The Chainlink

This is what Chicago really needs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Adjacent to Lakeshore, 90, 94, 355, 290 ,etc

This could be incorporated next to all expressways.

http://www.thepurehands.org/cycleways/

Views: 679

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

That is cool indeed.  Here is the video from the website:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISIu95Eh1dc

Youtube brought me to this other very cool video of biking in Copenhagen.  Love those segregated bike lanes, really nice.  More of those in Chicago and we probably don't really need a Sky-Cycle-Way.

I liked the idea of the sky-cycle-way, BUT not sure how it would be implemented in Chicago, since we have so many raised lanes already (tracks for our elevated trains), unlike other cities, so it would be harder to figure out how to create elevated bike lanes without criss-crossing those - it almost seems impossible, unless one has many sky-cycle-ways that one could exit and board rather than one cross-city system.  Hard to believe this would be cheaper than building more segregated bike lanes a la Copehagen.  It sure seems fun though!   Like biking in those elevated forest paths! 

This type of design is what is needed more coming out of the city going to the burbs but all over major cities if you ask me.

Maybe they could be placed next to the "L" tracks, or under them. 

SlowCoachOnTheRoad said:

That is cool indeed.  Here is the video from the website:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISIu95Eh1dc

Youtube brought me to this other very cool video of biking in Copenhagen.  Love those segregated bike lanes, really nice.  More of those in Chicago and we probably don't really need a Sky-Cycle-Way.

I liked the idea of the sky-cycle-way, BUT not sure how it would be implemented in Chicago, since we have so many raised lanes already (tracks for our elevated trains), unlike other cities, so it would be harder to figure out how to create elevated bike lanes without criss-crossing those - it almost seems impossible, unless one has many sky-cycle-ways that one could exit and board rather than one cross-city system.  Hard to believe this would be cheaper than building more segregated bike lanes a la Copehagen.  It sure seems fun though!   Like biking in those elevated forest paths! 

It would get killed because, as my Alderman stated when I tried to point out the horrible riding conditions and deplorable "bikability plan" in my ward in Aurora: "Look, everyone wants funding for their pet projects, but we have to think about what benefits everybody." I haven't been able to work up a response yet that doesn't insult his intelligence and interest, so I haven't really responded. I will be actively working to make sure he's a one term Alderman though...

I know its all politics and no one really cares about the concept.  Just think about it: how many pro's this idea/plan has; helping each other by being in shape, conserving the environment, reducing congestion on the roads, etc.  I can go on-and -on!!!!   I mean there are so many pros to this idea but yet again politics play in the role which is just sad! 

:)

I really thought the bike way up in the sky was cool, but surely politics, whatever their irrational elements, is also about the rational use of existing monies.  If we already have roads, and bikes can go on roads, then it seems at least more rational to use them for bikes too, but only if we can guarantee bike safety (experiments like in that  earlier movie about Copenhagen show that lanes can be a lot more segregated than ours - and we have seen that even in Chicago with the Dearborn experiment - regardless of whether pedestrians stand in them now and then).  Our city is huge compared with cities in Holland or Sweden, so the idea of something up in the sky that will take us to and from the suburbs seems a bit too much to ask, especially as roads and sidewalks already exist.  I am not sure we are reducing congestion on the road all that much by cycling up above since most congestion is still cars, even on those afternoons when you see us in greater numbers heading home from work.  I could understand politicians feeling that expense on something like this might be an excessive pet project given they have to slice up the budgetary pie many ways - they don't want to ignore bikers altogether, and they are very aware of how city-friendly a bike-friendly city becomes, but modifying existing roads to improve safety is worth spending the money on since it only requires gradual modifications over time, using existing tax monies slowly, rather than an all-out building of a skyway (on the other hand, the CTA, which serves millions of people a week, is worth spending all-out money on to modify and upgrade, as the City is doing now with the Red Line).  But in the end, evidence must support the best decision - actually seeing the costs and benefits of all proposals - which one requires the least money to get the most bang for the buck?  Someone earlier mentioned adding bike lanes to existing road ways - that isn't a bad idea actually, and another example of modification, but given the accident-prone higways, not sure if that is the safest place to put us and our kids either, unless we are protected by a wall.

Frankie said:

I know its all politics and no one really cares about the concept.  Just think about it: how many pro's this idea/plan has; helping each other by being in shape, conserving the environment, reducing congestion on the roads, etc.  I can go on-and -on!!!!   I mean there are so many pros to this idea but yet again politics play in the role which is just sad! 

:)

I can definitely see your view.  I would love adjacent bike lanes to expressways protected by a wall on some newly placed asphalt!

The sky cycle thing looks cool but what happens in regards to long term maintenance.  It's going to have asphalt or something similar on it and if that's the case how does it get repaved when needed since it's elevated and probably has limited clearance for the typical machinery used to rip up asphalt and repave it as needed.

Well as anything out on the road-maintenance is needed, I'm not a politician and dont condone raising anything of course but maybe a .5 cent hike on taxes, which I hate paying taxes and in Chicago is just a ridic amount of state taxes already paid by all of us.  Also I have read environmental companies assisting in maintenance of these structures if they are in the deal.   In the end who knows and Chicago politics come into play , right.

It appears in London its underway.

http://www.huhmagazine.co.uk/4229/skycycle-lanes-proposed-for-london

Cool! Here is a drawing I made envisioning a similar skyway idea. Using wind power to push riders along the tubes for a nice tailwind assit. Trees surrounding those sections to provide shade and fresh air. Solar panels mounted on top and wind generators to power the system's electronic equipment.

A draft, without trees.

Thumbs up !!!

RSS

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service