Slashdot Mirror
The Chicago Suburb That's Trying To Kill the Car (politico.com)
HughPickens.com writes: T. R. Goldman writes at Politico that downtown Evanston, Illinois—a sturdy, tree-lined Victorian city wedged neatly between Lake Michigan and Chicago's northern border, is missing one thing — cars. Or, more accurately, it's missing a lot of cars. Thanks to concerted planning, new developments are rising within a 10-minute walk of two rail lines and half-a-dozen bus routes and the local automobile ownership rate is nearly half that of the surrounding area. According to Goldman, the whole point of the suburbs, reinforced by decades of local zoning laws and developers' plans for a car-centric lifestyle, was that you weren't supposed to live on top of your neighbor, that there was supposed to be plenty of parking everywhere you went and that you weren't supposed to walk anywhere.
"But Evanston had a different idea: What if a suburban downtown became a place where pedestrians ruled and cars were actively discouraged?" writes Goldman. "Beginning in 1986, a new plan for Evanston embraced the idea of a '24/7' downtown, pouring resources into increasing the density of its downtown—a density that also meant decreasing residents' reliance on automobiles. As a compact city, Evanston couldn't compete with the vast sprawling parking spots of the Old Orchard Mall. It had to build a different sort of appeal."
Evanston has gained recognition and reputation for efforts related to sustainability, including those by government, citizens, and institutions and one thing that Evanston does to reduce the number of cars is let individual car owners rent their idle cars to other drivers through an online service. The service is being provided by a San Francisco-based startup called Getaround, and it's facilitated by a two-year, $475,000 federal research grant to the Center for Neighborhood Technology that's being implemented by the Shared-Use Mobility Center. Getaround claims that a car owner can make as much as $10,000 a year by renting out a vehicle and that renters can get a car to use when they need one for as little as $5 an hour.
Sharon Feigon says the new program is designed to test different models for car sharing in communities with different economic characteristics — ranging from low to moderate income communities in the city to more suburban areas like Evanston. "We'll also be surveying people about their use to better understand how it works and whether it actually leads to some people selling their cars, whether it reduces carbon dioxide emissions and vehicle miles traveled," says Feigon. "Car owners can make a little money and feel good that their car is in service to others. We expect 10,000 people will use the service over the two-year test period.''
"But Evanston had a different idea: What if a suburban downtown became a place where pedestrians ruled and cars were actively discouraged?" writes Goldman. "Beginning in 1986, a new plan for Evanston embraced the idea of a '24/7' downtown, pouring resources into increasing the density of its downtown—a density that also meant decreasing residents' reliance on automobiles. As a compact city, Evanston couldn't compete with the vast sprawling parking spots of the Old Orchard Mall. It had to build a different sort of appeal."
Evanston has gained recognition and reputation for efforts related to sustainability, including those by government, citizens, and institutions and one thing that Evanston does to reduce the number of cars is let individual car owners rent their idle cars to other drivers through an online service. The service is being provided by a San Francisco-based startup called Getaround, and it's facilitated by a two-year, $475,000 federal research grant to the Center for Neighborhood Technology that's being implemented by the Shared-Use Mobility Center. Getaround claims that a car owner can make as much as $10,000 a year by renting out a vehicle and that renters can get a car to use when they need one for as little as $5 an hour.
Sharon Feigon says the new program is designed to test different models for car sharing in communities with different economic characteristics — ranging from low to moderate income communities in the city to more suburban areas like Evanston. "We'll also be surveying people about their use to better understand how it works and whether it actually leads to some people selling their cars, whether it reduces carbon dioxide emissions and vehicle miles traveled," says Feigon. "Car owners can make a little money and feel good that their car is in service to others. We expect 10,000 people will use the service over the two-year test period.''
No and the whole thing is disingenuous. If you think people should have a lower standard of living (less privacy, higher rent, less living space, probably less parks/lawns) for the sake of the environment, at least have the balls to say it openly. You can say you're happier living in a city but don't say everyone is, and don't call it a suburb.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
So, you can rent a car for as little as $5/hour (and presumably, rent your own car for a similar amount), and you can earn $10k/year renting your car?
Which suggests you are renting your car out for 2000 hours a year (~6 hours a day)...
Somehow, I don't think so.
Also, there is the question of insurance (remember, the same problem people who hate Uber insist is a deal-killer?).
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
And I utterly despise it. Here's how it works out.
1) They tear down lanes, increasing traffic, and turn them into ugly, overly broad sidewalks and bike lanes that nobody uses,
2) Installing deliberate "baffles" to slow down traffic flow. For example, here on Snorrabraut they have the center lane as an alternating turn lane into every little side street, and the outerlane in each direction also repeatedly turn into turn lanes, so that drivers have to keep alternating between the left and right lanes... with stoplights at each little intersection, of course.
3) "Increasing density" by ripping out all of the parking. This has the lovely side effect of, during busy times, cars that normally would have just parked instead have to circle around for long periods looking for spaces. Great for the environment, that! They usually rip out the parking first and then worry about whether they actually have anything to build there later.
4) "Increasing density" by ripping out public spaces. The hardest one to see go was Hjartatorg, as it had been basically built up and decorated by the city's teenagers, murals covering every square meter of the sides.
5) "Increasing density" by pushing out lower density businesses that people actually enjoy, like entertainment, for high density residential (these days, often hotels or apartments for tourists) and higher profit commercial.
6) "Increasing density" by building "up". The city is covered in tower cranes, each competing to build taller buildings than the last, and all doing their damnedest to block views of the ocean and famous city landmarks.
7) Going hyperaggressive on parking fines. There's even parking meters at the hospital parking lot, and meter readers go around ticketing patients' cars - even emergency room patients. On Menningarnótt they shut down car access to the entire city - which would be fine (it's a big festival), except that they don't provide nearly enough parking even for people at bus stops wanting to catch the buses into the city that they're supposed to take, and then go around ticketing all the cars on the outlots.
8) Building new buildings with insufficient parking, or - latest trend - no parking at all.
And on and on. It's so ridiculous in general, but even more ridiculous here on one of the windiest places on the planet, where winter lasts half a year, where there's almost no sun in the winter, etc.
And for what? So that we can't go places when we're sick or injured? So people can't commute? So that we have to exercise in their proscribed manner rather than our own? (my way to exercise is planting trees and improving my land... screw you, environment!) So that we have to live in little apartments in a city with ever-shrinking public spaces and ever-decreasing view? So that we can use a means of transportation that's 20+ times more likely to get you seriously injured per kilometer than driving, and almost as likely to seriously injure pedestrians? So that we can burn ~40 calories per kilometer biking (significantly more walking) which, at a local average embodied CO2 per food calorie of something of probably around 6g/kcal works out to 240g/km, three times worse than driving alone in a Prius** (even if you lower your baseline metabolism that only saves you about 14kcal/day/kg body mass reduction, far less than you burn to achieve that weight loss**)? Just ignoring the potentially even bigger issues from producing all of that extra food, such as methane emissions, destruction of habitat, algal blooms, pesticide pollution, damm
"Oh, goodness. Look at my wrist, I have to go." "But what about your clothes?" "I don't love these."
Actually, the air in Paris is worse:
http://www.numbeo.com/pollutio...
Right... this is not exactly new.
I live in St. Louis, specifically I live in an area called Compton Heights. What this means is that I have literally a 3 minute walk to a bus stop, maybe a 15 minute walk (or 5 minute bus ride) to the Metrolink (light rail) station. From there I can get to the airport, to the Delmar Loop (good restaurants and pubs and some esoteric shops) and so on. I'm probably 15 minutes walk from a couple of grocery stores, and like a lot of these city neighbourhoods we do also have a rather nice little "martini bar" (really a pub with some delusions of grandeur) where the locals hang out. It's also worth noting that I'm just under 3 miles walk from Busch Stadium as well if I want to watch the Cardinals play, and even closer to Chaifetz Arena for events and the like. And if I want to go for a nice long walk in a park, I have Tower Grove Park just about 20 minutes walk away.
My whole neighbourhood is eminently walkable. That's one of the reasons I moved here in the first place. It doesn't take genius city planning, just an old city. My house is 130 years old... one of the oldest in the neighbourhood and is still somewhat of a relic of its Victorian construction. There are a lot of streets around here that really weren't built with cars in mind, so walking or bicycling is the best option.
The suburbs suck though... at least for me. I lived in the burbs for years and really hated it (but my then wife loved it). It's obviously something that makes some people happy, but maybe my European upbringing (Belfast, NI) made me more of a city dweller with walkable neighbourhoods. The only downside is the crime rate here is rather bad, but to be honest I have not been affected by it myself.
It isn't Communism or Socialism due to any particular service.
Just like having roads isn't communism or socialism.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"However Americans are far better drivers than Europe..."
Then I don't understand how any Europeans are left alive. Which Americans? Minneapolitans? Which Europeans? Romans? How about Baltimore versus Munich?
I find it interested that some of the places with the highest percentages of pedestrians and cyclists have the nastiest weather. Evanston? Some cities in Scandinavia? Why not Mediterranean cities or San Diego? People are strange.
The Chicago Suburb That's Trying To Kill the Car
Just let out the clutch real fast without giving it enough gas.
Better known as 318230.
However Americans are far better drivers than Europe and most of the traffic come from people who do not live in the city.
Lol, what a ridiculous thing to say. Europe is a big place (as is America), and driving standards vary a lot across the many countries it comprises, so it's completely meaningful to talk as if there is one standard of driving. I'm sure standards vary across the USA also, but it's not my experience that Americans are better drivers than the Europeans I'm familiar with.
The UK has a stringent driving test (far more stringent than what I understand is typical in the USA), and I have been to few places with driving standards that come close; certainly not the parts of the USA where I've driven. Germany is possibly better inside cities, but there are some lunatics on the autobahns. France and Italy, I grant you, there are a lot of questionable drivers in the cities, but I would say the average standard is quite good. I can only judge eastern Europe from all the dashcam footage on youtube, and let's just say that I hope that isn't too representative.
Of course, that's just my empirical view, but simply looking at the stats, we can see that the since USA has 11.6 road fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants per year, while the UK is on 3.5, Germany 4.3, France 4.9, Italy 6.2, Russia 18.6, my empirical observations seem to be in line with reality.
Oh no... it's the future.
and it's Communism & Socialism to have healthcare for all. Yet in the usa some people us the jail / prison system to be there doctor for the stuff that ER does not cover at a ever higher cost then the cost of the ER.
Did you learn that logic at the same government run school that taught you grammar and spelling?
I lived in a city that thought they were being smart by discouraging car traffic. They made large stores like Walmart undersize their parking lots on purpose to make it frustrating to find parking. They turned all tertiary roads into cul de sacs. They even timed the signals to create maximum traffic. All they accomplished was making traffic really bad. Nobody stopped driving. There are some basic facts that these nuts don't seems to understand:
1. Most people do not want to live with common walls. It's an incredibly stressful way of life.
2. Most people do not want to live in high density urban centers. People want some space of their own.
3. You can't do things like shop by taking the bus or train. Who's going to carry your groceries, the bus driver?
4. People with children want space for them to play outside without having to be constantly vigilant. That means a private yard.
I'm happy for these people to make their places unlivable. They are driving up my property values.
Taipei has made remarkable progress with public transit, but it was always a very walkable city. The main reason is zoning (or lack thereof), which allows businesses and residences to co-mingle. In most Taiwanese cities, you're literally never more than a few hundred meters away from a 7-11 or Family Mart, and there's an ample scattering of supermarkets, eateries, and other shops in between.
The same thing could be accomplished in most American suburbs by simply allowing more variances for people who want to, say, convert their living room into a small shop. That way, if you just need a carton of milk (for example), you wouldn't have to drive to the supermarket, you could just walk a couple of blocks to Mrs. Smith's house.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
But they're wielding the Department of Transportation and urban zoning as blunt weapons to do it, and being serious assholes about the whole thing.
They're also failing to realize that by running off people who want or need to drive into the city, they're going to end up choking off commerce. But the limp-wristed hipsters running the place now either don't care or would see it as some kind of redistributive, disruptive accomplishment, so I kind of just want to watch the entire shebang come crashing down in flames to see the expression on their faces.
It seems to be an article of faith among urban planners that the way to deal with cars is just to get rid of them, as if you can wave your hands and simply undo 60-odd years of growth and sprawl enabled by cars.
For sure cars have drawbacks, but so many of the planning decisions which seem to be anti-car seem to be somewhat ideologically driven rather than recognizing that arbitrarily making cars more difficult (less parking, narrower roads built with "traffic calming" features, etc) really is a kind of net negative when the larger geography and established infrastructure can't possibly be adapted on a timescale to accommodate it.
We had hundreds of miles of streetcar in 1950, but rebuilding it with light rail has taken over a decade and there's only two lines built. It's cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.7 billion dollars to build those two lines. I think the projected cost of the Southwest line is something on the order of 1.5 billion dollars and has a crazy route that will maul some of the city's parks and somehow manages not to serve the Hennepin Avenue corridor, despite it being one the most ideal places to build rail service to support existing high density residence.
The bus system is a joke, only practical for suburban commuters -- any kind of urban trip you could make in 20 minutes in a car is an hour odyssey not including time spent waiting for the bus.
I knew this was wrong, so I took the lazy way and checked Wikipedia. For the first-world countries they provide the numbers, these countries have the same or more deaths per km:
Spain
Belgium
Japan
New Zealand
Czech Republic
South Korea
Not the worst. Not even close.
Please stop making up facts.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
The cost of owning a car (let alone fueling it) will FAR exceed any savings you obtain by getting "deals" on your weekly groceries.
That number is meaningless. You want the number of accidents per person per unit of distance travelled. And here, because Americans ride in their cars much more than Europeans, we do not look so bad.
(Too lazy to struggle with WolframAlpha to give you a link here myself.)
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I really do like Evanston... been working here for almost 14 years and I've gotten a chance to see the building boom in downtown during that time. It really is more of a city than a suburb. There's plenty of suburban sprawl too... many tree-lined side streets with a garage for every house, and lots of cars parked along said streets. It's just downtown that is building up so dramatically. The only limit to outward spread is the fact that there's a great big lake along the entire eastern edge of town, a great big city to the south, and already-sprawled suburbs to the north and west.
For many of us that commute to Evanston for work or for entertainment, a car is still a necessity. The surrounding suburbs, and even parts of the city, lack a convenient public transportation method to get there efficiently - multiple slow buses or interchanges between bus and rail. And the big parking lot along the lakefront, also known as Northwestern University, pulls in many cars like mine that have to travel along congested streets. Streets that are poorly plowed at best in winter. I'm fairly certain Evanston has just one snowplow that they loan out to Chicago at the first sign of snow.
The most car-unfriendly development in recent years has been the new system of bike lanes. I'm all for making it safe, convenient, and desirable to use a bicycle to commute and would love to see a bike lane on just about every street. But they decided in some downtown areas to put the bicycle lane next to the curb, between the sidewalk and parked cars. While this is great for helping bicyclists avoid being "doored" by oblivious motorists exiting vehicles, it means that when I make a right turn across a bike lane I have to somehow have kept track of potential bicyclists over the last block and be able to see through the SUV that is inevitably parked at the corner in order to make sure I'm not cutting off or running over a rider.
It really doesn't help that too many cyclists in Evanston are just plain batshit crazy (far more so than those I've seen in Chicago). Speeding along side streets or main streets with no regard for stop signs and little regard for stoplights. Often clad in spandex, hunched over the handlebars as if they're racing to the end of the next stage.
No kidding. I went to England and they didn't even know which side of the street to drive on.
You are welcome on my lawn.
What's the matter, your feet don't work on your own schedule?
You know what else was the embodiment of freedom for your ancestors? Being able to crap wherever they want. They didn't even have to go indoors. They could just drop their loincloth and cop a squat whenever the spirit moved them. Now that's freedom, right there. Don't tread on me, motherfucker, because I need to launch a butt shuttle.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You're kidding me, right? Turn signals are optional, as is driving within the lines, staying out of the passing lane, not tailgating, and in general paying attention to what's around you (cars, pedestrians, etc...), just to list a few issues I've experienced in Boston, Los Angeles, and around Georgia. The only reason there aren't more accidents is because traffic is so light. Contrast this with the northern European countries, such as Germany, Denmark and the BeNeLux area, where they drive faster and traffic is worse but the drivers know what they're doing and (apart from speeding) mostly follow the rules. At least for Belgium I suspect this is because driver's education is much more thorough and the exam harder.
I can't speak for the Mediterranean, but you have no idea what you're talking about if you're lumping all Europeans together.
In this case the per capita statistic is the wrong one, but it's still useful. It shows that for a American, there's a higher risk of being injured in a road accident — yes, that's because they drive more. But that's because the country is organised around driving more, which means there's little choice but to take that risk.
Given a job offer in the US and another somewhere in Europe, I could choose the one in Europe and face less chance of dying in a road accident.
Evanston actually predates chicago by a bit. It's not a suburb. Chicago grew until it pressed against Evanston's southern border.
evanston has some advantages over Chicago. It's got a good solid core of Northwestern University. So it has a lot of young college kids roaming around the city. It's a much smaller city than chicago and the density is easier to maintain. The old joke is that there are more dead people than living (there's a big cemetery near the southern border with chicago).
It also has a lot of infrastructure from being close to chicago. The Purple line is an extension of the CTA, and runs locally on weekends. There are CTA busses that come through, not just suburban busses. There are a couple Metra lines the go through because of proximity to chicago
There are rough neighborhoods to the west (evanston borders the lake on the east so the rich folks are east, the poor folks west.) I haven't read the articles yet, but I'd love to see how the Western part fits in the grand plan
How about when the commons is the air and water we share, and people are busy polluting it? Is somebody going to hack out a piece of air and not allow pollutants in it?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes