Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on January 31, 2011 at 8:51am

So discussing something logically by merits is unhelpful?

There are downsides to any idea and telling people to shut up and not discuss them on account of it being "a freak show" is not very egalitarian and openminded. 

 

Oh, I forgot that is the Chicago way.  Push something through with muscle and corruption and jam it down the throats of the public.  If anyone complains, send "the organization" over to break some kneecaps.  Remember Da Mayor and bulldozing the runway of Meigs in the middle of the night?

 

God forbid anyone bring up that separate but equal facilities might not be a good idea.  I'd hate to see bicycles relegated to "bike zones" only and be forced to only use the back door.

 

Perhaps these ideas might be a better idea and work downtown -but I still think they are a bad idea once you get much outside of the loop.   I don't want to be segregated from regular traffic and forced off of OUR ROADS and made to ride on the special crowded sidewalk tracks.

 

Duppie said:

Yeah, keep on throwing out arguments against cycle tracks. That way we will have continue to have the image of freak-show forever.

 

Reality is that to see real increases in bicycling as a transportation mode, you do need to invest money in infrastructure. It's a fact that all successful cities (European as well as US) share. Cycle tracks are one of the (various) investmenst a city can make to increase ridership. Dissing them off hand isn't going to help increasing ridership

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Duppie on January 31, 2011 at 9:02am

James,

What is your plan to increase cycling ridership to double digits from the current low single digits?

James Baum said:

So discussing something logically by merits is unhelpful?

There are downsides to any idea and telling people to shut up and not discuss them on account of it being "a freak show" is not very egalitarian and openminded. 

 

Oh, I forgot that is the Chicago way.  Push something through with muscle and corruption and jam it down the throats of the public.  If anyone complains, send "the organization" over to break some kneecaps.  Remember Da Mayor and bulldozing the runway of Meigs in the middle of the night?

 

God forbid anyone bring up that separate but equal facilities might not be a good idea.  I'd hate to see bicycles relegated to "bike zones" only and be forced to only use the back door.

 

Perhaps these ideas might be a better idea and work downtown -but I still think they are a bad idea once you get much outside of the loop.   I don't want to be segregated from regular traffic and forced off of OUR ROADS and made to ride on the special crowded sidewalk tracks.

 

Duppie said:

Yeah, keep on throwing out arguments against cycle tracks. That way we will have continue to have the image of freak-show forever.

 

Reality is that to see real increases in bicycling as a transportation mode, you do need to invest money in infrastructure. It's a fact that all successful cities (European as well as US) share. Cycle tracks are one of the (various) investmenst a city can make to increase ridership. Dissing them off hand isn't going to help increasing ridership

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on January 31, 2011 at 9:10am

I didn't know it was my job to increase cycling ridership to the double digits. I'm not even sure I think that would necessarily be a good thing to push for that until people are ready to ride bicycles in those numbers on their own.

 

I'll just do what I do with everything else that doesn't really concern me (Since I'm not emperor of the known universe and all-controlling dictator tasked with running every little function therein)  -and that is let the market take it where it's going to go.  I will, however fight certain things that I think are a bad idea -like the separate drinking fountain for bicycles.

 

Why must everything be part of some grand  "People's 5-year Plan" steered by the government?  They are the ones who got us into this darn mess in the first place by building so many stupid roads.  Build roads, cars come.    Maybe that wasn't such a good idea in the first place.  Who's great idea was that in the first place?  Yeah, it was the bicyclists.  How did that all work out?  Before we go and build MORE infrastructure lets think about the long-term implications we'll be locking ourselves into.

 

 

Duppie said:

James,

What is your plan to increase cycling ridership to double digits from the current low single digits?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on January 31, 2011 at 11:22am

In many areas of the south side, there are relatively few streets that meet all of these criteria for rideability: 

1. go through multiple neighborhoods and offer a through-route of 1.5 miles or more
2. have controlled crossings (4-way stop or stoplight) at major streets
3. connect with other rideable routes
4. have traffic conditions/lane configurations that are actually safe for riding.

This is especially true in areas south of Jackson Park or west of California.

 

The section of Stony Island (1600E) that will get the cycle track (67th to 79th) is a good test location for this concept. The street is like a highway, and is not at all suitable for cyclists in its current configuration.  However, it does have many stores and restaurants that are potential destinations once the cycle track is constructed.  It will connect the SW corner of Jackson Park with the bike lanes on South Chicago Ave., and connect several neighborhoods and business districts.

 

The nearest north-south thru streets parallel to the proposed cycle track are as follows.  King Dr. (400E) has bike lanes but is 1.5 miles to the west.  Cottage Grove (800E, 1 mile away) has heavy, fast traffic and buses, making it a bit intimidating to most cyclists.  There is NO street at 1200E that goes through in this north-south section of the grid, which is disrupted by the Metra Electric line.  Jeffery (2000E, 1/2 mile to the east) is relatively narrow (1 traffic lane in each direction) with moderate to heavy traffic and buses - somewhat intimidating to cyclists.  Yates (2400E, 1 mile to the east) is similar.  The next and last thru street to the east, South Shore Dr. (1.5 miles or more to the east), has bike lanes.

 

In areas where there are few connections between neighborhoods due to highways, rail yards, or other major interruptions to the grid, cycle tracks could create connections that open up transportation cycling to the average rider, which would be a VERY good thing.

 

If this project succeeds, perhaps we could see future connections in locations like E 103rd St., S. Pulaski, or S. Central.  It would be outstanding to have a way to cross some of the big rail yards and the Sanitary & Ship Canal and the Stevenson west of California without having to put the bike on a bus for a distance, or walk a distance in locations where there is no bus.

James Baum said:

...God forbid anyone bring up that separate but equal facilities might not be a good idea. ...

 

Perhaps these ideas might be a better idea and work downtown -but I still think they are a bad idea once you get much outside of the loop.   I don't want to be segregated from regular traffic and forced off of OUR ROADS and made to ride on the special crowded sidewalk tracks.

 

Duppie said:

Yeah, keep on throwing out arguments against cycle tracks. That way we will have continue to have the image of freak-show forever.

 

Reality is that to see real increases in bicycling as a transportation mode, you do need to invest money in infrastructure. It's a fact that all successful cities (European as well as US) share. Cycle tracks are one of the (various) investmenst a city can make to increase ridership. Dissing them off hand isn't going to help increasing ridership

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by in it to win it 8.0 mi on February 1, 2011 at 5:04am

This thread has taken a twist to bike lanes, parking, and increasing bike ridership.  This is an interesting social study.  Of the several million residents of Chicago, bike riders represent a dismal number percentage-wise.  Therefore, I am very happy with what the city has done so far for bikers.  Can and should more be done?  Absolutely.  However, to what extent?  As I biker I've always promoted the health/freedom/etc. benefits to friends and coworkers.  Do I want them to join the club?  Absolutely. 

Or maybe not.  Selfishly, consider how the LFP would look like with four or five times the bike traffic when you are going to work.  Or how your favorite route would look like with four or five times the bike traffic.  Certainly, one would have to allow for more commute time as automobile drivers do when traffic increases.  There would be an increase of bike/bike accidents/altercations.  Do I want that?  Selfishly, I may be content with the current volume of bikers out there. 

Now, for the good of the masses, I will always preach ridership.  I've never felt better than when I started commuting by bike.  Lost 13 lbs, feel better, scenery is better (it goes on and on).  And, truly, I don't think I'll really ever have to worry too much about a five-fold increase in ridership because Americans love their cars/are lazy (yes, me too)/fear doing something "different"/fear exercise/etc.

So, I'll enjoy the benefits we have.  I'll continue to ask for more bike friendly accomodations.  I'll secretly hope ridership increases enough to keep the benefits coming but no so much that this activity becomes over-regulated.

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on February 1, 2011 at 5:20am

I have to agree with most of what you said here and find myself in much the same boat.

 

I'm fine with the way things are now for the most part -but would like more of the same. A little better marking of the shared bike lanes so that cars start to GET it. Better education of road crews so that when they put up traffic barriers when they are working they don't totally BLOCK the bike lane and take more space for their work site than they really need.  I see this all the time -one of those big trailer signs with a generator and the merge left arrow flashing.  They have it parked too far to the left and have too many barriers around them to the point where they are just using up the bike lane for no reason and forcing us bikes into traffic unnecessarily when they could have moved the whole darn thing over 2 feet.  I think you all know what I mean here as you have seen it too.

 

I'd like to see something else done downtown though.  Maybe these Bike Tracks would help -or maybe go all the way to a few bike boulevards here and there.  Also, like it was mentioned earlier, there are dead spaces where a bike corridor could be pushed through where railway stations and other industry is to allow us to cut through an area rather than going all the way around.  Also better ways over/around other barriers like the expressways and the river.  More bike-oriented bridges and under/over-passes so we don't have to always share the crowded ones there are with the heavy car traffic.  These are the real danger zones.

 

Money is tight, so we can't expect them to spend a lot bike-specific infrastructure.  I just would like to see what little they do spend it on be for something really useful to us all and not something that is expensive and we'll regret even having and be forced to use while getting kicked off of our own streets. 

We shouldn't just grab any old idea because it "looks good" and seems to be "pro bike" when other, cheaper, better solutions might be the way to go rather than blowing the  whole wad on something big and dumb.

 

in it to win it said:

This thread has taken a twist to bike lanes, parking, and increasing bike ridership.  This is an interesting social study.  Of the several million residents of Chicago, bike riders represent a dismal number percentage-wise.  Therefore, I am very happy with what the city has done so far for bikers.  Can and should more be done?  Absolutely.  However, to what extent?  As I biker I've always promoted the health/freedom/etc. benefits to friends and coworkers.  Do I want them to join the club?  Absolutely. 

Or maybe not.  Selfishly, consider how the LFP would look like with four or five times the bike traffic when you are going to work.  Or how your favorite route would look like with four or five times the bike traffic.  Certainly, one would have to allow for more commute time as automobile drivers do when traffic increases.  There would be an increase of bike/bike accidents/altercations.  Do I want that?  Selfishly, I may be content with the current volume of bikers out there. 

Now, for the good of the masses, I will always preach ridership.  I've never felt better than when I started commuting by bike.  Lost 13 lbs, feel better, scenery is better (it goes on and on).  And, truly, I don't think I'll really ever have to worry too much about a five-fold increase in ridership because Americans love their cars/are lazy (yes, me too)/fear doing something "different"/fear exercise/etc.

So, I'll enjoy the benefits we have.  I'll continue to ask for more bike friendly accomodations.  I'll secretly hope ridership increases enough to keep the benefits coming but no so much that this activity becomes over-regulated.

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by in it to win it 8.0 mi on February 1, 2011 at 6:20am

I think CMB has lost her head.

Duane Waller said:

This just in:

I still think Rahm is a jerk

 

Thread=back on track.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on February 1, 2011 at 6:23am

I agree.

 

But he is the jerk that is going to be the next mayor.  Did you think votes in Chicago actually count?(unless you are dead).

 

Rahm is the machine candidate.  He got past the only challenge which was the residency issue.  Short of getting arrested for something major or having a stroke or other serious health issue which puts him out between now and the election he's the "winner" and will be the next mayor.  I doubt he'll pull an Elliot Spitzer in the next few weeks.

 

 

Duane Waller said:

This just in:

I still think Rahm is a jerk

 

Thread=back on track.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Keating on February 2, 2011 at 4:27am

I've met Rahm, and I really liked him. Granted, this was years ago when he was running for Congress. He's not so much a jerk as he is blunt and results oriented. That's not a bad thing.

As for where he stands on bikes, he is far and away the best candidate to get this done. I wrote a blog post on www.ILBicycleLaw.com on Rahm's plans for bicycling. His plan falls into 3 categories:

1. Make Chicago's bike lanes the most complete in America including adding protected bike lanes;
2. Complete the 2.65 mile Bloomingdale Trail on the NorthWest Side;
3. Change the City of Chicago Code so that secure bike parking is required in certain buildings.

On top of that, Rahm has the skills, ability, and connections to get big plans like this done. This is American and you should vote for who you want, but if bicycling is your "single issue" on which you vote, Rahm is your guy.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by milesperhour on February 2, 2011 at 5:11am

so is daley.  not necessarily a good thing either.

Mike Keating said:

I've met Rahm, and I really liked him. Granted, this was years ago when he was running for Congress. He's not so much a jerk as he is blunt and results oriented. That's not a bad thing.

As for where he stands on bikes, he is far and away the best candidate to get this done. I wrote a blog post on www.ILBicycleLaw.com on Rahm's plans for bicycling. His plan falls into 3 categories:

1. Make Chicago's bike lanes the most complete in America including adding protected bike lanes;
2. Complete the 2.65 mile Bloomingdale Trail on the NorthWest Side;
3. Change the City of Chicago Code so that secure bike parking is required in certain buildings.

On top of that, Rahm has the skills, ability, and connections to get big plans like this done. This is American and you should vote for who you want, but if bicycling is your "single issue" on which you vote, Rahm is your guy.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew on February 2, 2011 at 7:01am

Good choice.  Please read.

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-political-commentary/2011/0...

Mark Kenseth said:

I'm not voting for Rahm.  He isn't attending any of the community events to discuss topics.  For example, he didn't attend the event to discuss environmental concerns.  Carol Moseley Braun was the only one there who was willing to discuss environmental issues, and she mentioned improving walkability, bicycling, and public transportation infrastructure.  So far, Carol Moseley Braun's got my vote.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jlj on February 2, 2011 at 10:50am

Bicycling should not be anybody's single voting issue.  Rahm spent thousands of dollars to have an employee of his draft those bike plans because he knows WE BICYCLISTS are loud, visible and active.

Who else protests every month (at least).  WE BICYCLISTS DO.

You say he has the skills and ability and connections?  Wrong.  He has the money and connections enough to do whatever other people with money and connections want (he has proven that time and time again).  WE BICYCLISTS don't need a mayor who is skilled, able, blunt and results oriented.  That is what WE ARE!  The inhabitants of this city are so much more skilled and able than Rahm could ever hope to be.  WE have just been made callous by the protection of the evil machine that has run this city for too long.  It's like citywide Stockholm syndrome, WE'VE been held as serfs in the kingdom of Daley so long that WE are scared to be set free, to really make the city what WE THE CITIZENS deserve it to be;  A real democratically operating city where the citizens get what WE want, what WE work for and WE deserve.

Being protected by big daddy Daley is like being locked in a car, or living in your high-rise, or hiding in the suburbs.  No body else matters, cause WE have cut them out, WE have let somebody create something to separate US from OUR problems rather than actually dealing with them.  Rahm is just another thug selling US protection.

Bicycling has brought together a wonderful group of concerned and caring individuals whom are passionate about the world WE live in and the people they interact with.

I believe WE BICYCLISTS are this way because WE BICYCLISTS are NOT enclosed in a steel cage or locked behind parked cars in "protected" bike lanes.  WE BICYCLISTS are taking a risk every time WE ride, WE are being vulnerable and human and trusting in the other humans around US.  The way WE have let our society grow has driven a wedge between every individual.  OUR transportation, sport and passion has allowed US BICYCLISTS to bond with each other once again.

Bicycling is not the issue.  Bicycling is just an opportunity to be spontaneous and social and human.  Bicycling is an opportunity to care about each other again, bicycling is an opportunity to see that the bully honking the horn, swerving in traffic and cutting US off to "get things done" is not the person WE want to interact with.  Bicycling will exist even if whatever bully WE let push US around removes the bike lanes and makes it illegal to pedal two wheels in the city limits.
WE shouldn't care about what scraps a candidate is willing to throw to us because he/she knows WE are the most loud visible and active citizens of this city.

WE will vote for who WE want to bicycle with.  Who WE want to share the road, the city, the world with.  WE will make others feel ashamed for being that loud, "getting things done bully" WE will make people ashamed for wanting that person to be OUR leader.

Shame on ME for not realizing this sooner.  Shame on US for letting our world become this way.  Shame on YOU for trying to make US think that this is the only way the world can work.

WE BICYCLISTS are approaching a big intersection, the biggest WE've seen in too many years, leading a mass the size of OUR CITY.  It is the responsibility of WE BICYCLISTS to cork this intersection for those too meek and used to being protected by steel, money and greed.  WE have seen each other for what WE are; responsible for EACH OTHER.  Let US be responsible and a model for the rest of OUR CITY and say no to the bully that is Rahm Emanuel.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• Next ›
• Page