Kinzie. It's what's next.

Hopefully you've heard by now that CDOT will begin construction this week on the city's first protected bike lane: Kinzie Street from Milwaukee Avenue/Desplaines Street to Wells Street. 

 

Full story on Steven Can Plan. 

 

I want to know what you think about this.

  • What do you feel will need special attention?
  • Is this the right or wrong location for such a facility? Why?
  • Are you going to thank/congratulate Rahm, Gabe, and the CDOT Bicycle Program?
  • Will you use it?

 

Cycle track and protected bike lane naysayers, this isn't the post for you. But if you've ridden in protected bike lanes before, then I welcome your constructive comments and criticism based on your actual experiences. 

Big intersection

The new beginning. Looking southeast at the intersection of Kinzie/Milwaukee/Desplaines. 

Views: 4032

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by S. Cathi on July 21, 2011 at 10:26am
I love this protected bike lane.  It makes a huge difference in feeling safe while commuting.  The first time I rode through, I had no idea where I was supposed to ride but once it was completed it became clear.  Being next to the sidewalk even made me feel safe enough to pickup some speed without fear.  I do hope that the tests are going well and that the city will approve building more.  Specifically, we need to put some downtown so that we can safely get around without fear of being run over by aggressive taxi drivers and commuters who have no respect for life. I think it would work great on a major street like State, Ashland, or perhaps even Western.
Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on July 21, 2011 at 12:10pm

Law where created to serve people -NOT the other way around.

 

The law is stupid.  To hell with the law. 

 


Carter O'Brien said:

There may be differing opinions here about the right way, but the laws are the laws.  Pretending cyclists live in a gray area doesn't actually make it so.

 

 

Permalink Reply by Elihu Blanks on July 22, 2011 at 2:30am

I agree that laws are dreated to serve people. Becasue I think if there were no laws; when I was hit by a van, on my mortorcycle, the owner of the parking lot that the van came out of when he couldn't see me on the street becasue it was constructed against the law, would not have corrected his mistake and many more people would be in a month long coma!

 

Laws are created to sere US the people against us the people from hurting Us the people. This is why we follow them. I didn't like waking up and not knowing what would happen next in my life.

 

Therefore, if the law says stop; I may bitch and moan but it is probably best that I stop; rather than injure someone else or myself.

 

This dosen't mean I'm an angel who stops at all the signs but I should and maybe a ticket or two would make me reconsider my actions and do more than less for our lives...

 

...Always Forward,

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on July 22, 2011 at 2:47am

Laws are created to serve people, but they ultimately derive their power from consent of the governed.  I agree there are plenty of laws that don't meet this standard (the racist/class war on drugs comes foremost to mind), but basic rules of the road need to work for all of us - it's not like this is a Jim Crow situation here.

 

The law is broken, so let's fix it.

 

I do think stop sign intersections are a gray area/opportunity for bikes - in a car I come to a complete stop.  Always.  Cycling, no, I at least slow down, but IMO it's largely more important to respect right of way, especially when it's pedestrians and fellow cyclists.  If that means not stopping so I can go through an intersection with a vehicle, I will, that's easier for everyone.

 

But don't be too quick to throw out "the law" in the larger sense, because we've won quite a few considerable victories.  You can damn well be sure motorists will be hearing loud and clear I'm entitled - LEGALLY - to my 3 feet of space, to not share bike lanes with cars, etc.

 



James BlackHeron said:

Law where created to serve people -NOT the other way around.

 

The law is stupid.  To hell with the law. 

 


Carter O'Brien said:

There may be differing opinions here about the right way, but the laws are the laws.  Pretending cyclists live in a gray area doesn't actually make it so.

 

 

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on July 22, 2011 at 3:20am
CDOT seems to have a substantial # of bike ringers, so I'm optimistic - Dr. Doom's assessment that a public input session would just be derailed by naysayers is sadly grounded in the reality I've experienced.  People seem to be very motivated to show up at meetings where they want to bitch about things, especially things involving change.

h333 said:

I think Steven means that there does not seem to be any input from the bike community-- and being that Steven is well-connected to planners and the folks in the bike program, one can infer that the decision-making is so top-down that not even the bike program is directly involved.


I share his dismay that the stakeholders are not only not part of the process, but that we are relegated to hoping an industrious reporter covers the story, or that the topic is on the agenda at a monthly MBAC meeting so we can get little shreds of information.

 

Dr. Doom said:

I think you should ponder the fact that if there were public input here protected lanes wouldn't be built, because the public drives cars, thinks bicycles are stupid, and doesn't want the roads clogged up with bollards.

Steven Vance said:

I think commenters on this discussion should be more worried about where CDOT plans the next 24.5 miles. At the June MBAC, Bicycle Program Coordinator Ben Gomberg said that the first 25 miles of protected bike lanes has "already been assessed" and "will be done right away."

 

Without. Public. Input.

 

The next 75 miles will apparently be decided by the new "Streets for Cycling Plan," or I've also heard it described as the Bike 2020 Plan. Mark de la Vergne of Sam Schwartz Engineering will be leading the creation of this plan. It will "obviously" include public meetings and involvement. 

I wrote about this on Steven Can Plan.

Permalink Reply by vxla on July 22, 2011 at 4:44am
^ and they're held in place by coat hangers....amazing.
Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on July 22, 2011 at 5:32am

Very fair point - I definitely didn't mean to imply no public/user input should happen, just that in Chicago there are better and worse ways to go about that (a CDOT-facilitated meeting framed intelligently and with proper community outreach and notice would likely be far more productive than one Alderman X announces 48 hours ahead of time).


h333 said:

I've attended as many "public hearings" as anyone here and I know how completely useless they can be.

 

Howver, I'm not sure how this discussion got reduced to "a public input session" -- my (and presumably Steven's) frustration is a little broader than that-- it ought to be at least possible to clue us in on what's planned, and what's being factored into teh decisions on where protected lanes should go.  The confusion over the Stoney Island lane is one example-- the back and forth over whether it was cancelled was ridiculous.
Why are we groping around in the dark?


Carter O'Brien said:

CDOT seems to have a substantial # of bike ringers, so I'm optimistic - Dr. Doom's assessment that a public input session would just be derailed by naysayers is sadly grounded in the reality I've experienced.  People seem to be very motivated to show up at meetings where they want to bitch about things, especially things involving change.

h333 said:

I think Steven means that there does not seem to be any input from the bike community-- and being that Steven is well-connected to planners and the folks in the bike program, one can infer that the decision-making is so top-down that not even the bike program is directly involved.


I share his dismay that the stakeholders are not only not part of the process, but that we are relegated to hoping an industrious reporter covers the story, or that the topic is on the agenda at a monthly MBAC meeting so we can get little shreds of information.

 

Dr. Doom said:

I think you should ponder the fact that if there were public input here protected lanes wouldn't be built, because the public drives cars, thinks bicycles are stupid, and doesn't want the roads clogged up with bollards.

Steven Vance said:

I think commenters on this discussion should be more worried about where CDOT plans the next 24.5 miles. At the June MBAC, Bicycle Program Coordinator Ben Gomberg said that the first 25 miles of protected bike lanes has "already been assessed" and "will be done right away."

 

Without. Public. Input.

 

The next 75 miles will apparently be decided by the new "Streets for Cycling Plan," or I've also heard it described as the Bike 2020 Plan. Mark de la Vergne of Sam Schwartz Engineering will be leading the creation of this plan. It will "obviously" include public meetings and involvement. 

I wrote about this on Steven Can Plan.

Permalink Reply by ad on July 22, 2011 at 5:38am

Wow, I hope this is just a temporary solution.  I was wondering why the Kinzie plates seemed to bounce a bit more than any of the plates installed on the Cortland or Wells bridge.   Probably still safer than just an exposed metal grate, but it feels a bit sketchier riding on them than it needs to feel. 

Another weird thing is that the plates seem like they were measured incorrectly.  There is around a foot gap between the start of the bridge grate and the first plate when heading east.  Not sure that small of a gap will impact anything in the end, but it seems weird to leave it like that. 

 

My fear (hopefully unfounded) is that they didn't permanently bolt them down in case the City decides to scrap the whole project at some future date.  My hope has always been that even if the protected cycle track "experiment" ultimately fails, any safety-based improvements to the bridge would remain behind.    

vxla said:

^ and they're held in place by coat hangers....amazing.
Permalink Reply by Dr. Doom on July 22, 2011 at 5:46am
I take Steven's broader point, but it's just hard for me to be too put out by a lack of democracy in the process given that if we're being honest, if the project were really being run democratically it would be put on the shelf.
Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on July 22, 2011 at 6:51am

Maybe Rahm will bring some of those DC politics to the office & have locations surreptitiously leaked ahead of time.

 

h333 said:

Agreed-- I guess we're all really just barking at the moon.


We have a new benevolent dictator, who thus far has shown no sign of being any more enamored of the concept of "transparency" than the old benevolent dictator, and I have no doubt pretty much everyone in  city government is treading very lightly right now and will be for the foreseeable future.

 

The likely reality is that the decision making is in fact top-down to the extreme, and that we'll continue to find out about new protected lanes by someone noticing construction on their way to work in the morning.

 


Dr. Doom said:

I take Steven's broader point, but it's just hard for me to be too put out by a lack of democracy in the process given that if we're being honest, if the project were really being run democratically it would be put on the shelf.
Permalink Reply by Gort 12-mile Pinklegneep on July 22, 2011 at 9:38am
A member of the administration, on condition of anonymity, commented that fart fart fart, booger booger fart.

Carter O'Brien said:

Maybe Rahm will bring some of those DC politics to the office & have locations surreptitiously leaked ahead of time.

Permalink Reply by Mike Zumwalt on July 22, 2011 at 11:02am
It's better than the grate but those things get slick as ice in the rain. The concrete filled in bridges are the only ones I actually like.

Cameron Puetz said:
The plates were in place this morning.

vxla said:
Whatever happened to those plates that were supposed to cover the metal grates on the Kinzie street bridge?

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service