The Berteau Greenway moves forward without traffic diverters

Bike-friendly 47th Ward Alderman Ameya Pawar is excited about bringing Chicago's first "neighborhood greenway" (AKA bike boulevard) to his ward on Berteau Street. But last March at a community meeting, many of his constituents panicked at the idea of having to alter their driving habits. Earlier this month Pawar unveiled a new design that keeps the contraflow bike lanes and traffic calming of the original proposal but omits the traffic diverters, so that westbound cars will be able to drive the length of the greenway:
http://gridchicago.com/2012/the-berteau-greenway-moves-forward-with...

 

What do you think - is "half a loaf" better than none?

Keep moving forward,

John Greenfield

Views: 718

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on August 28, 2012 at 4:53am

Correct, Berteau is located at 4200 North. Belle Plaine (4100 N.) and Cullom (4300 N.) both stop at the Metra tracks along Ravenswood. However Sunnyside (4500 N.) and Grace (3800 N.) are both nice eastbound routes that go most of the way to the lake. Sunnyside even includes a couple of car-free blocks east of Clark Street. However, here's an interview with CDOT's Mike Amsden explaining why they chose Berteau for the greenway: http://gridchicago.com/2012/are-the-upcoming-streets-for-cycling-pr...

Permalink Reply by Tricolor on August 28, 2012 at 7:54am

I'm generally not a fan of anything designed to impede traffic, let alone slap-dash buildouts that look cheap and narrow a road that's billed as being *more* bike friendly.  Automotive weave zones aren't very safe, either.  All of these features just cause additional stress to traffic and makes driving and biking more dangerous.  Widening the street by banning parking from one side and putting in marked bike lanes would be a much better solution but wouldn't shuffle enough TIF money to the right concrete contractors.

Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on August 28, 2012 at 9:58am

Well, for starters this project is funded with the alderman's discretionary funds, not TIF money. And if the residents freaked out about traffic diverters, image their response to stripping half the parking.

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on August 28, 2012 at 10:26am

I've seen this kind of treatment used successfully in locations that formerly had speeding problems, such as this section of Elmdale (near Ridge and Clark in Edgewater).  Cars slow down, and cyclists coming off Clark St. are a lot less threatened by speeding traffic.

Tricolor said:

I'm generally not a fan of anything designed to impede traffic, let alone slap-dash buildouts that look cheap and narrow a road that's billed as being *more* bike friendly.  Automotive weave zones aren't very safe, either.  All of these features just cause additional stress to traffic and makes driving and biking more dangerous.  Widening the street by banning parking from one side and putting in marked bike lanes would be a much better solution but wouldn't shuffle enough TIF money to the right concrete contractors.

Permalink Reply by Justin B Newman on August 28, 2012 at 10:36am

I would encourage you to read Tom Vanderbilt's Traffic, Why We Drive the Way We Do. The meticulously researched book specifically addresses these issues. As an example, he mentions a winding road through the mountains. We intuitively believe the wide road with guard rails to be the safest. In fact, the narrow one, filled with switchbacks, and no guard rails is likely to be more safe.

Our historic response to traffic safety has been bigger and wider. In fact, this just increases speed, which reduces safety for drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Given America's refusal to obey posted speed limits, I think road design that (in effect) enforces speed limits is in fact a good approach. 

-jbn


Tricolor said:

I'm generally not a fan of anything designed to impede traffic, let alone slap-dash buildouts that look cheap and narrow a road that's billed as being *more* bike friendly.  Automotive weave zones aren't very safe, either.  All of these features just cause additional stress to traffic and makes driving and biking more dangerous.  Widening the street by banning parking from one side and putting in marked bike lanes would be a much better solution but wouldn't shuffle enough TIF money to the right concrete contractors.

Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on August 28, 2012 at 10:40am

Well said Justin. Road design that "enforces" the speed limit is the way to go (along with literal enforcement of traffic laws by the police and traffic cameras). If you give Chicagoans the opportunity to speed, they will.

Permalink Reply by Ash L. on August 28, 2012 at 11:14am

The alderman and the forces that be are blind if they think this constitutes 8-80 thinking. A bicycle boulevard without traffic diversion that limit cut through traffic is just another street with drivers going too fast and paying too little attention. 

If you ride regularly on main arterials, of course Berteau will seem like a pleasant ride but what might have been an opportunity to get vulnerable users onto bikes for neighborhood destinations has been lost in the politics. I would not let my 5 year old ride on her own bike on Berteau. It's a lost opportunity for real improvement.

Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on August 28, 2012 at 12:29pm

Ash, please read the last two paragraphs of the Grid Chicago post for my perspective on this issue: http://gridchicago.com/2012/the-berteau-greenway-moves-forward-with...

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on August 28, 2012 at 12:38pm

+infinity.

8-80 isn't going to happen any time soon.   It's sad, but what is being done is falling FAR short of that.  

The strong will survive (and did before)  while the folks on the fringe will still not be drawn to cycling until the city gets serious.   

I'm very sad to say that this isn't serious -it's a half-measure.   Better than nothing.  But far short of 8-80 infrastructure that is so sorely needed. 

Ash L. said:

The alderman and the forces that be are blind if they think this constitutes 8-80 thinking. A bicycle boulevard without traffic diversion that limit cut through traffic is just another street with drivers going too fast and paying too little attention. 

If you ride regularly on main arterials, of course Berteau will seem like a pleasant ride but what might have been an opportunity to get vulnerable users onto bikes for neighborhood destinations has been lost in the politics. I would not let my 5 year old ride on her own bike on Berteau. It's a lost opportunity for real improvement.

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on August 28, 2012 at 2:50pm

Aim Small - Miss Small

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on August 28, 2012 at 3:58pm

I could envision this being a stepping stone to more effective measures.  I agree that we've made some good progress from 18-28, and that we do have a long way to go.

Cameron Puetz said:

We're still a long ways from 8-80, but we've come a long ways from the 18-28 that existed not that long ago.

Just because something falls short of a final goal doesn't mean that it isn't positive progress.
Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on August 28, 2012 at 4:13pm

By the way, the Portland, OR, transportation department classifies potential cyclists into four categories, with the 18-28, diehard demographic labeled "Strong and Fearless." I propose that we coin a new term for this type of cyclist (and I once was one myself), calling them "Etheridges" because they are "Brave and Crazy." Get it?

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service