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 JeffB on December 9, 2011 at 5:45am

This is my biggest fear about "protected" bike lanes becoming wide-spread.  I just can't believe the city will devote the resources necessary to clear these lanes in a timely manner.  Plus, even if the lanes do get plowed, the lack of car traffic in them means any thin layer left behind is less likely to melt (or stay melted) and will lead to frequent icy patches.  You think drivers don't like these lanes now, wait until bikers start taking the normal lanes because the bike lanes are too risky.

Kevin C said:

The presence of motor vehicle traffic on the roads provides the benefit of clearing portions of the pavement and creates dry patches (or at least a uniform surface) where the bulk of the tire tracks have passed over the same spots. Without that "clearing" effect, portions of the protected bike lane east from Des Plaines (on the downhill portion) were kind of a slippery mess today, containing hidden strips of ice created by bike tires. This is going to be an engineering/riding challenge this winter.

Permalink Reply by Jamais716 on December 9, 2011 at 5:56am

I noticed the same problem on the 2 blocks of the Jackson bike lane I rode on.  It was also a problem in the regular bike lane in East Garfield Park.  There's not enough cars pulling out of parking spaces to clear the snow.  Fortunately just enough cars seem to have driven down the left half of the bike lane earlier that half the lane was clear. :-\

This seemed to be less of a problem as I got east of Western and especially east of Damen.  There was a good bit of salt on the ground east of Damen.  They should at least salt the protected lanes if there's too little snow to clear.

Permalink Reply by dan brown on December 9, 2011 at 6:07am

all good points today and I hope the city will take note (don't we have a CoC rep here). In my experience, the green toppings over the road surface in bike lanes are always slippery when they are wet and it gets cold like today (or colder). Even when they are dry and the sun hasn't risen high enough to melt the frost they can be slippery and I either ride just off of them or use quite a bit more caution. others ?

 

DB

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on December 9, 2011 at 6:10am

If that happens, the responsible thing to do as "share the road" users will be to select a route other than Kinzie.

JeffB said:

[snip]

 You think drivers don't like these lanes now, wait until bikers start taking the normal lanes because the bike lanes are too risky.

Kevin C said:

The presence of motor vehicle traffic on the roads provides the benefit of clearing portions of the pavement and creates dry patches (or at least a uniform surface) where the bulk of the tire tracks have passed over the same spots. Without that "clearing" effect, portions of the protected bike lane east from Des Plaines (on the downhill portion) were kind of a slippery mess today, containing hidden strips of ice created by bike tires. This is going to be an engineering/riding challenge this winter.

Permalink Reply by JeffB on December 9, 2011 at 10:58am

Yeah, but it just seems ironic that if we get a whole network of these types of lanes to protect us, that they'll make us less safe any time it snows (and for any sub-freezing time period after a snow).  This is of course the pessimistic outlook; this winter will be the first test of the system.  I'm skeptical, but hopeful that I'm wrong.

Kevin C said:

If that happens, the responsible thing to do as "share the road" users will be to select a route other than Kinzie.

JeffB said:

[snip]

 You think drivers don't like these lanes now, wait until bikers start taking the normal lanes because the bike lanes are too risky.

Kevin C said:

The presence of motor vehicle traffic on the roads provides the benefit of clearing portions of the pavement and creates dry patches (or at least a uniform surface) where the bulk of the tire tracks have passed over the same spots. Without that "clearing" effect, portions of the protected bike lane east from Des Plaines (on the downhill portion) were kind of a slippery mess today, containing hidden strips of ice created by bike tires. This is going to be an engineering/riding challenge this winter.

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on December 9, 2011 at 11:17am

Here's the thing about infrastructure. A great deal of time and effort is spent every year in the bike advocacy community to apply for and procure grant money for the construction of infrastructure. The conventional wisdom is that infrastructure will make people feel safer when riding and increase the mode share of bicycles in the city. Many (well some anyway) people rode before there was any infrastructure, even painted bike lanes. People breathlessly proclaim that the Kinzie protected bike lane has enjoyed mode share of >50% on days when this was counted. I don't know, and no one has said, that the Kinzie protected bike lane has increased the number of riders, or has simply attracted the pool of existing riders to a particular street. I think the 8-80 access to transportation cycling is a noble goal, but I do think it's an ideal which is unlikely to be achieved. I'm not opposed to infrastructure. I'm simply indifferent to it. I think more riders on the streets (and on more streets) makes everyone safer. 

JeffB said:

Yeah, but it just seems ironic that if we get a whole network of these types of lanes to protect us, that they'll make us less safe any time it snows (and for any sub-freezing time period after a snow).  This is of course the pessimistic outlook; this winter will be the first test of the system.  I'm skeptical, but hopeful that I'm wrong.

Kevin C said:

If that happens, the responsible thing to do as "share the road" users will be to select a route other than Kinzie.

JeffB said:

[snip]

 You think drivers don't like these lanes now, wait until bikers start taking the normal lanes because the bike lanes are too risky.

Kevin C said:

The presence of motor vehicle traffic on the roads provides the benefit of clearing portions of the pavement and creates dry patches (or at least a uniform surface) where the bulk of the tire tracks have passed over the same spots. Without that "clearing" effect, portions of the protected bike lane east from Des Plaines (on the downhill portion) were kind of a slippery mess today, containing hidden strips of ice created by bike tires. This is going to be an engineering/riding challenge this winter.

Permalink Reply by djm on December 29, 2011 at 7:44pm

The protected bike lanes arent taxi-proof — I observed a taxi eastbound on Kinzie intentionally drive over the dividing posts to get into the bike lane and pass stopped traffic to the next intersection.  I was so startled I didnt get the medallion.

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on December 30, 2011 at 5:37am

I'll be watching out for guys like this and hoping to get their #s if I see any, or, even better, a photo of the offender in the act.

djm said:

The protected bike lanes arent taxi-proof — I observed a taxi eastbound on Kinzie intentionally drive over the dividing posts to get into the bike lane and pass stopped traffic to the next intersection.  I was so startled I didnt get the medallion.

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on December 30, 2011 at 5:40am

I think it's both.  If infrastructure attracts more riders, then drivers will get used to seeing riders and interacting with them, and that will make streets a bit safer, which will attract more riders.  And so on...

Kevin C said:

Here's the thing about infrastructure. A great deal of time and effort is spent every year in the bike advocacy community to apply for and procure grant money for the construction of infrastructure. The conventional wisdom is that infrastructure will make people feel safer when riding and increase the mode share of bicycles in the city. Many (well some anyway) people rode before there was any infrastructure, even painted bike lanes. People breathlessly proclaim that the Kinzie protected bike lane has enjoyed mode share of >50% on days when this was counted. I don't know, and no one has said, that the Kinzie protected bike lane has increased the number of riders, or has simply attracted the pool of existing riders to a particular street. I think the 8-80 access to transportation cycling is a noble goal, but I do think it's an ideal which is unlikely to be achieved. I'm not opposed to infrastructure. I'm simply indifferent to it. I think more riders on the streets (and on more streets) makes everyone safer. 

Permalink Reply by John Wirtz on December 30, 2011 at 6:08am

^+1

I think the infrastructure is a necessary first step to starting the positive cycle (no pun intended) of more riders --> more safety --> more riders that Anne described

Permalink Reply by Mike Zumwalt on January 2, 2012 at 12:16pm

Only halfway salted or cleared today. But if it wasn't bad enough to ride out of the painted bike lane now we need to ride out of the "protected" lane past parked cars in the only remaining lane meant for cars.

FAIL.

Permalink Reply by Steven Vance on January 2, 2012 at 7:00pm

Even if Kinzie has "stolen" riders from Grand, Lake, Washington, or another street, it's shown the attractiveness of what people think is a place that is safer and more comfortable to ride. One segment on one route where many people don't need to go won't be enough to build cycling numbers. A network will do that. 

Anne Alt said:

I think it's both.  If infrastructure attracts more riders, then drivers will get used to seeing riders and interacting with them, and that will make streets a bit safer, which will attract more riders.  And so on...

Kevin C said:

Here's the thing about infrastructure. A great deal of time and effort is spent every year in the bike advocacy community to apply for and procure grant money for the construction of infrastructure. The conventional wisdom is that infrastructure will make people feel safer when riding and increase the mode share of bicycles in the city. Many (well some anyway) people rode before there was any infrastructure, even painted bike lanes. People breathlessly proclaim that the Kinzie protected bike lane has enjoyed mode share of >50% on days when this was counted. I don't know, and no one has said, that the Kinzie protected bike lane has increased the number of riders, or has simply attracted the pool of existing riders to a particular street. I think the 8-80 access to transportation cycling is a noble goal, but I do think it's an ideal which is unlikely to be achieved. I'm not opposed to infrastructure. I'm simply indifferent to it. I think more riders on the streets (and on more streets) makes everyone safer. 

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service