Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on July 21, 2011 at 7:16am

Thanks. I was really interested to hear Klein's responses that he's interested in re-opening Queen's Landing and possibly re-installing crosswalks on Michigan, and that he supports reducing zoning requirements for parking at new construction.

 

Best,

 

John Greenfield

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Thunder Snow on July 21, 2011 at 7:52am

Terrific interview, John.  Grid, and your writing in general, is always interesting, illuminating and useful.  Thanks for keeping us all informed!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michelle S on July 21, 2011 at 8:09am

Thanks for printing the full article on your blog. I read the Time Out print version yesterday and they had edited out some things, including the parts about Mich Ave. So good to see that the Mich/Randolph intersection is on someone's radar. It’s ridiculous enough making pedestrians cross and wait THREE times to get from the Cultural Center corner to the Millennium Park corner. However, given that Randolph is seven lanes wide and Michigan is a behemoth EIGHT (15 lanes for motorized traffic, 0 for bicycles, BTW, in case anyone else is keep score), we are forcing people on foot to traverse 22 lanes of car-centric concrete in order to reach their goal. Unbelievable.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on July 21, 2011 at 8:19am

Michelle,

 

Glad that you liked reading the full Gabe Klein interview at http://gridchicago.com.

Yes, the Randolph/Michigan intersection is absurd. See my old article about it from Time Out Chicago below. The kicker is that they made Michigan LESS ped-friendly in response to the opening of Millennium Park and the corresponding increase in foot traffic.

Hmmm... could the removal of the Ran/Mich crosswalk in order to facilitate turns by cars have had anything to to with the fact that Daley was talking about moving into a condo near the intersection at the time?

 

Cheers,

 

John Greenfield

 

Chicago's dumbest intersection?

By John Greenfield

[This also runs in Time Out Chicago, www.timeoutchicago.com]

At Randolph and Michigan, why is it such a hassle to walk from the Chicago Cultural Center to Millennium Park?

Nowadays you have to cross the street three times to get there - north across Randolph, east across Michigan and south across Randolph again. But you used to be able to walk there directly in a marked crosswalk. The white lines are still faintly visible and many jaywalkers still follow this direct route, say Traffic Management Authority aides.

The City removed the crosswalk, along with another crossing at Washington, in August 2004, a month after the park opened, says Chicago Department of Transportation spokesman Brian Steele. At the time Mayor Daley was thinking about moving into the Heritage at Millennium Park condos, just west of the cultural center.

Steele says the area was flooded with visitors to the new park and traffic engineers studying the intersections observed many conflicts between turning motor vehicles and pedestrians. “It was creating a lot of safety concerns,” he says.

After a crew ground out the thermoplastic lines, many peds continued to use the same crossings, says Steele. Workers fenced off the curbs with bollards and chains and added signs: “NO CROSSING – PLEASE USE OTHER SIDE.” The fencing cost taxpayers $51,000, according to CDOT records.


Asked whether the City considered the inconvenience to walkers when it removed the crosswalks, Steele says, “Point A to point B is not always the safest route. In return for the extra activity, pedestrians are in a much safer situation.”

Rob Sadowsky, executive director of the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation, which also advocates on walking issues, isn’t convinced. “The answer that we’ve heard from City is this was done to protect pedestrians, but the overwhelming message is this was done to ensure the flow of car traffic,” he says. “Michigan Avenue shouldn’t be a high-speed corridor; it should be an opportunity to stroll and explore.”

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on July 21, 2011 at 8:21am

Thumbs up as well!

 

I found this interesting, there was a discussion here on this earlier in the week:

 

"The thing that surprised me the most about Chicago is how friendly people are and how mean they get behind the wheel.  There’s confusion in that people think their speed dictates how fast they get somewhere and that’s something that we’re going to have to change through education, enforcement and redesigning our streets so that they’re inherently safer and more efficient. We want to focus on getting people to their destinations more quickly but without speeding."

 

I think he's on to something, but is still a bit off.  It's not just speeding that's the problem IMO, and I'd bet most of these drivers would never consider themselves "mean" if asked.  I think it's more about impatience, and the feeling drivers have in that they are justified in driving aggressively/bending and breaking the rules because you know, they're late, or that guy in front of them is driving like a putz because he's on a phone so you *have* to go around him even if it's not really safe, etc.  Driving in Chicago seems to tap into an endlessly deep well of creativity as far as rationalizing these behaviors. 

 

I'm hoping cyclists will not fall into this trap, as I see a clear difference between pursuing what we need to be protected/safe, and reconfiguring the grid so as to be less inconvenienced as far as biking around in a densely populated urban area.  We should have the law on our side for the former, the latter is going to involve a more thorough campaign of educating people about why we should encourage bikes over driving. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michelle S on July 21, 2011 at 8:29am

Those poor Gypsy fiddlers were obviously dejected and exhausted from crossing 22 lanes of pavement before they even reached their gig at the Pavilion. :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Duppie on July 21, 2011 at 8:34am

John,

Great article. I find his thoughts on how to pay for these new bike lanes interesting, given the silly way funding works in this country (as Steven has pointed out before).

 

Michelle,

Adding up the number of traffic lanes really clarified the absurdity of that intersection for me. Thanks!

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Thunder Snow on July 21, 2011 at 8:52am

Randolph & Michigan should be THE leading contender for a "pedestrian scramble."  All cars stop when all lights go red at the same time.  Pedestrians, skaters and cyclists then have a couple of car-free minutes to cross at any angle or diagonal they wish.  And who knows, if the motorists become too impatient for the newly configured intersection, they may find alternate routes, making Michigan Ave. more people-friendly.  The only problem I forsee is what to do about emergency vehicles approaching a pedestrian scramble, with stopped cars everywhere and the intersection full of people walking.... 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on July 21, 2011 at 9:19am

Thunder Snow (if that is in fact your name),

 

I agree that Ran/Mich would be a terrific place for a pedestrian scramble!

I don't thinks emergency vehicles would be a problem. In all situations - peds / bikes /

cars and even/especially Critical Mass - insticnctively get our of the way for lights and

sirens.

 

Cheers,

 

John

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on July 23, 2011 at 2:26pm

I agree with the Rob Sadowsky quote on this idiotic street/intersection configuration.  It's absolutely designed to move more cars faster and make pedestrians second class citizens.  For a while, I was working in this area and had to cross this intersection often.  The high density of this area, combined with losing this important corner, makes it a miserable place to be a pedestrian at most hours of the day.

 

I would LOVE to see a pedestrian scramble there.

John Greenfield said:

Glad that you liked reading the full Gabe Klein interview at http://gridchicago.com.

Yes, the Randolph/Michigan intersection is absurd. See my old article about it from Time Out Chicago below. The kicker is that they made Michigan LESS ped-friendly in response to the opening of Millennium Park and the corresponding increase in foot traffic.

Hmmm... could the removal of the Ran/Mich crosswalk in order to facilitate turns by cars have had anything to to with the fact that Daley was talking about moving into a condo near the intersection at the time?

 

Cheers,

 

John Greenfield

 

Chicago's dumbest intersection?

By John Greenfield

[This also runs in Time Out Chicago, www.timeoutchicago.com]

At Randolph and Michigan, why is it such a hassle to walk from the Chicago Cultural Center to Millennium Park?

Nowadays you have to cross the street three times to get there - north across Randolph, east across Michigan and south across Randolph again. But you used to be able to walk there directly in a marked crosswalk. The white lines are still faintly visible and many jaywalkers still follow this direct route, say Traffic Management Authority aides.

The City removed the crosswalk, along with another crossing at Washington, in August 2004, a month after the park opened, says Chicago Department of Transportation spokesman Brian Steele. At the time Mayor Daley was thinking about moving into the Heritage at Millennium Park condos, just west of the cultural center.

Steele says the area was flooded with visitors to the new park and traffic engineers studying the intersections observed many conflicts between turning motor vehicles and pedestrians. “It was creating a lot of safety concerns,” he says.

After a crew ground out the thermoplastic lines, many peds continued to use the same crossings, says Steele. Workers fenced off the curbs with bollards and chains and added signs: “NO CROSSING – PLEASE USE OTHER SIDE.” The fencing cost taxpayers $51,000, according to CDOT records.


Asked whether the City considered the inconvenience to walkers when it removed the crosswalks, Steele says, “Point A to point B is not always the safest route. In return for the extra activity, pedestrians are in a much safer situation.”

Rob Sadowsky, executive director of the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation, which also advocates on walking issues, isn’t convinced. “The answer that we’ve heard from City is this was done to protect pedestrians, but the overwhelming message is this was done to ensure the flow of car traffic,” he says. “Michigan Avenue shouldn’t be a high-speed corridor; it should be an opportunity to stroll and explore.”

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on July 23, 2011 at 2:35pm

Last month Gin Kilgore and I each sent letters to Gabe Klein about traffic calming issues.  I wrote about speed humps. His response letter is a mixed bag. Here are the highlights:

"The parabolic speed hump design used in Chicago is employed nationwide and is recognized by the... Federal Highway Administration as an appropriate traffic control device. Speed humps improve safety conditions for the more vulnerable users of Chicago's residential roadways. The parabolic speed hump is navigable by all roadway users, including bicyclists, who may feel more comfortable reducing their speed as they traverse the hump."

I didn't care at all for that part of the answer, especially the part I put in italics. If we want to encourage people to ride bikes, we should not create traffic calming measures that penalize cyclists.

"However, as bicycling in Chicago continues to grow as a viable mode of transportation, CDOT will investigate other street speed hump designs to determine if there is a design more compatible to bicycle traffic."

My answer to that: the process needs better quality control. In a handful of locations (such as Wood St. from 99th to 97th, or Hinman Ave. in Evanston), speed humps have a slightly lower height and gentler slope that accomplishes the goal of slower overall speeds without being a burden to cyclists. Adding pass-through openings in the middle is also worth trying.

More: "In addition to improving bicycling conditions on residential streets, we will install 25 miles of protected bike lanes on arterial streets each of the next 4 years. ... As part of the protected bike lane initiative, CDOT is analyzing the feasibility of installing these lanes throughout Chicago's iconic boulevard system."  [italics added by me]

Yes, yes, YES, PLEASE!!!!! I'm already writing my response letter.

• ▶ Reply