The Chainlink

Wicker Park Committee votes against protected lanes on Milwaukee

DNA Info article says that Wicker Park Committee has voted against protected bike lanes on Milwaukee between North Avenue and Division due to concerns about the effects on motor vehicle parking.

 

"It would kill the merchants. For the sake of bikes you're disturbing vehicle and pedestrian traffic.  What are you going to do, walk a block and a half to cross the street? ... Why don't we create a second level bike lane that goes over the streets like the "L" tracks?" said Kevin O'Donnell, owner of Pint Bar, 1547 N. Milwaukee Ave.

 

O'Donnell, who has owned Pint for nine years, said parking is already tough on Milwaukee, "a corridor rich with retail and restaurants."

Views: 2567

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

In all honesty, I think there would be fights erupting if Milwaukee gets any worse, I avoid that street like the plague, even if it entails going out of the way a bit. The whole stretch from Division is a clusterf--k.

Fascinating that a BAR owner wants places for people to park their cars. I guess he has good dram shop insurance and no conscience whatsoever. I'm making a mental note to never spend a dime at Pint. 

Here is an unbroken link to the DNAInfo article.

Anyone know what, if any, relationship there is between the Wicker Park Committee and the Wicker Park Bucktown Chamber of Commerce?  Or why Waguespack asked the Wicker Park Committee for feedback rather than the Wicker Park Bucktown Chamber of Commerce.  The Chamber of Commerce administers the SSA for the area through the Wicker Park Bucktown Organization and bike issues are a major focus of the organization's transportation committee.  Here are minutes from the March meeting:

http://wickerparkbucktown.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Trans...

 

It is also interesting that Waguespack took the lead on this since that stretch of Milwaukee is, at least at the moment, in the 1st Ward.

Of course comments quoted in reports like this are taken out of context, so it is really hard to make judgments on the overall discussion.  However, I doubt that more than two or three businesses on the entire stretch would be full to capacity if two people from every car that can park on one side of Milwaukee Avenue between Division and North were to show up at once.  And if they have "fly-over" space for the bikes, those folks on bikes will not stop at the businesses. 

I live in the neighborhood--near North and Ashland.  I would never think of trying to park on Milwaukee.  I walk or I ride my bike.  It is so much easier. 

If they did put in a "bike lane" you know it would be parked in anyway, valets would use it and people would walk in it. 

They have potential spots for parking garages but not on Milwaukee unless people want to park in the 7-11 lot, the K-mart/Jewel lot and walk. They could also put one in next to the currency exchange on North ave.

A bridge over up Milwaukee where's THAT money going to come from? 

And you're right Lisa unless they put in bike racks and stairs down every block or so no bikes or people could get down and people would walk up there too, then we need cameras or police patrols.

What are you going to do, walk a block and a half to cross the street? ...

I'm not saying there aren't valid arguments against it, but this is a certified load of crap.

Does this person know what a protected bilke lane is?

By the way, Joe Hall, owner of Quick Release, is the chair of the WPB organization transportation committee.

Fewer than 30 people voted. I'm surprised that low of a number is even a quorum.

+1

Tony Adams 6.6 mi said:

Fascinating that a BAR owner wants places for people to park their cars. I guess he has good dram shop insurance and no conscience whatsoever. I'm making a mental note to never spend a dime at Pint. 

Here is an unbroken link to the DNAInfo article.

Apparently not.

h' 1.0 said:

... Does this person know what a protected bilke lane is?

Cannot find a list of members, and cannot tell how many people usually attend the meetings, but they don't need much for a quorum:

"Section 3.2 Quorum. A quorum for the conduct of business at any membership meeting shall consist of ten percent (10%) of the current membership. When a quorum is present at any meeting, the vote of the majority of eligible voting members present shall decide any question brought before such meeting except as provided by Illinois law, the Articles of Incorporation, or these Bylaws."

Also, they were taking an advisory vote--not sure that could be considered to be business of the committee that would even require a quorum.
 
Michael J Blane said:

Fewer than 30 people voted. I'm surprised that low of a number is even a quorum.

YES!!!!!!   GO WICKER PARK!!!!

 

We need to unite to stand up to protected bike lane thugs.

RSS

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service