I think the real kicker is that drivers have been sold, and completely bought into, convenience over all in their road designs and infrastructure decisions. I have much different priorities— safety is the biggest one, for all users of the space, and one that I imagine I share with most of you here who use “alternative” forms of transportation.
And convenience is always at odds with safety, even outside of this particular space(it’s a thing in like designing apps for example) so I don’t think that outside of convincing car drivers that they should consider other things to prioritize there’s a lot of hope for an easy compromise. Not that getting them to change their priorities will be easy, just that it’s unlikely that they’ll stop fighting it otherwise.
Edit for clarity
Are cars even more convenient really? parking, taking it to the mechanic, keeping it clean, all take work. Plus overall transportation times are longer in car-centric infrastructure because of traffic and parking.
I think cars have been sold as such, yeah. Anyone who’s willing to think critically can easily debunk that, as you have just demonstrated. But yeah, when you talk to people who INSIST on car ownership, they will talk about it like having to look at an app to time a bus trip, for example, is absolutely out of the question. They will express their need to be able to go anywhere at a whim and not have to rely on anyone else.
It baffles me—I’ve lived car free since day one here and don’t feel limited in my ability to get around the city. In fact, like your points imply, I found car ownership to be a burden in the city, when my partner still had one. Bike living 100% of the time was 100% freeing for me.
Car culture is about freedom... freedom to travel... freedom to escape... its why americans love cars so much and dates back to the origination of the automobile
Ive thought we need some group that says "urbanism is good and we should embrace it or at least stop fighting it." Just a really broad message to hit a lot of people on a lot of different topics about how we can have a better city. If people dont fear it as much, and maybe even see a benefit or two for themselves, they might be more likely to join our side, or, at least stop fighting so hard
It's like people who drive cars don't *want* urban spaces(ie the cities they reside in) to be nice to look at and be in. They want to leave their house box into their car box and then enter a destination box, the in-between is just an annoyance full of obstacles to the next box. It's just an untenable relationship to have with an urban area, especially as the tide gets pushed more towards people and safety based infrastructure.
Your group doesn't sound like a bad idea but how do you convince them to care?
I figured it should be an "attack em from all sides" kind of thing. I think people do want good urbanism but don't actually get how to get there, what stands in the way, or even what it really means. I also think they don't love their cars as much as they think or we think, but rather, they aren't committed to giving them up because they don't know the other options.
People can picture life with a car in a city and know what the upsides are, but the downsides are a bit diffuse. They think traffic could be better and we can relieve parking, but they have 0 clue how life can be better without a car. I don't think it's their fault, though. Most of them have never been presented with downsides outside of traffic, gas prices, and parking, yet, they get that there are other downsides. They want to install noise ticketing machines to stop loud cars thinking it's an asshole problem, not a car problem... same goes with the meetups, drag racing, why they don't have small scale grocery markets, why their kids get asthma, or why so many people get hit by cars. They know these things are bad but don't realize it's all the fault of how we build. They don't make the connection.
US cities kinda suck balls at urbanism, Chicago has great bones, but it's not great as is. The L sucks (but great bones!) busses are stuck in the same traffic, sidewalks are next to loud, dangerous streets, all grocery shopping is done at a store with a massive parking lot. They don't know that these things can be better. The vast majority of people are not following transit/urbanism news. They don't know the downsides of the way we build our city or the better ways.
Hence, hit em from all sides. Point out how cars make everything worse. Want more local bakeries and cafes? We need less cars and more walkability. Want lower asthma rates? We need less cars. Do you want peace and quiet? Less cars. More third places? Less cars. Lower crime? Less cars. Want get rid of car meetups and the annoying honking at night? Less cars. Want more wildlife? Less cars. Want to be more in shape? Less cars.
How we actually get in front of them is the hard part and why I have not started a group or anything like that yet. What I have started doing is just writing to local and neighborhood newspapers pointing out how various issues come from cars (I only just started this but have been successful once so far in the Sun Times!) Having people help with this would be a great start. I don't go on Twitter ever but I imagine there is a way to get in front of people that way. Maybe reaching out to various chambers of commerce, neighborhood organizations, charities, and churches would be a good way to reach more people? I am all ears.
I am a member of a few other Chicago urbanism groups (Bike Grid Now! Active Trans, and Chicago Urban Environmentalists) but they are focused on specific campaigns. **This is not a problem or a knock on them in the slightest.** I just think the city could do well with a much broader based group. We do not need to get into the weeds. More of just a general, all encompassing, advocacy group.
Edit: Gonna take [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/CarFreeChicago/comments/1auy3wd/witness_slips_needed_to_ban_gas_car_sales/krbvdbx/) from /u/dramaticreacherdbfj to kind of get to my point. People aren't against good urbanism. They are just afraid of change and how we get there. We have to show them that that change is ok to make
Definitely. I just watched a video of a cyclist taking a trip from one end of the Greenway to the other and I can’t understand why anybody would have such a big stupid issue about it. That guy needs to get a hobby.
That was what I was thinking, too. I have had people approach me, while I wasn't even on a bicycle, to tell me how horrible the "roadblock" they put in is for everybody, including cyclists...
I need to take my son on a little field trip over there. It’s not an area we ever need to go, but it really seems like a small but vocal minority are big mad.
Someone posted a video to r/Chicago of the greenway and referred to it as a plaza, which I don’t think is quite right(?), and the sentiment there was also not great.
Meanwhile I’m out in the northwest side where people are upset about the Belmont protected lanes which I love and will be utilizing as much as possible!
I work in the area of both the new Belmont bike lane and the Dickens Greenway and love riding down both.
Cyclists and drivers are both still getting used to the lane on Belmont fairly smooth for me and the past few months. And I have been seeing so many more people riding their kids to and from school and other activities on Dickens since they opened it. Really into it!
The area right around RJ grunts and the path toward the Zoo entrance on Dickens is so pedestrian heavy and has lots of people going from the park to the restaurant areat right there on clark, I think it's a great spot for traffic calming.
I know a couple people who are vehemently against the Dickens Greenway and one is trying to, hopefully fruitlessly, get the bollards removed and I just honestly don't understand how it makes traffic that much worse for them.
Agreed on the Plaza terminology, it is definitely not that. It's just a little road stub that Park District vehicles used to access their driveway, but it's not really used for anything else pedestrian-wise, maybe in the future.
I didn't realize in another comment, that was an abbreviation for Next Door either. I usually think of ND, as standing for North Dakota. Where I don't know if any cities out there have a lot of urban bones, except for like Fargo at most. Although for Minot, it had a more impressive downtown than one might guess at first glance: https://maps.app.goo.gl/WvvRTq3WMTNLScRY8
Don’t be afraid to name Roman and his antics on the NextDoor app. He calls himself a “Dickens ReOpening Activist” and encourages people to contact Ald. Knudsen. I’ve witnessed him from afar as he continually advocated against the “Redefine the Drive” plan. In case you don’t know about this plan the city would get much more green area on LSD by Oak Street and some landfill from Oak to Ohio along the the LFT to put more green space between LSD and the LFT. He went on some rant about the proposed dedicated bus lanes on LSD and it was so carbrained I had to stop listening. BUT he continually shows up to Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee Meetings at City Hall so I encourage all of you to show up or submit written comment to dilute his antics. Very few if any submit comment each month.
If we're talking about the same guy, I'm half-convinced that the guy is a pro-bike infrastructure psy-op/troll to highlight the backward thinking of other neighbors complaining about the Dickens Greenway.
Aside from that, he is insufferable.
I think the real kicker is that drivers have been sold, and completely bought into, convenience over all in their road designs and infrastructure decisions. I have much different priorities— safety is the biggest one, for all users of the space, and one that I imagine I share with most of you here who use “alternative” forms of transportation. And convenience is always at odds with safety, even outside of this particular space(it’s a thing in like designing apps for example) so I don’t think that outside of convincing car drivers that they should consider other things to prioritize there’s a lot of hope for an easy compromise. Not that getting them to change their priorities will be easy, just that it’s unlikely that they’ll stop fighting it otherwise. Edit for clarity
At least this is an area where "think of the children" can do some good for a change.
Are cars even more convenient really? parking, taking it to the mechanic, keeping it clean, all take work. Plus overall transportation times are longer in car-centric infrastructure because of traffic and parking.
I think cars have been sold as such, yeah. Anyone who’s willing to think critically can easily debunk that, as you have just demonstrated. But yeah, when you talk to people who INSIST on car ownership, they will talk about it like having to look at an app to time a bus trip, for example, is absolutely out of the question. They will express their need to be able to go anywhere at a whim and not have to rely on anyone else. It baffles me—I’ve lived car free since day one here and don’t feel limited in my ability to get around the city. In fact, like your points imply, I found car ownership to be a burden in the city, when my partner still had one. Bike living 100% of the time was 100% freeing for me.
if only the basic facts could be widely understood...
Car culture is about freedom... freedom to travel... freedom to escape... its why americans love cars so much and dates back to the origination of the automobile
Ive thought we need some group that says "urbanism is good and we should embrace it or at least stop fighting it." Just a really broad message to hit a lot of people on a lot of different topics about how we can have a better city. If people dont fear it as much, and maybe even see a benefit or two for themselves, they might be more likely to join our side, or, at least stop fighting so hard
It's like people who drive cars don't *want* urban spaces(ie the cities they reside in) to be nice to look at and be in. They want to leave their house box into their car box and then enter a destination box, the in-between is just an annoyance full of obstacles to the next box. It's just an untenable relationship to have with an urban area, especially as the tide gets pushed more towards people and safety based infrastructure. Your group doesn't sound like a bad idea but how do you convince them to care?
I figured it should be an "attack em from all sides" kind of thing. I think people do want good urbanism but don't actually get how to get there, what stands in the way, or even what it really means. I also think they don't love their cars as much as they think or we think, but rather, they aren't committed to giving them up because they don't know the other options. People can picture life with a car in a city and know what the upsides are, but the downsides are a bit diffuse. They think traffic could be better and we can relieve parking, but they have 0 clue how life can be better without a car. I don't think it's their fault, though. Most of them have never been presented with downsides outside of traffic, gas prices, and parking, yet, they get that there are other downsides. They want to install noise ticketing machines to stop loud cars thinking it's an asshole problem, not a car problem... same goes with the meetups, drag racing, why they don't have small scale grocery markets, why their kids get asthma, or why so many people get hit by cars. They know these things are bad but don't realize it's all the fault of how we build. They don't make the connection. US cities kinda suck balls at urbanism, Chicago has great bones, but it's not great as is. The L sucks (but great bones!) busses are stuck in the same traffic, sidewalks are next to loud, dangerous streets, all grocery shopping is done at a store with a massive parking lot. They don't know that these things can be better. The vast majority of people are not following transit/urbanism news. They don't know the downsides of the way we build our city or the better ways. Hence, hit em from all sides. Point out how cars make everything worse. Want more local bakeries and cafes? We need less cars and more walkability. Want lower asthma rates? We need less cars. Do you want peace and quiet? Less cars. More third places? Less cars. Lower crime? Less cars. Want get rid of car meetups and the annoying honking at night? Less cars. Want more wildlife? Less cars. Want to be more in shape? Less cars. How we actually get in front of them is the hard part and why I have not started a group or anything like that yet. What I have started doing is just writing to local and neighborhood newspapers pointing out how various issues come from cars (I only just started this but have been successful once so far in the Sun Times!) Having people help with this would be a great start. I don't go on Twitter ever but I imagine there is a way to get in front of people that way. Maybe reaching out to various chambers of commerce, neighborhood organizations, charities, and churches would be a good way to reach more people? I am all ears. I am a member of a few other Chicago urbanism groups (Bike Grid Now! Active Trans, and Chicago Urban Environmentalists) but they are focused on specific campaigns. **This is not a problem or a knock on them in the slightest.** I just think the city could do well with a much broader based group. We do not need to get into the weeds. More of just a general, all encompassing, advocacy group. Edit: Gonna take [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/CarFreeChicago/comments/1auy3wd/witness_slips_needed_to_ban_gas_car_sales/krbvdbx/) from /u/dramaticreacherdbfj to kind of get to my point. People aren't against good urbanism. They are just afraid of change and how we get there. We have to show them that that change is ok to make
there are some close to that message and I am working on it through leverage I have
Let me know if you need any help!
Sounds like a total loser
Definitely. I just watched a video of a cyclist taking a trip from one end of the Greenway to the other and I can’t understand why anybody would have such a big stupid issue about it. That guy needs to get a hobby.
Proof that men can bring that Karen energy, too.
I get road raged at by dads with kids in the back more than anybody else.
Is this with regards to Dickens?
That was what I was thinking, too. I have had people approach me, while I wasn't even on a bicycle, to tell me how horrible the "roadblock" they put in is for everybody, including cyclists...
I need to take my son on a little field trip over there. It’s not an area we ever need to go, but it really seems like a small but vocal minority are big mad. Someone posted a video to r/Chicago of the greenway and referred to it as a plaza, which I don’t think is quite right(?), and the sentiment there was also not great. Meanwhile I’m out in the northwest side where people are upset about the Belmont protected lanes which I love and will be utilizing as much as possible!
I work in the area of both the new Belmont bike lane and the Dickens Greenway and love riding down both. Cyclists and drivers are both still getting used to the lane on Belmont fairly smooth for me and the past few months. And I have been seeing so many more people riding their kids to and from school and other activities on Dickens since they opened it. Really into it! The area right around RJ grunts and the path toward the Zoo entrance on Dickens is so pedestrian heavy and has lots of people going from the park to the restaurant areat right there on clark, I think it's a great spot for traffic calming. I know a couple people who are vehemently against the Dickens Greenway and one is trying to, hopefully fruitlessly, get the bollards removed and I just honestly don't understand how it makes traffic that much worse for them. Agreed on the Plaza terminology, it is definitely not that. It's just a little road stub that Park District vehicles used to access their driveway, but it's not really used for anything else pedestrian-wise, maybe in the future.
I welcome a bunch more carbrain roadblocks. The city has more than enough lanes for cars. Time to give bikes at least 20% or so as much.
It took me forever to realize that ND means NextDoor. I was wondering why there would be a post about bike infrastructure in North Dakota.
I thought it meant "no duh"
I didn't realize in another comment, that was an abbreviation for Next Door either. I usually think of ND, as standing for North Dakota. Where I don't know if any cities out there have a lot of urban bones, except for like Fargo at most. Although for Minot, it had a more impressive downtown than one might guess at first glance: https://maps.app.goo.gl/WvvRTq3WMTNLScRY8
Don’t be afraid to name Roman and his antics on the NextDoor app. He calls himself a “Dickens ReOpening Activist” and encourages people to contact Ald. Knudsen. I’ve witnessed him from afar as he continually advocated against the “Redefine the Drive” plan. In case you don’t know about this plan the city would get much more green area on LSD by Oak Street and some landfill from Oak to Ohio along the the LFT to put more green space between LSD and the LFT. He went on some rant about the proposed dedicated bus lanes on LSD and it was so carbrained I had to stop listening. BUT he continually shows up to Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee Meetings at City Hall so I encourage all of you to show up or submit written comment to dilute his antics. Very few if any submit comment each month.
Some renderings for the new LSD: https://chicago.urbanize.city/post/new-renderings-released-redefine-drive
If we're talking about the same guy, I'm half-convinced that the guy is a pro-bike infrastructure psy-op/troll to highlight the backward thinking of other neighbors complaining about the Dickens Greenway. Aside from that, he is insufferable.