The Chainlink

Let's Get Cycletracks

Over the past few wintry days I've noticed that even on the major traffic corridors (like Ashland from 290 to Bryn Mawr for example)  there's between a half a lane and a lane of plowed snow on the right, moving parked cars out into the traffic and limiting travel lanes. But the car traffic doesn't seem any worse than usual.

 

There's no reason why that half a lane of space could not be used full time to put in a bike cycletrack between the sidewalk and the parked cars. 

 

Any thoughts?

Views: 75

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on February 10, 2011 at 1:14am

I admire your tenacity-- looks like you're going to win this one if it takes your last breath . . .

 

I like the planters. Can I assume you're aware that their primary purpose is to serve as traffic calming devices? In order to be aware of the extent to which they've calmed some formerly very aggressive and chaotic thoroughfares, you'd have to remember what those thoroughfares were like before.

And although I have no doubt that the way the process works right now is probably not ideal from an economic or ecological standpoint, I absolutely support my tax money being spent to beautify the city with plants and/or other aesthetics.

Permalink Reply by Becca on February 10, 2011 at 7:49am

Allen Wrench, you bring up a very good point with this comment.  And I'll admit that I haven't taken this into consideration before.  Whenever I'm in a discussion about the need for increased bicycle traffic (and less cars) in Chicago, I always imagine that increased traffic looking a lot like the current cycling group: commuters and 20something riders on old road bikes. 

 

I haven't properly considered how more dedicated and safe bike lanes could bring an entirely new group of people out on their bikes.  You mentioned kids riding their bikes to school and people going grocery shopping.  After I read that, I realized I have almost never seen either of those 2 groups on the streets of Chicago.  Bike lanes separated from traffic would certainly encourage them to get out and ride.

 

I still think certain streets of Chicago have too much traffic to fit in a bike lane or cycletrack.  But it would be wonderful to see more of them on the many, many streets that have room.  We all think of certain streets as "bike streets" because of the presence of a lane and lower traffic volume.  It would be great to see that number go up. 


But, like the other people opposed to having a safe track to ride on, they aren't making a good case to me about what that kid on his bike or the middle aged lady out grocery shopping are supposed to do to keep themselves safe. If that kid or that lady knows that taking the bike is a safe, reliable option to get where they want to go, maybe they will.

Permalink Reply by travesty on February 10, 2011 at 9:51am

So allen wrench went ahead a made a major post, which is good, but since he characterizes people's "thinking" and not what they write, I'm not inclined to further participation in this discussion at this time.

Duppie and Becka: Thanks for the info n stuff.

I was envisioning both sides of parked cars be eliminated, all the time. I felt even that this would be necessary for a cycletrack to be effective. In that case we were talking about different things, but you were apparently more ontopic, sorry for the confusion on my part.

If parking were just gone, I would be OK with plowed snow half filling cycletracks on both sides, I feel that would be a worthy compromise. But I'm sort of asking still, why Ashland, and why North ave even? I think side streets as bike ways should be held up for comparison to this cycletracks on major corridors idea of Allen Wrench.

Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on February 10, 2011 at 11:01am

I swear I've seriously had greater success convincing evangelicals that same-sex marriage would provide a net benefit to society than I have in getting progressives to reconsider their grand planning schemes. Especially stubborn is the "Build It And They Will Come" mentality positing that a lack of demand can always be overcome by a flood of subsidy. When confronted by the cold reality of a certain examples like, say, Detroit's People Mover, the explanation for any project's catastrophic failure almost invariably is that it simply wasn't executed properly due to obstruction on behalf of said project's opposition. I would expect no lesser blame deflection should some theoretical cycle tracks come to fruition here and subsequently crumble from neglect and lack of use. It's not that nobody wanted them - it's that we didn't push them aggressively enough and let the Doubting Thomases get in our way!

 

Also, have any of you ever stopped to think about the possibility that much of the non-cycling public is simply disinterested in the act of riding a bicycle altogether, no matter the circumstances? And have so many of you become so detached from your youth that you seriously believe the only way to get children to ride bikes is to build special accommodations for them? Did the lack of cycle tracks in the bubble your parents raised you in keep you from riding a bike when you were a kid? No? Then what's so dramatically different about the current crop of budding cyclists?

 

Perhaps I wouldn't come off as such a reactionary had this thread been titled "What Are Your Thoughts On Cycle Tracks?", but it isn't. It's a call to action. Let's get these things, DAMMIT. Europe has them and whatever works there must work here as well. Fine, revel in your Eurofetish. I'm originally from Europe too, so I understand the appeal. Just remember though, that where you see a socialized utopia I see PIIGS slurping at the trough impervious to their imminent demise. Nobody's perfect.

Permalink Reply by Becca on February 10, 2011 at 11:14am

Michael, I'm not going to tackle most of your overly-political post, just the comment below.

 

We're discussing cycletracks in downtown Chicago, mainly in areas that get heavy foot, bike and auto traffic all at once.  That makes for a very intimidating set of obstacle and dangers that cyclists are uniquely exposed to.  And for a child, that kind of environment is just not safe.  There's every chance that many children with bikes want to get out and ride, as much as in past years, but they can't for fear of their safety.  Or maybe their moms won't let them go farther than their small side street. 

 

I grew up in the suburbs of Chicago, where there's plenty of room on the road for a kid just zipping around.  On some streets you'll get one car per 30 minutes.  But downtown Chicago is just not like that.  Cycletracks would be a good way to make downtown roads safer for cyclists who are uncomfortable with the idea of dodging CTA buses and giant potholes every day.

Michael Perz said:

And have so many of you become so detached from your youth that you seriously believe the only way to get children to ride bikes is to build special accommodations for them? Did the lack of cycle tracks in the bubble your parents raised you in keep you from riding a bike when you were a kid? No? Then what's so dramatically different about the current crop of budding cyclists?

 

Permalink Reply by Duppie on February 10, 2011 at 11:44am

You wouldn't come off as a reactionary, if you had just stated your concerns, instead of engaging in Europhobian blather.

In urban planning, there needs to be a balance between government planning and free market enterprise, but I would argue that in the US that balance if anything is too far in the direction of free market enterprise.The North/Clybourn corridor would be a good example of not enough urban planning


Michael Perz said:

Perhaps I wouldn't come off as such a reactionary [...]

Permalink Reply by Joe TV on February 10, 2011 at 11:48am

GRENADE!!!!!

 

Harvard: Cyclists 28 times safer on separated two way lane than amid traffic.

 

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/02/09/021011-news-bike-lanes-1/

Permalink Reply by Martha Williams on February 10, 2011 at 11:49am

Allen Wrench, Thanks for starting this discussion.  We know that Cycletracks work because there are plenty places in the world, with way less room than the United States, that make it work well.  

I think there are streets in Chicago where a Cycletrack would be perfect.  I was just discussing this with a friend, who was part of a sit down meeting with their alderman.  One of the topics of discussion was installing a cycletrack along Cermak St. connecting UIC, Pilsen, and Chinatown!  Specifically mentioned was kids being able to ride their bikes to school, and connecting different art districts.  Why not try it out, and see if it works!?  What do we have to lose.  

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on February 10, 2011 at 11:54am

You are going to come across as a reactionary because this board is extremely far left/progressive-leaning and anyone who doesn't get on board with "ram this big government spending project through NOW DAMNIT" is considered a teabagging fascist right-wing nutjob...

 

But that's OK I guess.  I'm used to it, as well as being called a Pinko-socialist hippie baby-killer in other forums I participate in that happen to lean the other way and are dominated by more conservative elements.  

 

It's funny how far classic liberalism has come from the 70's when we were dodging tear gas in the streets and protesting "the man," the feddies, and the military-industrial complex and hated the government.  Now they ARE it...


Michael Perz said:

Perhaps I wouldn't come off as such a reactionary had this thread been titled "What Are Your Thoughts On Cycle Tracks?", but it isn't. It's a call to action. Let's get these things, DAMMIT. Europe has them and whatever works there must work here as well. Fine, revel in your Eurofetish. I'm originally from Europe too, so I understand the appeal. Just remember though, that where you see a socialized utopia I see PIIGS slurping at the trough impervious to their imminent demise. Nobody's perfect.

Permalink Reply by jennifer james on February 10, 2011 at 12:30pm

Uh ...so highway spending is conservative and cycling spending is..not. I certainly don't call anyone making a comment here reactionary whatever their thoughts but I think tagging me with a label for being pro cycling is curious. Where are the dollars really going that I spend now and have spent every year? Are they working for me. Right now in Chicago no.

 I pay plenty of taxes to the feds and the city. Where is my piece of the transportation pie? It isn't on the road when my kid can't use it to get the four miles school he can easily ride or even take his bike on the train during rush hour to commute. I already pay for the public health costs of rising asthma and fat kid/ parent costs-and that isn't going to change. Sitting on your butt infrastructure hasn't come cheap that's for sure. One third of the city takes public transport, walks or bikes every trip they make here and they pay plenty of taxes too. Considering the tax structure on the middle class and lower some pay a higher ratio of their incomes than folks who might have more transportation options. Calling me names because I want to get some of my tax dollars to work for me seems kind of avoiding the topic. For all you know I was the president of my college republican club. I just want a street and trains that work for me paid for by the dollars I contribute. Does it get more conservative than that?

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on February 10, 2011 at 12:33pm

Of course Cermak would work for me, although I don't know if it's the best choice.

Many may be unaware that 22nd street between Chinatown and Pilsen was a relatively unimportant street until a plan developed 30-40 years ago (guess) built it out into an intended truck route.  From Pilsen westward, 21st street was the important travel corridor. Ever wonder why the Cermak Bus is the #21?  You can still see the street car tracks on 21st street when there's construction.

I guess I'm sounding like a broken record here-- with few exceptions, secondary streets make more ideal bike routes IMO; I'd no sooner be interested in riding my bike down Western Ave. or Cermak that I would to have to wait for a train in the middle of an 8-lane highway.

Martha Williams said:

Allen Wrench, Thanks for starting this discussion.  We know that Cycletracks work because there are plenty places in the world, with way less room than the United States, that make it work well.  

I think there are streets in Chicago where a Cycletrack would be perfect.  I was just discussing this with a friend, who was part of a sit down meeting with their alderman.  One of the topics of discussion was installing a cycletrack along Cermak St. connecting UIC, Pilsen, and Chinatown!  Specifically mentioned was kids being able to ride their bikes to school, and connecting different art districts.  Why not try it out, and see if it works!?  What do we have to lose.  

Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on February 10, 2011 at 12:33pm

Joe, while I appreciate your Dropping of Mad Facts to this otherwise lacking discussion the cited article leaves me with more questions than answers. For example:

 

Only three of the country's 100 largest cities have no separated bike lanes: Newark, N.J., Hialeah, Fl., and Lubbock, Texas. 

 

This leads me to wonder how exactly the authors of the study define separated lanes, because the inclusion of Chicago to the list of haves seems implicit. I don't think the study is exclusive to the cycle tracks being discussed nor does it lend support for that particular design.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service