Fullerton Parkway bridge project disappointing for walking and biking

The south sidewalk/mixed use trail along Fullerton from Cannon Drive to the Lake Front Trail will be permanently eliminated in order to increase the number of car traffic lanes from four to five, and specifically to replace the south sidewalk/mixed use trail with a new, second, right turn lane for cars headed onto southbound Lake Shore Drive. My post on the topic on the blog Bike Walk Lincoln Park here. Your thoughts?

"Fewer points of conflict with pedestrians" will be achieved by simply eliminating the presence of pedestrians on this side of Fullerton Parkway over the lagoon and under Lake Shore Drive. (Photo: Bike Walk Lincoln Park)

Views: 1478

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on October 5, 2012 at 3:09am

Like any other piece of infrastructure is conforms to the rule of "Build it and they will come,"

 

If the GOAL is to get more automobiles on the LSD then this particular road project will surely be a Huge Successtm 

 

 

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on October 5, 2012 at 3:59am

Exactly.  "More traffic all the time" sums it up.

James BlackHeron said:

Like any other piece of infrastructure is conforms to the rule of "Build it and they will come,"

 

If the GOAL is to get more automobiles on the LSD then this particular road project will surely be a Huge Successtm 

 

 

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on October 5, 2012 at 4:14am

True, but I think it's kind of a ruse, actually.

At the end of the day LSD's capacity isn't being increased, so all any project like this can accomplish is getting more motorists closer to LSD, where they will then be stuck moving at the same old glacial pace trying to actually get on it.

I would liken it to adding more entry gates to Solider Field, that doesn't allow more people to actually attend the game. 

Actually, a better analogy would be adding area to Great America's grounds, which would accomplish the opposite of what people actually want: getting more people in the park competing for the same number of rides, as opposed to a shorter wait in line for the rides.



James BlackHeron said:

Like any other piece of infrastructure is conforms to the rule of "Build it and they will come,"

 

If the GOAL is to get more automobiles on the LSD then this particular road project will surely be a Huge Successtm 

 

 

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on October 5, 2012 at 4:14am

That too.

Anne Alt said:

Exactly.  "More traffic all the time" sums it up.

James BlackHeron said:

Like any other piece of infrastructure is conforms to the rule of "Build it and they will come,"

 

If the GOAL is to get more automobiles on the LSD then this particular road project will surely be a Huge Successtm 

 

 

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on October 5, 2012 at 4:28am

Moar resource-hog cages idling on the parking lot LSD

Permalink Reply by Tim S on October 5, 2012 at 4:28am
Going for Devils Advocate here... I don't see this as the horrible thing some of you see it as. Let's break it down...
1. Is it really going to encourage more to drive to LSD? Prolly not, it does not increase capacity of the Drive only allows for a better flow to gridlock.
2. Was the southern sidewalk all that and a bag of chips anyway? IMHO it was a bit of a nightmare with all the SB LSD drivers angeling to get on and they were not the most courtious bunch either. It eliminates a dangerous crossing for pedestrians and allows for a less impeeded flow of traffic.
3. Widening the northern sidewalk to 20ft is a nice compromise. Having a wider path to aid the flow of bikes and pedestrians to the LFP is an improvement. The narrow crowded paths on both sides was annoying and cars that are exiting LSD are more likely to stop for us than those looking to use the SB enterance.

Just throwing it out there...
Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on October 5, 2012 at 4:48am

For #1, there is still the issue of opportunity cost.  This is why I don't have any problem with the cost of the Navy Pier Flyover.

#2, a fair point.

#3, I would be thrilled to be proven wrong here, but I do have literally 30 years of firsthand experience which tells me hell will freeze over AS the Cubs are winning the World Series before "cars that are exiting LSD are more likely to stop for us."


Tim S said:

Going for Devils Advocate here... I don't see this as the horrible thing some of you see it as. Let's break it down...
1. Is it really going to encourage more to drive to LSD? Prolly not, it does not increase capacity of the Drive only allows for a better flow to gridlock.
2. Was the southern sidewalk all that and a bag of chips anyway? IMHO it was a bit of a nightmare with all the SB LSD drivers angeling to get on and they were not the most courtious bunch either. It eliminates a dangerous crossing for pedestrians and allows for a less impeeded flow of traffic.
3. Widening the northern sidewalk to 20ft is a nice compromise. Having a wider path to aid the flow of bikes and pedestrians to the LFP is an improvement. The narrow crowded paths on both sides was annoying and cars that are exiting LSD are more likely to stop for us than those looking to use the SB enterance.

Just throwing it out there...
Permalink Reply by Tricolor on October 5, 2012 at 10:03am

It's not a surprise.  Single-side crossings of LSD are at Bryn Mawr, Montrose, Belmont, Monroe, Jackson and Balbo.  Foster, Wilson, Lawrance and Fullerton have sidewalks on both sides, while Irving Park has a sidewalk on the south side on the street crossing under LSD but no crosswalk on the west side to keep going on Irving Park.  Of the dual crossing streets Fullerton is probably the most busy and the city wants to mimic the other - busier - single side intersections.  Families have the intersection at Cannon drive controlled by signals to cross to the zoo, anyway.


Sadly this does nothing for what I see is the biggest danger in that area.  Slow moving traffic on the right side of the northbound path turning left from the trail to get to Fullerton without looking or signaling.  Normally someone slowing down or just generally getting out of whatever walking/running/pedaling routine I've been noticed is enough warning for my paranoid self, but I've seen more of near misses there than anywhere else.

For getting off at Fullerton with the car from the north, however, I think it'll be neigh impossible and I'll just start using Belmont to Diversey.

Permalink Reply by Michelle S on October 5, 2012 at 11:05am

1. I hope it doesn't encourage more driving, but the general thinking is that anything that smooths passage for a mode creates induced demand.

2. Yes, it was all that and a bag of chips. It was very heavily used by peds and bicyclists. The fact that motor vehicle drivers were reluctant to give peds and bicyclists the right of way thereby creating dangerous conflict points doesn't justify solving the problem by removing the peds and bicyclists. 

3. I will believe the 20 ft width on the north side when I see it. That was thrown out there casually at the meeting I attended in March by a project person who didn't know details and was guessing, it seemed. In order to add 6-7 feet of width to the existing 13ish existing, they would have to either widen the bridge or take out 6-7 feet from the northernmost (westbound) motor vehicle lane. I don't see either of those things reflected in the plan, although it's not the most detailed plan, I realize, and I'm no expert. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm foreseeing that we'll just have one sidewalk that's the same 13ish feet wide as before, but with additional effective width taken up by a new guard rail.

Tim S said:

Going for Devils Advocate here... I don't see this as the horrible thing some of you see it as. Let's break it down...
1. Is it really going to encourage more to drive to LSD? Prolly not, it does not increase capacity of the Drive only allows for a better flow to gridlock.
2. Was the southern sidewalk all that and a bag of chips anyway? IMHO it was a bit of a nightmare with all the SB LSD drivers angeling to get on and they were not the most courtious bunch either. It eliminates a dangerous crossing for pedestrians and allows for a less impeeded flow of traffic.
3. Widening the northern sidewalk to 20ft is a nice compromise. Having a wider path to aid the flow of bikes and pedestrians to the LFP is an improvement. The narrow crowded paths on both sides was annoying and cars that are exiting LSD are more likely to stop for us than those looking to use the SB enterance.

Just throwing it out there...
Permalink Reply by Tricolor on October 18, 2012 at 6:02am

I had to go to Lincoln Park this week so I left downtown early, rode up to Fullerton and saw the location for myself.  It looks like there's a wide sidewalk being built under Lake Shore Drive, but I don't know if it's going to be wide enough or marked for wayward kids, pedestrians and bikes to all get along.  On a bike I probably wound't use the sidewalk anyway and the road is wide enough to feel reasonably safe there.  Fullerton quickly becomes a terrible, narrow road with too many dooring opportunities and too many stop signs from Clark Street to DePaul University and I usually avoid it with the car.  On a bike it was neigh suicidal at about 3:30 PM.  To get back to the lakefront trail I went north on Sheffield to Diversey, which felt much more comfortable and let me shop at Trader Joe's.

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on October 18, 2012 at 6:06am

I share your skepticism about this aspect of the plan.  It will be a nice surprise if they actually deliver on this.

Michelle Stenzel said:

...

3. I will believe the 20 ft width on the north side when I see it. That was thrown out there casually at the meeting I attended in March by a project person who didn't know details and was guessing, it seemed. In order to add 6-7 feet of width to the existing 13ish existing, they would have to either widen the bridge or take out 6-7 feet from the northernmost (westbound) motor vehicle lane. I don't see either of those things reflected in the plan, although it's not the most detailed plan, I realize, and I'm no expert. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm foreseeing that we'll just have one sidewalk that's the same 13ish feet wide as before, but with additional effective width taken up by a new guard rail.

Permalink Reply by Tim S on October 18, 2012 at 6:17am
So, if they are going to take the sidewalk out on the S side of the bridge why would they leave it in under LSD... that right there will offer the additional 7+ ft for the N side sidewalk, non?

Just thinking out loud here.

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service