Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Liz on March 1, 2011 at 7:04am

Policy changed regarding infrastructure to include pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure with every road project.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe TV on March 1, 2011 at 7:24am

Also known as Complete Streets.

Liz said:

Policy changed regarding infrastructure to include pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure with every road project.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Kenseth on March 1, 2011 at 10:44am

I've added the website to the list. 

We really hope to bring something to Rahm's office that is do-able, and this has a do-able quality plus a far-reaching potential.

Thanks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe TV on March 1, 2011 at 6:19pm

In today's day and age, most planners should be aware of the complete streets idea.  I don't know if it's official, but the term has been bounced around in Chicago planning.  I seem to recall that Chicago already operates under theses precepts, but I could be wrong.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Liz on March 2, 2011 at 4:34am

Known yes, implimented no.  There have been many recent projects that have and are dropping the ball on making small but impactful improvements to cycling and pedestrians as they are completed.  Take the bridges over Division, these where redone last year, yet during that process plates for cyclinsts where not added. Its a small line item that should be included in larger project and that is just not occuring.  There is much talk about how road way planners are going to start incorporating complete street, but there have been far too many years of transportation officials hiding behind "its a slow process".   

 

How can we sucsussfully advocate to change existing streets when new construction isn't considering it.

Joe TV said:

In today's day and age, most planners should be aware of the complete streets idea.  I don't know if it's official, but the term has been bounced around in Chicago planning.  I seem to recall that Chicago already operates under theses precepts, but I could be wrong.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Duppie on March 2, 2011 at 5:21am

Maybe Active Trans or Steve Vance can chime in here, but I understood Complete Streets design practices to only apply when a streetscape is redesigned. A simple repaving job does not qualify as a redesign. I guess replacing steel grates is similar to repaving

Liz said:

Known yes, implimented no.  There have been many recent projects that have and are dropping the ball on making small but impactful improvements to cycling and pedestrians as they are completed.  Take the bridges over Division, these where redone last year, yet during that process plates for cyclinsts where not added. Its a small line item that should be included in larger project and that is just not occuring.  There is much talk about how road way planners are going to start incorporating complete street, but there have been far too many years of transportation officials hiding behind "its a slow process".   

 

How can we sucsussfully advocate to change existing streets when new construction isn't considering it.

Joe TV said:

In today's day and age, most planners should be aware of the complete streets idea.  I don't know if it's official, but the term has been bounced around in Chicago planning.  I seem to recall that Chicago already operates under theses precepts, but I could be wrong.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Kenseth on March 7, 2011 at 6:40am

Thanks for the input.  I'll discuss the options with my director and others. 

 

Part of me wants to just put everything Rahm's campaign website offered on bicycling infrastructure.  Then have people sign a petition of support, saying we want to see these things happen and we will help you.  We'll check back in a year to see how well it's going.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on March 7, 2011 at 7:03am

Hi Mark, I'd actually reference the other thread about Office parking and say that'd be a terrific idea for an advocacy program. The City of New York conducted a survey in May of 2006 (?) to determine barriers to broader adoption of bicycling by non-bike commuters. The biggest reason cited 40+% percent was "a safe and secure place to park my bike." Not infrastructure, not painted bike lanes, not even fear of being hit by cars. Here's an article prior to its implementation, but I know (or think I know) it became law in December 2009(?) Wouldn't surprise me if a survey would reveal similar concerns in Chicago.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Kenseth on March 7, 2011 at 9:48am

Thanks, Kevin.  I think that thread and the survey reveals an important factor.  I know I consider bike parking all the time, wherever I'm going.  I believe Rahm had something on his website about bicycling facilities, so I'll look into it. 

Kevin Conway said:

Hi Mark, I'd actually reference the other thread about Office parking and say that'd be a terrific idea for an advocacy program. The City of New York conducted a survey in May of 2006 (?) to determine barriers to broader adoption of bicycling by non-bike commuters. The biggest reason cited 40+% percent was "a safe and secure place to park my bike." Not infrastructure, not painted bike lanes, not even fear of being hit by cars. Here's an article prior to its implementation, but I know (or think I know) it became law in December 2009(?) Wouldn't surprise me if a survey would reveal similar concerns in Chicago.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Glenn on March 7, 2011 at 10:11pm

The thing I think could make the biggest change is EDUCATION. on the cyclists side we need education on the laws and how to act appropriately on trails, roads, pathways, and even sidewalks(when permissible). Along with of course proper care for your bicycle and yourself. The basics I would like to think of it as. As for drivers, they need to learn the laws and how to act appropriately in situations involving cyclists and pedestrians. People need a reminder that cars are dangerous machines and they have to share (most) roads with others, be they other cars, peds, motorcycles, horse an buggies, or cyclists.

 

I think that's a good start to obtaining safer streets for everyone.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on March 8, 2011 at 2:08am

The New York City Bicycle Survey was conducted for Bike Month in 2006, and published in May of 2007. It was an online survey which was posted beginning May 1, 2006 for six months and a total of 1086 people took the survey.

 

I went back to The Study and wanted to clarify the results which I mentioned yesterday. I remembered it as being a pure percentage-it’s not. The question was “ If you do not commute by bicycle to work, why not?” and respondents were asked to rank each of seven dimensions on a scale of 1 to 5 (most important).  51% of respondents ranked “No safe storage facility for my bike” most important, with “Too much traffic/driver behavior” coming in second at 48%. (p. 15)

 

The findings were deemed significant enough that they appear as item 9 in the summary of findings; i.e. “The most common reason that non-commuting cyclists do not commute by bike is because of driver behavior/traffic and lack of safe storage at work.” (p. 1)

 

The Bicycle Access to Office Buildings Law went into effect on December 11, 2009. The NYDOT link is here. 

 

Not quite how I remembered it, but I still think it’s significant. In terms of designing your advocacy program, the affected offices, the potential signatories, and City Council are all conveniently located in the Loop.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on March 8, 2011 at 2:40am

I started doing some work last year to get a zoning loophole closed regarding bike parking at new buildings.  There is currently a requirement for bike parking to be provided at many types of new buildings, however, there are no specifications as to what constitutes an acceptable rack and no oversight on planning and installation.  This has resulted in perfectly good racks being wasted because they're installed too close to a wall (or otherwise in an unsuitable location), or crappy racks being installed.

 

I know that there is movement within CDOT to try to get this loophole closed, however, zoning has failed to pick up their end.  With a bit of pressure from Rahm, perhaps this could be completed.

 

On a related note, I'd love to see a requirement for all large retail businesses and strip malls to provide bike parking - good bike parking.  Too many grocery stores either provide no bike parking or nearly useless bike parking, as discussed in a previous thread.

Mark Kenseth said:

Thanks, Kevin.  I think that thread and the survey reveals an important factor.  I know I consider bike parking all the time, wherever I'm going.  I believe Rahm had something on his website about bicycling facilities, so I'll look into it. 

Kevin Conway said:

Hi Mark, I'd actually reference the other thread about Office parking and say that'd be a terrific idea for an advocacy program. The City of New York conducted a survey in May of 2006 (?) to determine barriers to broader adoption of bicycling by non-bike commuters. The biggest reason cited 40+% percent was "a safe and secure place to park my bike." Not infrastructure, not painted bike lanes, not even fear of being hit by cars. Here's an article prior to its implementation, but I know (or think I know) it became law in December 2009(?) Wouldn't surprise me if a survey would reveal similar concerns in Chicago.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page