When asking around, I heard these three candidates are some potential good bike-friendly options:
Let's use this thread to discuss, bring in articles, quotations, and proof of bike-savviness. Cool?
This is a GREAT question Yasmeen - I was thinking about this regarding the Dorthy Brown bike user fee thread and was trying to figure out the same thing. I know Rahm has an affinity for things that don't interfere with Uber activity due to a family conflict if I remember that correctly, but this would all be interesting to know.
I met Mendoza several years ago at the post-Bike the Drive festival, after she had done the ride. When I talked to her, I definitely got the sense that she had a clue about bike issues.
I wish I had a clue how Lightfoot feels about bike issues and non-car transportation issues in general. There's a lot I like about her, but I want to know about her positions on more issues
I haven't seen anything that gives me any sense of how Enyia feels about bike issues and non-car transportation issues.
Paul Vallas actually mentions bike lanes on his web site, under Infrastructure.
For what it's worth:
"Paul believes in a proactive rather than a reactive approach to Chicago’s infrastructural needs. In addition to the larger line-items like road and bike lane improvement, Paul’s plan includes lead-free water, flood prevention measures, adequate parking, and internet access worthy of our time."
Anyone got more?
Brings to mind an old Chainlink thread about Mendoza - https://www.thechainlink.org/forum/topics/cycling-comptroller-saves....
This is a great thread, but remember to research candidates' positions on everything too!
I'm not a Chicago resident (Evanston, though I work in the Loop). I think Richie and Rahm have both been good for the cycling community. I rather suspect the next crop of mayoral candidates will have difficulty living up to their legacies. That said, I'd like to see two things (knowing that I have no way to do more than wish):
Good points Skip. Regarding maintenance - and for better or worse, a lot of initial bike lane construction funding came via one-time grants, including federal monies, but with caveats/earmarks that it be for construction versus for maintenance, and the local folks are left to figure out the ongoing maintenance aspect.
On the hierarchy of needs/issues, bike policy fails to register in the top five IMHO.
Of course, I do want a progressive, pro-bike administration. It's just not THE issue that will determine my vote.
Hey Curtis, I hear you. Thanks for speaking up. I posted this because pro-bike tends to go hand-in-hand with a strong focus on public transportation, infrastructure, and housing issues. As we've seen, the bike infrastructure at the very least reflects the same areas that need more road infrastructure and services. When I saw a mayoral candidate that was far off base regarding bikes (and gun control imo), I decided to ask everyone what they thought. Feel free to share what's in your top five and which candidates you are interested in.
Yasmeen, and I hear you.
Sooo, since you asked, on the the very top of my priorities would be substantive police reform, disarming gun violence, improving the City of Chicago's long-term fiscal sustainability (pension and tax reform), investing new resources in (vs. hollowing out) our public schools, and a more equitable distribution of city services and economic development throughout the greater city (OK, I'm sneaking in two for one there). and improving affordable housing options. But wait, there's more! Reinvesting in mental health services. And this Top 5+ list does not even address the serious need to further develop strategies to counter the explosive opioid epidemic. Toni Preckwinkle and Lori Lightfoot are my two top choices, with Toni's proven leadership experience as an effective executive in her role as President of the Cook County Board tipping the scales for me at this time. I would like to see Amara Enyia serving some role in the next administration.
The money to maintain the bike lanes, and expand them, is lying on the pavement so to speak, but the city has done a half a** job of bending over and picking it up. I'm speaking about enforcing the no parking or stopping in bike lane law of course. It's a $300 fine in the city center. If one person, me, can document close to 700 violations in a year riding less than 30 minutes a day in the bike lanes, certainly the city can manage to collect millions by doing their d*mn jobs correctly. As I've noted elsewhere, I manage to encounter a $150/$300 violator every 2.5 minutes. As of mid-July 2018, the city had only written ~2000 tickets for the year. Assuming they kept the same pace for the remainder of the year, 4000 tickets from over 100 workers is total horsesh*t.
I totally get the math. Meanwhile someone might say that rather than metaphorically on the pavement, that the money's just in someone's pocket, and as often as a fed-ex driver, it's in a poor person's pocket. If this article is correct, 7% (wow) of the city's operating budget already comes from parking tickets, and not everybody is happy about it:
As a result, there is journalistic lobbying to go in the other direction:
Much of the ticket revenue is also city sticker related, the fine for that went to $200 and there are all sorts of tickets written aside from our bike lane violations where we're discussing a particular type of violation (and in the loop rather than in poor neighborhoods) but there are all sorts of constituents who will come out of the woodwork if we step this up even further.
When some of the bike lanes were put in place, it occurred despite who was in what building, where that building was, where the doors are, etc. I'm aware of at least one person who, rather than car-pooling like before, DRIVES to work now (one more car on the road) because lane reconfigurations and traffic flows messed up the pick up and drop of opportunities by their building.
So I think the math is right, but whether it's politically viable may still have to be worked out further.
So someone decided to pay $200 to $300 a month to park downtown because they couldn't be bothered to get dropped off and picked up across the street from the bike lane, or around the corner? Sorry, not buying it.
The majority of violators downtown are rideshares. If you can't do the time, don't commit the crime.
Their carpool mate (the driver doing the pickup and drop) was not into the traffic configuration snafu the way it was explained to me, and so that ended the car pool relationship. For the ride shares, who probably don't make much money on their own, unfortunately the way their business operates, if their passenger keys in that address, that's pretty much where the car stops, and none of that gets redesigned or programmed in with a fall-back location when a new bike lane goes in. I've been hoping that maps and software would somehow accommodate the recasting of a legal/safe drop spot whenever somebody puts in an address, like sometimes happens for airports, but they aren't there yet.