The Chainlink

Could cyclists swing the next Chicago mayoral election?

In the current excitement and trepidation about the next mayor of Chicago where do cyclists come in? Considering that support for any one person said to be running is pretty fractured could cyclists fill the void a given mayor to be would need by demanding modern mass transit and cycling infrastructure growth in the city in return?

Views: 137

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on October 2, 2010 at 5:59pm
This thread should be closed so's not to draw off potential contributions to Eddie's forum.
Permalink Reply by tzizzle on October 2, 2010 at 6:25pm
The political solution for bikers serious about changing the world: http://www.ecologyandsocialism.org/
Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on October 3, 2010 at 2:32pm
It seems that one general issue we *can* agree on is sustainable transportation, right? If we can find a mayoral candidate whose priorities include sustainable transportation (in the form of cycling and public transit), that would be a good start.
Permalink Reply by heather s on October 3, 2010 at 3:53pm
What I would love! : for Active Trans to sponsor a mayoral debate amongst all the candidates, focused solely on transportation issues. Not just about bikes, but on public transit and pedestrian as well as cycling. Most people in Chicago are not cyclists, but most are pedestrians and at least occasional transit users. It would be nice to see active transportation users as a real and valuable voting block.
Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on October 3, 2010 at 4:49pm


Anne Alt said:
It seems that one general issue we *can* agree on is sustainable transportation, right? If we can find a mayoral candidate whose priorities include sustainable transportation (in the form of cycling and public transit), that would be a good start.

Don't forget electric cars!
Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on October 3, 2010 at 5:37pm
I absolutely agree. This would be a great way for Active Trans to increase its visibility in the area of public transit advocacy and pedestrian advocacy, and enhance its standing on bike advocacy.

heather s said:
What I would love! : for Active Trans to sponsor a mayoral debate amongst all the candidates, focused solely on transportation issues. Not just about bikes, but on public transit and pedestrian as well as cycling. Most people in Chicago are not cyclists, but most are pedestrians and at least occasional transit users. It would be nice to see active transportation users as a real and valuable voting block.
Permalink Reply by Gin on October 4, 2010 at 8:33am
Also think the active trans forum is a great idea, esp if we can mobilize A LOT of people to attend--ie, demonstrate the huge constituency that cares about sustainable transportation in our region.
Permalink Reply by Dr. Doom on October 4, 2010 at 9:11am
Keep in mind that a disproportionate number of people who rely on transit are minorities without a lot of money, and that a lot of the city's transit issues are tied up in deliberate, successful attempts to isolate neighborhoods full of such people from the rest of the city.
Permalink Reply by Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! on October 4, 2010 at 9:43am

So there is a theme in this conversation: Should cyclists put aside their political identities to rally behind cycling as the driving force for political action? It depends on if cyclists can agree that cycling issues are more important than others.

Does anyone feel this way? If so, then why?

I personally believe that improving the cycling infrastructure and laws in this city should remain a second or third tier agenda. Those candidates whose agendas would further economic and social justice, IMO, are more important than for example those who may want to see improved bike lanes but also would increase the rate of gentrification.

Of course I am not saying that the two are mutually exclusive either. Dr Doom points out that transportation in this city is used as a type of social control. To keep undesired segments of the cities population from having full access to the rest of the city 24/7. Any mayoral candidate who would address this could also accompany a cycling agenda. It's conceivable.

AND WOULD CERTAINLY GET MY VOTE, MONEY AND TIME!

Permalink Reply by Gin on October 4, 2010 at 10:25am
I am with your points, Spencer. Perhaps more realistic is getting the candidates to talk about their transportation priorities/helping them realize there *is* a huge constituency that cares about these issues.

Also, as has already been pointed out, social justice and transportation are closely related. I would like to think that infrastructure and policies that support walking, transit and biking in all parts of our city helps everyone regardless of income, neighborhood, political views, etc.
Permalink Reply by David on October 4, 2010 at 11:46am

Does anyone feel this way? If so, then why?


I do. In short, because I feel that improved bicycle and transit infrastructure is essential to the continued economic growth of the city, and economic growth makes other things easier to achieve. Florida's "Rise of the Creative Class" would be a rough outline of what I'm thinking, I suppose. Other cities are quickly moving towards supporting a non-car lifestyle, and Chicago needs to compete. And if you still need a car in the city to go to the market with your kids, why not just move to Naperville?

I don't doubt you disagree with the above priorities, but you asked.

BTW, I think there's even a more basic question. It's not just a matter of cyclists putting aside their political beliefs and putting cycling first. I also think there's very little agreement on what it would mean to put cycling first. For example, while people think ATA's legislative agenda is excellent, I'm pretty much completely ambivalent about it. There's wide differences among cyclists even on transportation issues.


Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! said:

So there is a theme in this conversation: Should cyclists put aside their political identities to rally behind cycling as the driving force for political action? It depends on if cyclists can agree that cycling issues are more important than others.

Does anyone feel this way? If so, then why?

I personally believe that improving the cycling infrastructure and laws in this city should remain a second or third tier agenda. Those candidates whose agendas would further economic and social justice, IMO, are more important than for example those who may want to see improved bike lanes but also would increase the rate of gentrification.

Of course I am not saying that the two are mutually exclusive either. Dr Doom points out that transportation in this city is used as a type of social control. To keep undesired segments of the cities population from having full access to the rest of the city 24/7. Any mayoral candidate who would address this could also accompany a cycling agenda. It's conceivable.

AND WOULD CERTAINLY GET MY VOTE, MONEY AND TIME!

Permalink Reply by Dr. Doom on October 4, 2010 at 12:14pm
Cycling as such isn't remotely important to me, but transportation is a first order issue because I don't think you can really address jobs, crime and health without reforming it. My agenda would be this:

—Congestion pricing. Of course people would HATE HATE HATE this, but the city needs money and it needs to discourage single occupancy commuting for any number of reasons.

—Expansion and upgrading of bus service. No one likes them, but you can't get more bang for the buck out of anything than you can from improving bus service, which can be done cheaply and quickly and does more than anything else to serve poor neighborhoods.

—Grade separated bike lanes on arterials as a pilot project. I think the best way to encourage bike commuting would be to offer people a way to do it without having to play in traffic. Whether or not it's safe, it doesn't feel safe, especially to an inexperienced rider.

I think that if you can deliver actual manpower to candidates who support ideas like this—especially at the aldermanic level—you can at least get them talked about. Expecting anyone to support taxing commuters and spending money on projects for the use of poor black people and yuppies just because it's the right thing to do is utterly ridiculous, though.

Also, the important point to understand about the fact that so many people using transit are poor minorities isn't that there's a large constituency for addressing these issues—it's that while a lot of Chicagoans use transit, many of them just don't count as human beings to the business class, politicians and voters.

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service