The Chainlink

Bicycle Plan for the East Lakeview Neighborhood

Hey all

I am a bicyclist, advocate for mass transit and an urban planner/designer whose in the process of creating a transit plan that seeks to restructure the roadways, specifically the major arterials, in the East Lakeview neighborhood.

I am going to include in my plan separate grade bike plans on these major roads like Belmont, Clark and Halsted, where the bike lane will be situated next to the sidewalk and the limited parking that remains will be next to the moving car traffic. Essentially, a reversal of where the bike lanes are today in Chicago. Similar to Copenhagen.

Other ideas I have are limited parking, a bike share program within the neighborhood, an extension of the lake shore drive bike path inward, and eventually an on street tram or light rail network throughout the neighborhood (eventually is the key word).

I've chosen East Lakeview for many reasons but above all for its high density, major transit links, access to the lakefront and its bike trail and above all its major traffic congestion. I think if it were to happen anywhere in the city it would be here.
Why not create this neighborhood as a test/model area?

My project is practical yet somewhat idealistic as many technological items and features will be put in place that I doubt we would ever see in a city like chicago. At least in the near future.

Saying all that,
Does anyone have any ideas or comments about what they would like to see in an ideal bicycle plan for this neighborhood or any others? Any thoughts/comments/questions about the plan?

This plan is going to be spread around the East Lakeview neighborhood once completed including the various community groups and associations. It is mainly being created to generate thought into the neighborhood and make people want to take back their streets.

Any advice or ideas would be awesome and useful.

Thanks a ton

Greg

Views: 158

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Leah on February 26, 2009 at 12:56pm
Hi Greg - I used to live in East Lakeview and have definitely experienced the congestion first-hand, so I applaud you for trying to alleviate it.

I have a question about moving the bike lanes from their current location. If I'm understanding it correctly, then bike lanes will be between the sidewalk and parked cars, right? I'm not sure how it works in Copenhagen, but I have a major concern about locating bike lanes there.

One of the big dangers of riding in a bike lane is being doored by the drivers' side door. It can be dangerous and harmful, but in some cases the cyclist can have a split-second reaction and swerve to avoid the door - a near-miss. If bike lanes were bound by cars on one side and sidewalk on the other, there is a risk of dooring from the passenger side, yet nowhere to go - a cyclist would basically be trapped. It would be a risk to both the cyclist and the passenger. Not to mention that by creating barriers on either side of the bike lane, you're creating a single lane of bike traffic, which I would imagine would make it difficult for cyclists to go around one another.

I also have to consider parallel parking in these spots, and the ability of drivers to see approaching cyclists. As a car backs into a spot, if a cyclist were approaching they would be hidden by the car behind the open spot. I see an increased risk of being backed-into by a driver trying to parallel park.

Again, I think there are definite improvements that can be made in East Lakeview, but I'm concerned at this particular aspect of the plan.
Permalink Reply by Gregory on February 26, 2009 at 2:21pm
I appreciate the responses. Parked cars due pose a challenge to bikers presently and especially if the bike lanes is sandwiched between both the car and pedestrian.

Although my plan is still in the works, and is why I love your feedback, I hope to limit the parking so that that parking would only be allowed at the begging of the street. In other words, about 75% of the street would not have any parking for cars. This would limit of the possibilities of accident and make the bike just as dominant a form of transportation as the car.

Check out this traffic accident/injurt publication released by a group in Denmark about this very issue - http://www.ecf.com/files/2/12/16/070503_Cycle_Tracks_Copenhagen.pdf

What is interesting is while injuries and accidents went up in almost every category especially at intersections (for many reasons; some correct, some construed) accidents involving bikers sandwiched between parked cars and sidewalks (like we are talking about) decreased by 38% and injuries by 56%.

go figure...
Permalink Reply by Gregory on February 26, 2009 at 2:25pm
ha. this article actually goes against my thought of limiting parking

Prohibited parking is one of t
he most serious reasons why the construction of cycle tracks brings about more accidents and injuries. Prohibited parking on a road with a cycle track results in cars being parked on side streets, with a consequent increase in turning traffic, especially at right of way regulated junctions and more accidents resulting from turning cars. The construction of cycle tracks and prohibition of parking resulted in an increase in accidents and injuries at junctions of 42% and 52% respectively. The construction of cycle tracks combined with permission to park also resulted in an increase in accidents and injuries but of only 13% and 15% respectively. At right of way regulated junctions with continuous cycle track forming a raised exit, the number of accidents on no parking roads increased by 56%, but by only 23% on roads with parking permitted. There is no difference in the safety statistics at signalised junctions between roads with parking permitted or prohibited respectively.
Permalink Reply by pistola on February 26, 2009 at 3:20pm
Being a current resident of East Lakeview and having lived in the neighborhood for a number of year now would really like to see more bike lanes, specifically along Broadway. Its such a narrow road with tons of pedestrian traffic that I don't see it happening, but it would help out a lot. Another idea would be to include bike lanes down Sheridan, to possibly alleviate traffic from Broadway. There's much more ROW there to play with.
Permalink Reply by JJ on February 26, 2009 at 8:34pm
I second sheridan and broadway and would like to add sheffield

pistola said:
Being a current resident of East Lakeview and having lived in the neighborhood for a number of year now would really like to see more bike lanes, specifically along Broadway. Its such a narrow road with tons of pedestrian traffic that I don't see it happening, but it would help out a lot. Another idea would be to include bike lanes down Sheridan, to possibly alleviate traffic from Broadway. There's much more ROW there to play with.
Permalink Reply by vxla on February 26, 2009 at 10:35pm
Personally I do not second a bike lane down Broadway; it's so congested right now and there's so many blind intersections north of Belmont.

What options will the businesses have to get their customers convenient parking in your plan? To remove parking from major streets, you'll need to provide a 1:1 factor for parking, and not diminish the convenience factor much either. I do realize that it's a reclamation plan, but taxes pay for roads, and unfortunately business thinks more drivers = more money.
Permalink Reply by T.C. O'Rourke on February 27, 2009 at 12:52am
The streets in Copenhagen are a lot wider than here.

So, in order to make segregated facilities work, the lesser arterials (say, Halsted) would need to be converted to one ways, with parking on one side only. The cycle track would be two ways.

Yes, yes, basically doing everything that *alone* is bad for bikes: removing parking, one way streets, riding 'against' traffic, bikes going straight to the right of right turning motor vehicles, blah, blah.

Halsted through boystown now: 7' parking, 5' bike lane, 10 travel lane, 10 travel lane, 5' bike lane, 7' parking.

Halsted after Mayor O'Rourke's first term: 7' parking, 11' travel lane, 10' travel lane, 2' barrier, 14' separated 2-way cycle track (7' in each direction).

Eliminating 4 way motor vehicle traffic at intersections eliminates the wait/queuing for left turns (half the major cross streets) and other complexities/dangers.

The signal for the cycle track would start and end 5 seconds before the motor traffic signal. The signals, by the way, would be moved to the near side of the intersection, so that motorists could not encroach upon the crosswalk.

Changing most of the city's arterials into one ways would make navigation by motor vehicle more difficult, especially to those unfamiliar with the area in which they are driving. Good. Double parking would have a bigger impact and could not be tolerated. Yet another benefit!

Major changes are needed to make our roadways pleasant for those traveling under their own power. We cannot continue to allow the misconceptions of shop-keeps to dictate our transportation planning.

Finally, bike lanes are most needed *at* the intersections, where most collisions occur. In Copenhagen that's where they are most pronounced. In fact, some streets there feature bike lanes at the intersection *only*. In Chicago, it is right where they disappear :(
Permalink Reply by Gregory on February 27, 2009 at 8:17am
Thanks for the replies so far. I knew I'd get some good responses. It's kinda like mentioning the word suburbs.

Your right Mayor O'Rourke, businesses do not care to understand how parking or public transit attributes to their sales. They see a parking space in front of their shop and they hold on to it for dear life. They believe it brings in much more revenue than a bus stop does or pedestrian traffic. I work for the planning dept. at the CTA and constantly fight to reconfigure the bus stops in positive ways, regardless of what the public may perceive. The biggest challenge is the business owners who hate bus stops and don't understand their benefit, the alderman, and well the city itself.

I have measured out all the streets in the neighborhood and yes, they are fairly narrow. I see this as a good thing. The narrower the street yes the harder to configure, but the more it is conducive to biking and the less it is appealing to cars. I agree that one way streets might be the only way to go if I really want to change East Lakeview in to a so called transit village. It should be more difficult for cars to maneuver. I don't want them there.

I've been to Copenhagen and seen how the biking system works first hand.

The biggest challenge in ever implementing a real bicycle system in the city of Chicago, like you mentioned, is the mentality. Once that is changed by political will, then anything is possible.
Permalink Reply by vxla on February 27, 2009 at 12:32pm
I completely agree with TC that bike lanes are needed at intersections. Not just that green stuff that peels off, either. Stripes, signaling, and pavement coloring. Light cycles needed to be adjusted, IMHO, for more time where all 4 lights are red. There are too many people driving through just-turned-red lights, and that's dangerous as hell to all of us on foot or on bike.

I'm going to play devil's advocate again though, because I still don't see where your argument gives a shop owner reason to want to yield their parking spaces. Having even 20-30% shop owner support would greatly improve your chances of getting anything approved.

Sure, we can say that their opinions could be discounted completely, but no alderman will listen to that (nor should they, it's their responsibility to ensure the livelihood of businesses in their ward).
Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on February 27, 2009 at 12:59pm
Amen - about bike lane striping AT intersections and talking to shop owners! It's a great reason to talk to your local merchants when you're there and tell them how many more customers could be served by improve biked facilities compared to 1 or 2 car parking spaces. Then put your money where your mouth is and patronize these businesses by bike, and bring your friends.

I'm starting to work on this in Evergreen Park, where there are many businesses on 95th St. that are accessible by bike from nearby bike-friendly streets, but where there are almost NO bike racks. :( Also, parking near many of these businesses is limited and often full. Who wants to work with me on a campaign to promote shopping and dining by bike in Evergreen Park? This is one of my goals for 2009.

vxla said:
I completely agree with TC that bike lanes are needed at intersections. Not just that green stuff that peels off, either. Stripes, signaling, and pavement coloring. Light cycles needed to be adjusted, IMHO, for more time where all 4 lights are red. There are too many people driving through just-turned-red lights, and that's dangerous as hell to all of us on foot or on bike.

I'm going to play devil's advocate again though, because I still don't see where your argument gives a shop owner reason to want to yield their parking spaces. Having even 20-30% shop owner support would greatly improve your chances of getting anything approved.

Sure, we can say that their opinions could be discounted completely, but no alderman will listen to that (nor should they, it's their responsibility to ensure the livelihood of businesses in their ward).
Permalink Reply by payton on February 28, 2009 at 12:17am
Something that I've never seen addressed is how cycle tracks (sidepaths) are maintained in snow. Copenhagen, as far north as it is, doesn't see very much snow. Montreal gets mad snow and has sidepaths, but they're only open in the summer -- they've started to add on-street bike lanes just recently to address the needs of winter cyclists. Some places plow the bike paths, but generally don't do a very good job of it; many Minneapolis bike-path commuters still use snow tires.

In the near term, I'm more excited by the idea of creating bike boulevards than by cycle tracks. That's the approach that we're looking to take in Wicker Park & Bucktown (see PDF).

I'm also somewhat skeptical of whether the capital costs of building trams can ever really be justified in most of the neighborhoods. (Yeah, I know, transit deserves to get unlimited money, but... real world.) There's not tremendous scope for infill development in places like Lakeview,* and the actual improvement to the transit experience (vs. the existing bus network) would be pretty minor. Yeah, trams are trains and therefore spiffy, but they still get stuck in traffic.

Good luck with the neighborhood groups... sigh.

* Development potential matters first because trams have higher capacity than buses, and when existing buses aren't running full that capacity will just be wasted. It's also the most common way these days of paying for such capital costs.
Permalink Reply by Gregory on February 28, 2009 at 10:05am
Interesting plan you guys have going. Using the residential streets instead of the major roads is a unique idea. My only gripe is what happens to the residents when you strip one side of their street of parking? This can not go over well especially in places where parking for residents is slim (by permit only) and can only be found on side streets.

Word to the wise, however much we want it, bus tracker at bus stops outside of downtown will never happen. Vandalism is already high with bus stop poles, bases, and signs or blades as we call them. I can't tell you how many times I've change the bus signs along Milwaukee Ave. bc of vandalism. Bucktown loves stickers.

I'm also somewhat skeptical of the cost/benefit of trams especially in neighborhoods that are already quite dense with not much room for infill development. However, I believe the benefit would be in the capacity that trams can carry and the amount of cars they potentially can take off of the streets. You never know though...

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service