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.

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.

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.

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.

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.