The Chainlink

No Biking On The Riverwalk? New Ordinance Would Force Bicyclists To Walk Their Rides

"The Riverwalk already has signs that say bicyclists should walk their bikes, but the ordinance would make it so the path’s security staff could tell bicyclists it was against the law to ride their bikes there, Reilly said."

"Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd) has proposed an ordinance that would prohibit bike riding on the Riverwalk."

Views: 344

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Don't forget to repay the federal grant.

Active Trans has come out against the ban, noting that the riverwalk was originally conceived as a bike and pedestrian facility.

With the addition of better access and more attractions, the Riverwalk has become much more popular than it was when first conceived.

Therefore it makes sense that cycling be restricted and controlled to some extent.  The Alderman is correct.  ATA is again on the wrong side on this issue.  Does ATA forget that their middle name is TRANSPORTATION?  Which includes walking and pedestrian safety.  ATA needs to adjust its priorities to match its name change; it is no longer just about bikes.

It's not enjoyable to ride down there when it's busy anyways. I've stayed away since I had to practically walk my bicycle in order to avoid the double wide stroller crowd and the hands across America groups. The 606 closer to Wicker Park has become the same way.

How about just banning groups of people walking shoulder to shoulder instead of in a single file.

Like Juan said, I don't usually ride there anyway because it's too crowded. Except during late hours when it's not so crowded and during the colder months.

Once again, a CBS Chicago owned media outlet gives a one-sided, anti-bike report about the Chicago Riverwalk situation airing repetitively this weekend without even bothering to mention the fact that the federal funds granted for the project stipulated for and included the use for bicycles on it's path. Great fair and even-handed reporting by WBBM Newsradio 780 political reporter Craig Dellimore. Thanks!

Alderman Reilly is inferring that cyclists don't have any common sense in judging how to properly use the riverwalk so he wants to pass the ordinance to make the use by all cyclists illegal. Even those with common sense!  Another, thanks!

I have little problem with a ban. The river walk is not very wide and can be claustrophobic for pedestrians without the presence of bikes. I would not imagine riding my bike there. In this a high  traffic tourist area bicycle traffic will lead to the eventual stupid decision that none of us would make that would provide fodder for all the haters.  Add all that to the reality that most ingress/egress is by stairs.  I agree with clp.

Would rather see ATA focus its efforts on a PBL on Wacker (from Dearborn to Jackson? I dunno).

David and clp are missing the point about the Riverwalk. Of course it is too congested during certain times of the year and not proper for cyclists to pedal through without the common sense of the proper time to walk it on the Riverwalk. The point is that the alderman wants to ban and possibly ticket cyclists for something that was funded in a federal grant with the stipulation that it would be used in part by cyclists. 

Otherwise, If the alderman goes through with this ban I believe it would be very honorable of him to also push as hard and fast for a protected bike lane on the street above the Riverwalk.

I hear you but still marvel at how the river walk was ever really intended to be for bikes. I work downtown and have often walked on the river walk and it simply makes no sense to me as a place for bikes. I get the 606 and understand that it is intended for casual riding. The river walk is difficult to access on a bike and there are some passes that are quite narrow.  The proposed ordinance is certainly a shrill reaction. Still, even at a time of day or year when traffic is low, what purpose is there for bikes on the river walk? It is not an optimal or even passable place for transportation. I guess somebody working or dining there  may have reason for a bike but I don't get it otherwise. 

i just rode down there to get to the lakefront path after the storm. There's your purpose. Some guy pushing a garbage can almost hit me, let's ban garbage cans down there too. i don't see any purposes for garbage cans on the riverwalk. People should take their trash with them, the riverwalk wasn't built for garbage cans. That's how stupid this whole conversation is. Let's just ban everything. While we are at it, can we ban people from blocking the dearborn bikelane at the intersections?



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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service