Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 3, 2012 at 9:00am

Apologies for bad tone, I really am out of time here & all you needed to do was go back a few pages in the conversation to find the info.  But  in the interest of staying on topic, here we go:

First, the official word from the 47th ward office clearly acknowledging the bridge has been removed from plans.  What is not clear to me (or anyone, it seems) is whether anyone from the public was ever brought into these conversations about "reevaluating the bridge."

>While I know they (*he's referring to CPAC) have many concerns about the boat house, prior to it being proposed, the bike bridge plan was being reevaluated to connect the parks (Clark to California and Horner Park) and maintain a riverfront bike path rather than a connection to Roscoe. We expect CDOT to call a community meeting about the bike/ped bridge once more of the initial planning for it is done; keep an eye on our newsletter for more information.

 Best regards,

 

Bill Higgins

47^th Ward Program Analyst & Coordinator/p>

Second, from Bill Donahue:

>In the early 2000’s the Clark Park Advisory Council proposed that a pedway/bikeway bridge be made a part of Clark Park. It would serve several ends and enjoyed up an enthusiastic response from the Alderman of the 47th Ward, amongst other elected officials. The plan was endorsed by Friends of the Chicago River and the Friends of the Parks. It would be an integral part of the river trail;,our vision is that it would bring many people from the residences west of the river to Clark Park , especially for the enhanced playground we hope to install.; and it should serve as a safe alternative for miles along Roscoe Street for bikes and pedestrians. The bridge would bring the many employees from west of the River to the park during the day. The bridge was included in all of the City of Chicago planning documents for the underbridge connections being funded now by the City of Chicago. The drawings were in the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission report and detailed plans for the river trail. I have attached the TIF plan LINK for the area as funded by the TIF commission ($65M available within this TIF), seen below:

http://www.ginkgoplanning.com/project%20pages/Addison%20Master%20Pl... /p>

Third, not all TIF projects end up being funded.  But the link below demonstrates that the TIF is most definitely an example of planning long underway, that is the official page on the City's website:

http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/tif/addiso...

Fourth, my own posting of the topic last summer.  I bring this up simply to show that for the City to claim that the boathouse planning has somehow been more comprehensive than planning for the bridge is bs.

http://www.thechainlink.org/forum/topics/new-proposed-chicago-river...

And the bridge is just one reason why the boathouse is a bad idea.  As Bill D. and others have described in great length, the current usage of Clark Park, which represents a unique harmony of natural/open space and amenities like soccer fields and a kayak launch (both of which are still essentially open space) is nothing short of amazing.

Kevin C said:

I think I've read every post on this thread at least once. Was there something discourteous or disrespectful in my request which warranted this terse and non-responsive post?

Carter O'Brien said:

It's called the "Previous" button, Kevin. 

Kevin C said:

Please direct me to the documents regarding the bridge which you and Bill have shared.

Carter O'Brien said:

Bill and I have both shared documents attesting to the long-ago Addison Corridor TIF planning, which is where the bridge "lives."  As in planning documents.  As in the budget.  [snip]

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on May 3, 2012 at 9:18am

Wow, the exact opposite of helpingmake your case...

Carter O'Brien said:

It's called the "Previous" button, Kevin. 

Kevin C said:

Please direct me to the documents regarding the bridge which you and Bill have shared.

Carter O'Brien said:

Bill and I have both shared documents attesting to the long-ago Addison Corridor TIF planning, which is where the bridge "lives."  As in planning documents.  As in the budget.  [snip]

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 3, 2012 at 9:19am

Cameron, the debate is no longer just "should there be a boathouse."

The debate is, "should there be a boathouse knowing that means we don't get a bike/pedestrian bridge."

So yes - you choose the boathouse, you are being anti-cyclist.

End of story.

Cameron Puetz said:

This has to be the first time in my life that I have ever been accused of being antibike, and I believe my comment history will show me to be anything but some guy who just showed up. The personal attacks are doing nothing to further your cause.

Carter O'Brien said:

Get it?  It's not complicated.  And how ironic that on a bike forum we have rowers showing up and trying to push what is basically an anti-bike agenda as if they represented some large segment of the public.   Like Bill I have been familiar with and an occasional user of this park for DECADES. 

The velodrome is an excellent comparison to the boathouse. Both are large specialized facilities with scattered interest throughout the city, but no single park where a majority of current users are interested.

Your velodrome comparison is not on target.  You don't need anything to make use out of a pedestrian bridge except your feet.  Your Millennium Park quip is also off, there were calls for secured bike parking (and showers) for years predating the park, so that need was long-established, I sure don't recall any Loop businesses saying it was unwelcome. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on May 3, 2012 at 9:24am

This has to be one of the most short sighted and ignorant statements I have read in recent times on this board.

The idea that choosing the 'non-bike' option in one situation makes a person 'anti-bike' is one of the dumbest leaps of logic I could imagine.  You would probably do better for your cause by not talking at this point because you are coming off as an ignorant jerk and bully.  If you do not have the time to properly answer questions maybe you should not do it at all...

Carter O'Brien said:

Cameron, the debate is no longer just "should there be a boathouse."

The debate is, "should there be a boathouse knowing that means we don't get a bike/pedestrian bridge."

So yes - you choose the boathouse, you are being anti-cyclist.

End of story.

Cameron Puetz said:

This has to be the first time in my life that I have ever been accused of being antibike, and I believe my comment history will show me to be anything but some guy who just showed up. The personal attacks are doing nothing to further your cause.

Carter O'Brien said:

Get it?  It's not complicated.  And how ironic that on a bike forum we have rowers showing up and trying to push what is basically an anti-bike agenda as if they represented some large segment of the public.   Like Bill I have been familiar with and an occasional user of this park for DECADES. 

The velodrome is an excellent comparison to the boathouse. Both are large specialized facilities with scattered interest throughout the city, but no single park where a majority of current users are interested.

Your velodrome comparison is not on target.  You don't need anything to make use out of a pedestrian bridge except your feet.  Your Millennium Park quip is also off, there were calls for secured bike parking (and showers) for years predating the park, so that need was long-established, I sure don't recall any Loop businesses saying it was unwelcome. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 3, 2012 at 9:40am

The case was made and is bulletproof. 

One can either support making Clark Park staying open and enjoyable to all, as well as keeping alive the possibility of making it more accessible via a pedestrian and cyclist bridge, or one can support a facility that is at best quasi-private. 

Choosing option B above means you are keeping a very dangerous status quo in place for your fellow bikers on two of the busiest streets on the North Side.

Take your pick.

Better yet, come out and join me for the river clean up at Clark Park next weekend (May 12), we can look at the site in 3D and everyone interested can see exactly what is at stake.

http://www.eventbrite.com/event/3113152523?ref=ebtn

Event Details

20th anniversary

CHICAGO RIVER DAY 2012

Saturday, May 12, 2012 from 9 a.m. - 12 p.m.

 

Clark Park (Chicago)

 SITE CAPTAIN:  Bill Donahue

Join us for an exciting morning along the banks of the Chicago River.

Volunteers will work side-by-side to collect garbage and sort for recycling, remove invasive vegetation, spruce up river-edge trails, plant native seedlings and more.   If you have any questions about this site and what activities will be happening, you can put your questions in the box labeled "ask my site captains." 

LIABILITY WAIVERS

All volunteers must print out and bring with them the appropriate waiver to their Chicago River Day location to participate. If you do not have a signed waiver, you will not be able to participate. For this location, please print one of the following waivers:

Adults (18 and over) – Download adult waiver here.

Minors (under 18) - Download child waiver here.

***Minors must be accompanied by their parent or legal guardian while participating on Chicago River Day.  Children without parents/guardians will NOT be allowed to participate.  Students participating through their school will need to turn in signed waivers from parents and with their teachers to participate.

notoriousDUG said:

Wow, the exact opposite of helpingmake your case...

Carter O'Brien said:

It's called the "Previous" button, Kevin. 

Kevin C said:

Please direct me to the documents regarding the bridge which you and Bill have shared.

Carter O'Brien said:

Bill and I have both shared documents attesting to the long-ago Addison Corridor TIF planning, which is where the bridge "lives."  As in planning documents.  As in the budget.  [snip]

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 3, 2012 at 9:49am

Oh, please.  In the past week I've seen the CPAC derided as a fake organization spreading lies and full of NIMBYs, and my comments are what get you motivated to chime in? 

I don't post anonymously here, and I'm quite happy verbally jousting with people who are obstacles to improving cycling in my neighborhood.  Because if you are one of the people who ruin this opportunity for actual bike-friendly infrastructure you are part of the problem, not the solution.

notoriousDUG said:

This has to be one of the most short sighted and ignorant statements I have read in recent times on this board.

The idea that choosing the 'non-bike' option in one situation makes a person 'anti-bike' is one of the dumbest leaps of logic I could imagine.  You would probably do better for your cause by not talking at this point because you are coming off as an ignorant jerk and bully.  If you do not have the time to properly answer questions maybe you should not do it at all...

Carter O'Brien said:

Cameron, the debate is no longer just "should there be a boathouse."

The debate is, "should there be a boathouse knowing that means we don't get a bike/pedestrian bridge."

So yes - you choose the boathouse, you are being anti-cyclist.

End of story.

Cameron Puetz said:

This has to be the first time in my life that I have ever been accused of being antibike, and I believe my comment history will show me to be anything but some guy who just showed up. The personal attacks are doing nothing to further your cause.

Carter O'Brien said:

Get it?  It's not complicated.  And how ironic that on a bike forum we have rowers showing up and trying to push what is basically an anti-bike agenda as if they represented some large segment of the public.   Like Bill I have been familiar with and an occasional user of this park for DECADES. 

The velodrome is an excellent comparison to the boathouse. Both are large specialized facilities with scattered interest throughout the city, but no single park where a majority of current users are interested.

Your velodrome comparison is not on target.  You don't need anything to make use out of a pedestrian bridge except your feet.  Your Millennium Park quip is also off, there were calls for secured bike parking (and showers) for years predating the park, so that need was long-established, I sure don't recall any Loop businesses saying it was unwelcome. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on May 3, 2012 at 9:58am

Surely throwing 8-80 bicyclists who could have safety crossed at the zip-canned Roscoe ped/bike bridge under the wheels of the buses on the unsafe Belmont bridge in favor of a big Frat-boy sport-house rowing complex isn't anti-bike?  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Liz on May 3, 2012 at 9:59am

Wow, CPAC was questioned because member of the organization have come on here making broad statements that have little to do with fact or reality.  Members of CPAC have also stating that a rowing facility is a fine thing on the river, just not where they are, which is exactly what being a NIMBY is.  

Your arguments remind me of Rick Santorum's. 

Carter O'Brien said:

Oh, please.  In the past week I've seen the CPAC derided as a fake organization spreading lies and full of NIMBYs, and my comments are what get you motivated to chime in? 

I don't post anonymously here, and I'm quite happy verbally jousting with people who are obstacles to improving cycling in my neighborhood.  Because if you are one of the people who ruin this opportunity for actual bike-friendly infrastructure you are part of the problem, not the solution.

notoriousDUG said:

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Schmoe on May 3, 2012 at 10:11am

This giant boathouse would impede the construction of much-needed bicycle infrastructure, for the benefit of a very few, who obviously have cash and influence to throw around.  The plan was somehow arrived at even though members of the community were already advocating for parking, bathroom, and other facilities.  Then, all of a sudden, there is a "magical" plan to build a giant boathouse for essentially what is a rowing club, which wasn't shared with any members of the community, which in Chicago means someone got paid off big-time.  There are other places to build it on the riverfront...  Like, maybe anywhere but in the middle of an existing park?  There's a BIG difference between NIMBY, and "Not In My Public Park Which Is a Public Resource Not Just for Rowers". So that would be, NIMPPWIPRNJR, I suppose.  You can reasonably object to an idea, on the basis of location.  Like, I want homeless shelters built, just not next door to day-care centers.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Liz on May 3, 2012 at 10:17am

So if I'm reading this correctly, the bridge at Roscoe was already being reassed prior to the boat house proposal? So therefore the boat house did not alter the plan for the bridge, since that plan was already changed previously. 

Additionally the funding would be used to improve the bike infrastructure in a different manner so it would still be providing improvement to the cycling infrastructure.  

I'm not arguing that the crossings at Belmont or Addison don't suck, and I do think a bridge would be nice, but that doesn't mean its the best way of addressing the problem and not advocating and supporting it doesn't make me anti-cycling. 

Carter O'Brien said:

>While I know they (*he's referring to CPAC) have many concerns about the boat house, prior to it being proposed, the bike bridge plan was being reevaluated to connect the parks (Clark to California and Horner Park) and maintain a riverfront bike path rather than a connection to Roscoe. We expect CDOT to call a community meeting about the bike/ped bridge once more of the initial planning for it is done; keep an eye on our newsletter for more information.

 Best regards,

 

Bill Higgins

47^th Ward Program Analyst & Coordinator/p>

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 3, 2012 at 10:41am

Re-evaluated doesn't mean it was off the table.  Building the boathouse is what does that, as now the option for the bridge disappears forever.

Bill Higgins seems quite forthcoming, but if you follow Bill Donahue's timeline, while taking into account the lack of transparency, means it's all just conjecture. 

Something this important (and permanent) warrants a widely-circulated community meeting at the very least.

What we have that that is hard factual evidence are the TIF plans, which vastly pre-date the boathouse.

With all due respect, people who do not need to regularly cross the river at Belmont or Addison from the west don't understand the gravity of the problem here. 

I've been biking city streets since I was about 10, I'm not afraid of these stretches, but there is no doubt they are dangerous.  It wouldn't surprise me if I wake up some day in a hospital and traveling down one of these two roads is the last thing I remember because I got tagged from behind due to the poor layout and sight lines James has expounded on.

I am sure CDOT would be making Belmont or Addison for bike-friendly if they thought it was possible, there are likely IDOT issues/truck routes at play here. 

I have a 6 year old daughter I would love to bike to school at Marshfield and Cornelia.  If there was a bridge at Roscoe I could safely take Roscoe all the way east from Kedzie to Ravenswood, at which point I could jog a bit south or north and continue on a side street.  Right now, I have no safe option to ride with her (or to eventually teach her to ride on her own), and that doesn't simply suck, that is just wrong. I am quite certain from talking to fellow parents at her school that we have lots of company in this regard.

Liz said:

So if I'm reading this correctly, the bridge at Roscoe was already being reassed prior to the boat house proposal? So therefore the boat house did not alter the plan for the bridge, since that plan was already changed previously. 

Additionally the funding would be used to improve the bike infrastructure in a different manner so it would still be providing improvement to the cycling infrastructure.  

I'm not arguing that the crossings at Belmont or Addison don't suck, and I do think a bridge would be nice, but that doesn't mean its the best way of addressing the problem and not advocating and supporting it doesn't make me anti-cycling. 

Carter O'Brien said:

>While I know they (*he's referring to CPAC) have many concerns about the boat house, prior to it being proposed, the bike bridge plan was being reevaluated to connect the parks (Clark to California and Horner Park) and maintain a riverfront bike path rather than a connection to Roscoe. We expect CDOT to call a community meeting about the bike/ped bridge once more of the initial planning for it is done; keep an eye on our newsletter for more information.

 Best regards,

 

Bill Higgins

47^th Ward Program Analyst & Coordinator/p>

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Liz on May 3, 2012 at 10:53am

I've stated several times that I live very close to there and have often crossed the river on both Belmont and Addison, and stated previously these are not very good crossings, but my opinion is that protected lanes are a better option than a bridge.  Having a different opinion on the solution to the same problem doesn't make me anti-bike.  

I agree that it is very disconcerting that there have not been any public meetings or disclosure on the plans for this park, but I currently do not object to the plans that I know of.  

This does not make my opinion any less important than yours and your attitude towards others is driving away potential supporters.  

Carter O'Brien said:

With all due respect, people who do not need to regularly cross the river at Belmont or Addison from the west don't understand the gravity of the problem here. 

I've been biking city streets since I was about 10, I'm not afraid of these stretches, but there is no doubt they are dangerous.  It wouldn't surprise me if I wake up some day in a hospital and traveling down one of these two roads is the last thing I remember because I got tagged from behind due to the poor layout and sight lines James has expounded on.

I am sure CDOT would be making Belmont or Addison for bike-friendly if they thought it was possible, there are likely IDOT issues/truck routes at play here. 

I have a 6 year old daughter I would love to bike to school at Marshfield and Cornelia.  If there was a bridge at Roscoe I could safely take Roscoe all the way east from Kedzie to Ravenswood, at which point I could jog a bit south or north and continue on a side street.  Right now, I have no safe option to ride with her (or to eventually teach her to ride on her own), and that doesn't simply suck, that is just wrong. I am quite certain from talking to fellow parents at her school that we have lots of company in this regard.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• …
• 28
• Next ›
• Page