The Chainlink

The bridge replacement is finally set to start next week. Halsted at approximately 1100 N will be closed to all traffic for the next year.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/11/halsted-street-drawbridg...

While I am glad that this sorry excuse for a bridge is replaced, I am also wondering why the new bridge will be four lanes (plus bike lanes)? Halsted north or south of this bridge is two lane....

Views: 1805

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Because Chicago doesn't get it.

I wish there was at least a map or graphic presentation of the project in the story.
I'm guessing it's because there is a lot of industrial traffic in that corridor.

I'm just glad to see that the project will involve resurfacing the street. That's a pretty hideous stretch right now.
Perhaps it'll be better totally closed than that ClusterFrak that was the North Ave bridge constuction. And it'll be bike-friendly when it is done.
Why 4 lanes on the bridge?

CDOT is playing a joke on impatient motorists? A massive design flaw?

Regardless, it should be fun seeing cars merging back into one lane of traffic after crossing the bridge.
Here's the alderman's flyer for the project, which does include a picture. I would assume that the 4-lane configuration is due to all the industrial traffic in the area.

Thanks,
I had seen this picture before. This version has been cropped and excludes the (future) river walkway from North to Division, which would pass under Halsted.

See uncropped version here:
http://www.historicbridges.org/illinois/halsted2/slab_large.jpg

Anne Alt said:
Here's the alderman's flyer for the project, which does include a picture. I would assume that the 4-lane configuration is due to all the industrial traffic in the area.

Wow. First I or any of my co-workers heard of this (I work at Hooker & Halsted). This will only effect me the few times a month I drive but it will be a traffic nightmate on southern Goose Island as well as really blocking up Division & Chicago with the extra traffic. Best bike route to the island is to use the train/ped bridge on north ave (might start seeing more bikers on it).
The Cherry Ave. Bridge, , one of the most gorgeous bridges in the area. I constantly go out of my way to cross Goose Island just so I can ride over it.





Len Krietz said:
Best bike route to the island is to use the train/ped bridge on north ave (might start seeing more bikers on it).
I LOVE what they did with the bridge at the north end of Goose Island.

I agree that traffic in the Goose Island area will be nightmarish during construction - likely to affect a lot of people.

David said:
The Cherry Ave. Bridge, , one of the most gorgeous bridges in the area. I constantly go out of my way to cross Goose Island just so I can ride over it.





Len Krietz said:
Best bike route to the island is to use the train/ped bridge on north ave (might start seeing more bikers on it).
I'd normally agree it's ridiculous to widen this bridge to four lanes, but the city has long-term plans to put Bus Rapid Transit on Halsted, which means those extra lanes would eventually be needed to have bus-only lanes. I hope that's their reasoning, and I hope those extra lanes do get turned into physically separated bus lanes sooner rather than later.
Hi,

I'd offer the thought that the new bridge having 2 lanes in each direction would be logical. On the ( relatively
few ) times I drive there, when going northbound, immediately after the bridge I often make use of the curb
lane. . . . . . . no parking is allowed there, it's always clear. I have a small ( narrow ) car and it's a pleasure
to make progress in this available lane, instead of being yet another car lined up in single-lane jammed traffic.

( I hasten to add, when I do this, I am super-aware for bicyclists and I'll stay in the main traffic lane until
any/all bikes are clear )

South of the bridge/ travelling southbound it's different, as there is parking; thus it seems the new bridge/new plan
should have no parking here as well : thus making Halsted a totally-clear 4 lanes from north of Division down to almost Grand Ave. ( whoops ! I mean, a clear 4 lanes PLUS dedicated bike lanes ! )
You do realize that you are more than likely driving in the bike lane when doing what you described?

While I don't have a problem with 4 lane roads in itself (Irving Park, Peterson, Western) I don't like roads that switch from 2-4 lanes and back. When going to 4 lanes, motorists tend to speed up to pass "the other guy" and cram themselves in front of him when it goes back to 2 lanes. It's the main reason I avoid Halsted southbound. At Halsted and Chicago I got passed too close once too often.

Also, your reasoning fails at the bridge at Kendall College. It's not wide enough to support 4 lanes plus bike lanes.

Nevermind the fact that your argument that it is logical seems to consist of nothing more than that it is a pleasure to drive on a 4 lane road.

I think I'll stick with Dr Dooms earlier explanation
Al Ribskis said:
Hi,

I'd offer the thought that the new bridge having 2 lanes in each direction would be logical. On the ( relatively
few ) times I drive there, when going northbound, immediately after the bridge I often make use of the curb
lane. . . . . . . no parking is allowed there, it's always clear. I have a small ( narrow ) car and it's a pleasure
to make progress in this available lane, instead of being yet another car lined up in single-lane jammed traffic.

( I hasten to add, when I do this, I am super-aware for bicyclists and I'll stay in the main traffic lane until
any/all bikes are clear )

South of the bridge/ travelling southbound it's different, as there is parking; thus it seems the new bridge/new plan
should have no parking here as well : thus making Halsted a totally-clear 4 lanes from north of Division down to almost Grand Ave. ( whoops ! I mean, a clear 4 lanes PLUS dedicated bike lanes ! )

RSS

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service