ydc123

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by ydc123 3y ago

   You didn't "question the premise", you disregarded the content of the article and why it was written. Doing this opens yourself up to criticism.
2. 2.▲
   by ydc123 3y ago

   I agree with everything above minus the last part. Bikes, walking, and mass transit can (and should) absolutely replace car usage if the infrastructure is there to support it. This has been proven in many European cities, Americans are just
3. 3.▲
   by ydc123 3y ago

   Calling this a "fantastic deal" is the opposite of civil. The article literally has "disaster" in the title and goes into excruciating detail about how damaging it has been to the city.
4. 4.▲
   by ydc123 3y ago

   This is unquestionably not a "fantastic deal for Chicago and its taxpayers". Did you read the article or just do a brain-dead interest calculation? The deal forces the city to remain car-dependent, which is absolutely not in the b