I don’t think it’s so much a matter of banning “bad” development as allowing all kinds.
I can understand the desire to reduce through-traffic which sometimes comes with speeding or aggressive drivers. But walking and cycling to your friends house shouldn't mean going a mile out to the entrance of your neighborhood, down the busy highway, then a mile back in to their house when they were only half a mile away to begin with.
The county would basically have to do the opposite to change things; provide low-cost/low-overhead process for connecting to public road and pay neighborhoods/HOA for connecting to arterials to offload the traffick and provide thru-routes. Otherwise the public is just leaching off the private roads, and due to neighborhood planning requirements they usually can't charge a toll to get it back, so it gets designed to avoid that.
That is awesome. City planners should take note.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bicycle_Route_Sy...
Here’s the first Wikipedia photo of USBR 1:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Bicycle_Route_1#/media/...
Look, it’s a road on which is possible, but not necessarily desirable, to ride a bike.
The Netherlands has at least two systems:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LF-routes
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbered-node_cycle_network
and neither article emphasizes the dramatic difference between these and the US system, possibly because it’s utterly obvious to anyone who has ever used the Dutch system: the Dutch bike routes are far, far higher quality. You can bike from almost anywhere to almost anywhere with the bulk of the route (at least outside of a city center) on paths are well separated from cars or even nowhere near a road at all. A lot of them even separate pedestrians from bikes or separate fast bikes from slow bikes. Even the worse bike paths are better than most bike paths in the US. If you ride the bike paths to a major store or a mall, you will generally find that the dedicated bike parking is closer than the car parking. If you go to a smaller store, a cafe or a house, you will be able to get from the nearest bike path to the building without crossing a traffic lane. If you go to a busy area, you might find a double decker bike parking lot!
This works well in a country with more bikes than people. Those paths are heavily utilized.
The US has excellent bike paths as well, but they are largely the exception, not the norm, and the almost entirely fail to connect into a cohesive system on which you can safely bike from point A to point B without ending up on nasty roads for large fractions of the trip.
It's really strange that they just jump into the paper and keep saying "natural experiment" over and over again without any justification that they actually have one. They do eventually get to this in the "Selection effects in relocation and mobile app usage" section, but I think they really downplay the seriousness of the issue.
trainsarebetter•5mo ago
There really is no free lunch!
jerlam•5mo ago
throwanem•5mo ago
jewayne•5mo ago
I wonder how much damage that did to me, to have that lack of physical activity during my formative years.
mothballed•5mo ago
As soon as you get near people, if there is a enough, a Karen will rat the kid out as soon as they touch public property and maybe before it. They are only safe from CPS tyrants when they are out of sight.
alaithea•5mo ago
That said, we live in the inner district of a small city that was settled in the mid 19th century, so it has a street grid, alleys, uninterrupted sidewalks, etc.... everything that makes a place as safe as possible in this day and age for kids to get around without getting hit by a car. (One exception being dedicated biking infrastructure, which would be awesome.)
sersi•5mo ago
hardolaf•5mo ago
alaithea•5mo ago
hardolaf•5mo ago
Here's an actual page from the government explaining the law and even providing the text of the law: https://dcfs.illinois.gov/for-families/safety/preparing-your...
If you follow their advice and your child is ready to reasonably able to be left alone unattended, you can leave even 8-9 year olds unattended for long periods of time. It's not odd for children to be home alone after school for 4-8+ hours.
Your opinion on "CPS" in Illinois (I assume you meant DCFS and not Chicago Public Schools) is based on not understanding a single paragraph of the law that is written to be readable by the general public.
Kids go all over the place in Chicago while under 14 without their parents. It's literally not an issue.
mothballed•5mo ago
Unless your child was born in the past couple years or following legislation, I think most people don't realize this, as even most the law firms still have the old '14' as the min age on their neglect pages. So you are correct with the asterisk that it glosses over that it was the case up until the past couple years and you are updating us on a new development.
>Your opinion on "CPS" in Illinois (I assume you meant DCFS and not Chicago Public Schools) is based on not understanding a single paragraph of the law that is written to be readable by the general public.
My opinion is based on what legal advice I got when I last researched it a few years ago. A lot of Illinois law is read in the context of common law precedent that makes the actual text less reliable. Mea Culpa.
[0] https://www.mkfmlaw.com/blog/at-what-age-can-a-child-be-left...
[1] https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-has-highest-home-alo...
hardolaf•5mo ago
The 2024 update [1] was basically just fixing typos.
The 2023 update [2] was reaffirming the original text and added safeguards to prevent abuse by police and prosecutors misapplying the law. This update did remove the explicit age mentioned, but if you look at the deleted text, you had to leave a minor unattended for a very long period of time not just "a trip to the store" for the law to have been violated before the change despite what the divorce attorneys were trying to tell people on their misleading website.
Also, I'm not going to go into my rant about IPI intentionally misleading people and lying by omissions and funny ways of presenting "data". If you use them as a source for anything and expect that what you read was the truth, then that's on you. They're a propaganda organization that spreads even more disinformation than the Heritage Foundation.
[0] https://codes.findlaw.com/il/chapter-705-courts/il-st-sect-7...
[1] https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/publicacts/view/103-0605
[2] https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/publicacts/view/103-0233
stevesimmons•5mo ago
potato3732842•5mo ago
trainsarebetter•5mo ago
uoaei•5mo ago
footy•5mo ago
bracketfocus•5mo ago
One thing I see, is that people in urban environments typically opt-in to exercise (like voluntarily going on a run). Whereas those in more rural areas have more physical demanding jobs and responsibilities.
I’m an urban-based desk jockey who exercises a lot but it doesn’t really compare to my more rurally-based friends who are on their feet working blue collar jobs 5 days a week.
footy•5mo ago
Suburbanites who are only active while engaging in intentional exercise because they need to get in their car to go anywhere are in the worst situation.
WarOnPrivacy•5mo ago
This is true. We have nowhere to go on foot. In every direction we have roads, private property and that's it.
If we walk we risk automobile/pedestrian injury, unless we'd prefer to risk trespassing charges. This is also the full selection of kids' choices, btw.
footy•5mo ago
I grew up in an environment where these where my choices and it was terrible, it's a big part of why I've made "being able to go anywhere on foot" a goal.
hardolaf•5mo ago
When I lived in suburbs, I had to go out of my way to get even 6K steps in a whole day.
keybored•5mo ago
Be right back. I just have to look for a completely quiet treadmill for the open office where I spend my life.
keybored•5mo ago
abdullahkhalids•5mo ago