Suburbia, the next slum? (Chicago, Naperville: calculator, income, living)

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by cubssoxfan

Well I didn't say it's Ok to subsidize one and not the other.
My question is why do so many outer ring villages allow the re-zoning for all the homes and commercial development? Politicians lining their pockets? Fulfilling what the market desires? Allowing the freedom for farmers to cash out? It is a complex issue.

There's clearly a lot of money to be made in greenfield development. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of costs, many or most of which are externalized.

[cubssoxfan]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

Because sprawl is good and all-American. People freely choose suburban sprawl so its simply the efficient market sorting out winners and losers. Sprawl is good therefore we should subsidize it. Transit is bad, and dirty, so it doesn't deserve our subsidies. Just look how much nicer our brand new highway is compared to that crappy, run-down subway. It just proves the innate superiority of highways over public transit.

The auto fits with the individualistic, nomadic freedom & spirit of being an American. Owning a car puts one in "control"-you depend on yourself, it's individualistic. Public Transit you depend on others- it's (for lack of a better word) socialist in both the good and bad ways the term reflects.
Transit is not bad. It's just that many feel highway dollars give an overall better ROI. I think this is short-sighted because the environmental and social costs for transit are lower. In the end it's all about choice-I like the middle ring suburbs. Dense enough to be convenient, old enough to have mature trees and infrastructure yet with enough space to keep me from feeling claustrophobic like I would be in Chicago or the older inner ring suburbs.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

There's clearly a lot of money to be made in greenfield development. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of costs, many or most of which are externalized.

As that sprawling infrastructure ages, we are going to see these costs skyrocket in the future. The cost per linear foot of road, sewer pipe, gas line, etc. is just much higher in a low-density sprawl situation. It's less of a problem now with relatively new systems, but it will be a larger problem as the ex-urb neighborhoods age. And it will be an even larger problem if wealth shifts location again back towards the heart of the city.

Some people in the James Howard Kunstler camp are speculating that we will just abandong highway spending all together once cars become too expensive to own. According to them, there will be no political will to maintain costly highways that aren't used as frequently as they once were--and we will abandon large sections of roadway. But to buy into that line of thinking, you have to believe that massive oil shortages are looming. And there is much disagreement about that.

[mendelman]

Originally Posted by rockinrolla

Whoops, you just made a blanket assumption.

Indeed...nice catch...therefore I revise my statement to be "a pseudo-intellectual." There....that's nice and individualized.

As for yous people trainin' it to DT Chicago for work, how large are your numbers really? Let's see - 87 million rides in 2008/269 work days per year, then divide product by 2 for round trip, then mulitple next product by .75 (a fair estimate that 75% of daily Metra riders work DT Chicago) and you end up with approx. 121,282 people commuting from all suburbs to DT Chicago for work.

9 milliion population - 2.8 million City population = 6.2 million living outside the City.

121,282/6 million = .019 or 2% - Not really that significant.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by mendelman

Indeed...nice catch...therefore I revise my statement to be "a pseudo-intellectual." There....that's nice and individualized.

As for yous people trainin' it to DT Chicago for work, how large are your numbers really? Let's see - 87 million rides in 2008/269 work days per year, then divide product by 2 for round trip, then mulitple next product by .75 (a fair estimate that 75% of daily Metra riders work DT Chicago) and you end up with approx. 121,282 people commuting from all suburbs to DT Chicago for work.

9 milliion population - 2.8 million City population = 6.2 million living outside the City.

121,282/6 million = .019 or 2% - Not really that significant.

To be fair, not all of the 6 million burbians are employed. Probably only a third are employed, the rest are dependents (kids, elderly, SAHM, etc.) That bumps up the % to 6. Furthermore, some percentage of 'burbians commute by CTA/Pace, especially in Oak Park, Evanston, Cicero, etc. If I recall correctly, about half of the working population of the Loop drives to work and half take public transit. The advantage of working in the Loop is that if push comes to shove (ie fuel prices >$10/gal), transit probably is an option for most.

Additionally anywhere you have a residential population you're going to have local employment due to schools, hospitals, police, fire, local government. These jobs will not migrate to the Loop. The jobs most at risk are those office park jobs along I-88, I-90, and I-94. In fact, the relocations from the burbs to the Loop which have already occurred are from these areas. And that's in the current economic landscape of low gas prices.

[via chicago]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

Just look how much nicer our brand new highway is compared to that crappy, run-down subway.

You're seriously comparing the worth of a transit system based on how it looks? Dont you think if the El was "brand new" or we dedicated the appropriate resources, it would look nice too?

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by via chicago

You're seriously comparing the worth of a transit system based on how it looks? Dont you think if the El was "brand new" or we dedicated the appropriate resources, it would look nice too?

Looks like someone's sarcasm detector needs some adjustment. Reread the whole post.

[icebergsyndrome]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

Looks like someone's sarcasm detector needs some adjustment. Reread the whole post.

The thing is that on this board your sarcasm-laden post reads like it could have been written sincerely by many of the posters.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by icebergsyndrome

The thing is that on this board your sarcasm-laden post reads like it could have been written sincerely by many of the posters.

That's the best part about it!

[rockinrolla]

Originally Posted by mendelman

Indeed...nice catch...therefore I revise my statement to be "a pseudo-intellectual." There....that's nice and individualized.

As for yous people trainin' it to DT Chicago for work, how large are your numbers really? Let's see - 87 million rides in 2008/269 work days per year, then divide product by 2 for round trip, then mulitple next product by .75 (a fair estimate that 75% of daily Metra riders work DT Chicago) and you end up with approx. 121,282 people commuting from all suburbs to DT Chicago for work.

9 milliion population - 2.8 million City population = 6.2 million living outside the City.

121,282/6 million = .019 or 2% - Not really that significant.

Hey there deep thinker, your metra ridership figures would be a point if we included the entire chicagoland suburbia into the mix. I'm talking upscale towns here, bud...not some armpit burb ghetto. Are trainloads of white collar professionals commuting into the city each day from north chicago or ford heights?