The 28-21 vote against lowering the speed limit followed a spirited and emotional debate that pitted traffic safety advocates, many of them on the North Side, against African-American alderpersons concerned about uneven enforcement and a surge in pretextual traffic stops targeting Black drivers.
West Side Ald. Jason Ervin (28th), Mayor Brandon Johnson’s handpicked Budget Committee chair, led the charge against the lower speed limit.
Ervin said he “understands the logic that, if you go slow,” there will be fewer traffic fatalities and serious injuries. But when Johnson’s 2025 budget is balanced, in part, by installing more speed cameras, he is concerned about an avalanche of speeding tickets that struggling Chicagoans cannot afford to pay…
Wednesday’s vote was a bitter and emotional disappointment to Ald. Daniel La Spata (1st), an avid cyclist who represents Bucktown, Wicker Park, West Town and Logan Square, where several fatal accidents have occurred…
La Spata has estimated the lower speed limit could save the lives of more than 300 Chicagoans over the next decade.
The summary of the discussion hints at the meaning of speed limits. Are they about safety and discouraging higher speeds? A good number of American roads are built to be wide and straight such that the design itself can help drivers feel comfortable in going faster. And since many drivers go above whatever speed limit is posted, is a lower limit necessary to reign in the higher speeds?
Or are they about police enforcement? Are they about collecting revenue? Whether administered via law enforcement personnel or a speed camera, there is a legal process at work. In a society where driving is often required, the enforcement element matters.
Trying to think outside the box a bit, couldn’t the Council meet in the middle and settle for a 28 mph speed limit? Do all speed limits need to be in 5 or 10 mph increments?
This likely will be an ongoing discussion given the amount of driving in Chicago, interest in biking and pedestrian options in the city, and concerns about police activity.
I began to see the birds walking on the streets of Wheaton in small groups. I had never seen wild turkeys in a residential area before. I quizzed people about the birds and nobody in the area was surprised by their presence.
I asked people from out of the area about the birds and they thought I was insane. I carried photos I had taken in my neighborhood to prove my sanity. People could not believe the Wheaton turkeys truly existed.
The sight of wild creatures in the suburbs may astound but I would guess many suburbanites would be hard pressed to show where animals live in the suburbs. They might be able to find the rabbits that live under their deck but where did that fox come from? Or where do those Canadian geese go at night? Does that circling hawk live nearby? And so on. The suburbs may offer their residents proximity to nature but that nature can be elusive.
Infrastructure might not be a popular topic but when something that works every day suddenly does not work, numerous lives can be disrupted. See this example from suburban Skokie:
Skokie residents are trying to recover from the huge water main break Feb. 14 that sent icy floodwater into nearby basements, blocked streets, prompted a boil water order for the population of 65,000 lasting nearly three days, shut down Westfield Old Orchard Shopping Center, forced Skokie Hospital to transfer trauma surgery patients and surgeons, closed most businesses, shut schools and barred restaurants’ doors on Valentine’s Day…
Though flooding problems were contained in a residential area of northeastern Skokie, locally known as Skevanston, and the northwestern portion of Evanston, a lack of clean water impacted businesses, homes, and institutions throughout Skokie. Village officials said they are preparing, at their Feb. 18 Village Board meeting, to declare a state of emergency, a necessary step before applying for federal and state disaster funds…
According to a news release from the village, the water main break was caused by a failed fitting cap installed in 1963. The part has an expected lifespan of between 80 and 100 years.
Neighbors in the vicinity of Prairie and Emerson told Pioneer Press that the village conducted emergency repairs in the same area the night before the main burst, which made some skeptical of the cause of the break.
Water is basic for everyday life. And not just any water; clean water that flows continuously. Suburbanites might not think much of these water flow on a daily basis but this broken water main disrupted residential, business, medical, and school activity. Streets and buildings were flooded. Regular suburban life was put on hold.
Skokie could be one of many suburbs across the United States that face similar issues. Skokie boomed in population after World War Two, going from just over 7,000 residents in 1940 to over 59,000 in 1960. All of this growth required infrastructure. The particular water main in question had a cap from 1963. Even with an expected life of 80 to 100 years, that cap is over 60 years old. At some point, those pipes will need to be replaced. What will that cost and how easily will it be accomplished? Regular maintenance can help address these issues but bigger replacement projects are sometimes necessary.
If all goes well, suburbs like Skokie will not experience events like these that lead to declaring a state of emergency and the infrastructure that supports suburban life will be regularly maintained so that suburban life can go on.
The book Forgotten Chicagoincludes the claim that at Chicago’s railroad peak, 1,000 trains daily moved in or out of the city. One chapter of the book details the numerous train stations that are no longer standing that serviced these trains.
In Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry and Will counties, pedestrian crash fatalities totaled 144 last year, a 6.7% rise from 135 in 2023…
Asked to explain the trend, CMAP Senior Transportation Planner Barrett cited Insurance Institute for Highway Safety research that found SUVs, pickups and vans with hood heights greater than 40 inches are about 45% more likely to cause pedestrian deaths in crashes than vehicles with shorter hood heights. Blunt, vertical front ends also increase risks…
Barrett and Active Transportation Alliance Advocacy Manager Alex Perez also listed distracted driving, COVID-19-era bad habits such as speeding, and traffic enforcement drop-off as contributors to collisions…
Street design also plays a role with busy suburban corridors such as North Avenue — multilane, fast-flowing intersections that are problematic at best for pedestrians and cyclists, he added.
There are lots of factors at play that make walking and biking dangerous in metropolitan areas. Each of the factors listed above – size of vehicles, safer driving practices, and street design – could each be addressed.
But the goal of reducing pedestrians deaths or having safer streets might be best served by reducing driving and encouraging other forms of transportation. Driving is deadly across the board for drivers and pedestrians. Americans accept the risks of driving because they tend to live driving, or at least like driving compared to other options.
Or rather than prioritize safety efforts that try to play around the edges of the dominant system of driving that seems required in almost all American communities, could communities that from the beginning that serve a variety of mobility options do better? Retrofitting existing communities is hard. Adding bike lanes, establishing good mass transit, and prioritizing other uses of streets takes time and money.
Of course, reducing driving might be unpopular. Wildly unpopular. It is often associated (positively) with the American way of life. So if public officials or residents or others want safer roads, they might have to address individual factors that each have limited impact.
I recently saw a real estate listing for a suburban house that had an interesting sign in the kitchen. Above the sink was a sign for “Anytown, USA.”
It is a nice enough kitchen but why have such a sign? Is it meant to appeal to buyers from anywhere? Is it a comment on the placelessness of the suburbs? Was it a gift to the resident and they needed to display it somewhere?
In contrast, a homeowner might display markers of their local community. Instead of “Anytown,” there could be hints of the specific place in which the home is located. Perhaps a map or a poster for a local event or group or an object that could only be acquired or experienced in that community.
Another option: the sign is an AI generated image to provide some decoration for the home.
Now I am intrigued: how many people display “Anytown, USA” signs in their homes? Where can I buy home? Can someone outfit an entire home with a phrase used as a placeholder?
How will different suburbs respond to the current situation in the United States regarding immigration? Two Chicago area suburbs are pursuing different approaches. Start with Skokie:
Village of Skokie officials indicated at last week’s Village Board meeting that they will strengthen the village’s “Welcoming City” ordinance.
Trustee Khem Khoeun asked Mayor George Van Dusen if the village needed to update its welcoming village ordinance given recent immigration enforcement raids and the anxiety that some people in Skokie’s immigrant community are dealing with…
Van Dusen said Skokie’s existing ordinance was established during Trump’s first term in office, when the administration attempted enacting a travel ban for seven Muslim majority countries. The ban was ultimately blocked, but the effort apparently impacted Skokie residents.
Van Dusen recalled an incident in 2017 when a personal friend of his said her daughter in grade school was concerned she could be deported because she was Muslim, despite being born in the United States.
Orland Park says its police will work with federal immigration agents on cases involving undocumented immigrants charged with or convicted of criminal offenses.
The Village Board recently adopted a resolution that also supports Senate Bill 1313 that would undo provisions of existing state law concerning law enforcement coordination with federal agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Trustees also reaffirmed Orland Park is not a sanctuary city, citing an ordinance approved by the board in January 2024…
The village said copies of the approved resolution would be sent to Gov. JB Pritzker and leaders in the Illinois General Assembly as well as Orland Park’s representatives in Springfield.
These suburbs could represent two opposite ends of a spectrum. They are different places with different locations in comparison to Chicago, different histories, and different residents. It is hard to know how many suburbs would have views similar to either one. There are hundreds of suburbs in the Chicago area and thousands across the United States. There will likely be a wide range of municipal reactions to immigration, including not making any resolution at all for a variety of reasons.
Will these resolutions be influential in the suburbs and in the state? Would businesses and residents make decisions to move to or stay in these suburbs when they pass these resolutions?
Another factor to consider: many immigrants to the United States move to and live in suburbs. They move to these two suburbs and suburbs like them. How much do these resolutions affect long-term patterns in the character of these suburbs?
Demsas: How does this compare to the level of partisan segregation that we observe in other places? We know, for instance, that there’s partisan segregation happening in schools or in dating markets and churches and stuff like that. Is the workplace the most segregated based on party in America, or is this in line with other places?
Chinoy: Yeah, so it’s hard to answer this directly for every other social environment or every other group of people. I can tell you a couple things. So one is: I think a natural comparison is residential partisan segregation. This is something that people study a lot, right—the extent to which Democrats live on the same block as Democrats, and Republicans live next to other Republicans. And so we can sort of compare what I told you—that 10 percent number, that overexposure ratio—against partisan segregation across neighborhoods.
And you can define neighborhoods in different ways. One way to do it is a zip code. And when we do that, we find that partisan segregation at work is pretty similar. So, like, a little bit less than but overall pretty similar to partisan segregation across zip codes. We can go one step further and say, you know, maybe the zip code is a little bit bigger than what you have in mind when you think of neighborhood-level sorting. And so we have individual addresses in our data, and so we can say, you know, You have 15 co-workers. Let me figure out how many of them share your party affiliation, and let me look at our sample of the 15 people who live closest to you and figure out how many of those people share your party affiliation.
And when we do that, we find that workplace-level segregation, workplace-level overexposure ratio is a little bit less pronounced than that sort of nearest neighbor level of segregation, but still pretty similar, not so different. It’s not orders of magnitude different. So that’s kind of why we say that it’s a little less pronounced than residential segregation as a whole but still pretty sizable.
It sounds like the levels of political sorting are similar: what people tend to experience where they live is similar to what they experience at work.
I wonder how much it is experienced differently at work compared to a neighborhood. Where are politics more visible? In a neighborhood, a resident may have different indicators of political affiliation. It could come through conversation or yard signs or particular behaviors. At work, people might interact with each other or be in physical proximity more. Would political ties then be more apparent through conversation? Or are people sharing other signs of political leanings (things at a desk/cubicle/office, etc.)? Across both settings, are political views most visible on social media or online activity? Are people more comfortable with partisan sorting with neighbors or coworkers?
But over the past 50 years, this engine of American opportunity has stopped working. Americans have become less likely to move from one state to another, or to move within a state, or even to switch residences within a city. In the 1960s, about one out of every five Americans moved in any given year—down from one in three in the 19th century, but a frenetic rate nonetheless. In 2023, however, only one in 13 Americans moved.
The sharp decline in geographic mobility is the single most important social change of the past half century, although other shifts have attracted far more attention. In that same span, fewer Americans have started new businesses, and fewer Americans have switched jobs—from 1985 to 2014, the share of people who became entrepreneurs fell by half. More Americans are ending up worse off than their parents—in 1970, about eight out of every 10 young adults could expect to earn more than their parents; by the turn of the century, that was true of only half of young adults. Church membership is down by about a third since 1970, as is the share of Americans who socialize several times a week. Membership in any kind of group is down by half. The birth rate keeps falling. And although half of Americans used to think most people could be trusted, today only a third think the same…
As a result, many Americans are stranded in communities with flat or declining prospects, and lack the practical ability to move across the tracks, the state, or the country—to choose where they want to live. Those who do move are typically heading not to the places where opportunities are abundant, but to those where housing is cheap. Only the affluent and well educated are exempt from this situation; the freedom to choose one’s city or community has become a privilege of class.
A possible solution?
These three principles—consistency, tolerance, and abundance—can help restore American mobility. Federal guidelines can make the environment more amenable, but the solutions by and large cannot come from central planning; states and cities and towns will need to reform their rules and processes to allow the housing supply to grow where people want to build. The goal of policy makers, in any case, shouldn’t be to move Americans to any particular place, or to any particular style of living. They should instead aim to make it easier for Americans to move wherever they would like—to make it equally easy to build wherever Americans’ hopes and desires alight.
We will likely never be at a point where everyone will move to pursue certain opportunities – see an earlier post here – but this trend over time does go against earlier patterns. If more people were able to move, they might then be able to take advantage of housing or job opportunities.
One thing I have not seen in articles that highlight this: do more people want to move but can’t (which could be linked to social class)? Take some patterns from recent years. If more employers allowed work from home, would this free up people to move? If people perceive there to be more opportunities in the Sun Belt, how many move there (hence growing populations in recent decades) versus those who cannot?
Or, what if more people are used to not moving now and would stay put even if there were opportunities elsewhere? The era of mass mobility may be over and new generations are less used moving. Perhaps they want to stay closer to family or like staying rooted in one place.
Maybe the hyper mobility of Americans in the 19th and part of the 20th centuries was abnormal. Before then, opportunities were more restricted and people had stronger ties to families and communities. Why should humans move so frequently?
Looking forward, does easy access to social media and the Internet make it even easier to not move? People can access the connections and opportunities they want from wherever they are, as long as they have a fast connection.
The weepy confessions are, ostensibly, gestures toward intimacy. They’re meant to inspire empathy, to reassure viewers that influencers are just like them. But in fact, they’re exercises in what I’ve come to call “McVulnerability,” a synthetic version of vulnerability akin to fast food: mass-produced, easily accessible, sometimes tasty, but lacking in sustenance. True vulnerability can foster emotional closeness. McVulnerability offers only an illusion of it. And just as choosing fast food in favor of more nutritious options can, over time, result in harmful outcomes, consuming “fast vulnerability” instead of engaging in bona fide human interaction can send people down an emotionally unhealthy path…
McVulnerability is perhaps an inevitable outcome of what the sociologist Eva Illouz identifies as a modern-day landscape of “emotional capitalism.” “Never has the private self been so publicly performed and harnessed to the discourses and values of the economic and political spheres,” Illouz writes in her book Cold Intimacies. Emotional capitalism has “realigned emotional cultures, making the economic self emotional and emotions more closely harnessed to instrumental action.” That is, not only does emotionality sell goods, but emotions themselves have also become commodities…
McVulnerability, from whichever angle you look at it, is the opposite of generous. It doesn’t require risk. It may pretend to give, but ultimately, it takes. And it leaves most of its consumers hungry for what they’re craving: human connection—the real thing.
The “Mc-” prefix makes sense given the popularity of McDonald’s. The way the term is deployed above seems similar to how the term McMansion has been used for several decades. McVulnerability is a pale substitute for true vulnerability. It is vulnerability in a popular and commodified form.
But can the term stick? It may depend on the popularity of such viral videos. Do they have staying power or will they be gone to be replaced by other trending videos? Will this pattern last for years? Or there might be other terms that describe these videos. Or the critique may not stick – what if most watchers see the emotional expressions as real and valuable? If such expressions become the new normal, perhaps McVulnerability is here to stay.
We’ll have to wait and see. McDonald’s will go on and plenty of other mass produced products and experiences will come along. Which ones will live on in “Mc-” infamy?
Legally Sociable 