-
Website
http://capitolfax.com/ -
Original page
http://capitolfax.com/2007/09/18/this-just-in-65/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
wordslinger
96 comments · 42 points
-
Rich Miller
147 comments · 56 points
-
LoopLady
16 comments · 6 points
-
theoriginallynns
16 comments · 2 points
-
dupage dan
28 comments · 2 points
-
-
Popular Threads
Who is slowing them down? Is Madigan pumping sleep gas in to prevent the rapid action that is needed?
Bet you a donut this thing today falls thru by 2PM. That still gives enough time to hit a full 18 by dark.
Telecomuting is a great option for companies and employees who can make it work. Some businesses obviously can't operate that way (such as manufacturing, restaurants & many service industries) but sales, R&D, information processing and similar businesses could all reap benefits.
From seeing the causes and results of congestion, it is apparent that spending more money on transit, high speed rail, widening roads, building new roads, expanding airports, building new airports, etc. can only get you so far. One must either live and work far away from the congestion, or refuse to step in it as much as possible, to avoid it.
"From seeing the causes and results of congestion, it is apparent that spending more money on transit, high speed rail, widening roads, building new roads, expanding airports, building new airports, etc. can only get you so far."
This is the geist of where I was going. A lot of the capital expansions end up being high cost, causing even more congestion as transportations sections are closed for expansions, and provide minimial alleviation of congestion. In looking at capital spending perhaps we need to consider a cost benefit for expanding or continuing certain capital plans, and look at cheaper solutions. For example, encourage those companies who can to shift works forces or imp,ement work at home programs through tax incentives. Look into using a few well placed high speed rail terminals to shift population centers away from the chicago region. perhaps more roadway at 1.2mil per mile, or bailing out the CTA/RTA as it currently exists are bad ideas. Do all those bus routes and train routes really provide a benefiut equal to their cost. perhaps putting money back into depressed communities to start up local business's would be a better use of the dollars. A local business would require less travel, etc and revitialize the area. We seem to approach congestion with the same inept tools, build large expensive transportation systemes, without ever stopping to think is this really a good use of the dollars?
Time magazine had a great article several years back about the effect of traffic and congestion on the average office worker who lived in the suburbs and drove into a city such as Chicago, LA, DC, Philly, etc. The study the article was based upon basically asserted the idea that no matter how many miles you drive or how long you are in the car, any amount of congestion and traffic will cause anger and emotional problems. Even ultra-calm people have to admit the effects of a day-in, day-out traffic crawl. It would drive me insane!
This is why mass transit systems that are EFFICIENTLY RUN are so important. If you mismanage a transportation system, the whole infrastructure of a city can crumble. If the CTA doesn't get its act together, it's possible that some businesses and the IOC will decide Chicago to be an unfit place.
Do we think that Jones is being forced to show that the Senate can get something done and vote on the Cullerton bill? If so, Jones can legitimately say that he accomplished someting Madigan could not.
There is a continuing debate between "new urbanism" and "sprawl" - one suggests we should try to densify as much as possible and be served by transit, the other suggests we let growth spread from the cities wherever it goes and provide for it, likely with roads.
There is a new train of thought that is considered a "radical" idea, that suggests instead of packing people in or spreading them around highly populated urban areas, we ought to be "dispersing" the entire population for sustainability, with semi-rural living and no population center bigger than 20,000, in order to promote a sustainable, congestion-free society. In areas where this already exists (like 90% of the counties in IL) there are no congestion problems to speak of. It would probably take a nuclear war or 2 to make it happen, but it's an interesting thought.
So they'll back about 5. Everyone will be yelling at VandaliaFrank how he is dishonest (*()^( and then they go home.
2 casinos in Chicago with a Board controlled by appointees of the Mayor and the Governor? Why not license the casinos to the mob? At that rate, we know it would be ran effectively.
If sprawl continues outward, eventually other areas currently not in the "Chicagoland" area but somewhat(such as Rockford, Kankakee, DeKalb, Belvidere, etc.) would be gobbled up. Prices there would raise even higher and they would be caught up in the sweeping, outward expansion.
TeeHee
If "new urbanism" is the trend, land prices in urban areas will skyrocket, too, especially near transit corridors (supply and demand).
Sprawl development also raises land prices in general, but there's always less development to fill the available land than the market will bear. Witness the recent run-up and crash in land prices in the outlying areas of Kendall, Will, etc. It will take decades and decades for all those farm fields to fill up with houses, if ever.
Dispersion is the best antidote to high land prices, because any liveable acreage is fair game, thus increasing the amount of available land (again, supply and demand). And with telecommuting, etc. it becomes an option, and a much less congested one.