Vote for Miguel delValle! Rahm is not interested in bettering Chicago.

Don't mean to get all political, but I just read Rahm's Wiki page, read some other info on him and the Chicago machine and pulled some gems for a These Blog Postings . What does everyone else think about this kind of individual continuing to set the tone for our city?

I don't like it a bit.

Del Valle seems awesome! anyone have any dirt I should know about him before joining his team for sure? (hint... there was none. I joined his team for sure!)

Love ya!

Going for a ride.....

Brrr......

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Vilda on January 31, 2011 at 11:18am

so wait are the people above Doom sayin that pedestrians aren't already in the bike lane? and that crap isnt in the bike lane already? generally i encounter more garbage and potholes in the bike lane as well as ups/fed ex trucks and then pedestrian joggers, people hailing cabs, gettin in there cars, etc... and if it's covered in snow we go back to bein in the lane.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on January 31, 2011 at 11:58am

It'll just be worse, and we'll be trapped in there between the cars and the ke curb. Not only will we be trapped, but if the city spends a whole crapload of money making these and we don't like them we might be forced to use them and lose the right to use the real road or even be forced off of certain roads that don't have them.

I see this as a bad thing -our own little time-out corner. Forget about "share the road" -we will likely be legally banished to these speed-limited pedestrian & delivery-vehicle-littered narrow perhaps even curbed-in debris lanes with few other alternatives but to use the narrow garbage-filled dumpster corridors.

Or that's the fear we have. I guess we'll see how it plays out.

Gabe said:

so wait are the people above Doom sayin that pedestrians aren't already in the bike lane? and that crap isnt in the bike lane already?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on January 31, 2011 at 1:23pm

A few more thoughts:

Maybe they will make it a little bit wider than a typical bike lane but make it 2-way (see bike jousting in an earlier thread) and put it only on one side of the road -which would take up less space than having a lane on both sides.

At least that way the car-dooring issue would be a head-on issue and people opening the car door would be facing the bike traffic the door would interfere with -hopefully helping a little because they are at least facing the right way to look even though they probably won't care to check anyhow. When the bikes DO get doored anyway they will at least be hitting at a glancing blow of a half-opened door from the outside rather than the "suicide" direction from the inside of the door getting "caught in the crotch" of the door. I suppose I'd rather be doored this way than the other way if I had to make a choice.

If the bikes were all on the one side of the road it'd make it easier to control us in traffic although turning left would be more complex. We'd have to go back to the old "around the square" method of left turning where you go across the street and wait for the light to turn then move along with traffic on the perpendicular road you have turned left onto as that road had the green. Perhaps in some of the busyier/nastier intersections they'd have extra traffic light signals for the bikes to obey/follow.

If bikes didn't want to use these lanes there'd be mucho friction between the autos and those bikes in the smaller area of the road left for "the cars" and I'd imagine calls for laws to force bikes into the segregated bike lanes. Maybe even banning bike from other nearby/parallel main arterial traffic routes that don't have them -funneling even more bikes into the crowded jousting corridors.

I don't think "separate but equal" road lanes for bikes and cars is a good idea. But I see that it may be coming to an arterial city street near you soon. We probably won't be given a choice as bicyclists. When it comes down from Da Mayor it'll be a Fait accompli and a bunch of these abominations will be built all at the same time with much money spent. They won't want to tear them back out once they find out they have issues. They'll just pass a bunch of laws like speed limits for "the safety of the users" once collisions with peds and other bikes becomes a matter of record. I don't really like where it will go from there.

Duane Waller said:

Also, what about slower riders? You really have no room to pass, do you? Yeah, this idea is all sorts of wonderful.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Duppie on January 31, 2011 at 1:33pm

Yeah, keep on throwing out arguments against cycle tracks. That way we will have continue to have the image of freak-show forever.

Reality is that to see real increases in bicycling as a transportation mode, you do need to invest money in infrastructure. It's a fact that all successful cities (European as well as US) share. Cycle tracks are one of the (various) investmenst a city can make to increase ridership. Dissing them off hand isn't going to help increasing ridership

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on January 31, 2011 at 1:37pm

A few images of it not sucking too bad -but still "separate but equal."

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on January 31, 2011 at 1:51pm

So discussing something logically by merits is unhelpful?

There are downsides to any idea and telling people to shut up and not discuss them on account of it being "a freak show" is not very egalitarian and openminded.

Oh, I forgot that is the Chicago way. Push something through with muscle and corruption and jam it down the throats of the public. If anyone complains, send "the organization" over to break some kneecaps. Remember Da Mayor and bulldozing the runway of Meigs in the middle of the night?

God forbid anyone bring up that separate but equal facilities might not be a good idea. I'd hate to see bicycles relegated to "bike zones" only and be forced to only use the back door.

Perhaps these ideas might be a better idea and work downtown -but I still think they are a bad idea once you get much outside of the loop. I don't want to be segregated from regular traffic and forced off of OUR ROADS and made to ride on the special crowded sidewalk tracks.

Duppie said:

Yeah, keep on throwing out arguments against cycle tracks. That way we will have continue to have the image of freak-show forever.

Reality is that to see real increases in bicycling as a transportation mode, you do need to invest money in infrastructure. It's a fact that all successful cities (European as well as US) share. Cycle tracks are one of the (various) investmenst a city can make to increase ridership. Dissing them off hand isn't going to help increasing ridership

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Duppie on January 31, 2011 at 2:02pm

James,

What is your plan to increase cycling ridership to double digits from the current low single digits?

James Baum said:

So discussing something logically by merits is unhelpful?

There are downsides to any idea and telling people to shut up and not discuss them on account of it being "a freak show" is not very egalitarian and openminded.

Oh, I forgot that is the Chicago way. Push something through with muscle and corruption and jam it down the throats of the public. If anyone complains, send "the organization" over to break some kneecaps. Remember Da Mayor and bulldozing the runway of Meigs in the middle of the night?

God forbid anyone bring up that separate but equal facilities might not be a good idea. I'd hate to see bicycles relegated to "bike zones" only and be forced to only use the back door.

Perhaps these ideas might be a better idea and work downtown -but I still think they are a bad idea once you get much outside of the loop. I don't want to be segregated from regular traffic and forced off of OUR ROADS and made to ride on the special crowded sidewalk tracks.

Duppie said:

Yeah, keep on throwing out arguments against cycle tracks. That way we will have continue to have the image of freak-show forever.

Reality is that to see real increases in bicycling as a transportation mode, you do need to invest money in infrastructure. It's a fact that all successful cities (European as well as US) share. Cycle tracks are one of the (various) investmenst a city can make to increase ridership. Dissing them off hand isn't going to help increasing ridership

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on January 31, 2011 at 2:10pm

I didn't know it was my job to increase cycling ridership to the double digits. I'm not even sure I think that would necessarily be a good thing to push for that until people are ready to ride bicycles in those numbers on their own.

I'll just do what I do with everything else that doesn't really concern me (Since I'm not emperor of the known universe and all-controlling dictator tasked with running every little function therein) -and that is let the market take it where it's going to go. I will, however fight certain things that I think are a bad idea -like the separate drinking fountain for bicycles.

Why must everything be part of some grand "People's 5-year Plan" steered by the government? They are the ones who got us into this darn mess in the first place by building so many stupid roads. Build roads, cars come. Maybe that wasn't such a good idea in the first place. Who's great idea was that in the first place? Yeah, it was the bicyclists. How did that all work out? Before we go and build MORE infrastructure lets think about the long-term implications we'll be locking ourselves into.

Duppie said:

James,

What is your plan to increase cycling ridership to double digits from the current low single digits?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on January 31, 2011 at 4:22pm

In many areas of the south side, there are relatively few streets that meet all of these criteria for rideability:

1. go through multiple neighborhoods and offer a through-route of 1.5 miles or more
2. have controlled crossings (4-way stop or stoplight) at major streets
3. connect with other rideable routes
4. have traffic conditions/lane configurations that are actually safe for riding.

This is especially true in areas south of Jackson Park or west of California.

The section of Stony Island (1600E) that will get the cycle track (67th to 79th) is a good test location for this concept. The street is like a highway, and is not at all suitable for cyclists in its current configuration. However, it does have many stores and restaurants that are potential destinations once the cycle track is constructed. It will connect the SW corner of Jackson Park with the bike lanes on South Chicago Ave., and connect several neighborhoods and business districts.

The nearest north-south thru streets parallel to the proposed cycle track are as follows. King Dr. (400E) has bike lanes but is 1.5 miles to the west. Cottage Grove (800E, 1 mile away) has heavy, fast traffic and buses, making it a bit intimidating to most cyclists. There is NO street at 1200E that goes through in this north-south section of the grid, which is disrupted by the Metra Electric line. Jeffery (2000E, 1/2 mile to the east) is relatively narrow (1 traffic lane in each direction) with moderate to heavy traffic and buses - somewhat intimidating to cyclists. Yates (2400E, 1 mile to the east) is similar. The next and last thru street to the east, South Shore Dr. (1.5 miles or more to the east), has bike lanes.

In areas where there are few connections between neighborhoods due to highways, rail yards, or other major interruptions to the grid, cycle tracks could create connections that open up transportation cycling to the average rider, which would be a VERY good thing.

If this project succeeds, perhaps we could see future connections in locations like E 103rd St., S. Pulaski, or S. Central. It would be outstanding to have a way to cross some of the big rail yards and the Sanitary & Ship Canal and the Stevenson west of California without having to put the bike on a bus for a distance, or walk a distance in locations where there is no bus.

James Baum said:

...God forbid anyone bring up that separate but equal facilities might not be a good idea. ...

Perhaps these ideas might be a better idea and work downtown -but I still think they are a bad idea once you get much outside of the loop. I don't want to be segregated from regular traffic and forced off of OUR ROADS and made to ride on the special crowded sidewalk tracks.

Duppie said:

Yeah, keep on throwing out arguments against cycle tracks. That way we will have continue to have the image of freak-show forever.

Reality is that to see real increases in bicycling as a transportation mode, you do need to invest money in infrastructure. It's a fact that all successful cities (European as well as US) share. Cycle tracks are one of the (various) investmenst a city can make to increase ridership. Dissing them off hand isn't going to help increasing ridership

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by in it to win it 8.0 mi on February 1, 2011 at 10:04am

This thread has taken a twist to bike lanes, parking, and increasing bike ridership. This is an interesting social study. Of the several million residents of Chicago, bike riders represent a dismal number percentage-wise. Therefore, I am very happy with what the city has done so far for bikers. Can and should more be done? Absolutely. However, to what extent? As I biker I've always promoted the health/freedom/etc. benefits to friends and coworkers. Do I want them to join the club? Absolutely.

Or maybe not. Selfishly, consider how the LFP would look like with four or five times the bike traffic when you are going to work. Or how your favorite route would look like with four or five times the bike traffic. Certainly, one would have to allow for more commute time as automobile drivers do when traffic increases. There would be an increase of bike/bike accidents/altercations. Do I want that? Selfishly, I may be content with the current volume of bikers out there.

Now, for the good of the masses, I will always preach ridership. I've never felt better than when I started commuting by bike. Lost 13 lbs, feel better, scenery is better (it goes on and on). And, truly, I don't think I'll really ever have to worry too much about a five-fold increase in ridership because Americans love their cars/are lazy (yes, me too)/fear doing something "different"/fear exercise/etc.

So, I'll enjoy the benefits we have. I'll continue to ask for more bike friendly accomodations. I'll secretly hope ridership increases enough to keep the benefits coming but no so much that this activity becomes over-regulated.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on February 1, 2011 at 10:20am

I have to agree with most of what you said here and find myself in much the same boat.

I'm fine with the way things are now for the most part -but would like more of the same. A little better marking of the shared bike lanes so that cars start to GET it. Better education of road crews so that when they put up traffic barriers when they are working they don't totally BLOCK the bike lane and take more space for their work site than they really need. I see this all the time -one of those big trailer signs with a generator and the merge left arrow flashing. They have it parked too far to the left and have too many barriers around them to the point where they are just using up the bike lane for no reason and forcing us bikes into traffic unnecessarily when they could have moved the whole darn thing over 2 feet. I think you all know what I mean here as you have seen it too.

I'd like to see something else done downtown though. Maybe these Bike Tracks would help -or maybe go all the way to a few bike boulevards here and there. Also, like it was mentioned earlier, there are dead spaces where a bike corridor could be pushed through where railway stations and other industry is to allow us to cut through an area rather than going all the way around. Also better ways over/around other barriers like the expressways and the river. More bike-oriented bridges and under/over-passes so we don't have to always share the crowded ones there are with the heavy car traffic. These are the real danger zones.

Money is tight, so we can't expect them to spend a lot bike-specific infrastructure. I just would like to see what little they do spend it on be for something really useful to us all and not something that is expensive and we'll regret even having and be forced to use while getting kicked off of our own streets.

We shouldn't just grab any old idea because it "looks good" and seems to be "pro bike" when other, cheaper, better solutions might be the way to go rather than blowing the whole wad on something big and dumb.

in it to win it said:

This thread has taken a twist to bike lanes, parking, and increasing bike ridership. This is an interesting social study. Of the several million residents of Chicago, bike riders represent a dismal number percentage-wise. Therefore, I am very happy with what the city has done so far for bikers. Can and should more be done? Absolutely. However, to what extent? As I biker I've always promoted the health/freedom/etc. benefits to friends and coworkers. Do I want them to join the club? Absolutely.

Or maybe not. Selfishly, consider how the LFP would look like with four or five times the bike traffic when you are going to work. Or how your favorite route would look like with four or five times the bike traffic. Certainly, one would have to allow for more commute time as automobile drivers do when traffic increases. There would be an increase of bike/bike accidents/altercations. Do I want that? Selfishly, I may be content with the current volume of bikers out there.

Now, for the good of the masses, I will always preach ridership. I've never felt better than when I started commuting by bike. Lost 13 lbs, feel better, scenery is better (it goes on and on). And, truly, I don't think I'll really ever have to worry too much about a five-fold increase in ridership because Americans love their cars/are lazy (yes, me too)/fear doing something "different"/fear exercise/etc.

So, I'll enjoy the benefits we have. I'll continue to ask for more bike friendly accomodations. I'll secretly hope ridership increases enough to keep the benefits coming but no so much that this activity becomes over-regulated.