Today’s Headlines for Monday, April 27

  • Editorial: Banning Red Light Cams Is a Bad Idea (Tribune)
  • …But Rahm’s Motorcade Really Needs to Stop Blowing Lights (Tribune)
  • 5000 Series ‘L’ Cars Suck, So CTA Will Be More Cautious With Next Train Car Order (Tribune)
  • Alarmist Mailing From Highway PAC Rips Lawmakers for Moving Money From Road Fund (Tribune)
  • 20-Year-Old Woman Fatally Struck by Driver Exiting Dan Ryan in Chatham (Tribune)
  • Driver Cited After Head-On Crash Into Aurora That Killed 1, Injured 2 (Sun-Times)
  • Man Dies After Driving Car Into Tree in Lockport (Tribune)
  • DUI Charges for Man Who Drove Pickup Into Lockport Home (CBS)
  • State Street Buses Rerouted After Bricks Fall From Building (Sun-Times)
  • Rogers Parkers Choose Crosswalk Improvements, Bus Benches in PB Election (49th Ward)
  • Beale Joins Taliaferro in Calling for Faster Expansion of Divvy to Outlying Wards (Sun-Times)
  • CDOT Looking for Volunteers for Downtown Bike Counts (Active Trans)

Get national headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • I don’t think outlying areas need Divvy so much as other bicycling-supportive investments. It’s probably more cost effective to buy hundreds of bicycles for people than to attempt to run a business like Divvy (without operating subsidy, as the City of Chicago prefers) in areas that would use the service infrequently.

    Along with these bicycles would be some personal training on how to identify good routes for bicycling, and basic maintenance tips. Additionally, though, outlying areas will need more on-street bicycle lanes and cycle tracks, and bike shops.

    Bike-share service utilization is a product of density: of residents, jobs, retail, and destinations. Outlying areas of Chicago are typically much less dense than those within a few miles of the Loop. There may not be enough cross-subsidization in the Divvy system to use revenues from high-use areas to prop up lower revenues in low-use areas.

  • The other thing Divvy does, though, is signal to the kind of people that have Divvy memberships, “These are places you might want to go. There are businesses here. People live here that you’d like to know.”

    There’s a bunch of businesses down the arterials of Austin that are totally Divvy-user-patronizable … if there were anywhere to dock your Divvy, after riding down from Logan Square or out from Pilsen or Bucker Park.

    This is part of the whole balkanization of the city that almost every piece of policy seems to contribute to. There are definitely areas of the city that every institutional indication label as “places most people don’t want to be”. It was inescapable when I lived in Austin that I wasn’t supposed to be there, supposed to want it to be accessible, supposed to want services and support from my government.

    Every time the cops stopped me for walking onto my block (and it was several times a month, every month, for several years), their first question after asking to see my ID was, “Why would you live HERE?”

    That is a literal quote, from an actual city government employee.

    Divvy and other groups echoing the existing pattern just feels more and more insulting.

  • I totally understand why the aldermen are asking for Divvy to expand to their wards: Public money is being spent and each ward should be receiving some part of that investment.