Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on March 6, 2012 at 5:08am

I never imagined this one would be so controversial.  I hope that rational persuasion wins out.

I'll be curious to see if this is representative of the kind of resistance that greenway proposals may meet in various neighborhoods, or if they will be more accepted in other locations.  I think that more education needs to start happening NOW, because that could help smooth acceptance.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lanterne Rouge on March 6, 2012 at 5:12am

I agree, Anne. Interestingly, it always seemed to me that Ravenswood/North Center are very progressive, educated neighborhoods which have residents that are able to rationalize a proposal that is 'good for the gander'.

 

The comment on that page is right - people want to speed. The fact of the matter is that we're urbanites in a big city; people are impatient, and especially so if it involves their car or how fast they can go in their car.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on March 6, 2012 at 6:50am

I think *some* of the concerns raised are completely rational.  It's not necessarily that people want to speed (many clearly do, of course), it's that they want a predictable and safe route - this isn't a need just for cyclists.  Frankly, CDOT didn't seem to have a lot of answers that suggested they understand how people get around in Chicago, at least not according to this article. 

There is a major problem IMO when someone at CDOT says this:

"For instance, one thing that came up at the transportation committee meeting was that it’s difficult to make a left turn onto Irving Park from Ravenswood because there’s no signal. "

Let me save CDOT a lot of time: this goes for every intersection CDOT allows drivers to turn left across 4-lane streets, common sense & laws of physics.  And it's not just difficult, it's DANGEROUS.  Not just for the car turning, but everyone on the cross street, bikes, motorists, all. 

Let's look at this one issue/location below.  If I am reading this properly, CDOT admits that they will now be encouraging drivers to make a left across Ashland at 4100 N. where there isn't a signal. 

For starters, plenty of people bike on Ashland, myself included.  There is nothing worse for a cyclist than a car nosing out of a side street (if not blocking half of a 4 lane street altogether) as they are trying to make a left where they have no right of way.   Lake View High School is on the 4000 N. block of Ashland.  That means lots of buses, lots of drop-offs, all of which will be impacted by a disruption on Ashland.

For this plan to have merit, CDOT needs to dig in its heels, make some tough choices & accept they can't please everyone and that yes, there is absolutely going to be some pain while drivers and cyclists (and everyone) get used to changing our infrastructure to be more friendly to people getting around using "people power" and not gas. 

Back to this location (and I'd imagine a similar issue will happen around the City):  accept that a bike boulevard is going to disrupt traffic and don't dance around the subject. 

The holistic solution IMO is to ban left turns onto major arterials from side streets where there is no street light.  Yes, it's inconvenient for drivers to have to go in a larger circle and will take a minute or two longer - I don't care and no, that shouldn't be a priority of CDOT.  As a driver I almost never do this, only when it's late at night and there is no cross traffic, and I'd be thrilled to give up that ability to improve traffic conditions for all of us.

While they're at it, ban left turns out of any and all commercial spaces as well (see the Whole Foods on 3300N Ashland as an example of why that makes sense).  Put an immediate ban on any more drive-throughs in the City, the faster we get away from 1950s urban planning the better.  Get Chicagoans in cars out of the habit of thinking everyone else needs to stop what they're doing so a driver can go the shortest distance between point A and point B. 

Regarding the lady who couldn't conceive of riding her kids to school, I rode my daughter to her old preschool all the time.  The occasional driver speeding on a side street was not the problem, getting through major intersections and getting across arterial streets was what concerned me.  Due to the river and expressway, I would need to bike my kid right down Belmont where it is the most dangerous/reckless to get her to school.  I cannot in good conscience do that, and that's WACK.  Belmont is a huge street and there should be plenty of room for everyone - but CDOT's "benign neglect" has created an atmosphere where drivers feel comfortable going anywhere they can physically squeeze their car.  This attitude is the problem, and bike boulevards do not address it.

I want my existing right to ride on the Ashlands, Irving Parks and Belmonts of the City better protected and enforced.   I'm not seeing how these bike boulevards address that, and I'm increasingly concerned that they are not only not the first step to a solution but that they are going to actually make biking conditions worse on these streets.  What is absolutely and clearly implied by this plan is now bikes will have "bike streets" that we are supposed to use, which means psycho drivers will be even less accommodating on arterials.  How many times have we all been yelled at to "ride on the sidewalk" or some other such rubbish?  Just wait until drivers get wind that now cyclists have "their own bike boulevards..." there better be a PR campaign to beat the band on that one.

Personally, I refuse to be a second-class citizen riding on pokey side streets.  If I could bike down Western, Ashland and so on after the age of 12 the rest of us can too.  There aren't enough hours in the day for me to take some crazy side-street route to get my kid to school and then to also get to work.  If we want more people biking to work, biking their kids to school, etc (and I know we all do) EVERY street needs to be made safer, and if the goal of bike boulevards is simply calming some streets like Berteau, that message is extremely convoluted.

>“I have one concern but it’s very key,” he said. “You’re talking about prohibiting a southbound turn onto Ashland from Berteau. I’m from the neighborhood on the east side of Ashland. All of us on the east side of Ashland need some way of going to the city on Ashland. So what we do now, from both the north and south sides of our neighborhood, we go to Berteau, we go west towards Ashland and we turn left. Without that ability we’re going to have to go to Montrose or Irving Park. Those are terrible corners and it’s going to be a snarl, and what’s going to happen, I believe, is that it’s going to divert all the traffic up and down Greenview (1500 W.) so it’s going to defeat the purpose.” Audience members murmured in agreement.

Dave Smith responded, “The treatments that we’re talking about are preliminary ideas. We presented them to the ward’s transportation committee last week and that was an issue that they also brought up, making a left turn onto Ashland. You would basically be diverted down Greenview to Belle Plaine (4100 N.) where you would have to make a left turn onto Ashland, but there’s no signal.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on March 6, 2012 at 6:52am

not sure why I can't get paragraph breaks in there, apologies for the whopping block of text.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on March 6, 2012 at 7:21am

Carter, Dave Smith was acknowledging that it would be problematic to force drivers to use Belle Plaine to turn left onto Ashland, because there is no stoplight at this intersection. Since Berteau and Ashland does have a stoplight and is therefore a safer place to make the turn, the city may have to scrap the idea of using a diverter to prevent cars from turning left from Berteau onto Ashland.

Carter O'Brien said:

I think *some* of the concerns raised are completely rational.  It's not necessarily that people want to speed (many clearly do, of course), it's that they want a predictable and safe route - this isn't a need just for cyclists.  Frankly, CDOT didn't seem to have a lot of answers that suggested they understand how people get around in Chicago, at least not according to this article. 

There is a major problem IMO when someone at CDOT says this:

"For instance, one thing that came up at the transportation committee meeting was that it’s difficult to make a left turn onto Irving Park from Ravenswood because there’s no signal. "

Let me save CDOT a lot of time: this goes for every intersection CDOT allows drivers to turn left across 4-lane streets, common sense & laws of physics.  And it's not just difficult, it's DANGEROUS.  Not just for the car turning, but everyone on the cross street, bikes, motorists, all. 

Let's look at this one issue/location below.  If I am reading this properly, CDOT admits that they will now be encouraging drivers to make a left across Ashland at 4100 N. where there isn't a signal. 

For starters, plenty of people bike on Ashland, myself included.  There is nothing worse for a cyclist than a car nosing out of a side street (if not blocking half of a 4 lane street altogether) as they are trying to make a left where they have no right of way.   Lake View High School is on the 4000 N. block of Ashland.  That means lots of buses, lots of drop-offs, all of which will be impacted by a disruption on Ashland.

For this plan to have merit, CDOT needs to dig in its heels, make some tough choices & accept they can't please everyone and that yes, there is absolutely going to be some pain while drivers and cyclists (and everyone) get used to changing our infrastructure to be more friendly to people getting around using "people power" and not gas. 

Back to this location (and I'd imagine a similar issue will happen around the City):  accept that a bike boulevard is going to disrupt traffic and don't dance around the subject. 

The holistic solution IMO is to ban left turns onto major arterials from side streets where there is no street light.  Yes, it's inconvenient for drivers to have to go in a larger circle and will take a minute or two longer - I don't care and no, that shouldn't be a priority of CDOT.  As a driver I almost never do this, only when it's late at night and there is no cross traffic, and I'd be thrilled to give up that ability to improve traffic conditions for all of us.

While they're at it, ban left turns out of any and all commercial spaces as well (see the Whole Foods on 3300N Ashland as an example of why that makes sense).  Put an immediate ban on any more drive-throughs in the City, the faster we get away from 1950s urban planning the better.  Get Chicagoans in cars out of the habit of thinking everyone else needs to stop what they're doing so a driver can go the shortest distance between point A and point B. 

Regarding the lady who couldn't conceive of riding her kids to school, I rode my daughter to her old preschool all the time.  The occasional driver speeding on a side street was not the problem, getting through major intersections and getting across arterial streets was what concerned me.  Due to the river and expressway, I would need to bike my kid right down Belmont where it is the most dangerous/reckless to get her to school.  I cannot in good conscience do that, and that's WACK.  Belmont is a huge street and there should be plenty of room for everyone - but CDOT's "benign neglect" has created an atmosphere where drivers feel comfortable going anywhere they can physically squeeze their car.  This attitude is the problem, and bike boulevards do not address it.

I want my existing right to ride on the Ashlands, Irving Parks and Belmonts of the City better protected and enforced.   I'm not seeing how these bike boulevards address that, and I'm increasingly concerned that they are not only not the first step to a solution but that they are going to actually make biking conditions worse on these streets.  What is absolutely and clearly implied by this plan is now bikes will have "bike streets" that we are supposed to use, which means psycho drivers will be even less accommodating on arterials.  How many times have we all been yelled at to "ride on the sidewalk" or some other such rubbish?  Just wait until drivers get wind that now cyclists have "their own bike boulevards..." there better be a PR campaign to beat the band on that one.

Personally, I refuse to be a second-class citizen riding on pokey side streets.  If I could bike down Western, Ashland and so on after the age of 12 the rest of us can too.  There aren't enough hours in the day for me to take some crazy side-street route to get my kid to school and then to also get to work.  If we want more people biking to work, biking their kids to school, etc (and I know we all do) EVERY street needs to be made safer, and if the goal of bike boulevards is simply calming some streets like Berteau, that message is extremely convoluted.

>“I have one concern but it’s very key,” he said. “You’re talking about prohibiting a southbound turn onto Ashland from Berteau. I’m from the neighborhood on the east side of Ashland. All of us on the east side of Ashland need some way of going to the city on Ashland. So what we do now, from both the north and south sides of our neighborhood, we go to Berteau, we go west towards Ashland and we turn left. Without that ability we’re going to have to go to Montrose or Irving Park. Those are terrible corners and it’s going to be a snarl, and what’s going to happen, I believe, is that it’s going to divert all the traffic up and down Greenview (1500 W.) so it’s going to defeat the purpose.” Audience members murmured in agreement.

Dave Smith responded, “The treatments that we’re talking about are preliminary ideas. We presented them to the ward’s transportation committee last week and that was an issue that they also brought up, making a left turn onto Ashland. You would basically be diverted down Greenview to Belle Plaine (4100 N.) where you would have to make a left turn onto Ashland, but there’s no signal.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on March 6, 2012 at 7:27am

Is this is a more recent development?  That is not at all how this reads:

"You would basically be diverted down Greenview to Belle Plaine (4100 N.) where you would have to make a left turn onto Ashland, but there’s no signal."

John Greenfield said:

Carter, Dave Smith was acknowledging that it would be problematic to force drivers to use Belle Plaine to turn left onto Ashland, because there is no stoplight at this intersection. Since Berteau and Ashland does have a stoplight and is therefore a safer place to make the turn, the city may have to scrap the idea of using a diverter to prevent cars from turning left from Berteau onto Ashland.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael J Blane on March 6, 2012 at 7:37am

WOW! 1+

Carter O'Brien said:

I think *some* of the concerns raised are completely rational.  It's not necessarily that people want to speed (many clearly do, of course), it's that they want a predictable and safe route - this isn't a need just for cyclists.  Frankly, CDOT didn't seem to have a lot of answers that suggested they understand how people get around in Chicago, at least not according to this article. 

...

I want my existing right to ride on the Ashlands, Irving Parks and Belmonts of the City better protected and enforced.   I'm not seeing how these bike boulevards address that, and I'm increasingly concerned that they are not only not the first step to a solution but that they are going to actually make biking conditions worse on these streets.  What is absolutely and clearly implied by this plan is now bikes will have "bike streets" that we are supposed to use, which means psycho drivers will be even less accommodating on arterials.  How many times have we all been yelled at to "ride on the sidewalk" or some other such rubbish?  Just wait until drivers get wind that now cyclists have "their own bike boulevards..." there better be a PR campaign to beat the band on that one.

Personally, I refuse to be a second-class citizen riding on pokey side streets.  If I could bike down Western, Ashland and so on after the age of 12 the rest of us can too.  There aren't enough hours in the day for me to take some crazy side-street route to get my kid to school and then to also get to work.  If we want more people biking to work, biking their kids to school, etc (and I know we all do) EVERY street needs to be made safer, and if the goal of bike boulevards is simply calming some streets like Berteau, that message is extremely convoluted.

...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on March 6, 2012 at 7:37am

The quote from Smith is:

"We presented them to the ward’s transportation committee last week and that was an issue that they also brought up, making a left turn onto Ashland. You would basically be diverted down Greenview to Belle Plaine (4100 N.) where you would have to make a left turn onto Ashland, but there’s no signal. That’s definitely the kind of issue we need to hear about."

I thought it was pretty clear that he heard a complaint about this issue at the ward's transportation committee meeting the previous week, and he's acknowledging that this is a problem that needs to be addressed. But just in case, I've added some bracketed text to the post to spell it out.

Carter O'Brien said:

Is this is a more recent development?  That is not at all how this reads:

"You would basically be diverted down Greenview to Belle Plaine (4100 N.) where you would have to make a left turn onto Ashland, but there’s no signal."

John Greenfield said:

Carter, Dave Smith was acknowledging that it would be problematic to force drivers to use Belle Plaine to turn left onto Ashland, because there is no stoplight at this intersection. Since Berteau and Ashland does have a stoplight and is therefore a safer place to make the turn, the city may have to scrap the idea of using a diverter to prevent cars from turning left from Berteau onto Ashland.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on March 6, 2012 at 7:56am

I think it's pretty clear from the quotes from Smith and Higgins in the article that the city is willing (and really has no choice but) to work with the locals to make sure that any diverters they put in do not force local drivers to make unsafe or uncomfortable moves. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask local residents to alter their commuting routes a bit in exchange for a safer street for everyone, as long as none of the people who live near Berteau are unduly inconvenienced and no one's being asked to do anything unsafe.

On the other hand, it may be politically impossible to convince the locals to accept changes to their habits, so the diverters may be a deal breaker. However, just adding traffic calming and contraflow bike lanes would create safer conditions for everyone and a dandy route for bicyclists. In that scenario drivers wouldn't have to change their habits at all, except to stop speeding and running stop signs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on March 6, 2012 at 8:23am

I don't think the concept is unreasonable whatsoever, so let me just make sure I'm being clear on that.

But my larger point is punctuated the very fact that CDOT didn't seem to have foreseen these IMO totally obvious ramifications/pitfalls.  Your very blog title, "Grid Chicago," reflects an understanding that everything is connected to everything else, ergo my point, make one change on Berteau, you make changes (much larger/potentially problematic) on Ashland.  The driver explicitly states he WANTS to be on Ashland - my desire for the freedom to bike relatively unmolested on Ashland aside for a moment, that's where we want him.  So I don't see this as a "local" problem, it's a question of traffic management - keep in mind Wrigley Field is a hop and a scoot east of here, 81 times a year there is a flood of traffic that tries to go from Wrigley to the highway and they use at minimum all the east-west routes from Diversey to Montrose, so that traffic also needs to be considered.

I think this process has an underlying issue of thinking you can make changes to a bunch of "small" streets and that only the people who use those smaller streets will be impacted - that is not the case.  The number of drivers in the City is the same, so the butterfly effect is in full force here.

The other part of this is that CDOT can't beat around the bush forever regarding speeding and running stop signs.  Add improper lane usage (eg those %$#@! "rush hour lanes," bike lane abuse and drivers using right turn-only and bus lanes to pass traffic illegally) and you've got the 3 basic reasons cycling can suck in Chicago. 

I'd like to see these tables turned and for CDOT and CPS in tandem to start reminding motorists it's their own bad behavior that has gotten us to this place.  We shouldn't need any of this stuff to bike around the City... when I started riding on the street in the early 80s there were maybe 1/2 as many stop signs as there are now, and people respected them more. 

John Greenfield said:

I think it's pretty clear from the quotes from Smith and Higgins in the article that the city is willing (and really has no choice but) to work with the locals to make sure that any diverters they put in do not force local drivers to make unsafe or uncomfortable moves. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask local residents to alter their commuting routes a bit in exchange for a safer street for everyone, as long as none of the people who live near Berteau are unduly inconvenienced and no one's being asked to do anything unsafe.

On the other hand, it may be politically impossible to convince the locals to accept changes to their habits, so the diverters may be a deal breaker. However, just adding traffic calming and contraflow bike lanes would create safer conditions for everyone and a dandy route for bicyclists. In that scenario drivers wouldn't have to change their habits at all, except to stop speeding and running stop signs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on March 6, 2012 at 8:29am

One more thing I'd add is that it's not like this is some freaky plan that the city and ATA have hatched. There are bike boulevards all over Portland, Oregon, for example, and they've figured out how to do this without upsetting drivers too much. Sure, Chicago's a bigger, more car-centric city, but it's likely we can figure out a way to do this with a maximum benefit for all users.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David on March 6, 2012 at 9:27am

Maybe it's just the way you describe the meeting, so maybe I'd think differently if I were there, but this article really makes CDOT look like a bunch of incompetent amateurs.  Going south on Ashland was going to be an obvious concern for the residents and apparently it was one of the first things brought up, and the best CDOT could come up with was "these treatments are preliminary"?   Especially since the issue had apparently been brought up the previous week as well?   

No wonder the residents think this is being rushed; CDOT didn't even have a response to the most obvious questions.   

I'm on CDOT's side here and I really want these developments to continue, but I can't help picturing some group walking into my office with a business proposal and then sputtering excuses like "uhh, yeah, we don't know, somebody mentioned that last week also" to the most rudimentary questions.  They'd be out the door in five minutes.    Big changes could be coming, CDOT really needs to step up their game. 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page