.

So, were the cops jerks? Were they provoked? Or were they doing their duty? And why did the responding police leave? Does it matter that their unit is rumored to have some heavy clout working for them? We may or may not get a good answer, but supposedly Internal Affairs has video tape of the incident.

It has taken me several days to write this post for various reasons, and events have been passing me by.

First, Mayor Daley returned from an out-of-town trip, and shortly thereafter Superintendent Phil Cline announced his resignation. Is Cline a political schemer who went to far? A scapegoat for the Daley administration? Or is he a loyal underling who just took one for the team? In this town, I can't begin to guess.

Second, the media is now reporting that officer Anthony Abbate's brother Terry Abbate beat up an out-of-town cop in O'Callaghans bar on Hubbard street. And yes, they say there's video of that too.

Third, in non-bar-fighting bad news for the Chicago Police, there are rumors of more indictments in the corruption scandal in Special Operations Section.

When the bartender at the Shortstop Inn told Anthony Abbate she was cutting him off, he is reported to have yelled "Nobody tells me what to do!" The joke here, the irony, is that Abbate is a police officer. He probably tells a lot of people what to do every day and expects to be treated with respect. Still, I know how he felt. I don't like people telling me what to do either. That's why I'm so wary of the police.

Law enforcement is one of the most important functions of government, second only to national security. We trust police officers with a lot of power, because it's necessary to keep our city safe and secure. Police officers who betray that trust—whether by corruption, police brutality, or outright criminality—betray us and betray their fellow officers, and it is right that they should be subject to prosecution and public ridicule.

If by any chance a Chicago Police officer reads this, I know you're not all like the the bad cops I've been writing about, and I know the resulting loss of respect for the police has hurt you all. I hope things get better soon. When I'm out and around in the city, I'm still glad to see you all out there.

Marathon Pundit notes this story:

It's a mix up that will cost tax payers tens of thousands of dollars. The anti-war demonstration at Washington Square was supposed to start at noon and the Chicago Police Department was ready. But the protesters were a no show, and police say it was a big waste of time and money.

...

"We never got a permit from the city," said John Beacham, Illinois Anti-War Coalition.

The police showed us what they say is the permit -- approved months ago -- with John Beacham's name right at the top.

"I know nothing about that. We applied for a permit and there was never any confirmation of the permit from the city and a long time ago we decided not to have a demonstration," said Beacham.

Doesn't the City of Chicago phone first?

It sounds as if no one from the Chicago Police actually bothered to pick up a phone and call someone at the Coalition.

The City's application for a parade permit asks for a the address and telephone number of the sponsoring organization. It also asks for the name, phone number, and pager number of a person to contact and of the person signing the application. Then, in a touch of irony, the parade sponsors are supposed to submit the permit application to the City's Office of Emergency Management and Communications.

Perhaps the information on the application was wrong or missing, but shouldn't that have told them something?

Beacham had one more theory as to why the police department should have known protesters weren't showing up.

"The city is usually spying on us and watching us carefully, so we just figured they understood there wasn't a demonstration today," said Beecham.

That might be a little paranoid, or self-aggrandizing, but he's got a point of sorts. Even if the application had no contact information, shouldn't the Chicago Police have been capable of finding someone to tell them what was going on? In fact, isn't "finding someone to tell them what's going on" a pretty good description of much of police work?

Even if the contact information was wrong or fake, how hard could it have been to track down someone from the Illinois Anti-War Coalition? The ABC7 News Team certainly had no trouble finding John Beacham when they wanted to.

I wonder if the the police did in fact coordinate with the Illinois Anti-War Coalition, and the group just backed out at the last minute without telling them. Or maybe this was some sort of clever setup—having people ready to answer the phones and discuss the event plan, maybe sending someone to meet with a police commander to discuss the protest site—just to make the police look stupid.

If so, you'd think the police spokesman would have said something about it. Instead all we hear about is a parade permit issued months ago, and there's no mention of followup or coordination meetings with the parade's sponsor.

Frankly, even though the report shows a lot of uniformed officers, I can't believe this was really a Chicago Police operation. They may have been in it, but there's no way they were running it.

Update: From a Chicago Tribune article, it appears that someone did call the group, eventually:

Police didn't learn of the cancellation until police called group officials shortly before the scheduled 10:30 a.m. protest start-time to confirm, she said. That's when the organizers told the police they were bagging the march, she said.

As a result, police stood in pairs around downtown at major intersections with nothing to do. Now the city may ask the group to pay for the inconvenience.

Am I getting this right? If the group had shown up, the police services would have been provided free of charge (as they should be), but because they didn't show up, the police are going to bill them for manpower costs?

I don't see how the city can charge the group for police services when there was no prior agreement to provide police services, unless the group deliberately deceived the police into wasting resources.

Nick Gillespie of Reason magazine has an article in the L.A. Times pointing out something that many of us here in Chicago have been trying not to notice:

At some point in the film, the narrator—possessed of a tooth-rattling basso profundo usually reserved for more elevated art forms, such as NFL highlight reels — proclaimed, apropos of nothing, that "Chicago ain't no sissy town!" He was, if memory serves, quoting an alderman or some other species of criminal native to the Windy City.

But it turns out that Chicago is a sissy town because that "stormy, husky, brawling … City of the Big Shoulders," in Carl Sandburg's evocative 1916 poem, seems hellbent on putting a chokehold on just about everything that makes a city a city. Namely, fun. Local pols evidently are more dedicated to rooting out gluttony among residents than reining in a police department neck deep in an ugly torture scandal.

It pains me to say it, but Gillespie is right. This city is run by a bunch of pussies.

Not too long ago they wanted to put a casino downtown where people could gamble away their paychecks if they wanted to, now the city has taken, uh, a more risk-averse attitude:

Over the last year, the Associated Press recently reported, Chicago snuffed out smoking "in nearly all public places" and pulled the plug on using cellphones while driving. This April, the "Hog Butcher for the World" (Sandburg again) became the first city in the country to ban the sale of foie gras, on grounds that force-feeding geese to make the tasty treat is more cruelty than Al Capone's adopted hometown can bear.

In July, the City Council held hearings on banishing trans fats from Chicago's fast-food chains, as if such a move could do much to clear arteries in the birthplace of the deep-dish pizza (Men's Fitness magazine has declared Chitown the fattest city in the U.S.). There was also talk of forcing dog owners to implant identifying microchips in pooches (though not pit bulls, because if the council got its way, the breed would be no more welcome in Chicago than Mrs. O'Leary's cow). Council members, the Chicago Tribune has noted, "have threatened to use their legislative might to improve living standards for elephants … require taxi drivers to wear crisp white shirts and matching pants and socks … [and] require cigarette vendors to display photos of diseased lungs prominently."

Apparently, Chicago is on the brink of passing a "living wage" ordinance that would require large big-box stores like Wal-Mart and Target to pay employees a minimum salary of $10 per hour with an additional $3 per hour going toward benefits.

One of the biggest problems with the "living wage" idea is that the Chicago City Council can't actually make the big-box retailers pay a higher wage. All it can do is prevent them from paying low wages. Retailers will then have to choose between paying higher wages and paying no wages at all.

Target and Wal-Mart have already responded with threats to pull out of the Chicago market. Home Depot is expected to follow suit.

"Wal-Mart and Target could pay their people a living wage. Then we wouldn't have this problem, and people could actually live on the money they made," [Ald. Leslie] Hairston said.

First of all, not everybody wants to live off their wages. A lot of people are working only to supplement their income.

Second, nobody is forcing people to work at Wal-Mart. They can quit and look for another job any time they want. If the local job market makes that hard, it's not Wal-Mart's fault.

Fortunately, Mayor Daley is trying to put a stop to this bad idea before the City Council scares away the dozens of big-box stores planning to open in Chicago in the next few years. Thousands of jobs depend on the City making the right decision.

Larger ImageJeff Fest

I stopped in at the Jeff Fest (a.k.a. The Jefferson Park Community Festival) on the northwest side today. It's one of the many festivals going on this summer in Chicago.

(My photos can also be seen as a slideshow without the commentary.)

Larger ImageGetting a Ride

Here's Chicago's most famous Elvis impersonator:

Larger ImageRick Saucedo

A few more sites around the fest:

Larger ImageCamera Girl

Larger ImageA Couple Enjoying the Show

Larger ImageTasty Goodness

Larger ImageGirls Posing for Me

Lots more photos after the jump...

The World Naked Bike Ride plans to hit Chicago and at least 25 other cities around the world Saturday as a peaceful protest against international oil consumption, according Chicago ride organizer Aurora Danai.

"We don't expect everyone to be OK with this," said Danai, a 26-year-old Bucktown resident. "We're just trying to have a good time and raise awareness."

Now in its third year, World Naked Bike Ride is a way for communities to simultaneously protest oil use and promote positive self-images by ditching motor-powered vehicles and the body coverings society demands people wear, Danai said.

World Naked Bike Ride organizers expect people in at least 14 countries to participate in Saturday's ride. Locally, Danai expects about 300 people to bike, skate and even jog during the event.

The Chicago ride will take place at night, Danai said, out of respect for parents who do not want their children exposed to adult nudity.

On that note, welcome to the blogroll, Leslie.

While I went to McDonalds' for a late breakfast, John Ruberry ran the Chicago Marathon and photoblogged the whole thing.

People driving between downtown Chicago and northwestern Indiana have for several decades now had the option of taking the Chicago Skyway. This is a toll road built and operated by the City of Chicago, and it's the only toll road not operated by the Illinois Toll Highway Authority. That's a bit of a problem, because it doesn't participate in the I-Pass electronic toll collection system: You hand your money to the people in the toll booths.

Actually, it's not so much a toll road as a toll bridge over the Calumet river, plus a few miles of feeder ramp. The river is active with shipping, so the bridge has to rise up 125 feet. It's a substantial structure. It's priced that way too. For the last decade or so, Illinois tolls have been 40 cents, but the 8-mile Skyway costs 2 bucks.

It's a shortcut in terms of driving distance, but during busy times it hasn't always been a time saver. It gets pretty congested. A few months ago, the Skyway decided to try to improve driving times with congestion pricing, as shown here:

Skyway Congestion Pricing

Congestion pricing is an economically sound approach to fighting highway congestion by increasing the prices during normally congested times. With enough of an increase, some drivers will choose to start their trips earlier or later, and congestion will be reduced.

It almost worked. The only problem is that the Skyway combined congestion pricing with an across-the-board price increase for cars from $2.00 to $2.50. Suddenly, thousands of cars an hour needed change at the toll booths. The result was predictable:

Skyway Congestion

The previously efficient toll plazas started having long lines of vehicles.

It looks like it's going to work out for the better, however. The City has responded to the congestion by doing something I've been wanting them to do for years. Starting June 17th, the Chicago Skyway will start accepting I-Pass transponders for electronic toll payment.