Kinzie. It's what's next.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michelle S on June 6, 2011 at 11:51am

I'm very happy to see this improvement being made and have posted my observations on Steven Can Plan. Keep in mind that in his Transition Plan, Rahm promised us 2 miles of new protected bike lanes in the first 100 days in office, and this is the first .5 mile, so we should be getting another 1.5 miles in the next two months, as well as 23 more miles in the 9 months after that. Let's hold him to that!

 

I also want to reiterate what Liz said above about how there needs to be bike lanes created within the Loop. Obviously, the Loop is the potential commuting destination for thousands of people, and yet there is not a single bike lane in the Loop. North of Roosevelt and south/east of the river, Chicago's Bike Map has only "Recommended bike routes" like Randolph/Madison westbound and Washington/Jackson eastbound. I use Madison and Washington for my own commute, but it's not exactly fun, and I'm definitely more comfortable on my bike than the average person in my demographic (female, over 40). If the city is serious about encouraging more bike commuting, creating SAFE bikeways within the Loop should be a huge priority.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steven Vance on June 6, 2011 at 11:58am

I included Vincennes Avenue on my list of "ideal" locations for protected bike lanes but I never got around to choosing "ideal" extents. I have taken Vincennes a couple times (in 2009 and 2010) to do bike rack work for CDOT in the neighborhoods it connects, but I don't remember it well enough to choose extents. I do remember seeing the disappeared bike lane (removed for Dan Ryan and never reinstalled, on purpose), people driving cars above the speed limit, low volume traffic, and TONS of space for a protected bike lane, right through commercial and residential areas!

 

If you could only "protected" 1 or 2 miles of Vincennes, what extents would you choose?

 

(I much prefer Vincennes Avenue to Stony Island Avenue.)

Anne Alt said:

Steven - I did not intend my earlier comments as a personal attack. I've appreciated a lot of the work that you've done.  I simply disagree with your arguments in favor of Kinzie over Stony.

 

This situation is one more incident in a long pattern of the city largely ignoring the south side regarding bike infrastructure.  The bike lanes and routes we have are helpful, but we need a lot more connections between them.  How are we ever going to build cycling mode share on the south side if we can't get help to create safe through routes so that cyclists who aren't among the most adventurous 10-20% will feel comfortable riding from neighborhood to neighborhood?  We have so many more obstacles than other parts of the city (in the form of expressways, rail yards, industrial areas and waterways).

 

The Central Ave. proposal currently being studied by IDOT offers some hope for the southwest side.  Vincennes Ave., while it has its quirks, has a lot of potential - if we could get some improvements back and get the area under the viaducts south of 83rd St. fixed.  The Rock Island Trail idea (being studied for the Rock Island Metra corridor as a rails-with-trails path) offers hope, but will take a long time to develop if it's approved and funding can be allocated.

Michael Brosilow said:

Milwaukee to Kinzie is one of my regular routes. Car traffic on my left is rarely an issue because there is plenty of room on Kinzie. The problem areas are the bridge over the river & the access to the loading docks for the Merchandise Mart where trucks come out blind. I don't see the cycle track solving those issues.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jennifer james on June 6, 2011 at 12:23pm

Small Guy and I rode along the lane area this morning a few times and found it to be a great start. It may reach a mix of users and there is alot of young family density to mix with the Milwaukee riders. I think that a new rider getting off of Milwaukee might find it an easier transition into the Loop. It goes right by the playground. I am thrilled that the Mayor, Alderman and CDOT could jump on this so soon. They had made huge progress already by the time I came through. I hope they fill in the bridge as mentioned by Steve in his post. Hopefully ii is popular and they try to extend into the Loop closer to the Lake.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brendan Kevenides on June 6, 2011 at 12:50pm

I'm excited about this.  It is a reasonable start.  As Steve noted, it seems that the project is set up to succeed.  The existence of this protected bike lane in that area should not be particularly controversial.  I bike that route to work a couple of times a week.  It will be used regularly by many riders.  Its regular use without the threat of significant backlash from the surrounding neighborhood (see NYC) will enable the "bicycle community" to say, "See, these are a good idea.  Now, let's do more."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steven Vance on June 6, 2011 at 12:56pm

That's what I was trying to say, but I forgot to reference New York City. Read my post Why I’m keeping track of Brooklyn’s bike lane drama for more information about that - the city is being sued to remove a protected bike lane. Kinzie Street is a place where complaints will either not happen or not be loud enough. As a first location it's okay. But the second location should be excellent and perhaps a little mind-blowing or unexpected. 

Brendan Kevenides said:

I'm excited about this.  It is a reasonable start.  As Steve noted, it seems that the project is set up to succeed.  The existence of this protected bike lane in that area should not be particularly controversial.  I bike that route to work a couple of times a week.  It will be used regularly by many riders.  Its regular use without the threat of significant backlash from the surrounding neighborhood (see NYC) will enable the "bicycle community" to say, "See, these are a good idea.  Now, let's do more."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on June 6, 2011 at 2:30pm

If you could only "protect" 1 or 2 miles of Vincennes, what extents would you choose?

 

I'd love to see 83rd to the viaduct just before 87th, then resume just south of 87th down to 89th.  The Halsted/Vincennes/87th area is challenging - lane configurations and traffic flow are tricky.  If we could get a 2nd mile, I'd continue it as far as 99th.  The pair of viaducts just south of 83rd are a BIG problem for a lot of people - dark, with bad pavement, and southbound traffic flying off of westbound 83rd.  On the northbound side of Vincennes, there is a frequent problem with standing water in the right lane under the viaducts, which hides potholes and pushes most of the traffic to the left lane.  Some pavement repair would have to be part of the equation.

 

There are currently some cyclists who commute north from Beverly and Morgan Park using Vincennes.  I suspect there would be a lot more if conditions were improved.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brendan Kevenides on June 6, 2011 at 2:32pm

Steve:

 

Well now you've titillated me.  Where is the second location to be?

Steven Vance said:

That's what I was trying to say, but I forgot to reference New York City. Read my post Why I’m keeping track of Brooklyn’s bike lane drama for more information about that - the city is being sued to remove a protected bike lane. Kinzie Street is a place where complaints will either not happen or not be loud enough. As a first location it's okay. But the second location should be excellent and perhaps a little mind-blowing or unexpected. 

Brendan Kevenides said:

I'm excited about this.  It is a reasonable start.  As Steve noted, it seems that the project is set up to succeed.  The existence of this protected bike lane in that area should not be particularly controversial.  I bike that route to work a couple of times a week.  It will be used regularly by many riders.  Its regular use without the threat of significant backlash from the surrounding neighborhood (see NYC) will enable the "bicycle community" to say, "See, these are a good idea.  Now, let's do more."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steven Vance on June 6, 2011 at 2:34pm

I have no idea. 

Brendan Kevenides said:

Steve:

 

Well now you've titillated me.  Where is the second location to be?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on June 6, 2011 at 3:16pm

That sounded like wishful speculation to me, rather than a suggestion of a specific location.  Just my $0.02...

Steven Vance said:

I have no idea. 

Brendan Kevenides said:

Steve:

 

Well now you've titillated me.  Where is the second location to be?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Allen Wrench on June 6, 2011 at 4:27pm

I'm following this with interest. For my own part, it seems that the fact that this lane will largely serve people who are already commuting through the area on their bikes is possibly a negative as well as a positive feature.

Positive, as you have all noted, since it will be used; but negative I think since these users are people who are in that adventurous 10-20% mentioned above now riding under today's conditions. At least one person above mentioned a fear that 'slow' (read: new or inexperienced or unfit) riders will clog up what is now a dangerous but speedy commute. This attitude can lead to opposition to the cycletrack idea by members of the current bicycling community (that's us, those who choose to bike despite the infrastructure problems). An example of this opposition is the Streetfilms video that made the rounds on Chainlink several months ago about the I-think-it-was-8th-avenue cycle lane in NYC being too slow.

Is it helpful to pit the healthy young commuter riders against the shoppers, kids and old people a cycletrack is (at least partly) supposed to attract?

Another common complaint, that cars and pedestrians and everything else will block a protected lane, neglects the fact that these obstacles block today's unprotected lanes too and that's part of what the "protection" is for. Solution: put up concrete bollards or thin plastic poles and bikes can merge into regular traffic to miss any blockage but cars can't swerve into the bikes. I don't think this complaint is more or less likely to be voiced by new riders or old ones but it's mentioned in the discussion above. This new Kinzie lane is using plastic poles, I think, isn't it?

I agree more with the idea that a new cycletrack should connect places people often go, but not on their bikes, in order to increase the viability/convenience and perceived safety of bike transportation as opposed to other modes people prefer now. Connect housing, schools, workplaces, shopping and transit hubs with safe paths and many people who now think that we are all nuts to ride our bikes will join us. And I also see a good reason to use a protected bike lane to clear the dangers that now make a potential commuting route unattractive, like the one you are discussing on the south side. Could one of those routes bring in new shoppers/students/errand runners too? I don't know that area well.

So it's wonderful that the Kinzie lane is being built, and it looks like it will achieve a lot more than I thought at first glance (connecting the Jewel supermarket to more bicycle-averse bikers for example), but I am looking forward to longer, future lanes that more completely attract drivers, passengers, and walkers onto their bikes. Hooray for the quick start!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bike Bloke on June 6, 2011 at 5:46pm

Yes, these sections of road, often 3 or 4 blocks long which widen out from one car lane to two and then back to one all need to be converted to one car lane and bike lane asap. They become very dangerous to cyclists with 2 lanes of cars speeding up on what is effectively too narrow a roadspace to accommodate such speed when the cars have bikes in front that they're desperate to pass. This was done recently on Narragansett between Diversey and Fullerton (finally, thank goodness), although the bike graphics need to be painted in the bike lanes, too - I was driving there recently, only to find some idiot driver trying to pass me on the inside down the bike lane. That stretch joined up with other bike lanes on Narragansett, too.

Here's another similarly dangerous section that would immediately benefit from this bike lane treatment: Diversey/Logan to Clybourn. Over to you, Rahmbo!  Where else?

Duppie said:

Agreed. I experience it nearly every day eastbound between the river and Kingsbury. Maybe Steven can confirm it, but it looks like the bike lane may solve this problem by effectively turning Kinzie into one lane.

 

Disclaimer: I asked for confirmation from our resident expert, because if I don't, other posters seem to think that I make baseless assumptions ;)

Cameron Puetz said:

My experience with Kinzie is that I have problems with traffic on the left because there is so much room. Kinzie feels like it is about 1.75 lanes wide in each direction. When traffic is light and content to be one lane, Kinzie is great. When traffic starts to pick up and drivers try to move to a two lane configuration things it dicey quick. The worst is when most drivers view Kinzie as one lane, but a couple really aggressive drivers view it as two lanes and start passing on the right.

Michael Brosilow said:

Milwaukee to Kinzie is one of my regular routes. Car traffic on my left is rarely an issue because there is plenty of room on Kinzie. The problem areas are the bridge over the river & the access to the loading docks for the Merchandise Mart where trucks come out blind. I don't see the cycle track solving those issues. That being said I do welcome the project & look forward to its completion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on June 6, 2011 at 6:04pm

Semi-connected thought.

There should be signage making it clear to motorists that use of the protected lane by bicycles is not a requirement.  E.G. "slower cycles please use bicycle lane."

Otherwise we'll end up multiplying driver harassment, and making bitter enemies of the cyclists who are unable to ride at less than 20 mph.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 31
• Next ›
• Page