City Announces New Street Obstacles To Make Chicago Driving Even More Confusing, Challenging, Frustrating
Lincoln Avenue micro-park
The City of Chicago has announced two new initiatives the past few days to add more bike lanes and micro-parks to Chicago’s streets in the near future.
On Friday, Chicago Department of Transportation Commissioner Gabe Klein showed off the first of four seasonal “People Streets” which, according to CDOT’s press release, “will convert ‘excess’ asphalt into year-round hardscape public
spaces with the purpose of creating safer intersections and additional open space in neighborhoods. People Streets are intended for dead-end streets, cul-de-sacs, or areas of excess pavement.”
The idea was pioneered in San Francisco, with the goal of increasing pedestrian traffic and encouraging economic development in these less trafficked areas. While these spaces often attracted the homeless, the concept seemed popular with many residents with homes.
These spots in Chicago typically take up two to three on-street parking spots adjacent to sidewalks essentially expanding open space to be utilized by pedestrians.
“By expanding the sidewalks, these spots create seasonal space for outdoor seating
and dining,” said Klein. “As a placemaking tool, they also contribute to an increase of pedestrian volumes and help promote economic development in neighborhood retail corridors.”
Of course, the city will have to figure out a way to compensate Chicago Parking Meters, LLC, the company that controls the city’s metered parking system, for the lost parking spaces. Most likely, other metered spots will be added in areas where metered spots currently don’t exist.
The first four of these spots will be located at:
- Lincoln Avenue between Southport and Lakewood Avenue in Lakeview.
- Clark Street and Farragut Avenue in Andersonville.
- 47th Street and Greenwood Avenue in Kenwood.
- 47th Street and Champlain Avenue in Bronzeville.
More Protected Bike Lanes Announced
Then on Sunday, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced the city’s plan to install another 22 miles of protected bike lanes around the city according to the Chicago Sun-Times.
This will give the city 33 miles of total protected bike lanes making Chicago the nation’s leader in these types of dedicated bike lanes. Interestingly, the city is saying at least one of these protected lanes on Dearborn St., will also have traffic signals for riders on these bike lanes.
Emanuel rationalizes the cost of $140,000 per mile of protected lanes, or a total expenditure of $4.6 million as a way to recruit businesses to the city telling the Sun-Times:
“It will help us recruit the type of people that have been leaving for the coast. They will now come to the city of Chicago. The type of companies that have been leaving for the coast will stay in the city of Chicago.”
Emanuel cited a recent meeting with executives from the hot Internet startup company GrubHub, who told him that when they recruit engineers, they show the new protected bike lanes that Chicago has been installing since last summer.
Chicago’s first protected bike lane was installed just over a year ago along Kinzie St. from Des Plaines Ave. to Wells St. These type of bike lanes are adjacent to the curb and use white plastic pylons to visually and physically separate the drivable street from the bikes. In many cases, street parking is also moved closer to the center of the street.
Overall, protected bike lanes add to the visual clutter of the street and can be confusing to the uninitiated driver. There has been reports of confused motorists using the bike lanes as an additional driving lane.
Whether or not these two new concepts will have a positive impact on the city’s overall transportation environment will have to be seen.
Read the Sun-Times report on the plan to add more protected bike lines and a listing of upcoming bike lane locations in its story, “Mayor Emanuel adding protected bike lanes in Loop.”
Once again, Rahm and CDOT Commissioner Klein open another front in their all out, total war on motorists. This time Rahm and Co. are adopting a half-baked idea from San Francisco (the 9th Circle of Hell for motorists) — the parklet. Not only do these parklets take up scarce parking in dense commercial areas that support local business. These PC monstrosities have given San Francisco residents the added benefits of:
(1) a gathering place for the homeless;
(2) a city subsidized outdoor ashtray;
(3) a ready made kiosk for streetside drug sales;
(4) excess noise;
(5) excess trash; and
(6) a traffic hazard waiting to happen.
Accordingly, for Chicago to pursue this cockamamie idea is beyond understanding.
In addition, Chicago will have to compensate LAZ-y parking for all those parking spaces taken over by the new parklets. Isn’t Chicago already giving these pirates enough money already, for meters put out of service during festivals, street repair, etc?
Lastly, why should Chicago be subsidizing a parklet, giving free/unlicensed outdoor seating for restaurants, when actual city parks are left to rot. Shouldn’t scarce city resources be redirected to city parks, instead of these ramshackle eyesores? I would rather have my tax dollars spent on safe parks for kids to play, rather than a Brobdignagian Bench for espresso swilling, hipster douchebags.
Sheeesh!!
(3)
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/development/2010/12/san-francisco-parklets-spur-open-space-debate
I hope parklets don’t become a trend. It’s hard enough to find parking as it is.
Check out the following article illustrating how parklets in san Francisco have had the unintended consequence of clashes between neighborhoods and the homeless — who have taken over parklet space:
http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2012/01/22/plazas-and-parklets-the-latest-battleground-in-homeless-war/
The worst thing about these bad ideas is that you know they’re going to spread. Imagine these road obstacles cluttering up River North, Lakeview, Lincoln Park, etc. Only the silliest of liberal dreamers could think they are a good idea.
Is their enough room in the parkletes for a Chic-fa-I?
Seems like these parklets, if not properly designed, could end up blocking storm drains or otherwise diverting normal water drainage, to create localized street flooding after even a moderate rain. Anyone sitting on these crapshacks would then get a full-body powersoak of dirty street-water.
This is a bad idea.
Plus if they shut metered spaces…they have to move them or pay a Fine to LAZ.
I wish the press would ask the hard questions instead of simply repeating the talking points. First, where is the proof that these bike lanes actually attract new businesses and thus lead to new jobs? Who will foot the bill for the lost metered parking? Will bike riders actually be required to follow the rules of the road eventually? Rahm is a douche and so is the Chicago press.
OIFVet:
Anecdotally, many New York businesses, along Columbus, Broaday, and other major streets, have publicly claimed that bike lanes have actually reduced their revenues:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/murder_on_broadway_HrAAmNfUqmTwQVVYL5zW3L
OIFVet says:
Will bike riders actually be required to follow the rules of the road eventually?
My comment:
Let he who is without sin throw the first stone. The other day on the TriState I decided to try an experiment in the construction zone. I got in the right hand lane and set my cruise control to the construction zone speed limit. I was passed over and over again. How can we expect Bike Riders to follow the rules of the road when car drivers blatantly flaunt rules designed to save lives (the workers in the Construction Zones).
The answer is that some Bicyclists flaunt the laws like a car going 70 in the construction zone, others are simply going a metaphorical 55 and “keeping up with traffic”. Enforce the laws on Bicycles? Sure, but then enforce them on cars as well. A car that runs a stop sign and hits you will likely kill you. A bicycle is far less likely to do so.
Not only do protected bike lanes have the potential to hurt local business. They actually increase the lawless behavior of those cyclists who see stop signs and red lights as optional, and traffic laws/common sense as not applicable to them:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/13894027-452/rogue-bikers-ignore-rules-of-the-road.html
Jeff says:
August 14, 2012 at 5:29 pm
They actually increase the lawless behavior of those cyclists who see stop signs and red lights as optional, and traffic laws/common sense as not applicable to them:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/13894027-452/rogue-bikers-ignore-rules-of-the-road.html
My comment:
An opinion piece cited as “fact”. No actual facts in the story, just a few anecdotes. I could just as easily point out that cars in Chicago do NOT pay attention to the speed limit and also do not stop at stop signs. At one intersection near my house, based on my observations, 1 in 10 cars only slow down at the stop sign and 1 in 50 blow right through. And virtually all of the cars are at least 10 MPH over the speed limit. Facts? Nope. Opinion. You need to recognize the differences between the two.
David, I will never claim that most drivers qualify for sainthood. However drivers are subject to enforcement of the rules. I am yet to see byciclists be subject to enforcement. In my neighborhood I have devised the following rule of thumb: if a byciclist approaches a stop sign its 95% safe to assume that they won’t bother to stop even if the car has the right of way. So I simply wait as to avoid trouble or confrontation. And don’t get me started on the d-bags riding on sidewalks. Bottom line is the streets will be much more pleasant if there is a basic understanding that we all need to share the roads, and making byciclists subject to enforcement (and insurance requirements) will go a long way toward changing certain people’s road manners.
OIFVet wrote:
David, I will never claim that most drivers qualify for sainthood. However drivers are subject to enforcement of the rules.
My comment:
Really? Do you know ANYONE who has received a ticket for going 35 mph on a neighborhood street? Or for failing to stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk except at the “publicity” stings?
OIFVet wrote:
I am yet to see byciclists be subject to enforcement.
My comment:
Ask the Bicyclists that get speeding tickets in Skokie in the Forrest Preserve while they are being passed by Roller Bladers and runners.
OFVET wrote:
In my neighborhood I have devised the following rule of thumb: if a byciclist approaches a stop sign its 95% safe to assume that they won’t bother to stop even if the car has the right of way. So I simply wait as to avoid trouble or confrontation.
My comment:
And I assume that cars aren’t going to stop for me in a crosswalk unless I have their eyes directly looking at me.
OIFVET wrote:
And don’t get me started on the d-bags riding on sidewalks.
My Comment:
For which Cops write tickets.
OIFVET wrote:
Bottom line is the streets will be much more pleasant if there is a basic understanding that we all need to share the roads, and making byciclists subject to enforcement (and insurance requirements) will go a long way toward changing certain people’s road manners.
My comment:
Insurance? Why not insurance for roller bladers or skateboarders of joggers? And this is also simply not practical. What Insurance company is going to issue a policy to a 5 year old? What you are really wanting to do is to strangle Bicycling and kill it. Be honest.
More importantly, how do you enforce it? Car enforcement is at the time of registration. Do you propose registering and tagging bicycles? Do you propose divering police resources to ticket unlicensed bicycles? Are you seriously suggesting that we should regulate bicycles more strictly than Firearms?
David,
I think OIFVet’s point is a valid one.
Because automobile drivers must be accountable for their actions via a license plate on the back of their car, and a driver’s license in their wallet, bike riders have no such mechanism to face the same enforcement as motorists.
With all due respect, I see WAY more bike riders violating the law than drivers. Car drivers DO have a higher standard of responsibility due to the sheer size, weight and power of their motorized vehicles. But every day, I see bike riders by the dozens completely ignoring the Rules of the Road. Often, they endanger themselves and others (especially pedestrians) by the way they ride. Again, this is the minority, but still a greater percentage than drivers who violate traffic laws–at least in my opinion.
If you want to see concrete proof of bikers who ignore traffic laws, just wait till Tiny Dancer’s fancy new bike lanes are installed on Dearborn Street in the Loop, complete with traffic lights. I would be shocked if even half of the bikers obey these traffic lights. To the extent that bikers choose to ignore traffic lights in the middle of the Loop, the consequences will not be pretty.
David:
If you want facts about cyclists and traffic laws, check out the following New York Times article. The article discusses a recent study by researchers at Hunter College, concluding that cyclists routinely disobey traffic laws:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/study-finds-cyclists-disobey-traffic-laws/
Jeff says:
If you want facts about cyclists and traffic laws, check out the following New York Times article. The article discusses a recent study by researchers at Hunter College, concluding that cyclists routinely disobey traffic laws:
My comment:
One of the major violations was a “failure to wear a helmet”. That has no impact on anyone other than the Cyclist. Another violation was use of a sidewalk by children under 14. In Chicago that’s actually legal. As for “riding against traffic”, that’s just plain stupid on the part of the bicyclists and the number (13%) seems high. Could it be they chose a location where street patterns create this? As for the 57% “ignoring” red lights, it would be interesting to see how this is defined.
And, of course, depending on location, we could show 90% or more of cars violating the traffic laws by speeding.
David:
Like any study, the Hunter College study can be challenged or critiqued. The point here is that cyclist disregard for traffic safety cannot be dismissed as an urban legend, or as the ranting of anti-cyclist pundits. It is an observable phenomenon that has been measured in several academic studies, including the Hunter College study.
For another article discussing a similar study by Portland (Oregon) State University, click here:
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2011/12/uncomfortable-relationship-between-bikes-and-red-lights/623/
As noted in that study, cyclists in Portland, Oregon (a city that has made great accomodations for cyclists), cyclists were over 8 times more likely (7 percent of motorists versus 58% of cyclists) to run red lights than motorists at the same intersections.
OIFVET wrote:
And don’t get me started on the d-bags riding on sidewalks.
David Wrote:
My Comment:
For which Cops write tickets.
There is something to look into….a FOIA of the number of Tickets issued by Chicago Police to Bike Riders in 2011 and 2010 and YTD 2012.
I bet people would be surprised at how Few are actually issued for “Riding on the Sidewalk, Person over 12″ or “Failure to Stop” at a Signal or Stop Sign or “driving the wrong way down a street” (whatever that MCC or ILVC is….)
David:
The comparison between bikers (who are more likely to run red lights) and motorists (who are more likely to exceed speed limits) is a false comparison.
In the first place, while both motorists and cyclists can run red lights, only cyclists can speed. Bicycles simply cannot travel at the same speed as cars, so speeding is not comparable to red light running.
Moreover, while running a red light is dangerous regardless of the circumstances, that is not necessarily the case with speed limits. Speeding 5 miles per hour over the limit is not appreciably more dangerous than travelling at the posted speed limit.
In addition, note that traffic engineers will tell you that speed limits should be set at the 85th percentile – at the speed at which 85% of the cars are travelling at or below that speed. In Chicago and many other cities, speed limits on many streets are set artificially low. Those artificially low limits are set with the likely goal of increased revenue – rather than traffic safety. So if a car happens to be travelling at 36 miles an hour on Irving Park Road (six miles above the speed limit), the motorist who gets a ticket is getting it because the city set the speed limit artifically low – in the name of revenue, and not for the sake of traffic safety.
Jeff,
My gut feeling is the same as you on this.
Based on how many bike riders I see ignoring the law, I expect a lot of bikers blowing off this proposed bicycle traffic lights.
We plan on bringing a video camera down there to see how many bike riders actually obey the bicycle traffic lights when (if) they get installed.
Jeff wrote:
The comparison between bikers (who are more likely to run red lights) and motorists (who are more likely to exceed speed limits) is a false comparison.
My comment:
Is it? How many pedestrians and motorists were killed last year when struck by Bicycles? How many pedestrians and bicyclists were killed when struck by motorists? You have focused on one violation — that of some bicyclists running some red lights. If it were “dangerous” to others, one would assume that some people would have been killed. Yet certainly there have been fatalities caused by excessive speed. Yes, it really isn’t a fair comparison because one causes a lot more harm to third parties than the other.
Jeff wrote:
In the first place, while both motorists and cyclists can run red lights, only cyclists can speed. Bicycles simply cannot travel at the same speed as cars, so speeding is not comparable to red light running.
My comment:
I assume you mean that only Motorists can speed. And that’s part of the point. Even on side streets cars get up to far faster speeds.
Jeff wrote:
Moreover, while running a red light is dangerous regardless of the circumstances, that is not necessarily the case with speed limits. Speeding 5 miles per hour over the limit is not appreciably more dangerous than travelling at the posted speed limit.
My comment:
Is it? Running a red light on a quiet intersection late at night with no cars or pedestrians that can be seen for some distance is “dangerous”? In fact, the city already recognizes that a bicycle running a red light is NOT inherently dangerous. The traffic laws allow a bicycle to cross through a red light if it has remained red for a certain period of time. This is because some red lights do not trigger off for bicycles.
Jeff wrote:
In addition, note that traffic engineers will tell you that speed limits should be set at the 85th percentile – at the speed at which 85% of the cars are travelling at or below that speed.
My comment
Yes and No. You also have to take into account stopping distances and non-car users of the streets. We have created all sorts of artificial barriers to cars in this city (speed bumps, traffic circles, Cul de Sac’s) because of the pervasive culture of speeding on the part of cars in this city.
Jeff wrote:
In Chicago and many other cities, speed limits on many streets are set artificially low. Those artificially low limits are set with the likely goal of increased revenue – rather than traffic safety.
My comment:
I call Bullshit on that comment. 25 is plenty fast for a sidestreet. Many Chicago side streets are very narrow and anything over that increases stopping distances. At 25 MPH the total distance to stop is 85 feet (55 feet in reaction time) at 35 mph the total distance to stop is 135 feet only 77 of which is reaction time (the brake time is nearly double).
Jeff wrote:
So if a car happens to be travelling at 36 miles an hour on Irving Park Road (six miles above the speed limit), the motorist who gets a ticket is getting it because the city set the speed limit artifically low – in the name of revenue, and not for the sake of traffic safety.
My comment:
Bad example. Irving Park Road is a radically different street than almost everything that parallels it. The speed limit on IPR is likely too low and no sane bicyclist ever rides on it. The problem is the excessive speed on the rest of the streets.
Jeff wrote
Like any study, the Hunter College study can be challenged or critiqued. The point here is that cyclist disregard for traffic safety cannot be dismissed as an urban legend, or as the ranting of anti-cyclist pundits.
My comment
My point is that cars, which are FAR more dangerous than bicycles, routinely violate the traffic laws as well. Selective enforcement is simply wrong.
David:
1. You argue that cyclists should be allowed to run red lights if “no cars or pedestrians can be seen for some distance.” This is the kind of thinking that creates accidents. While an intersection may seem safe, vehicles and pedestrians (especially children) have a tendency to come out of nowhere, when you least expect it.
If bikers truly want to have a seat at the transportation table, the cyclist culture of blowing through redlights and stop signs has to come to end. This is especially the case if cyclists are going to be increasingly travelling congested Loop streets.
Note the following article discussing red light running as an embedded tradition among cyclists in both the US and other countries:
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/08/why-do-cyclists-run-red-lights/2840/
2. As for your point about selective enforcement, I agree it is wrong. While motorists are ticketed regularly for speeding and other infractions in Chicago, there is almost no enforcement for traffic violations by cyclists. That selective enforcement is a major part of the conflict between cyclists and motorists.
3. While it is true (as you state) that being hit by a car is far more dangerous than being hit by a bike, the cyclist who runs the run light runs the risk of hitting a vehicle or a pedestrian. Either way, serious injury is the result. Either the cyclist is seriously hurt when striking a car, or the pedestrian is seriously hurt when they are knocked down by a cyclists and their head slams into the pavement. (Just ask former Mayor Daley’s nephew how easy it is to kill someone by slamming their head down on the sidewalk.)
4. I would agree that side streets should not be travelled at speeds over 20 miles per hour. I live on a narrow side street, so this only makes sense to me. But the 30 mile per hour limit on four lane arterial streets (Irving Park Road, Western Avenue, Ashland Avenue, etc.) is contrary to the 85th percentile rule. And, of course, it is on these four lane arterial streets that Chicago police will routinely set the most lucrative speed traps.
Jeff wrote:
1. You argue that cyclists should be allowed to run red lights if “no cars or pedestrians can be seen for some distance.” This is the kind of thinking that creates accidents. While an intersection may seem safe, vehicles and pedestrians (especially children) have a tendency to come out of nowhere, when you least expect it.
My comment:
No, I do not argue that Bicyclists should be able to run lights. What I was pointing out was that your argument that running a red light is always inherently dangerous and speeding is not is fallacious. And, of course, the laws make it legal in certain circumstances for a bicyclist to run a light.
Jeff wrote:
If bikers truly want to have a seat at the transportation table, the cyclist culture of blowing through redlights and stop signs has to come to end. This is especially the case if cyclists are going to be increasingly travelling congested Loop streets.
My comment:
And if cars want to continue to have a seat at the table of living in the city they have to stop this infernal culture of speeding and they need to STOP for pedestrians in intersections. They presently do neither. Its hypocritical to hold the “less dangerous” vehicle to a much higher standard… yet that’s what many of the drivers wish to do.
Jeff wrote:
2. As for your point about selective enforcement, I agree it is wrong. While motorists are ticketed regularly for speeding and other infractions in Chicago, there is almost no enforcement for traffic violations by cyclists. That selective enforcement is a major part of the conflict between cyclists and motorists.
My comment:
Speeding tickets? In the City? Hah. I was a witness to an accident and I attended a Court date involving a driver who was going 75 on Foster at Rush hour, came across a backlog, rolled down the side walk, came off the sidewalk and smashed into about six cars. He did significant damage to several cars and caused serious injury to quite a few people. And he did no jail time and did not lose any driving privileges. Cars routinely and regularly speed in Chicago.
Jeff wrote:
3. While it is true (as you state) that being hit by a car is far more dangerous than being hit by a bike, the cyclist who runs the run light runs the risk of hitting a vehicle or a pedestrian. Either way, serious injury is the result. Either the cyclist is seriously hurt when striking a car, or the pedestrian is seriously hurt when they are knocked down by a cyclists and their head slams into the pavement. (Just ask former Mayor Daley’s nephew how easy it is to kill someone by slamming their head down on the sidewalk.)
My comment:
Facts are persistent things. And how many pedestrians have been killed by bicycles in Chicago in the past 5 years? In the case of injury to the bicyclist, it was his stupidity of running the light.
Jeff wrote:
4. I would agree that side streets should not be travelled at speeds over 20 miles per hour. I live on a narrow side street, so this only makes sense to me. But the 30 mile per hour limit on four lane arterial streets (Irving Park Road, Western Avenue, Ashland Avenue, etc.) is contrary to the 85th percentile rule. And, of course, it is on these four lane arterial streets that Chicago police will routinely set the most lucrative speed traps.
My comment:
I regularly go up and down Irving, Western and Ashland and have never seen a speed trap.
David wrote:
1. No, I do not argue that Bicyclists should be able to run lights. What I was pointing out was that your argument that running a red light is always inherently dangerous and speeding is not is fallacious. And, of course, the laws make it legal in certain circumstances for a bicyclist to run a light.
My comments:
I do not argue that speeding is never dangerous. I would agree that EXCESSIVE speeding (especially on residential streets) kills and that enforcement against such reckless motorists should be strict. But the Emanuel administration’s attempt to use speed cameras, to catch and ticket speeders going 5 miles per hour over the limit, is a thinly disguised revenue grab, masquerading as a safety campaign. Simply put, Mr. Emanuel is trying to turn commuters into criminals, all in the cynical name of “child safety.”
David wrote:
And if cars want to continue to have a seat at the table of living in the city they have to stop this infernal culture of speeding and they need to STOP for pedestrians in intersections. They presently do neither. Its hypocritical to hold the “less dangerous” vehicle to a much higher standard… yet that’s what many of the drivers wish to do.
My comment:
The hypocrisy here goes both ways. While certain segments of the cyclist community pontificate about motorist bad behavior, those same santimonious blowhards ignore the bad behavior in their own community. It is that shared hypocrisy that on each side that has cyclists and motorists at each other’s throats.
2. Speeding tickets? In the City? Hah. I was a witness to an accident and I attended a Court date involving a driver who was going 75 on Foster at Rush hour, came across a backlog, rolled down the side walk, came off the sidewalk and smashed into about six cars. He did significant damage to several cars and caused serious injury to quite a few people. And he did no jail time and did not lose any driving privileges. Cars routinely and regularly speed in Chicago.
My comment: The fact that you observed an accident where a driver was not ticketed does translate to the conclusion that Chicago police do not give out speeding tickets. If that were the case, the traffic courts at the Daley Center would be considerably less busy.
David wrote:
3. Facts are persistent things. And how many pedestrians have been killed by bicycles in Chicago in the past 5 years? In the case of injury to the bicyclist, it was his stupidity of running the light.
My comments:
No question that cars do injure more people than bikes. But that disparity in injury statistics does not make red light running any less da ngerous. Nor does that disparity justify anything less than a fair, across-the-board enforcement of traffic infractions for both bikes and cars. This is particlarly the case with seniors. One collision between a bike and a senior (resulting from a blown traffic light or stop sign), could result in a broken hip or worse. Bicycle mounted police would be the ideal way to handle this issue, for those cyclists who flout the traffic laws.
David wrote:
4. I regularly go up and down Irving, Western and Ashland and have never seen a speed trap.
My comment:
You must be very lucky. One of the favorite places for a speed trap is on eastbound Irving Park, in one of the obscured turn-off drives across from Graceland cemetary. You don’t see the police car until you’re right on top of him. D’Oh!!