Thinking outside the box on sustainable transit

Capitalism is the Driving force behind Automobiles 

Major transformation. Outside the box thinking is not 10% improvement. This is a very common motif. Instead, let's think about 10x improvement! This is when major change occurs.

Some ideas.

Convert 4/5 streets to bike-pedestrian only. At intersections with automobile, create bike-lane bridges to cross over automobile traffic. Need to create solutions to deal with parking, package delivery, garbage trucks, moving trucks, emergency vehicles, etc.

Convert major 4-6 lane thoroughfares to two-lane with two to four lanes of bike and pedestrian.

Covered and heated bike lanes for 24/7/365 commuting, removable covering for nice weather.

At least one dedicated (i.e., same as the 606) north-south cross-city bike lane every eight city blocks. (Note that by dedicated, the concept is same as the 606 and lakefront trail, i.e., complete separated from automobile traffic - although lakefront does occasionally meet automobiles at intersections.)

Completely separate cars and bikes, cars and pedestrians.

Downsize all cars to mini-EVs or even mini grid-connected vehicles.

Limit speed limits to 15mph.

Any thoughts on this? Let's get the conversation started.

One quick story. A friend is doing a study on noise and sound pollution and how it is not only damaging to long-term health but also is disorienting in the short-term! What does this lead to in terms of biking? With this in mind, for the past month I have been transitioning from major thoroughfares to back-roads for my 7.5 mile daily city commute. This has been a lot of fun! (In fact, I've had a long-term mantra of taking the "road least traveled" in many aspects of my life.) The reduction in noise and exhaust pollution is incredible, not to mention a feeling of less stress. Speaking for the northeast area, for example, a few roads with bike lanes that are also major thoroughfares are of course Milwaukee, Clybourn, Elston, Damen. Shared bike lanes with big roads are super-important for safety. But in reality, a quiet lane to oneself really great! Is it 10x better? It means mostly missing diagonals, such as Lincoln, Milwaukee, Clybourn, Elston. But on a 50-minute ride it only adds about 5-10 minutes in total, with mileage increasing from 7.5 to between only 8.5 and 9.5. What are your thoughts on backroads versus major thoroughfares?

Views: 803

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by curt(is) locke on April 5, 2019 at 3:22am

"Convert 4/5 streets to bike-pedestrian only. Limit speed limits to 15 mph"?! Utterly ridiculous. You would NEVER get public buy-in to such plans. I can't imagine even our newly elected Democratic Socialists supporting such wildly unpopular proposals.

Permalink Reply by David S. on April 5, 2019 at 4:13am

Not a fan of DSA.

Outside the box: Highways didn't exist 80 years ago. Will they exist 80 years from now?

Convert 4/5 streets to bike-, pedestrian-only: If nothing changed, wouldn't you prefer silence (no rumbling engines and tires), safety (no 2- to 10-ton machines drifting by, driven by software or humans in world of utter chaos), no exhaust pollution, brake-dust pollution, engine leak dripping oil on the pavement-pollution?

15mph: All it takes is a majority to say yes: No cars. Or 15mph. Or 90% reductions. Doesn't matter. It's a tidal wave, doesn't matter if it seems ridiculous right now or not. People protest and life changes. See, e.g. Netherlands: "The trend away from the bicycle and towards motorised transport only began to decrease in the 1970s when Dutch people took to the streets to protest against the high number of child deaths on the roads: in some cases over 500 children were killed in car accidents in the Netherlands in a single year. This protest movement was known as the Stop de Kindermoord (literally "Stop the Child Murder" in Dutch)." (Emphasis added here to note: In the US, 50,000 people die every year from cars. Not to mention millions of life-changing injuries. Is it war?)

Permalink Reply by curt(is) locke on April 5, 2019 at 4:34am

It is irrelevant whether you or I are personally fans of the DSA -- they currently occupy the most progressive wing of our local government. From where exactly would popular support, "a majority to say 'yes'', come from? 

Permalink Reply by TonyP on April 5, 2019 at 3:45am

Spending money on infrastructure is a big ask. More affordable and a large step in infrastructure spending acknowledging cyclists' is 1st just plain acknowledging cyclists in traffic, at the grass roots. Drivers Ed, Traffic School, Traffic Court, Driving Schools, all need to bring automotive\cycling interaction to the table. It needs to start with the kids and Drivers Ed and continue thru any type of public and or private talk of the rules of the road.

Police and Traffic Court Judges need to be schooled in Cycling and the Rules of the Road and how to deal with that in an even handed way.

Until cyclists are included, in an honest manner, in any conversation, at any level, public or private, about traffic safety and flow, we cannot expect to see enough people in either the Public or Private sector to be concerned enough about us to give enough of a damn to seriously and honestly look at the problems and concerns of a bunch of, shall I say, 2nd class citizens. 

Permalink Reply by Yasmeen on April 5, 2019 at 4:50am

I'm all for pie-in-the-sky unicorn thinking. I'm all for thinking about every single way we can improve. And getting a louder voice. And being at the table as a key stakeholder. 

Sure, budget considerations and blah blah blah will come into play but why not aspire to be the best? By the best, I am talking Copenhagen, Amsterdam? Why do we short ourselves worrying about budget and acceptance? Let's ask for the moon and have our elected government have to explain why they can't make us more safe. Let's put the ownership on them, not ourselves for figuring out how to pay for/implement it. 

Just my two-cents because I'm so tired of riding on streets with no infrastructure and carefully approaching places I know I'm at risk of being hit by a motorist. I'm just so tired of the excuses and the finger-pointing that stems from being a car culture. Cars are killing us all - collisions, terrible health, making people generally unhappy (including road rage). Why are we as a society ok with the status quo? I'm not.

Permalink Reply by curt(is) locke on April 5, 2019 at 4:58am

But I am NOT arguing for the status-quo, Yas, and there is certainly a place/role for aiming for the moon. But NASA didn't land the Apollo 11 crew on the lunar surface without political support (both popular and within the federal government) and economic considerations.

Permalink Reply by Yasmeen on April 5, 2019 at 5:53am

I'm not arguing with you, just stating an opinion. I did my post at the root because I wasn't really responding to what was discussed. :-)

Permalink Reply by David S. on April 5, 2019 at 6:41am

NASA mission was about a lot more than idealistic thinking. E.g., "The United States poured billions into the NASA space program, recognising that at stake was not only national prestige but vital military applications. As a result, the US became the first nation to put someone on the Moon—Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin in 1969. ... Washington, however, is the chief driver of military rivalry in space. In September 2016, a congressional sub-committee convened a hearing, entitled “Are we losing the space race to China?” which criticised the Obama administration for not devoting the necessary resources to winning the race. President Trump signed a new space-policy directive in December 2017 outlining plans for manned missions to the Moon and Mars. The US is aiming to return to the Moon by 2023. The renewed US space effort is explicitly connected to military plans. Last year the Trump administration announced the establishment of a new branch of US armed forces by 2020 to be known as Space Force, which will operate independently of the other branches—the army, navy, air force, marines and coast guard. In a clear indication that it will get congressional approval, $12 billion was allocated this year for its establishment."

Permalink Reply by curt(is) locke on April 5, 2019 at 7:00am

Yes, David, I DO understand much of this history regarding NASA. But pardon me, what exactly IS your point? And what about granny's trip to the beach?! Cars==cigarettes?! No, that's not grossly exaggerating AND over-simplifying at all! You dump so much randomness and absolutes into your rants (sorry, but that's what they read like) that I realize it's time for me to step out. Going long to grab me a Perimeter Ride.

Permalink Reply by David S. on April 5, 2019 at 7:27am

In all of the hubbub over budgets, just pointing out that the US could spend a lot more money on infrastructure if it was spending a lot less money on wars abroad and, in general, imperialistic ventures (maybe whether or not moon landings fall into the category of imperialism is a discussion for another day). No doubt, Curt, wars for oil are very lucrative ventures. But is it sustainable? Not going to apologize for wishing to share super-fun, healthy mode of transportation with love ones, Grandma, Grandpa, little Suz and Roni.

Permalink Reply by TonyP on April 5, 2019 at 7:37am

Not going to apologize for wishing to share super-fun, healthy mode of transportation with love ones, Grandma, Grandpa, little Suz and Roni.

The thing is that you can wish in one hand and spit in the other , and I think that we know which will be filled 1st.

Permalink Reply by David S. on April 5, 2019 at 7:43am

"wanting to share"

Better?

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service