A Call To Arms For Chicago Drivers?
Art Golab
Golab goes on an epic rant in the newspaper about what this city’s war on driving citing red light cameras, speed bumps, city sticker fees, parking tickets, high parking meter fees due to the meter lease deal, stop signs, inefficient red light timing and the impending speed camera program. Whew!
Overall, he’s right.
Chicago has the highest downtown parking meter rates in the nation, is the red light camera capitol of the U.S., is one of the most congested urban areas, fees and taxes for driving keep on going up and will shortly become the speed cam capitol of America.
The war on drivers continues.
Ultimately, he implores someone to create an organization to actively lobby and protest the city’s powers that be on issues that affect local motorists. Something akin to Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coaltion or the National Rifle Association but for car owners.
I say it is traffic jams, energy-wasting stop signs and inefficiently timed red lights that are an environmental disaster.
And if all the wasted time is tallied, I’m sure Chicago takes an economic hit as well.
All of us pay a gridlock tax with our precious time.
Our motorist group need not be immune to compromise. Perhaps it’s not worth going to the mat for every new stop sign. But some interest group should be there to question every one of them.
If somebody wants to lead, I and 1.3 million others are ready to follow.
Golab says the Chicago Motor Club watched out for drivers’ best interest decades and decades ago. The CMC is essentially AAA Motor Club which now concentrates its efforts on selling insurance and travel planning according to Golab.
However, there’s sort of an organization like this already–the National Motorists Association.
While the NMA has done a great job of fighting for the rights of motorists, the small Wisconsin based group with its limited resources usually concentrates on national issues as opposed to local ones.
Maybe Golab is on to something. Maybe the NMA needs some energized local individuals to start pushing back city politicians who keep on looking to the wallets of drivers to fill Chicago’s black hole of a budget.
Read his full screed, “Fellow drivers: Don’t get traffic calm. Get mad!”
Photo copyright and courtesy of the Chicago Sun-Times.
When’s the last time you saw two or more Chicago traffic signals synchronized.
today. there are plenty of places in Chicago where the lights are synchronized. I find the burbs to be way worse.
Its about time. Any Chicago driver who votes for Rahm or Burke is like the chicken voting for Col. Sanders.
Don’t forget that Rahm’s war on drivers has largely been based on no facts or outright lies. He tried to jack up the city sticker fee for SUVs, falsely claiming that they caused more pavement damage than other, smaller vehicles. He pushed for speed cameras based on flawed, made-up, and doctored data about traffic safety and car versus pedestrian incidents. He is an absolute, unabashed liar, who will stop at nothing to enrich himself and his cronies. In this vein, assuming that the speed camera contract goes to Redflex (a company that is tied to one of Rahm’s major fundraisers), part of every speed camera ticket fine collected will go towards funding Rahm’s relection campaign. Pathetic that we elected this goniff (yiddish for thief) as our mayor.
He is the New Boss.
Same as the Old Boss.
More they change the more they stay the same.
Lies about automobiles and driving have been the basis of revenue enhancement for many decades now. To understand the scams people generally need to have a bit of engineering sense to get it. Most people just feel and for a person that just feels, the engineering seems counter intuitive and difficult to understand. It’s very easy to understand obey or be punished. So it’s very easy to lie and get things changed for the worse to raise funds.
Try to explain engineering concepts like yellow light timing or 85th percentile speed limits or the proper use of stop signs or anything else and someone will accuse the explainer of being a red light running speeder who wants to mow down children. That takes care of that. Who’s going to fight on the side of child killers? Plus most people believe the law is just going to be enforced on people who deserve it, those bad people, over there, not them. In that aspect I like the cameras, because it isn’t socially selective on who to ticket which will get a few to wake up to the scam.
Furthermore it’s a rarity anyone who isn’t a thief, a manipulator, and a liar wins any sort of political contest these days.
That is one positive aspect of the red light cameras and soon the speed cameras: those holier than thou “I don’t speed” people will start getting camera tickets just like the rest of us and will then have to change their tune.
I think it is time to start shooting Illinois politicians.
No shooting here Anonymous!
Ballots not bullets.
Not to mention the misguided initiatives and waste of money being conducted by Rahm and his administration, in the name of “pedestrian friendly” development.
Such as the “road diet” program that shrinks 4 lane arterial streets (ie., Lawrence Avenue) from four lanes to two, as if that is the cure for the area’s numerous vacant businesses (rather than a recipe for all-day gridlock).
Plus who could forget the much-ballyhooed traffic calming circles, which have the dual benefit of: (1) gas wasting traffic delays; and (2) preventing fire trucks from reaching the scene of a blaze.
And the protected bike lanes that create an expensive privilege for a handfull of the spandex elite, while slowing car traffic to a crawl and discouraging retail shopping (just ask any business owner or motorist on Kinzie Street about this one).
Last but not least the San Francisco solution to green space — parklets that eat up already scarce parking spaces in bustling business districts. Just ask the residents of San Francisco to see how these ill-conveived ramshackle monstrosities have become gathering places for the homeless, turf for unruly street thugs, and outdoor ashtrays for nicotine addicts.
Silly me. Forgot to mention Rahmfather’s plan to make some Loop streets “bus-only,” as a supposed cure for downtown traffic congestion. Those of you have lived in Chicago for the last few decades remember just how well the “bus only” concept worked on State Street. That high-minded pedestrian initiative left State Street a ghost town, with only 2 department stores (Carsons and Marshall Fields, both locations of which are now part of national chains, Target and Macy’s – yechhhh).
Jeff Wrote:
Such as the “road diet” program that shrinks 4 lane arterial streets (ie., Lawrence Avenue) from four lanes to two, as if that is the cure for the area’s numerous vacant businesses (rather than a recipe for all-day gridlock).
My comment:
I ride up and down a large stretch of Lawrence Avenue. I don’t see “numerous vacant businesses”. Quite the contrary, Lawrence from the Kennedy all the way to Western appears to be vibrant with just about every store front occupied. Now personally, if you could find a way to get the Bicycles across the Kennedy, the Edens/Cicero, and Elston without the use of Lawrence, I would be an advocate to get rid of the bikelanes on Lawrence and ban their use on the street. But only if an alternate route can be found. For example, Berteau is a great alternative to Irving Park and no sane bicyclist should ever ride on Irving. But don’t claim that reducing the lanes on Lawrence has resulted in empty store fronts… it hasn’t.
Jeff wrote:
And the protected bike lanes that create an expensive privilege for a handfull of the spandex elite, while slowing car traffic to a crawl and discouraging retail shopping (just ask any business owner or motorist on Kinzie Street about this one).
My comment:
I guess I am one of the “spandex elite”, although I don’t wear Spandex. The protected bike lane is a legitimate respose to the fact that cars simply do not respect the current bike lane system. Just yesterday I am tooling along the Lawrence Avenue Bike Lane nearing Western Avenue when a car decides that the traffic is slow and he wants to speed up to the intersection (a couple of hundred yards ahead). So he just pulls into the Bike Lane (right in front of me) and speeds down it. I nearly hit him/was hit by him.
Perhaps you can come up with an alternative to protected bike lanes that will allow the safe use of the streets by Bicyclists. With rising gas rates, the realization that it is a healthier way to commute, and better designed and safer bicycles, increases in Bicycle ridership are inevitable. As for the comments about the loss of business, do you have any actual facts to back this up, or is this simply a surmise.
Jeff wrote:
Those of you have lived in Chicago for the last few decades remember just how well the “bus only” concept worked on State Street. That high-minded pedestrian initiative left State Street a ghost town, with only 2 department stores (Carsons and Marshall Fields, both locations of which are now part of national chains, Target and Macy’s – yechhhh).
My comment:
While the initiative may not have worked, you can’t blame the “death” of State Street just on the bus only lanes. The Department Store has been dying all around the US. Hechts and Gimbels in Philadelphia are gone. Jordan Marsh and Filenes in Boston are Gone. Hechts, Woodward & Lothrops, and Garfinkles in Washington DC are gone. Famous, Barr in St. Louis, Liberty House in Honolulu, Dayton’s, Hudson’s and so on. Bus Lane only or not, they would all have died. What has “revitalized” State Street is a lot of money thrown at it. Not the elimination of the Bus Lanes on State Street.
In Europe many cities have far more usable downtowns now because Cars have been kept out. A loop with lots fewer cars, if the outskirt lots were properly set up, would be a lot easier place for everyone.
European-style traffic circles would actually be a good idea in a lot of situations if officials in the United States could resist the urge to erect a stop sign or light at every entrance to the circle. When used properly, circles (or roundaboots if you’re Canadian) result in much more efficient traffic flow with less stop and go driving.
David,
Whomever was driving his car in the bike lane is a Grade A douchebag.
I’m relatively agnostic about the protected bike lanes and in general believe everyone needs to share the roads. But even if drivers oppose the bike lanes doesn’t mean they should drive down them! What the hell!
BTW: I want you to know how much I appreciate your always thoughtful comments David.
Very appreciated.
David:
1. Read my post again. I am not claiming that the road diet will result in vacant businesses. The road diet is being touted by the City as the panacea for poor business climate in the area. I fail to see how creating an all day traffic jam, as a result of the road diet project, will improve business along Lawrence Avenue. More importantly, I don’t see the wisdom of eliminating Lawrence Avenue as a major artertial street for the city.
2. While bike lanes were touted as a safety measure for cyclists, I don’t see why they need to come at the expense of eliminating auto lanes/parking on already clogged major streets. Seems like if the city’s alleged goal is biker safety, why not create protected bike lanes on non-arterial streets that parallel major arteries, and actually create a true separation of car and bike traffic. And if you are wondering how bike lanes can hurt local businesses, check out this story from New York about how bike lanes on Columbus Avenue have done just that:
3. It is true that retail stores around the country have hit hard times over the last decade. But those hard times for Chicago retail stores on State Street were likely exacerbated by the ill-conceived bus only plan. Recognition of this fact is what prompted the city to rip out the bus lanes and revamp State Street into a car accessible shopping center. To the extent that the city was trying to woo suburban customers to shop along State Street, making it a bus only mall was probably the worst idea they could have come up with. More to the point, Chicago is not Amsterdam. It makes no sense to impose a European bike/public transit centric plan on a city that relies heavily on auto traffic for business survival.
Jeff wrote:
2. While bike lanes were touted as a safety measure for cyclists, I don’t see why they need to come at the expense of eliminating auto lanes/parking on already clogged major streets. Seems like if the city’s alleged goal is biker safety, why not create protected bike lanes on non-arterial streets that parallel major arteries, and actually create a true separation of car and bike traffic. And if you are wondering how bike lanes can hurt local businesses, check out this story from New York about how bike lanes on Columbus Avenue have done just that:
My comment:
They can’t make “bike lanes” let alone “protected bike lanes” on non-arterial parallel streets. A couple of problems. They are not wide enough and thus cannot legally be bike laned. And for at least two major “bike lanes” then do not exist. No “non-arterial” runs parallel to either Elston or Milwaukee.
As for Columbus Avenue, your information is out of date. You are citing to the “scare” stories when they first went in. IT turns out that they were wrong. For example http://www.commercialobserver.com/2012/03/columbus-avenue-bid-boasts-100-percent-retail-occupancy/
This is the zone which overlaps the protected bike lanes. 100% occupancy for retail which is higher than the rest of the city. We don’t know what the experience will be in Chicago. What we can take from New York is that the first claims that this would cost businesses dearly has proven not to be true.
Jeff wrote
3. It is true that retail stores around the country have hit hard times over the last decade. But those hard times for Chicago retail stores on State Street were likely exacerbated by the ill-conceived bus only plan. Recognition of this fact is what prompted the city to rip out the bus lanes and revamp State Street into a car accessible shopping center.
My comment:
I hear this, and frankly, these statements are irrational and devoid of logic. Explain to me exactly how being able to drive by the store helps the store in any way? Do the shoppers stop their cars on State Street to go into the stores? Did the bus lanes stop them from getting to the (expensive) parking garages that were needed to park the cars? How is State Street now more of a “car accessible shopping center”?
Jeff wrote:
To the extent that the city was trying to woo suburban customers to shop along State Street, making it a bus only mall was probably the worst idea they could have come up with. More to the point, Chicago is not Amsterdam. It makes no sense to impose a European bike/public transit centric plan on a city that relies heavily on auto traffic for business survival
My Comment:
The reason for the revitalization of State Street and the like has been the creation of Millenium Park and numerous other pedestrian friendly areas. Not the “un bus malling” of State Street. Again, how, exactly does the ability to drive by a store impact the store’s business. Businesses downtown don’t have parking lots. The parking that they do have is expensive. People come to the area generally to shop and then walk once they are there. In fact, one could argue that the Bus Mall on State Street saved Fields and Co by keeping downtown viable for pedestrians. Fields survived even with another Fields within less than 2 miles. Most other Downtown Department stores in the Country failed.
David:
2. The article you cite does not mention bike lanes at all. The fact that stores are 100% occupied does not speak to the claims of New York businesses, along Columbus, Broaday, and other major streets, that bike lanes have reduced their revenues:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/murder_on_broadway_HrAAmNfUqmTwQVVYL5zW3L
3. While customers obviously could have still patronized the stores on State Street during the bus mall days, that bus mall/ban of car traffic (by all accounts) created a deadening effect that contributed to the commercial decline of State Street:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Chicago-s-State-Street-Mall-Called-Transit-2821416.php#page-1
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/01/us/chicago-gives-a-pedestrian-mall-the-boot.html
Note that Millennium Park only opened in 2004, while the resurgence of State Street retail began in 1996, soon after State Street was reopened to vehicle traffic:
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/21/business/state-street-that-great-street-couple-old-pillars-prospering-wave-discounters.html
As such, even the City of Chicago Department of Transportation would tell you that the bus mall was a disaster and reopening State Street to cars ignited the commercial turnaround.
Lastly, I note that calling another poster’s statements “irrational and devoid of logic” is not consistent with the civil discussion intended for these comment boards.
The availability of near-by parking directly influences my decision whether or not to patronize a business. I used to occasionally shop in the loop after 6:00 when street parking was cheap/free and available – no more. Am I going to take the train for an hour round trip (from Logan Square) including getting to the station and waiting for the train, or hop in my car and drive somewhere I can park that will cut that transportation time in half (not to mention parking cost)? The only time I shop downtown anymore is if I have to be there for something else. The same with neighborhood businesses – I’m not going to bother parking several blocks away if there’s a more convenient alternative, i.e. another business with similar goods or services.
Rahm doesn’t care b/c he has someone to drive him around. He doesn’t have to deal with the problems of cars and parking like the rest of us.
I am lucky I live in an area where I can walk to most things or it is only a short drive away. In fact, I don’t drive that much in the summer as I am a teacher. However, that also means I spend alot less $$ not only on gas, but other things in the city. At some point, business is going to suffer if people are uncomfortable to drive in the city due to red light cameras and speed traps.
Cathy,
You make a very good point. I avoid neighborhoods where it’s hard to park. It’s my belief the three tiered pricing system is too rigid. Why not have a full range of parking fees that could change depending on the demand? Why are meters in Englewood the same cost as meters in Lakeview?
Meter pricing should be used to ease congestion based on supply and demand, but also to help encourage retail businesses.
The raised meter fees don’t bother me as much as the city’s contract with LAZ parking, That contract allows LAZ to collect the meter revenue for the next century. The city sold off those rights for less than half of what they were worth. Then the city spent the billion dollars they received from LAZ within a few years. And this money was not spent for productive investment in infrastructure, oh no. The money was frittered away to patch holes in a bloated and wasteful city budget (instead of taking a hatchet to the city budget like they should have done). The city should instead have: (1) kept the meters and the revenue; (2) upgraded those meters to the current collection box technology; and (3) paid for the upgrades with gradually increased rates (based on local area parking demand) and aggressive sales of advertising space (on both print ads and video screens). Coulda, shoulda, woulda…
Moreover, the city could have equipped each meter box with a 360 degree surveillance camera, and a panic button/emergency phone speaker to summon the police. That way the city could have addressed both the parking problem and the out of control street crime problem at the same time.