Streetcleaning: double edged sword for cyclists...

who own motor vehicles.

What I dislike about streetcleaning, like many other city services, is its guise.  Yes, it's a necessary service, especially for cyclists.  It's this very sweeping of debris that keeps us from getting more frequent flats.  It seems we get screwed more often though.  Well at least those of us who own motor vehicles, since we tend to drive less and often park on the street.

I have come to terms with the fact that streetcleaning is a means to acquire revenue for the city.  Yes they are doing a service, but they are also counting on motorists not moving their vehicles so that they can collect revenue.  If everyone moved their vehicles accordingly, I am sure the mayor would be fairly upset.  It's this opportunistic behavior I hate, yes hate!  Kind of like that guy in the earlier thread.  The one about the abandoned bike...you know he didn't want the owner to claim the bike, so he could take it as his own.   

So as I stare out my window and look at that bright orange ticket splattered on my windshield, I am upset.  So much so that I gave myself a headache.  Not at having to pay, but at having forgotten to move my car yet again.  I feel like the guy from memento, hopefully I wont get run down by a (insert mode of transportation here) as I am wandering on the (insert location here) aimlessly in a senile stupor one day.  rant over.   

Views: 269

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael J Blane on August 10, 2010 at 6:50am
If you're living in the USofA, then, you're living in a republic, not a democracy.

See:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_difference_between_a_republic_and...

David said:
Simple answer: because you live in a democracy and how to utilize public space is something we decide on collectively (within the confines of representative democracy, obviously).
Permalink Reply by tzizzle on August 10, 2010 at 6:52am
Driving and owning a car is not free. It requires roads to drive on, not to speak of tons of other complex infrastructure requirements. When you decide to drive a car, you are adding to all these infrastructure costs. In other words, the infrastructure costs are PART of owning and operating a car. They aren't some "extra" fee.

Moreover, congestion (caused entirely by individual car drivers) is an added cost built into driving an automobile. This isn't some side-effect. It's a part of car driving pure and simple.

Bikes on the other hand, do not destroy roads, cause potholes, or require parking lots and garages. Nor do they pollute city air and water. Nor do they contribute to congestion.

Now, I understand that (from the myopic perspective of the driver's seat) it's hard to see these macro-level factors. But that's part of the problem. Car driving encourages a narrow, ultimately distorting individualism that clouds people's ability to see their own contribution to social costs.

Chicago should do what London has done: tax car driving heavily (even more heavily than it is now) and use it to subsidize bike and public transport. Cars are not sustainable and either they must phased out in 50 years, or the human race will be phased out by climate change.

Tax cars, incentivize sustainable transit.
Permalink Reply by David on August 10, 2010 at 7:04am
I must admit find that to be kind of a strange response. You deleted the part where I agreed with the some of the arguments he made and the fact that they were made, then attacked me for supposedly insisting that he not argue for his position. Also, I have no idea why you think that calling something a "policy decision" somehow makes it unimportant or belittles it: government policy decisions always deeply affect our lives.

Somehow, you seem to equate the idea of "I don't think that particular argument is persuasive" with the idea of "I insist you remain silent." I admit failure, I have no idea how to respond to that.

Being new in these parts, I apparently accidentally entered a flame war thinking it was a conversation. My bad. Carry on.

H3N3 said:
But moral statements about who has the right to public space and who doesn't, and phrases like "why are my tax dollars going to support x?" where x is something you don't like, are generally guaranteed to generate more heat than light.

Tough beans-- T.C. has as right to present his views as anyone else, and I happen to agree with them.
We're not going back into the "rejects car ownership" closet just because our views make you uncomfortable, sorry. We need to change the culture, and the way to do that is not to remain silent because tireless defenders of the status quo think "the time is not right" for a particular message.

Your abstract "policy decisions" affect our lives most minutes of most days. I think any citizen is within his or her right to push back when they find themselves marginalized and disadvantaged by "policy."
Permalink Reply by thang van ung on August 10, 2010 at 7:18am
this is so derailed!
howard - "rejects car ownership" closet - MAJOR straw-man. by all means, come out but you gotta have a FLAG ;)
when did "share the road" conclude to control the usage of the road? the sense of entitlement tends to cross boundaries and evolve into an anti-choice dogma -- be better than the anti-cyclist motorists.
also, "democracy" as someone stated, i hope you know that is totally rigged -- and if you truly believe in democracy then stand behind pro-choice for a start. a love for freedom (e.g., drawn from from cycling) becomes suspect when anti-choice (of others) is opted.

equally, weather is a major destructive force on pavement. let's stop the evils of the weather. probably not.

p.s., i love driving my audi 2.8 quattro stick when i'm not carrying anything and going really fast on a winding road. i don't think ferraris' owners think about cargo.
Permalink Reply by Rick norris on August 10, 2010 at 7:24am
And when these higher taxes go into place are YOU willing to pay more for services that require someone to come to home with a car...for repairs, or to deliver something? Will you be willing to pay more for shipping when you buy something mail order for your bike? Or pay more at the LBS for the part?Or when you get that new TV set up and delivered?

Bicycles ALSO require complex imfrastructures...did you see the post recently about that great bridge over the RR tracks being completed? Yeah I used it, its cool, but I could just as easily walked across the RR tracks with out getting hit by a slow moving freight train...I'm kinda smart that way....I'm not sure how much the bridge cost, but I am sure that 0 dollars of bicycle USE tax went to fund it.

While I agree bikes do much less damage to roads than cars, any traffic on a surface will at some point cause wear and tear, and will need to be re surfaced.

As far as climat change, what about all us people that breath? We will al be breathing even heavier sucking up more oxegen, eat more and passing gas more when we bicycle more? Yeah car exhaust isn't good for you, but what about factories in China that have no EPA that build bicycles?
Torches and paint booths that are probably vented right to the outside air?
NOTHING IS POLLUTION FREE

EDITED TO ADD....I have no issues with taxes from cars paying for bicycles and subsidizing public transportation, thats kind of what I thought those taxes did anyway, MAYBE we should start holding the people that tax us and spend the money more accountable of where it goes.

tzizzle said:
Driving and owning a car is not free. It requires roads to drive on, not to speak of tons of other complex infrastructure requirements. When you decide to drive a car, you are adding to all these infrastructure costs. In other words, the infrastructure costs are PART of owning and operating a car. They aren't some "extra" fee.

Moreover, congestion (caused entirely by individual car drivers) is an added cost built into driving an automobile. This isn't some side-effect. It's a part of car driving pure and simple.

Bikes on the other hand, do not destroy roads, cause potholes, or require parking lots and garages. Nor do they pollute city air and water. Nor do they contribute to congestion.

Now, I understand that (from the myopic perspective of the driver's seat) it's hard to see these macro-level factors. But that's part of the problem. Car driving encourages a narrow, ultimately distorting individualism that clouds people's ability to see their own contribution to social costs.

Chicago should do what London has done: tax car driving heavily (even more heavily than it is now) and use it to subsidize bike and public transport. Cars are not sustainable and either they must phased out in 50 years, or the human race will be phased out by climate change.

Tax cars, incentivize sustainable transit.
Permalink Reply by GabeW (not the other Gabe) on August 10, 2010 at 7:53am
Can I just say, instead of continuing to add anything to this thread regarding the OP, that I'm glad this thread exists. It embodies everything that is wrong with cycling advocacy. Keep up the good work, and share(??) the road.
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on August 10, 2010 at 8:45am
Adriana said:
If it were up to me, we'd all travel by piggyback.

Who is 'we'? If you mean everyone in the world, isn't that a logical impossibility? Or did you mean that we should all hop on the backs of soon-to-be-bacon? :)
Permalink Reply by tzizzle on August 10, 2010 at 10:11am
You're spinning your wheels here, "Rick Norris".

Bikes aren't technically pollution free, it is true. But once they're produced and assembled, they basically don't pollute. The only pollution is when I exhale. Cars, in contrast, quite obviously do pollute air and water in a serious way. Is this really a point of contention?

Also, we could easily make a tax exemption for commerce-related, business cars. Business already gets all kinds of kick-backs that ordinary folks don't. This would be easy enough to implement.

Bikes require infrastructure, sure. But bikes don't deteriorate infrastructure like cars do. Plus, bikes don't require parking lots, parking garages, etc. If only bikes were used on Chicago roads, maintenance costs would plummet to almost nothing compared to what they are now. This is a scientific fact: cars deteriorate the surface of roads, and the more cars the faster the deterioration.

Also- suburban drivers who come into the city do so as though it's their right to drive here. It's not: that is, it's not their right to cause increased deterioration to roads without bearing the cost. When a suburban driver, who does not pay property taxes in Chicago, contributes to the deterioration of our roads and does not pay for it, they are externalizing their cost of driving onto Chicagoans. That's parasitic.

Cars have social costs that affect everyone: congestion, infrastructure deterioration, pollution, etc. Thus we all have a good reason (even those of us who insist on driving) to reduce the total number of cars on the road. The easiest way to do this is to have a car tax or "congestion tax".

London and other civilized cities are already doing it. Tax car usage heavily, on principled social/environemental/efficiency grounds, and encourage alternative transit by incentivizing that (i.e. make it run more smoothly, make it more affordable, etc.).

People were trained to love cars by Federal subsidy (e.g. Federal Highway construction, FHA subsidized mortages to back suburbanization, etc.). People can be untrained and disabused of car addiction in the same way.

Rick norris said:
And when these higher taxes go into place are YOU willing to pay more for services that require someone to come to home with a car...for repairs, or to deliver something? Will you be willing to pay more for shipping when you buy something mail order for your bike? Or pay more at the LBS for the part?Or when you get that new TV set up and delivered?
Bicycles ALSO require complex imfrastructures...did you see the post recently about that great bridge over the RR tracks being completed? Yeah I used it, its cool, but I could just as easily walked across the RR tracks with out getting hit by a slow moving freight train...I'm kinda smart that way....I'm not sure how much the bridge cost, but I am sure that 0 dollars of bicycle USE tax went to fund it. While I agree bikes do much less damage to roads than cars, any traffic on a surface will at some point cause wear and tear, and will need to be re surfaced. As far as climat change, what about all us people that breath? We will al be breathing even heavier sucking up more oxegen, eat more and passing gas more when we bicycle more? Yeah car exhaust isn't good for you, but what about factories in China that have no EPA that build bicycles? Torches and paint booths that are probably vented right to the outside air? NOTHING IS POLLUTION FREE
EDITED TO ADD....I have no issues with taxes from cars paying for bicycles and subsidizing public transportation, thats kind of what I thought those taxes did anyway, MAYBE we should start holding the people that tax us and spend the money more accountable of where it goes.

tzizzle said:
Driving and owning a car is not free. It requires roads to drive on, not to speak of tons of other complex infrastructure requirements. When you decide to drive a car, you are adding to all these infrastructure costs. In other words, the infrastructure costs are PART of owning and operating a car. They aren't some "extra" fee.

Moreover, congestion (caused entirely by individual car drivers) is an added cost built into driving an automobile. This isn't some side-effect. It's a part of car driving pure and simple.

Bikes on the other hand, do not destroy roads, cause potholes, or require parking lots and garages. Nor do they pollute city air and water. Nor do they contribute to congestion.

Now, I understand that (from the myopic perspective of the driver's seat) it's hard to see these macro-level factors. But that's part of the problem. Car driving encourages a narrow, ultimately distorting individualism that clouds people's ability to see their own contribution to social costs.

Chicago should do what London has done: tax car driving heavily (even more heavily than it is now) and use it to subsidize bike and public transport. Cars are not sustainable and either they must phased out in 50 years, or the human race will be phased out by climate change.

Tax cars, incentivize sustainable transit.
Permalink Reply by GabeW (not the other Gabe) on August 10, 2010 at 10:30am
"People were trained to love cars by Federal subsidy (e.g. Federal Highway construction, FHA subsidized mortages to back suburbanization, etc.). People can be untrained and disabused of car addiction in the same way."

Trust me. The federal government had nothing to do with the erection I got the first time I heard a ferrari 250 GTO downshift into Canada Corner at Road America. I'm in love. Are you really going to tell me, on THIS forum, that love is a choice?
Permalink Reply by milesperhour on August 10, 2010 at 10:40am
tzizzle said:
Also- suburban drivers who come into the city do so as though it's their right to drive here. It's not: that is, it's not their right to cause increased deterioration to roads without bearing the cost. When a suburban driver, who does not pay property taxes in Chicago, contributes to the deterioration of our roads and does not pay for it, they are externalizing their cost of driving onto Chicagoans. That's parasitic.


I see your point, but keep in mind those suburbanites are spending money here and helping our economy. I can't even speculate on how much they contribute versus locals and tourists, but I'd venture to say that we don't want to discourage them from coming here. Think of the Mag Mile during the holiday season and how many tourists there are as well as suburbanites coming to shop, look at windows, skate, eat, etc. The parking meter debacle did enough damage as is.

Additionally, how do you plan to charge them for using our streets? The expressways are paid for by state government, not local. The congestion tax may be a feasible solution for expressways, and help IDOT, but I don't see it working in the city for people just visiting (I have read up on doing this for trucks and the like, by imposing an annual type fee). Even if IDOT were to let the city implement some sort of toll on expressways entering into the city, do we really want anymore congestion? And what about the reverse situation when a city dweller goes to the suburbs? I'm thinking of reverse commuters in this instance. Should the suburbs charge them for coming to their city to work and thus contribute to their local economy?

Do we really want to nickel and dime people that way? It all seems pretty silly to me.
Permalink Reply by Joel on August 10, 2010 at 11:13am
People have been throwing around the idea of congestion charging in Chicago for a decade. One option is a downtown cordon line like in London. Everyone entering the Loop pays $X. The other options are time-dependent tolls on the expressways - you pay more at rush hour.

The problem with the Loop charge is that Chicago isn't London. It isn't Stockholm either. Nor is it Singapore. There is nothing special about the Loop. Downtown Stockholm is an island and central London has a much more unique cultural history keeping things there. If Chicago were to start charging to enter the Loop, many businesses would simply leave. The city is hesitant to give companies yet another reason to head to the 'burbs.

Increased rush hour tolls are much more practical here, but they aren't without problems either. The people with the least flexible work schedules tend to be the poorest, and therefore the most effected. It requires more infrastructure. And of course, it is political suicide.

tzizzle said:
You're spinning your wheels here, "Rick Norris".
road. The easiest way to do this is to have a car tax or "congestion tax".

London and other civilized cities are already doing it. Tax car usage heavily, on principled social/environemental/efficiency grounds, and encourage alternative transit by incentivizing that (i.e. make it run more smoothly, make it more affordable, etc.).
Permalink Reply by Rick norris on August 11, 2010 at 4:41am
tzizzle....

"....Also- suburban drivers who come into the city do so as though it's their right to drive here. It's not: that is, it's not their right to cause increased deterioration to roads without bearing the cost. When a suburban driver, who does not pay property taxes in Chicago, contributes to the deterioration of our roads and does not pay for it, they are externalizing their cost of driving onto Chicagoans. That's parasitic....."

Well that has to be true for city folk that chose to go to a place in some far distant land....like Niles, or Melrose park. City folk travel back and forth also.

Also in England (isn't that where London is ?) thay have Value Added Tax, not sure how it works but I do know it adds to the cost of everything....you didn't answer the question ARE YOU WILLING TO PAY MORE?

By the answer "tax exempt for commercial buisness cars...."so some rich guy can take his limo in for a"buisness" dinner tax exmpt, you know our city leaders love their limos...Remeber the commercial of prince daley riding in his limo down a city street with no other cars on the road...seems to me there is a message in there somplace?

As far as traveling for work, IMO there are far more factory jobs in the near subburbs (THANKS DALEY for the taxes) that city people travel to, these are jobs that pay well that people with (generally) limited education can get and support themselfs with if we tax suburbanits to come here, then it's only fair they tax us for going there, and once again the people on the bottom will pay more out of their pocket than the people at the top...sorry but thanks to our great leaders public transportation sucks in this city...I could be wrong but I think it's a lot easier to take metro downtown from the burbs

I would LOVE to see car usage go down, more people riding a bike, or taking buses (I rememberr when I was a kid...a LOT more buses so it was easy) more taxes and legislation is not the answer education is, but the people in power would never go for us really understanding what their doing, so we can only do our best to educate ourslves.


SINCE IM ON A RANT>>>>>I'm going to start a new topic...."Why isn't daley sucking up to Schwinn to build a factory, do we need more stores to sell cheap crap?"

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service