One of the great things about Chicago is that it's a kick-ass city that isn't all that expensive. We all know this, but considering the recent financial problems the city is having, esp with the CTA, it begs a question.
Now while I realize that this forum is full of urbanists who are biased towards central cities and better transit, I still thought I'd post this poll as well as start this thread at least to get your thoughts on this topic.
Consider the fact that the great cities in the world are very expensive--New York, London, Tokyo, etc etc. They don't have great transit systems for nothing--this cost is ultimately passed on to the public. Chicago is in a situation where it must "decide" whether to bear a higher financial burden to maintain and expand its system. I put "decide" in parentheses because I think it's probably inevitable that, mud-slinging and political infighting aside, Chicago will eventually expand and upgrade its system (not without several years of pain and suffering burdened by transit users, for sure). How long this ultimately will take is up for a different debate.
But the question is this. Would you be willing to live in a much more expensive city (higher taxes, higher cost of real estate brought on by better transit) if there were a promise of better city services, of which transit is included? Suburbanites feel free to answer, although I guess some of our forumers who never use transit, such as Ed, may not be a big fan of this idea. But I've been wrong about him before  .> |
0 comments:
Post a Comment