The Chainlink

Photo documentation of poor condition of new bike lanes from unexpected source...

Courtesy of Second City Cop:

http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/

(courtesy of Joe F on BCHI list)

Views: 1169

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Juan Primo on February 12, 2013 at 8:50am

Andrew has it right. 

I have a fear about drivers reactions to bike lanes.  The more we consider the bike lane "ours", then the more that cars will feel that the other traffic lanes are not ours.  I'm not comfortable riding the Dearborn PBL.  I ride fast and the PBL is too narrow for that, especially if pedestrians will continue to jaywalk across it.  My last time on Dearborn, a cop yelled at me to get back in my lane.  (No time to yell back, I was riding fast.

Permalink Reply by David P. on February 12, 2013 at 9:53am

Oh, and safe bridge and river crossings. Sure, I like riding downtown from my office on Elston and Kinzie, but if I had those two things everywhere I'd give up all the other stuff. This is, to a degree, settling for 'good enough' but we're not Amsterdam and I'd love just the basics being right, please. Kthx.

Kevin C 4.1 mi said:

Me too.

David P. said:

I think I'd rather have good pavement everywhere than all the new bike lanes, PBLs, etc. I might just settle for non-shitty pavement.

Permalink Reply by David P. on February 12, 2013 at 9:55am

The irony of what you're saying is that cycling clubs were a major force behind the smooth paving of streets in American cities in the first place. (!)

James BlackHeron said:

I'd rather have bad pavement and no cars, than good pavement and cars.  The better the pavement the faster the cars go -and the more cars there are every year.

Build roads, and cars will come.

We should have left all the streets unpaved. 

Permalink Reply by Zoetrope on February 12, 2013 at 10:28am

Aren't there something like 50 aldermen in Chicago? Imagine the push and pull trying to get funding for something your district needs, competing with 50 other people (including Rahm, whom you have to bribe somehow so he doesn't 'forget' about you).



Tricolor said:

I wouldn't be on such a tear against Rahm as much as the local aldermen.  That said the people running street maintenance could probably stand a good kicking, too, and the Mayor can do something about them.

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on February 12, 2013 at 10:52am

I second the need for safe-passage across the rivers and expressways.  These tend to be awfully daunting to many riders and act like barriers to bike travel outside of isolated neighborhoods   

To make things worse these bridges and over/underpasses tend to fall on Aldermanic boundaries which turns them into turf disputes or just ignored in general by said Aldermen.  Add in the fact that many of these routes across the barriers are IDOT roads, which suffers from their famous anti-bike/pro-car bias, and we have a recipe for a lot more ghost bikes at each of these crossings, such as the the one at the meat-grinder intersection of Logan & Western and many more like it. 



David P. said:

Oh, and safe bridge and river crossings. Sure, I like riding downtown from my office on Elston and Kinzie, but if I had those two things everywhere I'd give up all the other stuff. This is, to a degree, settling for 'good enough' but we're not Amsterdam and I'd love just the basics being right, please. Kthx.

Kevin C 4.1 mi said:

Me too.

David P. said:

I think I'd rather have good pavement everywhere than all the new bike lanes, PBLs, etc. I might just settle for non-shitty pavement.

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on February 12, 2013 at 11:02am

I'm well aware of this irony and the history behind the paving of roads due to bicyclists pushing for better roads to ride upon.

But like Kevin Costner showed us in Field of Dreams,  build it and they will come (cars, that is.)

Wide, paved, fast roads just attract cars and car-drivers.   They encourage sprawl and for people to live, work, and play further and further afield.  The easier and cheaper it is for this lifestyle the faster it excellerates.   The real problem with roads is that is actually subsidized this lifestyle by transferring the real costs from the folks who abuse the system to the collective whole and there is no financial incentive for folks to conserve or rein in their driving.  It's like a condo with "free" heat and "free" hot water.  Of course it is not "free" but just included with the assessment but folks don't feel the pain of excess personally as it is spread around to everyone and they don't realize they are paying more.  

There is little or no inducement to conserve at the personal level because what is in it for them?  If trying hard to conserve heat and hot water has almost no effect on the condo assessment bill why bother?  Just turn the heat up to 80 and if it is too hot then crack open a window in February.

The same goes for the nice smooth roads.  Why not buy a second or third car and move out into the burbs with a 40-mile drive to work?  Everyone else is doing it and it's cheap & easy...



Permalink Reply by Adam Herstein on February 12, 2013 at 11:15am

Makes sense, and explains why driving goes down when gas prices increase, at it's seen as a direct fee for driving. But there's a lot that can be done even given the status-quo of federal/state funding for highways. The biggest thing is to get rid of free parking. If you had to pay to park at the local Wal-Mart parking lot, then you'd think twice about taking the car out. But as you said, the price of parking is included in the prices of goods purchased and is not directly felt by consumers, so people see it as "free parking". If cities could make it expensive and difficult to find parking while improving transit, then the trend of increased car travel can be reversed (and already is in many cases). Of course, having people actually live in the city center is vital.

In addition, increased traffic congestion decreases driving habits as well. If you know you'd have to sit in bumper-to-bumper traffic for an hour, you might not drive as much, or move closer to where you work. Tolls can also help drivers feel the direct price of driving. IMO, every single highway should be tolled. It seems crazy to me that all of the expressways entering Chicago are free.

There are many ways to get drivers to feel the direct cost of driving. Money is a great motivator.

James BlackHeron said:

I'm well aware of this irony and the history behind the paving of roads due to bicyclists pushing for better roads to ride upon.

But like Kevin Costner showed us in Field of Dreams,  build it and they will come (cars, that is.)

Wide, paved, fast roads just attract cars and car-drivers.   They encourage sprawl and for people to live, work, and play further and further afield.  The easier and cheaper it is for this lifestyle the faster it excellerates.   The real problem with roads is that is actually subsidized this lifestyle by transferring the real costs from the folks who abuse the system to the collective whole and there is no financial incentive for folks to conserve or rein in their driving.  It's like a condo with "free" heat and "free" hot water.  Of course it is not "free" but just included with the assessment but folks don't feel the pain of excess personally as it is spread around to everyone and they don't realize they are paying more.  

There is little or no inducement to conserve at the personal level because what is in it for them?  If trying hard to conserve heat and hot water has almost no effect on the condo assessment bill why bother?  Just turn the heat up to 80 and if it is too hot then crack open a window in February.

The same goes for the nice smooth roads.  Why not buy a second or third car and move out into the burbs with a 40-mile drive to work?  Everyone else is doing it and it's cheap & easy...



Permalink Reply by Jeff Markus on February 12, 2013 at 11:48am

Well I've been taken to task for things I didn't mean or imply. The SCC site IS a detractor of the bicycle movement and you don't find that unless you've delved into the substance of their articles and links.

Many do not dig into the meat and even fewer decypher the quality of the message.

I am sorry if anyone was offended but none had raised the issue of the intent of the SCC posts or remarked on the bias of even that one posts content. This was not an assault on anyones intellegence but was an observation that it is very easy to miss even powerful messages if you don't dig alittle deeper and read the intent and content on this devious source we call the web.

The admonition to be cognizant of source is a worthy point and the posts here had made no notice of the source which was an indicator of the intent, an intent that is detrimental to the cyclists cause. It is the recognition of that intent that I strove to illuminate. No ones personality or intelect was invovlved but with the response that occured it seems I may have touched a raw nerve.

 

Permalink Reply by Zoetrope on February 12, 2013 at 12:11pm

I don't really see the point of this thread beyond maybe trying to stir up a dormant message board, or worse. First you posted a notorious troll cops anti cycling rant with no comment offered from yourself, then you basically attack anyone critical of the link or yourself.

"You failed to understand the situation entirely." Uh, ok. So what is the issue? There are potholes in bike lanes? There are potholes all over city streets, and guess where bike lanes are? If you want something to be done about potholes you can start by being a little more responsible in what you post, and how you post it.


Team h' 1.0 said:

Oh, c'mon Jeff-- why does your little script dictate that everyone's an idiot and only you can see through to the truth of the matter?

There is absolutely no evidence in this thread that anyone failed to recognize where SCC was coming from, and even less than no evidence that anyone had any inclination to "join forces."



Jeff Markus said:

But so many missed the irony of the web site being linked to NRA, Ill Rifle and police blogs that have decidedly racial and social bias'. While the point we take from this is bike oriented the web site was promoting an anti bike/antibike lane agenda sponsored by a strongly right wing anti social site.

OK, OK, OK we need the press but if the source is running down potential backing for bike positive city actions then we lose. I am not saying the Rahm (or Daley started ) bad surface lanes are good...far from it these bad facilities are worse than leaving us in traffic (if they'd clean up pavement all the way to the curb) without trying to "educate by paint" with these lanes and I agree with the site (chainlink and Second City Cop) in believing these bad facilities are a waste of money BUT we must start somewhere and if we can put pressure on converting these bad facilities into better...heck lets go for GOOD... then lets do it not promote detractors that would eliminate ALL bike facility and probike action because "ITS JUST A WASTE OF OUR MONEY"

We need to watch who we jump into bed with when we join forces for our purposes.

Jeff

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on February 12, 2013 at 12:17pm

Safety Slap!

Permalink Reply by william on February 12, 2013 at 6:06pm

+1


Zoetrope said:

"You failed to understand the situation entirely." Uh, ok. So what is the issue? There are potholes in bike lanes? There are potholes all over city streets, and guess where bike lanes are? 

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on February 13, 2013 at 12:04am

I think this is a valid concern re: dedicated bike facilities.

Those who have ridden in Germany over the last few decades, to name a fairly overt example,  have seen very acutely that driver tolerance of cyclists in the road has tanked dramatically as bike paths have been built out.  George Christensen can confirm that riding in the road will get you screams of "get on the path" frequently.

I can't say I've actually seen evidence of a similar trend here though.  Cyclist fatalities in Chicago seems to be sort of a constant despite exponentially growing roadshare, and there are very few recent stories of bike vs. car crashes where it appears that there was hostile/injurious intent on the part of the driver.  It's been years since anyone's yelled at me to get out of the road, and it used to be a regular occurrence.



Juan Primo said:

I have a fear about drivers reactions to bike lanes.  The more we consider the bike lane "ours", then the more that cars will feel that the other traffic lanes are not ours.  I'm not comfortable riding the Dearborn PBL.  I ride fast and the PBL is too narrow for that, especially if pedestrians will continue to jaywalk across it.  My last time on Dearborn, a cop yelled at me to get back in my lane.  (No time to yell back, I was riding fast.

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service