"Rush Hour Lanes" - fact or fiction, and their relevance for cyclists

So staff at the Field Museum were treated to an Active Trans discussion in December on the City's new bike initiative, and I was fairly astonished by the blank looks I saw when I brought up my #1 pet peeve, the so-called "rush hour lanes."

It occurred to me that cyclists are probably largely unaware of this sentiment, namely that when the major arterial streets have no parking along one side during rush hour (either 7 - 9 am or 4 - 6 pm) that this space then formally becomes an extra lane for traffic. 

Many drivers I've spoken to seem to sincerely believe that the City has eliminated that parking to create an extra lane of traffic to ease gridlock during rush hour and that they are doing nothing wrong.  My response has been that by banning the parking the City is simply easing gridlock due to cars stopping traffic while they are pulling in and out of parking spaces on busy streets (Sheridan in Rogers Park being a good example).

The practice of drivers trying to race around traffic on the right using this space is the single most dangerous practice I've observed in 30 years of riding on the street. 

Obviously this practice is most detrimental to cyclists, who then have cars trying to wedge themselves where we belong.  But it's compounded by the larger problem of angry and impatient drivers who apparently believe it's OK to pass traffic illegally on the right in these cases - and who IMO then just start doing it anytime they can get away with it, using right turn lanes, bus lanes, etc.

The facts as I see them are quite clear.  Simply having a parking ban along street A does not equate to a new lane of traffic. A lane is required under law to have actual striping - you can't simply drive anywhere your car will fit on the street.  My "evidence A" would be that Chicago does have reversible lanes up where LSD ends, and those are clearly marked with signage. IMO these are clearly only lanes in the imagination of some drivers, but that the City is complicit by not enforcing traffic law and ticketing abusers. 

I'm curious how many folks are aware of this practice/terminology, as I suspect if this was more widely known there would be a lot more outrage.  Many of the City's best arterials, at least on the North Side, have these rush hour parking restrictions (eg, NOT "rush hour lanes") and I firmly believe that until we get this addressed we can add bike lanes until the sun implodes and we won't make cycling much better in Chicago.

Views: 588

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David on January 3, 2012 at 8:36am
I don't own a car, but I always assumed with your co-workers that those were rush hour lanes.  In fact, after a tiny bit of googling, it looks like your assumption is incorrect.  CDOT suggested getting rid of rush hour parking restrictions recently precisely because of the problem of bikes.   Check out this copy of an old Sun Times column.
"We found a lot of outdated rush-hour restrictions," said Brian Steele, department spokesman.

One example is the stretch of North Lincoln Avenue between 2900 and 3260. It has a bike lane, and it's not safe to have a bike lane with rush- hour parking restrictions, because then traffic is flowing on either side of bicyclists, Steele said.

That's a CDOT spokesman, and even he's assuming that cars are allowed to drive in those lanes.  
Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on January 3, 2012 at 9:01am

Thanks, but my point wasn't that my co-workers thought they were lanes, it was that as cyclists, they had never even heard of the concept, as it's clearly motorist-biased.

I can't access the whole article, but I remember when it came out - the topic was really about what the City could/couldn't do after the parking meter debacle, so you have to keep that in mind.  I grew up right off of Lincoln and I can tell you that at least since the 70s Lincoln Avenue has never been a street with 4 lanes of through traffic.

But read it again - Steele is not saying those are legal lanes, he is acknowledging drivers treat them as such.  And that's not a direct quote.  This is a fine but extremely important distinction, it's a lot like the "dibs" system - it is clearly illegal to put trash in the street, but the City has tolerated it for so long it's taken on a life of its own.

Either way, barring a municipal code which distinguishes Chicago from the rest of Illinois, these aren't technically lanes.  IDOT's website is pdf only so I can't link the text, but a street with no lane divider clearly painted is a single lane only, it's cut and dry. 

Why I find it maddening is that even disregarding how dangerous this is for cyclists (which is what Steele was actually talking about), traffic flow is not actually helped by cars using this space - only by addressing bottlenecks can traffic flow actually improve. 

This practice actually makes traffic worse, because even if we were to assume said "rush hour lanes" existed, they end at intersections with bus stops and right turn only lanes - which for the arterials I'm mostly familiar with (Diversey & Belmont), means traffic only gets this extra lane in between major intersections, which doesn't help.

Permalink Reply by Davo on January 3, 2012 at 9:35am

Damen, between Diversey and Belmont, used to be a horrible example of "Rush Hour" lanes a few years back. I have nearly been cut off many times coming north on my commute home by carholes who want to get that . I don't see that at all anymore. I might be hitting that section a little bit later or people have chosen alternate routes. Either way, I am glad I don't have to deal with that nonsense anymore.

When I had to deal with these drivers, I would take the whole "rush lane" and try my best to just keep pace with the car on my left. If I was going faster than traffic, I would deliberately slow down so the cars behind me couldn't get that car length ahead.

Permalink Reply by Tim S on January 11, 2012 at 7:51am

Interesting, I always assumed the parking restrictions were to allow for an additional lane of traffic as well.

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on January 11, 2012 at 8:20am

In practice, that's how they are used in many cases. 

But a lane needs to be marked as such, so if there's no dashed white line showing the lane, I don't see how a no parking sign passes legal muster.  It's not like it would be that hard to note on these signs that they are no parking zones functioning as lanes.

The issue for cyclists is we are entitled - legally/unambiguously - to ride on streets, and to have 3 feet of passing space between us and traffic.  When these streets do become defacto 3 lane streets, there really is no room whatsoever for us, much less 3 feet of space between us and traffic.

I'd love to bike more often than I do, but with a kid in school I can't in good conscience bike with her on her trail-a-bike on a street like Belmont.  Unfortunately I don't see even our new enlightened CDOT czar addressing this.



Tim S said:

Interesting, I always assumed the parking restrictions were to allow for an additional lane of traffic as well.

Permalink Reply by Tony Adams on January 11, 2012 at 6:12pm

Thanks for bringing this up Carter! Cars passing each other on the right in general is hugely aggravating. There are tons of streets that have sections a defacto extra (imaginary) lane for a while, but inevitably parking starts up again making for a dangerous choke point. 

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service