Let's Get Cycletracks

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on February 10, 2011 at 12:41pm

Figures lie when liars figure -you can prove just about anything with data from studies when things are taken out of context or fudged "just a little."  

 

Scientific studies have been so politically motivated these days that just about nothing can be trusted anymore by the average layman because only those "in the know" who have their fingers on the pulse of what is going on have a clue any more.  But who can you trust?  All the researchers themselves seem to be politically motivated and take sides themselves.  

 

One can just about "follow the money" from any  science done these days to see which politically polarized group has funded the "junk science" because the outcome always supports the sugar-daddies who are bankrolling it. 

Michael Perz said:

 

 

This leads me to wonder how exactly the authors of the study define separated lanes, because the inclusion of Chicago to the list of haves seems implicit. I don't think the study is exclusive to the cycle tracks being discussed nor does it lend support for that particular design.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on February 10, 2011 at 12:47pm

Whoa, who said anything about highway spending? Or conservatism?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T.C. O'Rourke on February 11, 2011 at 2:46pm

Duppie, I have not missed your point; I disagree with it.

 

1) Pushing cycling to trails, side streets (Wolcott) and secondary arterials (Damen) makes cyclists second class citizens.  The very thing that makes those routes attractive to cyclists is the very same that makes them unattractive to motorists: that they see less and slower moving motor traffic and are not given priority at intersections. However, the fact that these routes are currently safer and more enjoyable to cycle is a merely function of allocation of space in the major corridors; with proper and just planning, the reverse could be true.

 

2) Side streets and secondary arterials are frequently disrupted/interrupted and require extensive navigation.  Major arterials traverse obstacles.  Thus major arterials draw more traffic, become more critical and therefore draw more investment.  Currently this investment is about moving more motor-vehicles through less space in a faster capacity, in which cycling suffers.  A good example of this is the North Av. bridge, which was far more pleasant to cross before reconstruction.

 

By accepting the "alternative route" cycling plan, we allow planners to short cyclists in major investments to infrastructure.  "In a time of fiscal restraint and limited capital available" we need to demand our fair share.

 

3) If I am riding to a destination on Ashalnd, bike infrastructure on Wolcott is of limited use.  Given the density of businesses, schools and other institutions on Ashland, my destination is far more likely to be there than on Wolcott.

When traveling on Western Av., I am often surprised by new/different/closed business that exist within a few miles from my home.  This is because I probably drive or take the bus on Western <10 times a year.  I don't cycle Western Av. often, because it is unpleasant and somewhat less safe.  Therefore, I am excluded from a range of goods & service providers, who would be otherwise conveniently located to me.  Likewise, they are excluded from my business.  All because I choose to travel by bicycle.

 

4)  If we are really concerned about investing our limited resources wisely, bicycle infrastructure vs. expanding major arterial motor-vehicle capacity is the way to go.

 

5) RE: "BTW: Saying that bicycle tracks are in the city's "bike plan" is meaningless."

 

You got that right, brother.

 

T.C.

 

Duppie said:

Everything you sounds real good and no one in their right mind can be against your plans. Yet, you completely missed the point of my post.

In a time of fiscal restraint and limited capital available we have to make choices. And roads like Ashland should be at the bottom of the priority list, given the nearby alternatives available. Let's spend our limited money on useful projects. Some good examples on the Northside would be completing the Skokie Valley Line trail, the Weber Spur trail and extending the North Branch trail to Bryn Mawr. Together they would create a network of trails, thereby multiplying the value of each individual trail. A near North example would be a Wells cycle track. It's a prime candidate with limited intersections, and no alleys ending on Wells.

I'm sure plenty of good examples are available on the West and South side as well, but I am not as familiar with those areas.

 

BTW: Saying that bicycle tracks are in the city's "bike plan" is meaningless.

For the record: I have just created a plan that details how I will singlehandedly jumpstart the economy this year. It details all the goods I will buy, and the effect it has on the economy. All that's missing in my plan is a source for capital to make my plan a reality. If you are interested in providing some of that capital, I'll gladly send you a copy of my plan.

T.C. O'Rourke said:

What if you are riding to a destination on Ashland?  I guess you then just your life into the hands of the inattentive, ill-informed, uncaring motoring-public.

 

Seriously, why is being told to "go ride somewhere else" so acceptable to you? 

 

The main thoroughfares traverse obstacles like rivers, train yards and expressways without interruption.  Why should they remain inaccessible to cyclists?  Ravenswood doesn't run a mile without becoming a one-way and how many times does Wolcott start and stop? 

 

Wouldn't it be nice to just ride in a straight line? Just imagine a five mile ride without the need to zig-zag and counsult a map or some miserable signage.  Wow!  We could be just like an honest-to-goodness-real-citizens who enjoy such routes all over the city.  (Don't even get me started about the expressways.)

 

And in terms of money, frankly I think $1 spent on cycletracks is $1 less spent on bullshit.

 

The point of this post was that with a 1/2 lane reduction doesn't impact motor traffic much.  I agree, although I wish it DID.  As of late, I've been enjoying riding up Sacramento Blvd without fear of being crushed to death. 

 

Oh wait... never mind, I forgot it snows here! I guess the whole idea of biking in the wintertime is off then as well?  How could we ever, in a million, billion years, figure out how to clear the cycletrack of snow?  My hands have been thrown up!  They must not have snow in 'snooty-ass' Europe.

 

Frankly, I think $1 spent on cycletracks is $1 less spent on bullshit.

 

People, cycletracks are even in the city's "bike plan". Of course the leadership is lacking beyond planners planning to plan a plan.

 

T.C.

 

P.S. Howard, I don't think bikes or bike infrastructure is what's holding up the buses.

 

 

 

 

Duppie said:

Why waste precious money on what is undoubtedly a costly initiative, when great alternatives to Ashland are readily available: Southport, Ravenswood/Wolcott, etc?

 

Like Anne mentioned in a different thread: Why not spend that money in areas that really need it?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on February 11, 2011 at 2:51pm

+1

T.C. O'Rourke said:

Duppie, I have not missed your point; I disagree with it.

 

1) Pushing cycling to trails, side streets (Wolcott) and secondary arterials (Damen) makes cyclists second class citizens.  The very thing that makes those routes attractive to cyclists is the very same that makes them unattractive to motorists: that they see less and slower moving motor traffic and are not given priority at intersections. However, the fact that these routes are currently safer and more enjoyable to cycle is a merely function of allocation of space in the major corridors; with proper and just planning, the reverse could be true.

 

2) Side streets and secondary arterials are frequently disrupted/interrupted and require extensive navigation.  Major arterials traverse obstacles.  Thus major arterials draw more traffic, become more critical and therefore draw more investment.  Currently this investment is about moving more motor-vehicles through less space in a faster capacity, in which cycling suffers.  A good example of this is the North Av. bridge, which was far more pleasant to cross before reconstruction.

 

By accepting the "alternative route" cycling plan, we allow planners to short cyclists in major investments to infrastructure.  "In a time of fiscal restraint and limited capital available" we need to demand our fair share.

 

3) If I am riding to a destination on Ashalnd, bike infrastructure on Wolcott is of limited use.  Given the density of businesses, schools and other institutions on Ashland, my destination is far more likely to be there than on Wolcott.

When traveling on Western Av., I am often surprised by new/different/closed business that exist within a few miles from my home.  This is because I probably drive or take the bus on Western <10 times a year.  I don't cycle Western Av. often, because it is unpleasant and somewhat less safe.  Therefore, I am excluded from a range of goods & service providers, who would be otherwise conveniently located to me.  Likewise, they are excluded from my business.  All because I choose to travel by bicycle.

 

4)  If we are really concerned about investing our limited resources wisely, bicycle infrastructure vs. expanding major arterial motor-vehicle capacity is the way to go.

 

5) RE: "BTW: Saying that bicycle tracks are in the city's "bike plan" is meaningless."

 

You got that right, brother.

 

T.C.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page