Redefining North Lake Shore Drive

The ever-entertaining tag team of IDOT and CDOT are gearing up for the planning process of epic proportions:  North Lake Shore Drive, from Grand to Hollywood.  IDOT would most likely enjoy seeing LSD continue down the path as an interstate lite rather than a boulevard that cuts through the park and hugs the shoreline.  If you'd like to make your voice heard, the project team is hold three public meetings starting two weeks from now. They are on:

Tuesday, August 6, 2013, 6:00 – 8:00 p.m.
Gill Park, 825 W. Sheridan Road, 3rd Floor

Wednesday, August 7, 2013, 6:00 – 8:00 p.m.
Truman College, 1145 W. Wilson Avenue, Atrium

Thursday, August 8, 2013, 6:00 – 8:00 p.m.
Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum, 2430 N. Cannon Drive, South Gallery

A collection of non-profit and civic groups also drafted a set of principals that push the boundaries on what could be possible with the reconstruction, including aggressively pushing the expansion and improvement of the trail and its access points.  That document can be found here.

Views: 2058

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on July 25, 2013 at 10:04am

And here's Steven Vance's take on StreetsBlog.

Permalink Reply by Tricolor on July 25, 2013 at 10:28am

Leave it as it is; raise the speed limit to 60 so cops don't cause pileups when they lurk and fix the uneven pavement and poorly patched potholes.

Does this mean we're done with the 'last X miles' presentations the never went anywhere?

Permalink Reply by pceasy on July 25, 2013 at 10:37am

Do something about the trail crossings with cars between Montrose to Foster so I don't have to guess whether or not some driver realizes I have the right of way. 

Permalink Reply by Tricolor on July 25, 2013 at 10:54am

Oh yeah, those four crossing need bridges or tunnels or something.  It's bad for drivers that can get stuck there for a long time and bikes that get hit when drivers run out of patience.

I'd almost go so far as to suggest traffic lights.

Permalink Reply by Davo on July 25, 2013 at 10:57am

I think that your traffic light idea would be the most cost effective way to deal with those intersections. 

Tricolor said:

Oh yeah, those four crossing need bridges or tunnels or something.  It's bad for drivers that can get stuck there for a long time and bikes that get hit when drivers run out of patience.

I'd almost go so far as to suggest traffic lights.

Permalink Reply by pceasy on July 25, 2013 at 11:05am

I'd prefer a bridge or tunnel or limiting the access of cars into that area. I'd prefer not having to stop like I have to just about every other part of this city. 

Tricolor said:

Oh yeah, those four crossing need bridges or tunnels or something.  It's bad for drivers that can get stuck there for a long time and bikes that get hit when drivers run out of patience.

I'd almost go so far as to suggest traffic lights.

Permalink Reply by Davo on July 25, 2013 at 11:14am

I was thinking that the traffic light could be triggered by a car after it being there for at least 10 seconds. Then the light for car traffic would be no longer than 20 seconds. This way the LFP would still get priority, and we wouldn't have the headache of trail downtime for bridge or tunnel construction. In fact, the car traffic would be the only thing that would be hurt as they installed the sensors for the traffic signals.

Permalink Reply by pceasy on July 25, 2013 at 12:23pm

That's a great idea! 

Davo said:

I was thinking that the traffic light could be triggered by a car after it being there for at least 10 seconds. Then the light for car traffic would be no longer than 20 seconds. This way the LFP would still get priority, and we wouldn't have the headache of trail downtime for bridge or tunnel construction. In fact, the car traffic would be the only thing that would be hurt as they installed the sensors for the traffic signals.

Permalink Reply by Tricolor on July 26, 2013 at 4:18am

Are all four crossings in the 48th Ward?  Maybe it'd be worth suggesting to the alderman.

Permalink Reply by Jason W on July 26, 2013 at 5:47am

How much is all this going to cost, and why now? It is so much better maintained then much of the city already. I wonder if that area wasn't the rich area of the city would this even be considered at this time?

Permalink Reply by Tricolor on July 26, 2013 at 6:05am

Why not now?  The city put in the center of the road 'Yield to Peds' markers but busy path traffic can cause some big tie-ups.  It's been like that for years, and for years I've seen lots of close calls at each of the four intersections.  There's nothing like these four intersections along the rest of the trail all the way down to 71st street.  31st street harbor has an underpass under construction and the two or three street crossings have traffic lights.

Permalink Reply by Eli on July 26, 2013 at 6:37am

A relevant bit from the city's 2012 bicycle crash report:

The majority of bicycle crashes occurred at intersections (Table 10). Approximately 55 percent of bicycle injury and fatality crashes occurred at intersections. The intersections with the highest percentage of bicycle crashes included Halsted, Milwaukee and Fullerton Avenues. Additionally, the intersection of the Lakefront Trail and Montrose Avenue had more than 15 crashes in the study period.

Looking at the accompanying graphic, it's clear this is the most crash-prone intersection north of Fullerton.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't really see why a simple over- or underpass there would be exceptionally expensive. On the North Branch Trail there are numerous simple overpasses over busy streets (and at least one underpass). On the North Shore Channel Trail there are a number of underpasses. Neither trail is used nearly as heavily as the Lakefront Trail.

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service