Let's Get Cycletracks

Over the past few wintry days I've noticed that even on the major traffic corridors (like Ashland from 290 to Bryn Mawr for example)  there's between a half a lane and a lane of plowed snow on the right, moving parked cars out into the traffic and limiting travel lanes. But the car traffic doesn't seem any worse than usual.

 

There's no reason why that half a lane of space could not be used full time to put in a bike cycletrack between the sidewalk and the parked cars. 

 

Any thoughts?

Views: 94

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by travesty on February 10, 2011 at 4:51am

So allen wrench went ahead a made a major post, which is good, but since he characterizes people's "thinking" and not what they write, I'm not inclined to further participation in this discussion at this time.

Duppie and Becka: Thanks for the info n stuff.

I was envisioning both sides of parked cars be eliminated, all the time. I felt even that this would be necessary for a cycletrack to be effective. In that case we were talking about different things, but you were apparently more ontopic, sorry for the confusion on my part.

If parking were just gone, I would be OK with plowed snow half filling cycletracks on both sides, I feel that would be a worthy compromise. But I'm sort of asking still, why Ashland, and why North ave even? I think side streets as bike ways should be held up for comparison to this cycletracks on major corridors idea of Allen Wrench.

Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on February 10, 2011 at 6:01am

I swear I've seriously had greater success convincing evangelicals that same-sex marriage would provide a net benefit to society than I have in getting progressives to reconsider their grand planning schemes. Especially stubborn is the "Build It And They Will Come" mentality positing that a lack of demand can always be overcome by a flood of subsidy. When confronted by the cold reality of a certain examples like, say, Detroit's People Mover, the explanation for any project's catastrophic failure almost invariably is that it simply wasn't executed properly due to obstruction on behalf of said project's opposition. I would expect no lesser blame deflection should some theoretical cycle tracks come to fruition here and subsequently crumble from neglect and lack of use. It's not that nobody wanted them - it's that we didn't push them aggressively enough and let the Doubting Thomases get in our way!

 

Also, have any of you ever stopped to think about the possibility that much of the non-cycling public is simply disinterested in the act of riding a bicycle altogether, no matter the circumstances? And have so many of you become so detached from your youth that you seriously believe the only way to get children to ride bikes is to build special accommodations for them? Did the lack of cycle tracks in the bubble your parents raised you in keep you from riding a bike when you were a kid? No? Then what's so dramatically different about the current crop of budding cyclists?

 

Perhaps I wouldn't come off as such a reactionary had this thread been titled "What Are Your Thoughts On Cycle Tracks?", but it isn't. It's a call to action. Let's get these things, DAMMIT. Europe has them and whatever works there must work here as well. Fine, revel in your Eurofetish. I'm originally from Europe too, so I understand the appeal. Just remember though, that where you see a socialized utopia I see PIIGS slurping at the trough impervious to their imminent demise. Nobody's perfect.

Permalink Reply by Becca on February 10, 2011 at 6:14am

Michael, I'm not going to tackle most of your overly-political post, just the comment below.

 

We're discussing cycletracks in downtown Chicago, mainly in areas that get heavy foot, bike and auto traffic all at once.  That makes for a very intimidating set of obstacle and dangers that cyclists are uniquely exposed to.  And for a child, that kind of environment is just not safe.  There's every chance that many children with bikes want to get out and ride, as much as in past years, but they can't for fear of their safety.  Or maybe their moms won't let them go farther than their small side street. 

 

I grew up in the suburbs of Chicago, where there's plenty of room on the road for a kid just zipping around.  On some streets you'll get one car per 30 minutes.  But downtown Chicago is just not like that.  Cycletracks would be a good way to make downtown roads safer for cyclists who are uncomfortable with the idea of dodging CTA buses and giant potholes every day.

Michael Perz said:

And have so many of you become so detached from your youth that you seriously believe the only way to get children to ride bikes is to build special accommodations for them? Did the lack of cycle tracks in the bubble your parents raised you in keep you from riding a bike when you were a kid? No? Then what's so dramatically different about the current crop of budding cyclists?

 

Permalink Reply by Duppie on February 10, 2011 at 6:44am

You wouldn't come off as a reactionary, if you had just stated your concerns, instead of engaging in Europhobian blather.

In urban planning, there needs to be a balance between government planning and free market enterprise, but I would argue that in the US that balance if anything is too far in the direction of free market enterprise.The North/Clybourn corridor would be a good example of not enough urban planning


Michael Perz said:

Perhaps I wouldn't come off as such a reactionary [...]

Permalink Reply by Joe TV on February 10, 2011 at 6:48am

GRENADE!!!!!

 

Harvard: Cyclists 28 times safer on separated two way lane than amid traffic.

 

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/02/09/021011-news-bike-lanes-1/

Permalink Reply by Martha Williams on February 10, 2011 at 6:49am

Allen Wrench, Thanks for starting this discussion.  We know that Cycletracks work because there are plenty places in the world, with way less room than the United States, that make it work well.  

I think there are streets in Chicago where a Cycletrack would be perfect.  I was just discussing this with a friend, who was part of a sit down meeting with their alderman.  One of the topics of discussion was installing a cycletrack along Cermak St. connecting UIC, Pilsen, and Chinatown!  Specifically mentioned was kids being able to ride their bikes to school, and connecting different art districts.  Why not try it out, and see if it works!?  What do we have to lose.  

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on February 10, 2011 at 6:54am

You are going to come across as a reactionary because this board is extremely far left/progressive-leaning and anyone who doesn't get on board with "ram this big government spending project through NOW DAMNIT" is considered a teabagging fascist right-wing nutjob...

 

But that's OK I guess.  I'm used to it, as well as being called a Pinko-socialist hippie baby-killer in other forums I participate in that happen to lean the other way and are dominated by more conservative elements.  

 

It's funny how far classic liberalism has come from the 70's when we were dodging tear gas in the streets and protesting "the man," the feddies, and the military-industrial complex and hated the government.  Now they ARE it...


Michael Perz said:

Perhaps I wouldn't come off as such a reactionary had this thread been titled "What Are Your Thoughts On Cycle Tracks?", but it isn't. It's a call to action. Let's get these things, DAMMIT. Europe has them and whatever works there must work here as well. Fine, revel in your Eurofetish. I'm originally from Europe too, so I understand the appeal. Just remember though, that where you see a socialized utopia I see PIIGS slurping at the trough impervious to their imminent demise. Nobody's perfect.

Permalink Reply by jennifer james on February 10, 2011 at 7:30am

Uh ...so highway spending is conservative and cycling spending is..not. I certainly don't call anyone making a comment here reactionary whatever their thoughts but I think tagging me with a label for being pro cycling is curious. Where are the dollars really going that I spend now and have spent every year? Are they working for me. Right now in Chicago no.

 I pay plenty of taxes to the feds and the city. Where is my piece of the transportation pie? It isn't on the road when my kid can't use it to get the four miles school he can easily ride or even take his bike on the train during rush hour to commute. I already pay for the public health costs of rising asthma and fat kid/ parent costs-and that isn't going to change. Sitting on your butt infrastructure hasn't come cheap that's for sure. One third of the city takes public transport, walks or bikes every trip they make here and they pay plenty of taxes too. Considering the tax structure on the middle class and lower some pay a higher ratio of their incomes than folks who might have more transportation options. Calling me names because I want to get some of my tax dollars to work for me seems kind of avoiding the topic. For all you know I was the president of my college republican club. I just want a street and trains that work for me paid for by the dollars I contribute. Does it get more conservative than that?

Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on February 10, 2011 at 7:33am

Joe, while I appreciate your Dropping of Mad Facts to this otherwise lacking discussion the cited article leaves me with more questions than answers. For example:

 

Only three of the country's 100 largest cities have no separated bike lanes: Newark, N.J., Hialeah, Fl., and Lubbock, Texas. 

 

This leads me to wonder how exactly the authors of the study define separated lanes, because the inclusion of Chicago to the list of haves seems implicit. I don't think the study is exclusive to the cycle tracks being discussed nor does it lend support for that particular design.

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on February 10, 2011 at 7:41am

Figures lie when liars figure -you can prove just about anything with data from studies when things are taken out of context or fudged "just a little."  

 

Scientific studies have been so politically motivated these days that just about nothing can be trusted anymore by the average layman because only those "in the know" who have their fingers on the pulse of what is going on have a clue any more.  But who can you trust?  All the researchers themselves seem to be politically motivated and take sides themselves.  

 

One can just about "follow the money" from any  science done these days to see which politically polarized group has funded the "junk science" because the outcome always supports the sugar-daddies who are bankrolling it. 

Michael Perz said:

 

 

This leads me to wonder how exactly the authors of the study define separated lanes, because the inclusion of Chicago to the list of haves seems implicit. I don't think the study is exclusive to the cycle tracks being discussed nor does it lend support for that particular design.

Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on February 10, 2011 at 7:47am
Whoa, who said anything about highway spending? Or conservatism?
Permalink Reply by T.C. O'Rourke on February 11, 2011 at 9:46am

Duppie, I have not missed your point; I disagree with it.

 

1) Pushing cycling to trails, side streets (Wolcott) and secondary arterials (Damen) makes cyclists second class citizens.  The very thing that makes those routes attractive to cyclists is the very same that makes them unattractive to motorists: that they see less and slower moving motor traffic and are not given priority at intersections. However, the fact that these routes are currently safer and more enjoyable to cycle is a merely function of allocation of space in the major corridors; with proper and just planning, the reverse could be true.

 

2) Side streets and secondary arterials are frequently disrupted/interrupted and require extensive navigation.  Major arterials traverse obstacles.  Thus major arterials draw more traffic, become more critical and therefore draw more investment.  Currently this investment is about moving more motor-vehicles through less space in a faster capacity, in which cycling suffers.  A good example of this is the North Av. bridge, which was far more pleasant to cross before reconstruction.

 

By accepting the "alternative route" cycling plan, we allow planners to short cyclists in major investments to infrastructure.  "In a time of fiscal restraint and limited capital available" we need to demand our fair share.

 

3) If I am riding to a destination on Ashalnd, bike infrastructure on Wolcott is of limited use.  Given the density of businesses, schools and other institutions on Ashland, my destination is far more likely to be there than on Wolcott.

When traveling on Western Av., I am often surprised by new/different/closed business that exist within a few miles from my home.  This is because I probably drive or take the bus on Western <10 times a year.  I don't cycle Western Av. often, because it is unpleasant and somewhat less safe.  Therefore, I am excluded from a range of goods & service providers, who would be otherwise conveniently located to me.  Likewise, they are excluded from my business.  All because I choose to travel by bicycle.

 

4)  If we are really concerned about investing our limited resources wisely, bicycle infrastructure vs. expanding major arterial motor-vehicle capacity is the way to go.

 

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

 

You got that right, brother.

 

T.C.

 

Duppie said:

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?

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service