Speaking of the Trib, anyone read the editorial Firday, "The $153 million traffic jam" (section 1, page 24)? They basically summed up the BRT project as a ploy to make driving worse for commuters in order to boost ridership of mass transit:
"If Chicago wants to migrate drivers to mass transit, it should concentrate on making the buses and trains a better option, not making the car a worse one."
While I partially agree with this statement taken as is, I just simply don't agree with it in the context of the transit situation, personal and mass, in Chicago right now. The editorial criticized the CTA for being underfunded, but doesn't the CTA's share of federal funding depend on ridership statistics? And isn't the fact that it's so (relatively) easy to drive a car in Chicago one of the main reasons that CTA ridership isn't the maximum of what it could potentially be? So, in reality, couldn't making it more difficult for people to commute by car could potentially help break the cycle and help the CTA get the funds it needs to improve the ridership experience that so many potential riders have been clamoring for?
To its credit, the Tribune editorial did applaud Huberman for his recent efforts, but then in the same paragraph they followed up with this:
"But Chicago would be foolish to make life miserable for motorists before it can assure them a more attractive alternative. When the CTA is on track, drivers will be more inclined to park their cars and climb aboard."
So is my aforementioned reasoning about breaking the transit cycle flawed, or is the Tribune totally uninformed here?