Page 84 of 172

Apparently Chicago needs NATO/G8 conferences to solidify itself as a world class city

Photos of people participating in Occupy Chicago, back in October 2011. Photo by Ryan Williams. 

It wasn’t a diverse economy, a tech startup community, several well-known universities downtown, the world’s best collection of architecture, or any of that other crap that we need for others to pay attention to us. Where am I coming from?

From the Beachwood Reporter’s Steve Rhodes:

“Almost everyone agrees that having these two summits in our city is a great opportunity to solidify our rightful place as a world city,” Ald. Joe Moreno wrote on Huffington Post explaining his votes in favor of the new ordinances.

I’m not sure which part of that declaration is worse: “Almost everyone,” “great opportunity,” or “solidify our rightful place as a world city.”

It’s okay to say no to ordinances. Not every ordinance needs to pass, even with “concessions” after some “great open-mindedness” from Mayor Emanuel. Then the City Council tried to hide from the public:

“They wouldn’t let Occupiers into the council chambers. First they claimed it was a capacity. So I went up to the mezzanine and photographed empty seats and came back down to the 2nd floor. When I showed them the evidence they were lying, the cops reconvened then announced that the mayor simply refused us inside.”

This city is good enough without these two conferences. Ones that no one asked for.

My commentary on these kinds of issues is supremely bad, and I’m very mad at this city council for its endless string of rubber stamping. I didn’t start paying attention until the parking meter lease deal. 

The remap process is a sham

Photo of the January 11, 2012, hearing at DePaul Student Center by Bob Segal. 

I’m having a terrible time understanding how the Chicago redistricting is supposed to work, and how it should work, but I’m having an easy time understanding what is happening: citizens are having no part in the process.

Though most city hall press coverage this week has focused on the mayor’s attempt to restrict the right to protest, alderman will also vote to remake Chicago’s political landscape this Thursday. The specific dimensions of the newly remapped wards, however, remain unknown to the public.

In one of the worst public planning processes I’ve ever seen, the City Council has engaged in a nefarious cover up of a process that slices and dices neighborhoods into self-serving political and racially-based boundaries.

I’ve gathered information and my thoughts into my wiki.

Others’ thoughts

Citizens of the 36th Ward For A Fair Ward Map

What is Conversation Cycling?

Mikael Colville-Anderson posted a link to this photo set called Conversation Cycling (his photo above). The concept of Conversation Cycling is simple:

Build a bikeway so two people can cycle side-by-side to have a pleasant chat. 

I want this for Chicago. When you ride with friends, how would you prefer to ride: yelling ahead in our narrow bike lanes or conversing to the side? This is sometimes possible on the Lakefront Trail, but not always: the Lakefront Trail’s maximum width is the same as the standard with for cycle tracks in Europe!

Bike lanes in the United States, when they’re available and not being parked in, are not even wide enough for one person to ride without danger of being doored. It’s not surprising this is the case. In addition to how we prioritize the movement of automobiles and the placement of parking before pedaling, the national minimum width for a bike lane is 4 feet (without gutter), or 5 feet when next to parked cars or with a gutter.

I gathered some hard evidence: My handlebars are 28 inches wide. The door of my roommate’s car is 32 inches wide. 28+32 = 60 inches, or 5 feet. And that’s without a buffer. Essentially, bike lanes as we’ve built them are not compatible with the rest of the street.

Two Department of Revenue workers cycle side by side, meeting the edges of the bike lane, on Armitage Avenue in Lincoln Park. Photo by Mike Travis. 

Door zone bike lanes are not unique to any American city. Illustration by Gary Kavanagh. 

A group cycles on Damen Avenue in and out of the bike lane. Photo by Eric Rogers. 

Crashes by bike or by foot at different intersections

While working on a private web application that I call Chicago Crash Browser, I added some code to show the share of pedestrian and pedalcyclist crashes. The site offers users (sorry I don’t have a web server that can make it public) a list of the “Top 10” intersections in terms of bike crash frequency (that’s bike+auto crash). You can click on the intersection and a list will populate showing all the pedestrian and pedalcyclist crashes there, sorted by date. At the bottom of the list is a simple sentence that tells what percentage pedestrian and pedalcyclists made up at that intersection.

I’m still developing ideas on how this information may be useful, and what it’s saying about the intersection or the people using it.

Let me tell you about a few:

Milwaukee Avenue and Ogden Avenue

I mentioned in my article Initial intersection crash analysis for Milwaukee Avenue that this intersection is the most bike crash-frequent.

23 crashes within 150 feet of the center, 2005-2010

82.61% bike crashes **

17.39% ped crashes.

Ashland Avenue and Division Street

28 crashes within 150 feet of the center, 2005-2010

46.43% bike crashes

53.57% ped crashes **

Milwaukee, North and Damen Avenues

46 crashes within 150 feet of the center, 2005-2010

39.13% bike crashes

60.87% ped crashes **

Halsted Street, Lincoln and Fullerton Avenues

38 crashes within 150 feet of the center, 2005-2010

42.11% bike crashes

57.89% ped crashes **

Montrose Avenue and Marine Drive (Lake Shore Drive ramps)

11 crashes within 150 feet of the center, 2005-2010

90.91% bike crashes **

9.09% ped crashes

Why do you think some intersections have more of one kind of crash than the other?

People walking at Milwaukee-North-Damen.

The Chicago Crash Browser can be made public if I have a host that offers the PostgreSQL database. Do you have one to offer?

Carnage culture dispatch #1

I’ve been a “fan” of carnage culture news and discussion for several years, mainly since I started reading Streetsblog (probably in 2007) and their Weekly Carnage series. I write about “carnage culture” here and a little bit on Grid Chicago. But on Grid Chicago I tend to keep the coverage about crash data plus more “reasonable” (a euphemism for less angry, maybe) and objective.

Carnage culture to me is a description of the level of life and property damage Americans are willing to accept as a cost of doing business, and a cost of living. And I think that level of acceptability is much too high. Is the person responsible for these crashes paying for the damage they caused? Did the City bill the driver for the trees, curbs, landscaping, and guardrail he ran into?

I present here the first Chicago Crash Diary. From the photos and background information I received from a reader, combined with the Illinois Department of Transportation crash data, I was able to “reconstruct” a particular damaging crash in 2010. I made a color flyer from this information to quickly distill the details.

It seems continuing our system of having extremely high health care costs (without an equivalent return in quality or faster care when compared to countries with lower health care costs) is an acceptable cost of perpetuating backward ideas about society’s responsibility to take care of its members and refusing to allow a system that shares health care costs for those not already covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or child health insurance programs.

This is like carnage culture: we accept the damage to property, to human lives, and to society, to continue a culture (including our built environment) that depends on and glorifies automobile ownership and driving to places where other modes suffice. Our culture that allows unlicensed drivers, uninsured drivers, drivers with limited education (driver’s education is not needed for those 18 and older), being distracted by cellphones, and lax enforcement,* is the same one that allows $300 billion to be spent on “picking up the pieces” after crashes (study from AAA by Cambridge Systematics). But ours is the same culture that builds its cities and neighborhoods and places of employment to only be accessible by those who can drive.

The cost of crashes are based on the Federal Highway Administration’s comprehensive costs for traffic fatalities and injuries that assign a dollar value to a variety of components, including medical and emergency services, lost earnings and household production, property damage, and lost quality of life, among other things. [This story is interesting because the press release’s angle was that crash costs are three times higher than congestion costs, which is constantly in the news; congestion is apparently something we care more about.]

I don’t think $35 per month liability insurance, or the police, district attorneys, and courts, are protecting us from this damage.

*I could go on. Just search for “top causes of car crashes”.