Why isn't CDOT doing more to fix Chicago's dangerous bridges?

CDOT very recently put anti-slip plates on the bike lane portion of the metal-grate Kinzie Street bridge as part of the cycle track project.

 

But several years after Kathy Schubert's letter writing campaign to CDOT resulted in the installation of bike-friendly plates on three bridges, the vast majority of Chicago's bridges are still dangerous to bike on. Why hasn't the city done more to solve this problem?

 

Steven Vance examines the issue in today's post on Grid Chicago:

http://gridchicago.com

 

Keep moving forward,

 

John Greenfield

Views: 635

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on July 22, 2011 at 9:38am

Yes, that's a real missed opportunity. I know a lot of people were bummed when the North Avenue bridge was recently rebuilt as an aesthetically pleasing but completely unbikeable bridge.

Permalink Reply by David on July 22, 2011 at 9:52am

The Chicago Ave. bridge is to me the perfect symbol of CDOT thinking.  They took the primary North-South bike route in the city at Halsted and re-routed all the bike traffic over a bridge that was rated as one of the worst in the city for cyclists. In the few years I've been in Chicago, it just seems like the car-centric attitude completely permeates CDOT. They're not even anti-bike, exactly, it's more that middle management there doesn't even know bikes exist.

 

There's another thread here bemoaning the way the new bike infrastructure seems to be being implemented in a rigid top-down, non-participatory way at CDOT.   I'm sure there's some nice progressive people at CDOT, but from where I'm sitting rigid top-down bike planning seems pretty good given the quality of bike planning that happens at lower levels there.

 

 

Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on July 22, 2011 at 10:01am

I do think the car-centric attitude at CDOT is changing. If you haven't already, check out my interview with new commissioner Gabe Klein here:

http://gridchicago.com/2011/an-interview-with-cdot-commissioner-gab...

 

Permalink Reply by David Barish on July 22, 2011 at 10:35am
Before the Wells Street bridge was given a mini lane for cyclists I was going over the bridge with a friend.  He took the sidewalk.  I asked what he was doing.  Referring to the then recent Boub case, he said, "I'm taking the 'intended user' route."  His tongue was firmly placed in his cheek. However, I wonder if that is what they really intend when they leave the roads and bridges impassable.
Permalink Reply by Steven Vance on July 24, 2011 at 7:20am

You may have made my point more clearly than I did about CDOT ignoring the problem for which it has a study to inform them.

 

Lately, instead of taking the "CARS" detour, I proceed into the "TRUCKS BUSES" detour, northbound on Halsted to northwestbound on Hooker and then eastbound on Division back to Halsted. It's a slightly shorter route than the "CARS" detour. 

By those labels alone, it's clear that BIKES are not welcome. 

 

I wrote about this construction project and its detour situation on my other blog, Steven Can Plan. 


David said:

The Chicago Ave. bridge is to me the perfect symbol of CDOT thinking.  They took the primary North-South bike route in the city at Halsted and re-routed all the bike traffic over a bridge that was rated as one of the worst in the city for cyclists. In the few years I've been in Chicago, it just seems like the car-centric attitude completely permeates CDOT. They're not even anti-bike, exactly, it's more that middle management there doesn't even know bikes exist.

Permalink Reply by Steven Vance on July 24, 2011 at 7:22am
Playing devil's advocate here, a bike lane on the North Avenue bridge wouldn't have connected to a bike lane on either side (none exists). So if the bridge is unbikeable, so are the adjacent streets. 

John Greenfield said:

Yes, that's a real missed opportunity. I know a lot of people were bummed when the North Avenue bridge was recently rebuilt as an aesthetically pleasing but completely unbikeable bridge.

Permalink Reply by Steven Vance on July 24, 2011 at 4:47pm

One more post, then someone else needs to chime in.

 

I would trade 1 year of Rahm's "promised" protected bike lanes (that's 25 miles), for the fixing of 25 metal grate bridges to make them bike friendly. Would you make that trade with me?

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on July 24, 2011 at 5:22pm
Hmmm.... that's tempting.

Steven Vance said:

One more post, then someone else needs to chime in.

 

I would trade 1 year of Rahm's "promised" protected bike lanes (that's 25 miles), for the fixing of 25 metal grate bridges to make them bike friendly. Would you make that trade with me?

Permalink Reply by Mike Zumwalt on July 25, 2011 at 3:28am

Chicago ave bridge is way too narrow, but I do like the new plates which have a coating on them.

Unlike the old sheet metal which became very slick in the rain.

Permalink Reply by Steven Vance on July 25, 2011 at 3:49am

What new plates on Chicago Avenue are you talking about?

(I haven't been there in at least a week.)

 

The Kinzie Street plates are likely from here: http://www.slipnot.com/


Mike Zumwalt said:

Chicago ave bridge is way too narrow, but I do like the new plates which have a coating on them.

Unlike the old sheet metal which became very slick in the rain.

Permalink Reply by Steven Vance on March 26, 2012 at 9:53am
Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on January 24, 2013 at 5:35am

Having walked my bike across Dearborn last night when that little bit of snow made it treacherous, and Dearborn being a place the city wants us to bike, seems like little.  I am beginning to wonder what those promised plates are going to be made of to be taking so long.

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service