Chicago roads may undergo bumpy transition to bus-only lanes

Jake wrote:

<quoted text>
After spending a fair amount of time on the Trib's comment boards, I can now say fairly certainly that even if escaping poor, nonwhite people is not the only reason people like the suburbs, it is a major reason. I've seen endless bigoted remarks about blacks, Mexicans, and poor people by suburbanites condemning Chicago - I don't think I've seen a single comment about how crowded it is.
Can you explain what you mean in saying that problems with urban schools are caused by "who attends them"? If you look at the vast funding disparities between urban and suburban schools, I think you might find a better explanation.

Your correct,the reason I live way out in suburbia is so my children don't have gang bangers and illegal aliens as peers.I also have no interest living in a multi-cultural society.That is human nature and its what freedom means.If a socialist society is more to your taste,then leave.
The real fear the liberals see in urban sprawl is a loss of voting base and big taxpayers.Thats the REAL motivation behind behind the "AL GORES"

The urban dwellers hate the suburbs because they can't afford to live there. They hate the suburbanites because they all commute into the city, make their money, take that money out of the city, and spend it in their local suburban economies. They hate the suburbs because the thought of someone who lives in a 3,000 sq ft house with a yard a garage and two nice cars in the driveway drives them crazy. They hate the suburbs because they live in the city with all the noise, pollution, crime, etc. and pay through the nose for it.

osama obama wrote:

<quoted text>social damage ? words of a true liberal.the automobile has allowed the escape from the social damage of a liberal goverment that have turned our city into an over taxed war zone run by unions and gang bangers.STAY OUT OF WILL COUNTY PLEASE

gladly you racist h!ck. we don't want any of your beef jerky. and you can keep your confederate flag, too.

bus only lanes wrote:

Jake... We aren't killing arabs "on behalf of drivers" as you'd like to think. We are killing them on behalf of the American economy and infrastructure, which is entirely dependent on transporting people and goods across the country and around the globe. The truth is we could outlaw personal ownership of automobiles tomorrow and we'd still need that foreign oil, because nothing we do is exempt from it. From airlines to agriculture, to the water coming out of your faucet, nothing goes anywhere without oil. Local economies could survive in rural areas where you could grow food and transport it on horseback, but the food you eat in the city comes from thousands of miles away.
And your graduated income tax idea? Come on -- the wealthy already pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes. Why punish them for being successful and make them fund something they will never use with their money? That reeks of socialism. What we need to do is eliminate the child tax credit and stop rewarding the breeders and the people who don't contribute to society. Fund mass transit the old fashioned way -- charge people what it costs to operate it.

Public transit operates at a loss? SHOCKING!!! Everybody knows that. The reality is, if you charged users what it costs to operate the system, a trip on the CTA would cost approximately $16.52 per ride.

Public transport is inherently a public good by providing cheap transit and relieving traffic congestion. As such, the system is entitled to a public subsidy to offset operational costs.

I think the bigger question is, how high does the price of gas have to go to get people out of their cars?$5 per gallon?$10?$50?

I've got news for people who are upset at $4 gas. Cheap gas is not coming back. Ever. Oil is a finite substance and as such, there is a limited amount which we can use. The more we use, the less is left to use in the future. Supply will never meet demand again. Thus, we need transportation alternatives in place. Until someone discovers a cost-effective alternative fuel source (hydrogen, solar, etc.), mass transit is the only choice.

BCD, if oil was really that scarce, gas wouldn't be .25/gallon in Iraq. Demand has NOTHING to do with it, I repeat NOTHING. You are paying $4/gallon for gas because you WILL pay it. The poeple selling us oil know that there is no viable alternative. They control the supply side of the equation, keeping what's "available" in line with whats being used to keep the price high. If we cut demand by 10%, they will cut production and raise the price even more.

This is nothing more than global socialism at work, thinly veiled wealth re-distribution if you will.

Mass transit is the only choice? There are billions of barrels of oil out there in the Gulf of Mexico, and we aren't allowed to drill it. But other countries are, and they are doing so. And they are selling that oil to us. Iraq has enough oil to supply the US for another 50 years. If things were that dire, and the oil was really "running out" we'd be drafting kids and sending them over there by the thousands to take it over and make Iraq the 51st state.

You have been had, BCD. You are stupid. Keeping people piled up in cities relying on public transportation with few options to go or live anywhere else isn't a wise ecological decision, its a way for the people who really control what goes on in this country to seperate you and your money. There's a finite amount of wealth, BCD. The fact that its controlled by a handful of people is no accident. Those who know how to play the game and make money work won't be taking public transportation any time soon...

Wow...as a former Chicago Public School teacher, I have to say that might be the most ignorant thing I have ever read. I can only assume you have no contact with students in CPS schools, or that you happily buy into every racist argument made about these children. By the way, bringing up your "good minorities" such as Asian and Indian children does not disguise your contempt for other minorities, such as African Americans and Latinos, which I can only assume you consider to be "bad minorities". You should definately STAY in the suburbs...there is no room for you here!

bus only lanes wrote:

<quoted text>
Jake, the schools are only as good as the kids sitting in the desks. Throwing money at the school isn't going to matter when the kids don't show up or don't want to learn when they get there. It's the environment they live in, the homes they come from, the people their families have rasied them to be that makes the suburban schools great. The kids want to do well, because going to college matters to them. They have dreams, they have goals, and they understand that a good paying job isn't going to fall out of the sky -- you have to be able to go and GET that job, and you have to compete for it. More than all that, the kids want to be liked by their friends. Bad grades, being "dumb", being irresponsible, not being able to get into college, those are reasons suburban kids look down on each other. Nobody wants to be the kid who got a D on the test.
It's not because the kids are white, lots of them are Asian and Indian. It's because the kids value education and value the kind of life they have living in the suburbs. It's becase the kids want their kids to have the same opportunities.

Actually, I grew up in the suburbs and live in the city by choice. I do hate the thought of someone living in a 3000 square foot house with two cars in the driveway, but not for the reason you think. I hate it because the innate selfishness of having twice the house you need just to impress the neighbors (and don't say that is not why you do it...we all know that keeping up with the Jones' is your motivation) is appalling. The cookie cutter houses (big, but all exactly the same) with the huge kitchens you only use to wash the dishes you put your takout on, the big lawns you hire someone else to mow, and the amazing video system you bought so your kids would never have to breathe fresh air or use their imaginations, are an embarrassment.

So go on and live your sanitized, perfect little suburban life because you don't know any better. But don't complain to us when your boredom overcomes you and you don't know why you are working that miserable job with your huge house feeling like a prison around you because you are stuck in a life you never wanted.

bus only lanes wrote:

The urban dwellers hate the suburbs because they can't afford to live there. They hate the suburbanites because they all commute into the city, make their money, take that money out of the city, and spend it in their local suburban economies. They hate the suburbs because the thought of someone who lives in a 3,000 sq ft house with a yard a garage and two nice cars in the driveway drives them crazy. They hate the suburbs because they live in the city with all the noise, pollution, crime, etc. and pay through the nose for it.

Beth, there are no "bad minorities" and no "good minorities" You of all people should know that.
Explain to me why it is that the black and latino students in the suburban public schools always seem to graduate and go on to college? Why are the ACT and the SAT scores so much higher in the suburban schools? Certainly its not because the teachers are often making $75,000, is it? It's not something in the water, is it? It's the way the kids in the city LIVE, its the environment they are raised in, and I don't care how much money you pour into the schools, you're not going to fix education until you fix the kids.

Beth wrote:

Actually, I grew up in the suburbs and live in the city by choice. I do hate the thought of someone living in a 3000 square foot house with two cars in the driveway, but not for the reason you think. I hate it because the innate selfishness of having twice the house you need just to impress the neighbors (and don't say that is not why you do it...we all know that keeping up with the Jones' is your motivation) is appalling. The cookie cutter houses (big, but all exactly the same) with the huge kitchens you only use to wash the dishes you put your takout on, the big lawns you hire someone else to mow, and the amazing video system you bought so your kids would never have to breathe fresh air or use their imaginations, are an embarrassment.
So go on and live your sanitized, perfect little suburban life because you don't know any better. But don't complain to us when your boredom overcomes you and you don't know why you are working that miserable job with your huge house feeling like a prison around you because you are stuck in a life you never wanted.
<quoted text>

Well, Beth, that's pretty funny. First off, if the neighbors all have the same house thats the same size, like you say, how exactly is it that any one would be more impressive than any of the others? If I wanted to impress the neighbors with the house, I'd buy a bigger one in a different neighborhood. But then they wouldn't be neighbors any more, and what they thought wouldn't matter, now would it?

And let's be honest with ourselves for a moment -- is living in a big house really "selfish"? If I moved into a smaller house, would someone who can't afford a big house now be able to live there? No. Would they tear down the house a build two in its place so two families could live there? No. In fact if I sold my house, someone else would buy it and live there, and I'd probably make money on the deal. Would THAT be selfish too?

And I just love your "sanitized" comment! So the city is less sanitized, and that's a GOOD thing? That's a reason to want to live there?

I'll give you credit for at least having some decent writing skills, but whatever arguments you are trying to make are so full of holes it's apparent that your real motivation for your hatred of the suburbs comes from somewhere else. I am guessing you live in the city because you want your friends to think you are "cool" because it's fashionable in your circle of friends to "hate the suburbs", but the reality is your are secretly jealous because they can afford to live like that and you can't.

bus only lanes wrote:

BCD, if oil was really that scarce, gas wouldn't be .25/gallon in Iraq. Demand has NOTHING to do with it, I repeat NOTHING. You are paying $4/gallon for gas because you WILL pay it. The poeple selling us oil know that there is no viable alternative. They control the supply side of the equation, keeping what's "available" in line with whats being used to keep the price high. If we cut demand by 10%, they will cut production and raise the price even more.
This is nothing more than global socialism at work, thinly veiled wealth re-distribution if you will.
Mass transit is the only choice? There are billions of barrels of oil out there in the Gulf of Mexico, and we aren't allowed to drill it. But other countries are, and they are doing so. And they are selling that oil to us. Iraq has enough oil to supply the US for another 50 years. If things were that dire, and the oil was really "running out" we'd be drafting kids and sending them over there by the thousands to take it over and make Iraq the 51st state.
You have been had, BCD. You are stupid. Keeping people piled up in cities relying on public transportation with few options to go or live anywhere else isn't a wise ecological decision, its a way for the people who really control what goes on in this country to seperate you and your money. There's a finite amount of wealth, BCD. The fact that its controlled by a handful of people is no accident. Those who know how to play the game and make money work won't be taking public transportation any time soon...

Maybe I'm missing something, but last time I checked, the US already was sending thousands of kids to take over Iraq. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 120,000? I'm not sure what your point is on that one.

Also, regarding urban development, the current suburban model cannot be sustained indefinitely. Suburban sprawl continues to spread further away into the exurbs while jobs are concentrated in the urban center. The overarching reason for this sprawl is due to more and more people wanting cheap land in rural areas to build their Mc-Mansions. The infrastructure in these areas was never designed to accommodate these population levels and as a result, we are left with highways choked with traffic and crumbling roads. Things are only going to get worse until either the price of gas becomes so high that no one can afford it, or the traffic becomes so unbearable that people refuse to drive. In both cases, the population will flock to major urban centers to be near their jobs.

You ARE missing something BCD. If what you say is going to happen happens, real estate in the city will be so scarce and so expensive that nobody will be able to afford it. Furthermore, of the costs to live in the suburbs surpass the ability of the people who live there to pay for it, what happens then? The first thing is that all the suburban economies will collapse. If that happens, guess what goes with them? Yep, you guessed it -- the companies that own those businesses, all of which are headquartered in the cities. That means people will flock to the cities to find there are no jobs and no place to live. THEN WHAT?

Do you honestly believe the oil companies, the auto manufacturers, the big conglomerates who essentially own this country are going to let that happen? You are talking about total collapse here, and THAT will hurt the rich and powerful. I guarantee you that will not be allowed.

This article is relevant to a couple of the issues we've been talking about:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/realestate/...
Basically some people in suburban New York are talking about building residential developments in office parks, and want to include affordable housing.

This addresses "bus only lanes"'s claim that suburbs can't be redesigned for high density and mixed use. In fact places like office parks could easily be converted by building apartments and adding some retail. Many old suburban downtowns could also be redeveloped around existing commuter rail stops so people can walk or bike to Metra, restaurants, and stores.

Yet suburbs are resisting these ideas because affordable housing and transit might bring in "the wrong kind of people". Yet again, the outcry that always accompanies proposals to build affordable housing in the suburbs lays bare the fundamentally racist and classist motivations that underlie many people's preference for the suburbs.

Who would want "affordable housing" is their suburb? The fact that it's unaffordable for many people is what makes that area what it is. you have to be fairly accomplished in life, or you can't afford to live there. Becauwse of that, crime is next to nothing. If you are well off enough to live there, you've got too much to lose by commiting any sort of prpoerty crime, theft, etc.

Bring in affordable housing, and two things happen -- like you said, a different class of people move in. And they bring with them the very things the suburban residents don't want in their neighborhood. On top of that is the fact that affordable housing drives property values down for the entire area. Nobody wants that. How would you like being told that that new development going in means your house is going to be worth $50,000 less, and you have to start locking your doors at night and worrying about someone breaking into your car on the driveway?

bus only lanes wrote:

Who would want "affordable housing" is their suburb? The fact that it's unaffordable for many people is what makes that area what it is. you have to be fairly accomplished in life, or you can't afford to live there. Becauwse of that, crime is next to nothing. If you are well off enough to live there, you've got too much to lose by commiting any sort of prpoerty crime, theft, etc.
Bring in affordable housing, and two things happen -- like you said, a different class of people move in. And they bring with them the very things the suburban residents don't want in their neighborhood. On top of that is the fact that affordable housing drives property values down for the entire area. Nobody wants that. How would you like being told that that new development going in means your house is going to be worth $50,000 less, and you have to start locking your doors at night and worrying about someone breaking into your car on the driveway?

Then you admit that one of the key things suburbanites like about suburbs is the isolation from people they consider dangerous or inferior. Because earlier you were claiming that the only thing people like about the suburbs is personal space.

For me, it's an issue that I don't like the feeling of no privacy that I had in the city. Everywhere you turn, somebody's there all the time. The suburbs have gotten worse over the years , for this, also. Were things a little better economically, I would be moving further. My commute would be longer, but my off time on weekends would be more enjoyable. I have no issue with any minority moving into my neighborhood or next door. I ask the same of them, that I ask of anybody. Respect my privacy and my property. I will respect theirs. We'll get along fine.

If some of you want to live in six story apartment/condo buildings, then continue to do so. Just don't expect everyone to do so. If anyone has a way of bringing in practical public transportation without raising my taxes, I will listen. Can't speak for the rest of you, but my budget can't take much more.

raze the ladder wrote:

<quoted text>
Then you admit that one of the key things suburbanites like about suburbs is the isolation from people they consider dangerous or inferior. Because earlier you were claiming that the only thing people like about the suburbs is personal space.

I never claimed that was the ONLY thing they liked about the suburbs.

And I like how you interject that it's people they "CONSIDER" to be dangerous or inferior.

Low income/affordable/subsidized housing brings with it a segment of the population who by nature of their place in life make the neighborhood less safe, less appealing, and not as nice of a place to live. You can't dispute that. It's not about race, or class, or inferiority. It's about wanting to live in a nice quiet neighborhood where you don't have to worry about crime, violence, etc. where you are surrounded with people who have the same respect for other people and their property that you do. The city is not that place.

jake wrote:

Let's see, transit riders benefit from faster and more reliable service, drivers benefit from fewer cars on the road and no more competition with buses, we all benefit from less pollution, fewer road accidents, less wear and tear on the roads, and less global warming.
What's the downside?

It's very very obvious from your question that you've never taken public transportation in chicago.

bus only lanes wrote:

I never claimed that was the ONLY thing they liked about the suburbs.
And I like how you interject that it's people they "CONSIDER" to be dangerous or inferior.
Low income/affordable/subsidized housing brings with it a segment of the population who by nature of their place in life make the neighborhood less safe, less appealing, and not as nice of a place to live. You can't dispute that. It's not about race, or class, or inferiority. It's about wanting to live in a nice quiet neighborhood where you don't have to worry about crime, violence, etc. where you are surrounded with people who have the same respect for other people and their property that you do. The city is not that place.

So let me just make sure I understand what you're saying. You think that the suburbs provide a higher standard of living and a better education than the city, but you want to exclude poor people from these opportunities thru an economically-enforced apartheid secured by suburban zoning laws.

If that's not outright classism and racism (in effect if not intent), I don't know what is. And it is repugnant.

At the beginning of this discussion you said:

bus only lanes wrote:

The people in the suburbs aren't repelled by the thought of living near "inferior" people, they are repelled by the thought of living near TOO MANY people.

At the time I was willing to give you benefit of the doubt and concluded you were naive rather than classist and (effectively) racist. I was wrong.

raze the ladder wrote:

<quoted text>
So let me just make sure I understand what you're saying. You think that the suburbs provide a higher standard of living and a better education than the city, but you want to exclude poor people from these opportunities thru an economically-enforced apartheid secured by suburban zoning laws.
If that's not outright classism and racism (in effect if not intent), I don't know what is. And it is repugnant.
At the beginning of this discussion you said:
<quoted text>
At the time I was willing to give you benefit of the doubt and concluded you were naive rather than classist and (effectively) racist. I was wrong.

The suburbs absolutely DO provide a higher standard of living and a better education. I don't wish to deny anyone that opportunity. But I do not believe for a moment that it should simply be given to those who have not earned it by virtue or their hard work, determination, and intelligence. That lifestyle is not a RIGHT, it is a priveledge, which is EARNED, by proving first of all that you are able to earn enough money to afford it.

Second, it has been proven time and time again that when you bring people from the city into these sort of neighborhoods, it drags down the standard of living, the quality of education, and the safety that comes with both of those.

Try as you might to make that about race, but it is not and never will be about one's nationality or the color of their skin. And wish all you want to make it about class to prove your point, but it isn't about class either. It's about earning a priveledge to live a certain lifestlye that one can only appreciate and respect if one has actually earned that privledge. Bestowing it upon those who have not earned it does nothing for either group.

From this side of the pond I think it should be easy to implement bus lanes in Chicago. In comparison to the UK your city streets are wide and could easily surrender a traffic lane for buses. Most British cities have narrow streets so we can only have short stretches of bus lane as illustrated in this video clip taken in Preston, Lancashire:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...