Scrap the flyover Build a Protected Bike Lane on lower LSD

In this budget crunched era, the flyover on LakeShore Drive is a waste when they could just put a Protected Bike Lane on the lower bridge of LSD.  Seems like there is plenty of room on the roadway on the East lanes to separate pedestrians and bikes.  I often Jump the curb to the roadway from the sidewalk on the north side of the bottleneck to avoid Peds and slow bikes on the sidewalk.  Seems like an easy fix. Anyone know why they haven't done it yet?

Views: 1410

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Duppie on October 13, 2011 at 5:36am

They haven't done it yet, because the issue isn't just that the sidewalk is too narrow. There are also two dangerous intersections with poor visibility, and a lot of cross traffic (both cars and pedestrians). A PBL alone would not resolve this.

 

A flyover, despite its costs, make a lot of sense in this particular situation, because it will separate thru traffic from local traffic.

Permalink Reply by Chuckchuck on October 13, 2011 at 5:41am
But my point is they will never build it.  With all the budget cutting there is no way.  Let's make it safer in the mean time.
Permalink Reply by David on October 13, 2011 at 6:12am

A PBL would do a lot of good though.  If you made replaced the rightmost lane with a two-way PBL that would ease a lot of the congestion and more importantly it would eliminate the ped-bike-skater bottleneck at the intersections, which is where things really seem dangerous.    You'd still be sharing the walkbridge a little to the south, but that's a much smaller stretch. And visibility for bikes would be much better without having to circle around those big poles on the sidewalk.

 

I don't think the effect on traffic would be great, but that's hard to say.  Having two car lanes feeding into a single-lane on-ramp doesn't seem all that useful, and Grand certainly doesn't need to be a two-way street east of LSD, which seems to be a sop to Lakepoint tower.  I wonder if CDOT did any any studies on it during the flyover proposal period.


Duppie said:

They haven't done it yet, because the issue isn't just that the sidewalk is too narrow. There are also two dangerous intersections with poor visibility, and a lot of cross traffic (both cars and pedestrians). A PBL alone would not resolve this.

 

A flyover, despite its costs, make a lot of sense in this particular situation, because it will separate thru traffic from local traffic.

Permalink Reply by Duppie on October 13, 2011 at 6:50am

Not sure what budget cutting you are referring to.

The majority of Navy Pier flyover costs are borne by CMAQ, with matching grants (I think about 20% of total costs) from local governments. If I am not mistaken the flyover was just granted $11.3 million today. With that money available and it being a high profile project, and our new mayor being pro-biking, I do think that in fact will be built. 

See a list of CMAQ grants here:
http://www.bikelib.org/2011/10/cmaq-grants-announced-include-bike-t...

 

Chuckchuck said:

But my point is they will never build it.  With all the budget cutting there is no way.  Let's make it safer in the mean time.
Permalink Reply by Chuckchuck on October 13, 2011 at 6:57am
Watch all those matching grants go "poof!" and for 5 more years we'll be sharing the sidewalk. Is a PBL in the meantime too much to ask?
Permalink Reply by in it to win it 8.0 mi on October 13, 2011 at 7:53am

I say leave it as is.  I ride it most of the year.  When it is crowded it adds maybe 5 minutes to my commute.  I can live with that.  It's only dangerous for those who make it dangerous.

 

Permalink Reply by Chuckchuck on October 13, 2011 at 11:14am
Really? 40 Million on a flyover when there are so many pressing needs for the cycling community such as red zones and better lane painting? Jurisdiction problems solved with a 40 million dollar bridge?  When a few protective poles and some paint and some good signage would do?  Big contracts reek of corruption in this city.  I still predict it bites the dust and we need a plan B.
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on October 13, 2011 at 11:17am
The flyover would be part of the Lakefront Path, and it's not just for cyclists.  A flyover would benefit many more people.

Chuckchuck said:
Really? 40 Million on a flyover when there are so many pressing needs for the cycling community such as red zones and better lane painting? Jurisdiction problems solved with a 40 million dollar bridge?  When a few protective poles and some paint and some good signage would do?  Big contracts reek of corruption in this city.  I still predict it bites the dust and we need a plan B.
Permalink Reply by Duppie on October 13, 2011 at 1:22pm

For a guy that seems to know very little about the actual funding process of bicycling infrastructure and urban planning in general, and that appears to be unfamiliar with the progress on the flyover so far, you definitely do have a strong opinion on the matter... 

Chuckchuck said:

Really? 40 Million on a flyover when there are so many pressing needs for the cycling community such as red zones and better lane painting? Jurisdiction problems solved with a 40 million dollar bridge?  When a few protective poles and some paint and some good signage would do?  Big contracts reek of corruption in this city.  I still predict it bites the dust and we need a plan B.
Permalink Reply by johnmont on October 13, 2011 at 2:57pm
Gotta say I think the flyover is a good idea as well....it's doing things right.
Permalink Reply by Chuckchuck on October 14, 2011 at 10:35am
Guess I hit a nerve. Just was hoping for a rational discussion but I get ad hominem attacks.  No strong opinions allowed.  (there's too much money on the line)

Duppie said:

For a guy that seems to know very little about the actual funding process of bicycling infrastructure and urban planning in general, and that appears to be unfamiliar with the progress on the flyover so far, you definitely do have a strong opinion on the matter... 

Chuckchuck said:

Really? 40 Million on a flyover when there are so many pressing needs for the cycling community such as red zones and better lane painting? Jurisdiction problems solved with a 40 million dollar bridge?  When a few protective poles and some paint and some good signage would do?  Big contracts reek of corruption in this city.  I still predict it bites the dust and we need a plan B.
Permalink Reply by Chuckchuck on March 7, 2013 at 6:13am

I'd like to rekindle this discussion if anyone is game?

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service