Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Brendan Kevenides on June 6, 2011 at 6:50am

I'm excited about this.  It is a reasonable start.  As Steve noted, it seems that the project is set up to succeed.  The existence of this protected bike lane in that area should not be particularly controversial.  I bike that route to work a couple of times a week.  It will be used regularly by many riders.  Its regular use without the threat of significant backlash from the surrounding neighborhood (see NYC) will enable the "bicycle community" to say, "See, these are a good idea.  Now, let's do more."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steven Vance on June 6, 2011 at 6:56am

That's what I was trying to say, but I forgot to reference New York City. Read my post Why I’m keeping track of Brooklyn’s bike lane drama for more information about that - the city is being sued to remove a protected bike lane. Kinzie Street is a place where complaints will either not happen or not be loud enough. As a first location it's okay. But the second location should be excellent and perhaps a little mind-blowing or unexpected. 

Brendan Kevenides said:

I'm excited about this.  It is a reasonable start.  As Steve noted, it seems that the project is set up to succeed.  The existence of this protected bike lane in that area should not be particularly controversial.  I bike that route to work a couple of times a week.  It will be used regularly by many riders.  Its regular use without the threat of significant backlash from the surrounding neighborhood (see NYC) will enable the "bicycle community" to say, "See, these are a good idea.  Now, let's do more."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on June 6, 2011 at 8:30am

If you could only "protect" 1 or 2 miles of Vincennes, what extents would you choose?

 

I'd love to see 83rd to the viaduct just before 87th, then resume just south of 87th down to 89th.  The Halsted/Vincennes/87th area is challenging - lane configurations and traffic flow are tricky.  If we could get a 2nd mile, I'd continue it as far as 99th.  The pair of viaducts just south of 83rd are a BIG problem for a lot of people - dark, with bad pavement, and southbound traffic flying off of westbound 83rd.  On the northbound side of Vincennes, there is a frequent problem with standing water in the right lane under the viaducts, which hides potholes and pushes most of the traffic to the left lane.  Some pavement repair would have to be part of the equation.

 

There are currently some cyclists who commute north from Beverly and Morgan Park using Vincennes.  I suspect there would be a lot more if conditions were improved.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brendan Kevenides on June 6, 2011 at 8:32am

Steve:

 

Well now you've titillated me.  Where is the second location to be?

Steven Vance said:

That's what I was trying to say, but I forgot to reference New York City. Read my post Why I’m keeping track of Brooklyn’s bike lane drama for more information about that - the city is being sued to remove a protected bike lane. Kinzie Street is a place where complaints will either not happen or not be loud enough. As a first location it's okay. But the second location should be excellent and perhaps a little mind-blowing or unexpected. 

Brendan Kevenides said:

I'm excited about this.  It is a reasonable start.  As Steve noted, it seems that the project is set up to succeed.  The existence of this protected bike lane in that area should not be particularly controversial.  I bike that route to work a couple of times a week.  It will be used regularly by many riders.  Its regular use without the threat of significant backlash from the surrounding neighborhood (see NYC) will enable the "bicycle community" to say, "See, these are a good idea.  Now, let's do more."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steven Vance on June 6, 2011 at 8:34am

I have no idea. 

Brendan Kevenides said:

Steve:

 

Well now you've titillated me.  Where is the second location to be?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on June 6, 2011 at 9:16am

That sounded like wishful speculation to me, rather than a suggestion of a specific location.  Just my $0.02...

Steven Vance said:

I have no idea. 

Brendan Kevenides said:

Steve:

 

Well now you've titillated me.  Where is the second location to be?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Allen Wrench on June 6, 2011 at 10:27am

I'm following this with interest. For my own part, it seems that the fact that this lane will largely serve people who are already commuting through the area on their bikes is possibly a negative as well as a positive feature.

Positive, as you have all noted, since it will be used; but negative I think since these users are people who are in that adventurous 10-20% mentioned above now riding under today's conditions. At least one person above mentioned a fear that 'slow' (read: new or inexperienced or unfit) riders will clog up what is now a dangerous but speedy commute. This attitude can lead to opposition to the cycletrack idea by members of the current bicycling community (that's us, those who choose to bike despite the infrastructure problems). An example of this opposition is the Streetfilms video that made the rounds on Chainlink several months ago about the I-think-it-was-8th-avenue cycle lane in NYC being too slow.

Is it helpful to pit the healthy young commuter riders against the shoppers, kids and old people a cycletrack is (at least partly) supposed to attract?

Another common complaint, that cars and pedestrians and everything else will block a protected lane, neglects the fact that these obstacles block today's unprotected lanes too and that's part of what the "protection" is for. Solution: put up concrete bollards or thin plastic poles and bikes can merge into regular traffic to miss any blockage but cars can't swerve into the bikes. I don't think this complaint is more or less likely to be voiced by new riders or old ones but it's mentioned in the discussion above. This new Kinzie lane is using plastic poles, I think, isn't it?

I agree more with the idea that a new cycletrack should connect places people often go, but not on their bikes, in order to increase the viability/convenience and perceived safety of bike transportation as opposed to other modes people prefer now. Connect housing, schools, workplaces, shopping and transit hubs with safe paths and many people who now think that we are all nuts to ride our bikes will join us. And I also see a good reason to use a protected bike lane to clear the dangers that now make a potential commuting route unattractive, like the one you are discussing on the south side. Could one of those routes bring in new shoppers/students/errand runners too? I don't know that area well.

So it's wonderful that the Kinzie lane is being built, and it looks like it will achieve a lot more than I thought at first glance (connecting the Jewel supermarket to more bicycle-averse bikers for example), but I am looking forward to longer, future lanes that more completely attract drivers, passengers, and walkers onto their bikes. Hooray for the quick start!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bike Bloke on June 6, 2011 at 11:46am

Yes, these sections of road, often 3 or 4 blocks long which widen out from one car lane to two and then back to one all need to be converted to one car lane and bike lane asap. They become very dangerous to cyclists with 2 lanes of cars speeding up on what is effectively too narrow a roadspace to accommodate such speed when the cars have bikes in front that they're desperate to pass. This was done recently on Narragansett between Diversey and Fullerton (finally, thank goodness), although the bike graphics need to be painted in the bike lanes, too - I was driving there recently, only to find some idiot driver trying to pass me on the inside down the bike lane. That stretch joined up with other bike lanes on Narragansett, too.

Here's another similarly dangerous section that would immediately benefit from this bike lane treatment: Diversey/Logan to Clybourn. Over to you, Rahmbo!  Where else?

Duppie said:

Agreed. I experience it nearly every day eastbound between the river and Kingsbury. Maybe Steven can confirm it, but it looks like the bike lane may solve this problem by effectively turning Kinzie into one lane.

 

Disclaimer: I asked for confirmation from our resident expert, because if I don't, other posters seem to think that I make baseless assumptions ;)

Cameron Puetz said:

My experience with Kinzie is that I have problems with traffic on the left because there is so much room. Kinzie feels like it is about 1.75 lanes wide in each direction. When traffic is light and content to be one lane, Kinzie is great. When traffic starts to pick up and drivers try to move to a two lane configuration things it dicey quick. The worst is when most drivers view Kinzie as one lane, but a couple really aggressive drivers view it as two lanes and start passing on the right.

Michael Brosilow said:

Milwaukee to Kinzie is one of my regular routes. Car traffic on my left is rarely an issue because there is plenty of room on Kinzie. The problem areas are the bridge over the river & the access to the loading docks for the Merchandise Mart where trucks come out blind. I don't see the cycle track solving those issues. That being said I do welcome the project & look forward to its completion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gin on June 6, 2011 at 2:49pm

I can't agree more. A lot of roads need to be put on spot diets. Some of us are trying to get such a treatment on Humboldt Blvd/Sacramento south of Palmer Square, especially since there is going to be a mini road diet on  stretch between North and Division.

Bike Bloke said:

Yes, these sections of road, often 3 or 4 blocks long which widen out from one car lane to two and then back to one all need to be converted to one car lane and bike lane asap. T

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jennifer james on June 6, 2011 at 4:23pm

I guess I'm not sure about the slow cyclists use lane? I think a mix of cyclists will use the lane, of all different speeds. Why do they need to make up a sign about who needs to use the lane and label it as less of anything at this point? I'm not sure cars will be doing much heavy thinking about who belongs where on the road. Most cars don't really think about cyclists very much at all either way--A sign is more about intercyclist community thought than anything to do with how traffic acts I think.

H3N3 said:

Semi-connected thought.

There should be signage making it clear to motorists that use of the protected lane by bicycles is not a requirement.  E.G. "slower cycles please use bicycle lane."

Otherwise we'll end up multiplying driver harassment, and making bitter enemies of the cyclists who are unable to ride at less than 20 mph.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ash L. on June 6, 2011 at 5:19pm

I rode the mini stretch that's completed to Jefferson tonight on my way down to Iron and Wine. It's sufficiently wide and there's plenty of room to avoid the gutter debris without escaping the lane. I will have to see how efficiently the buffer zone is at absorbing open passenger doors. Steven did you say soft ballards were going in?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steven Vance on June 6, 2011 at 6:08pm

Yes, soft-hit bollards. Also called flexible delineators. 

Ash L. said:

I rode the mini stretch that's completed to Jefferson tonight on my way down to Iron and Wine. It's sufficiently wide and there's plenty of room to avoid the gutter debris without escaping the lane. I will have to see how efficiently the buffer zone is at absorbing open passenger doors. Steven did you say soft ballards were going in?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 29
• Next ›
• Page