Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by T.C. O'Rourke on February 8, 2011 at 9:09pm

What if you are riding to a destination on Ashland?  I guess you then just your life into the hands of the inattentive, ill-informed, uncaring motoring-public.

 

Seriously, why is being told to "go ride somewhere else" so acceptable to you? 

 

The main thoroughfares traverse obstacles like rivers, train yards and expressways without interruption.  Why should they remain inaccessible to cyclists?  Ravenswood doesn't run a mile without becoming a one-way and how many times does Wolcott start and stop? 

 

Wouldn't it be nice to just ride in a straight line? Just imagine a five mile ride without the need to zig-zag and counsult a map or some miserable signage.  Wow!  We could be just like an honest-to-goodness-real-citizens who enjoy such routes all over the city.  (Don't even get me started about the expressways.)

 

And in terms of money, frankly I think $1 spent on cycletracks is $1 less spent on bullshit.

 

The point of this post was that with a 1/2 lane reduction doesn't impact motor traffic much.  I agree, although I wish it DID.  As of late, I've been enjoying riding up Sacramento Blvd without fear of being crushed to death. 

 

Oh wait... never mind, I forgot it snows here! I guess the whole idea of biking in the wintertime is off then as well?  How could we ever, in a million, billion years, figure out how to clear the cycletrack of snow?  My hands have been thrown up!  They must not have snow in 'snooty-ass' Europe.

 

Frankly, I think $1 spent on cycletracks is $1 less spent on bullshit.

 

People, cycletracks are even in the city's "bike plan". Of course the leadership is lacking beyond planners planning to plan a plan.

 

T.C.

 

P.S. Howard, I don't think bikes or bike infrastructure is what's holding up the buses.

 

 

 

 

Duppie said:

Why waste precious money on what is undoubtedly a costly initiative, when great alternatives to Ashland are readily available: Southport, Ravenswood/Wolcott, etc?

 

Like Anne mentioned in a different thread: Why not spend that money in areas that really need it?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by chixieonfixie on February 9, 2011 at 2:34am

And we dont really know who you are either travesty but your nic befits your personality.  The guy was just asking a question and trying to get a discussion started.  chainlink is not the kind of place where we support derisive comments like yours for no good reason.

travesty said:

I'm guessing you may not have already researched the cycling infrastructure upgrades already planned around the city. Do that.

Since I don't know who Allen Wrench is, I MIGHT just be feeding a troll who is asking intentionally obtuse questions in order to playfully waste everybody's time. I don't mean to accuse you, really, but your proposal is just that immature sounding.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Duppie on February 9, 2011 at 3:32am

Everything you sounds real good and no one in their right mind can be against your plans. Yet, you completely missed the point of my post.

In a time of fiscal restraint and limited capital available we have to make choices. And roads like Ashland should be at the bottom of the priority list, given the nearby alternatives available. Let's spend our limited money on useful projects. Some good examples on the Northside would be completing the Skokie Valley Line trail, the Weber Spur trail and extending the North Branch trail to Bryn Mawr. Together they would create a network of trails, thereby multiplying the value of each individual trail. A near North example would be a Wells cycle track. It's a prime candidate with limited intersections, and no alleys ending on Wells.

I'm sure plenty of good examples are available on the West and South side as well, but I am not as familiar with those areas.

 

BTW: Saying that bicycle tracks are in the city's "bike plan" is meaningless.

For the record: I have just created a plan that details how I will singlehandedly jumpstart the economy this year. It details all the goods I will buy, and the effect it has on the economy. All that's missing in my plan is a source for capital to make my plan a reality. If you are interested in providing some of that capital, I'll gladly send you a copy of my plan.

T.C. O'Rourke said:

What if you are riding to a destination on Ashland?  I guess you then just your life into the hands of the inattentive, ill-informed, uncaring motoring-public.

 

Seriously, why is being told to "go ride somewhere else" so acceptable to you? 

 

The main thoroughfares traverse obstacles like rivers, train yards and expressways without interruption.  Why should they remain inaccessible to cyclists?  Ravenswood doesn't run a mile without becoming a one-way and how many times does Wolcott start and stop? 

 

Wouldn't it be nice to just ride in a straight line? Just imagine a five mile ride without the need to zig-zag and counsult a map or some miserable signage.  Wow!  We could be just like an honest-to-goodness-real-citizens who enjoy such routes all over the city.  (Don't even get me started about the expressways.)

 

And in terms of money, frankly I think $1 spent on cycletracks is $1 less spent on bullshit.

 

The point of this post was that with a 1/2 lane reduction doesn't impact motor traffic much.  I agree, although I wish it DID.  As of late, I've been enjoying riding up Sacramento Blvd without fear of being crushed to death. 

 

Oh wait... never mind, I forgot it snows here! I guess the whole idea of biking in the wintertime is off then as well?  How could we ever, in a million, billion years, figure out how to clear the cycletrack of snow?  My hands have been thrown up!  They must not have snow in 'snooty-ass' Europe.

 

Frankly, I think $1 spent on cycletracks is $1 less spent on bullshit.

 

People, cycletracks are even in the city's "bike plan". Of course the leadership is lacking beyond planners planning to plan a plan.

 

T.C.

 

P.S. Howard, I don't think bikes or bike infrastructure is what's holding up the buses.

 

 

 

 

Duppie said:

Why waste precious money on what is undoubtedly a costly initiative, when great alternatives to Ashland are readily available: Southport, Ravenswood/Wolcott, etc?

 

Like Anne mentioned in a different thread: Why not spend that money in areas that really need it?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by travesty on February 9, 2011 at 6:04am

I'm in agreement with these boys here. I would add they could be free of car parking, and initially they could proceed on a temporary basis. They could become corridors during rush hour, or even alternate, but dedicated bike dominated streets seems like a realistic plan considering where we are now and what is currently planned.

If I was to muse about a trans upgrade I would wonder how to force a redesign on new bridges, already in the pipeline about to be constructed that leave us "ride on the sidewalk" types of facilities like North Ave bridge over the chicago river unpleasantly but gloriously informed us. The civil engineers and design darlings in Urban design still don't have a clue in many cases that cyclists have the right, and will expect, to not be shunted off into a ditch by the maginificent infrastructure plans of the masters.

notoriousDUG said:

Think about how nice it would be to have secondary streets that you can parallel major roads on free of most car traffic and all buses; it would be like a dream come true.

 

H3N3 said:

I'd also prefer to see main streets prioritized for Bus Rapid Transit, and secondary streets sanctioned, built out, connected, and protected as bicycle thoroughfares.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by travesty on February 9, 2011 at 6:24am

In honor of T.C. bringing up unconcerned drivers. AMEN! The drivers out there are the problem and I demand further enforcement of their behavior to improve the safety of all. Also, I don't plan on releasing any of my right or ability to bike where I currently can.

Here is the bike plan 2015 site

http://bike2015plan.org/

I think it would be interesting to just close down Ashland to anything but bus traffic in certain circumstances, but then Western might be a better choice, and hell if they plowed it I'd be happy with Oakley. They could fix the pavement and tell drivers to park somewhere else, anywhere else but not on our lovely bikeway when there is more than 2 inches of snow on the ground. Expect a fight from drivers though, like their very independence and freedom was dependent on street parking.

Funny story, dude honks at me on the west side, I catch him of course and say "what, my good sir, are you honking at specifically?" Dude informs me I am not in a car. Oh chicago drivers! You so crazy ignorant sometimes!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Becca on February 9, 2011 at 6:38am

"But the car traffic doesn't seem any worse than usual."

 

My place of work is just too far away to bike to every day effectively, so I have to drive.  And I can tell you that the loss of one whole lane to parked cars has made a big difference in traffic.  My commute is at least 30 minutes longer each day with all that space taken away. (I take North Ave.)

 

I love dedicated, marked bike lanes, and I think they could be added to almost any street.  But most of the streets in Chicago that are 2 lanes are made that way out of necessity.  It's been wreaking havoc out there to have one missing!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by travesty on February 9, 2011 at 7:18am

I wanted to disagree with some of this, respectfully. If you assert that losing a lane is wreaking havoc, I get you I think. But what of the cars parked on North ave? There is a way to get your lane back, but car parking would have to be sacrificed in heavy snow conditions. Is this not possibly true?

I would have to assert that it is the cars themselves doing most of the havoc wreaking, and that the lane markings and width of North ave was created for reasons and according to necessity that I have no experience with.

So why allow parked cars on major streets like North ave when there is heavy snow? That would be my counter questions in these cases. People often overlook that the space is precious and that its a luxury to be able to actually parallel park (and block traffic in one lane for god knows how long) into a FREE on street parking space on a transportation corridor that might be considered a critical artery to major destinations that are underserved by other corridors.

Becca said:

"But the car traffic doesn't seem any worse than usual."

 

My place of work is just too far away to bike to every day effectively, so I have to drive.  And I can tell you that the loss of one whole lane to parked cars has made a big difference in traffic.  My commute is at least 30 minutes longer each day with all that space taken away. (I take North Ave.)

 

I love dedicated, marked bike lanes, and I think they could be added to almost any street.  But most of the streets in Chicago that are 2 lanes are made that way out of necessity.  It's been wreaking havoc out there to have one missing!

EDIT: even if this parking were not free, what is the revenue generated that would outweigh the ability to use the road effectively during snow which could be considered a special case. Also, are there not better strategies when space is this precious, to park cars. Do we need to subsidize this behavior on our streets at all?? I don't think parking fees can be considered adequate to cover the costs of permitting parking in certain areas at certain times. Now that we sold these parking fees and outsourced it, I exceed what I am familiar with. I assume maybe we would have to negotiate these agreements if we wanted to eliminate or move on street parking in some or any way, and get a political swell to back the plan and get it legislated, built, enforced, whatever.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Duppie on February 9, 2011 at 7:33am

It is not allowed

travesty said:

So why allow parked cars on major streets like North ave when there is heavy snow?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Becca on February 9, 2011 at 8:01am

As Duppie also pointed out, technically parking is not allowed on major streets like North Avenue if there is more than 2 inches of snow on the ground.  I agree with you that the issue of a missing lane would be resolved if cars were not parking illegally in the right lane.  I'm very unhappy the city hasn't done more to discourage this.  My only guess is that they're too busy trying to move the snow out of the way to deal with it.  In my opinion, all those parked in the second lane should be towed.

 

To get back to the original idea of adding a cycletrack to some streets:  I was trying to point out that adding a cycletrack to streets like North Ave would have a negative impact on traffic.  That second lane is needed to keep up with traffic volume.  The lack of the second lane due to parked cars demonstrates the problems that would arise if the lane was repurposed for cyclists only.

travesty said:

So why allow parked cars on major streets like North ave when there is heavy snow?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by travesty on February 9, 2011 at 8:14am

Fair enough becca, thanks for your response.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Allen Wrench on February 9, 2011 at 7:58pm

Thanks for all (well, most of ) the responses. I really think that there is room on most major roads to put in a protected bike lane after seeing the lane shrinkage recently. And I think that the key to a healthy mobile populace is an infrastructure that invites everybody to get on a bike or walk and "mode shift" away from dependence on automobiles. While most people on the Chainlink welcome an increase in cycling in Chicago, a number of the people answering this forum topic seem to think that they are the only people that matter on the road - a cycletrack is slower? Crowded? Crowded is good. Getting people to leave their cars and ride or walk is my point. Kids riding their own bikes to school are slow and unpredictable in front of you, but they aren't in an SUV and maybe they are a little like you, you bicycling enthusiast. And if you are a hotshot fancypants you can always ride in the street with the cars just like you do now. Don't stop for that red light, man.

 

It's true that a lot of the cycletracks that exist in the world are in northern Europe. And I guess we all hate Europe and whatever they do there since they all have health insurance and 2 months off a year. But if you look at Streetsblog and what has happened in just a couple of years in New York you'll start feeling like the Second City is easing down to third. It's true that pedestrian incursions are an issue in the packed areas of NYC due to insufficient blocking, and passengers can still door you, but there aren't many passengers and there are always drivers, so the door risk drops considerably by putting the track inside of the parked cars. Moving traffic can't hit you either except at corners. And these bike highway type things really work well in northern Europe. Japan also has designated bike lanes. Oh, yeah, and Portland and stuff. And many of these places have really good transit, so you just don't need a car. Zurich. Munich. NYC. Osaka. Many more.

 

I agree with Becca that many of the major Chicago car routes do need 2 lanes. But there is often parking permitted, which cuts into travel space, and what about those stupid planters in the middle of the road? As I mentioned, I can see tram tracks (or exclusive bus lane) there being sensible, but kale? A waste of space. Move the car lanes back to the center if you want and there's still room for a track. And if North isn't good, fine, put one on Elston instead. Anything is a help. I just don't see that having a cycletrack is going to inconvenience any car drivers in most places in town.

 

As for the snow plowing issue, I just can't believe that anyone on the Chainlink would take such a trivial issue and blow it up into a reason not to support bike infrastructure. Are you against other people riding bikes? Come on, all those -ize places have snow like we do. Here are some suggestions: 

or, closer to home, check out Bobcat Equipment snowblower attachments. As was noted in the discussion, there is no reason why the city which already plows streets and park paths can't get a bike path clear. Not to mention that even if they can't, we haven't lost anything and we can still take the lane a la vehicular cyclists all winter, and enjoy our lane all summer. Which would be a shame for the kids going to school, since school's mostly in winter...

 

The other transit options mentioned like bus rapid transit are a good idea, especially since nobody has to put tracks in the street, but I just don't see them as an either/or zero sum option when presented against cycletracks. Sure, Ashland needs a tram or, if you want, a South American style bus rapid transit system. But that still leaves space for a cycletrack, and if the traffic is slower, that's just a good reason to get on your bike or take public transit where you're going. And I don't think it would be slower. 

 

Would it be a waste of money to build a cycletrack, when we could better spend it elsewhere? Come on. They paid how much for kale planters all around the city? Instead of investing it in making Englewood livable? New historic looking streetlights? Where is all the TIF money going? Maybe there are a lot of places to put money, but as I said I don't see cycletracks as a major competitor to anything.

 

Vehicular cycling advocates make a lot of good points when supporting their idea that a bike is just another vehicle on the road, and that seems to be a good way to ride with the existing nonexistent bike infrastructure (OK, a parking garage named after a fast food chain exists). But, like the other people opposed to having a safe track to ride on, they aren't making a good case to me about what that kid on his bike or the middle aged lady out grocery shopping are supposed to do to keep themselves safe. If that kid or that lady knows that taking the bike is a safe, reliable option to get where they want to go, maybe they will. If we have safe, reliable cycletracks taking the bike becomes a better option for all of us for every short trip, and we will all benefit by getting out, getting exercise, and getting where we're going without needing parking.

 

Thanks again for your input on this thread.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Becca on February 10, 2011 at 2:49am

Allen Wrench, you bring up a very good point with this comment.  And I'll admit that I haven't taken this into consideration before.  Whenever I'm in a discussion about the need for increased bicycle traffic (and less cars) in Chicago, I always imagine that increased traffic looking a lot like the current cycling group: commuters and 20something riders on old road bikes. 

 

I haven't properly considered how more dedicated and safe bike lanes could bring an entirely new group of people out on their bikes.  You mentioned kids riding their bikes to school and people going grocery shopping.  After I read that, I realized I have almost never seen either of those 2 groups on the streets of Chicago.  Bike lanes separated from traffic would certainly encourage them to get out and ride.

 

I still think certain streets of Chicago have too much traffic to fit in a bike lane or cycletrack.  But it would be wonderful to see more of them on the many, many streets that have room.  We all think of certain streets as "bike streets" because of the presence of a lane and lower traffic volume.  It would be great to see that number go up. 

But, like the other people opposed to having a safe track to ride on, they aren't making a good case to me about what that kid on his bike or the middle aged lady out grocery shopping are supposed to do to keep themselves safe. If that kid or that lady knows that taking the bike is a safe, reliable option to get where they want to go, maybe they will.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page