Wells Street bridge closing for one year

It starts in December:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/13758202-418/wells-street-bridge-resto...

Views: 2668

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on November 5, 2012 at 10:40am

I agree, Jeff.  IF there are a lot of cyclists in the lane, it might be lessened, but right now the only thing to do there is to get in the line of cars.  I definitely would not ride up to Wacker along the right of the cars on Clark.

Permalink Reply by Charlie Short 2.9 on November 5, 2012 at 12:08pm

Clark is my regular route and I find it safe. The chances of a right hook are certainly there at Clark and Wacker, but I've found that cars take it easy there for the most part because you can't see pedestrians that are crossing Clark (it's a problem for both sides.

I understand people's concern, but I find Clark to be great for getting into the loop. Are we going to encourage a lot of new cyclists with this set up? Probably not, but experienced cyclists should find the alternate manageable.

Permalink Reply by blair on November 6, 2012 at 3:41am

I tried out Clark for the first time today and have no complaints.  The bike plates kind of merge into the car lane.

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on November 6, 2012 at 4:00am

Is it possible to modify the Wacker crossing bike lane similar to the way that Wells was set up?   It was not perfect, but it does did seem to work.  I've yet to take Clark since it's been worked on.  I suppose the next time I get down there will probably be for November CCM.

JeffB said:

Right-hook potential is HIGH at Wacker.  Be careful.

Lisa Curcio said:

Bridge update:

Wells is indeed closed although there were people walking across despite the "sidewalk closed" signs on both sides and both ends.

Clark where it was torn up is new asphalt.  No markings on it.  The markings remain "bike lane" in the far right driving lane immediately south of Kinzie and at the interesection with Wacker.  Plates--as I mentioned the other day--are like the ones on Wells, but they take space from the normal lane so bikes will be sharing the lane with cars.

Permalink Reply by Kathy Schubert 'n Suzy Schnauzer on November 6, 2012 at 4:55am

I have taken the alternate route proposed by CDOT which is to use the Clark St. bridge which now has bridge plates.  Unfortunately, the plates are only 4 feet wide, compared to Cortland St. Bridge and others which are 5 feet wide.  I have suggested to Mike Amsden that future bridge plates should also be five feet wide and you can write to him or to whoever you know at CDOT who works on designing bridges to make the same request.  I felt that the cars were too close with those narrow plates.  Try it yourself.

Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on November 6, 2012 at 5:15am

I took it this morning at about 7:45.  Traffic at that time was relatively light, but even so the cars felt too close.  As I mentioned earlier, they just took the space out of the regular lane for the plates instad of reconfiguring the travel lanes, whereas on Wells there was an entire lane to the left of the plates.  Making the plates wider will not solve the problem because it is not a separate bike lane as there is on Cortland.

Getting across at Wacker was not too bad--just had to put myself in a position to be seen by any cars behind me who might have been turning.  The harder part is that I have to get over to the east side of Clark by the time I get to Randolph, and there is no easy way to do that with width of Clark and the traffic.

Permalink Reply by blair on November 6, 2012 at 5:31am

I didn't find it any more difficult than the set up on Wells.  On Wells I had to cut left through cars in the right turn lane to get into the bike lane.  I also had to signal into the left lane when I'd turn east onto Washington.

Is this detour perfect?  No.  But either was Wells.  If they end up putting up one or two "May use full lane" signs on Clark like they did Wells, I'd say the two are pretty similar.

Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on November 6, 2012 at 5:34am

So now, fellow commuters, you have two different perspectives to help you assess the situation.   ;-)
 
122782_ said:

I didn't find it any more difficult than the set up on Wells.  On Wells I had to cut left through cars in the right turn lane to get into the bike lane.  I also had to signal into the left lane when I'd turn east onto Washington.

Is this detour perfect?  No.  But either was Wells.  If they end up putting up one or two "May use full lane" signs on Clark like they did Wells, I'd say the two are pretty similar.

Permalink Reply by blair on November 6, 2012 at 5:38am

Lisa - exactly!  Hope all of the feedback helps others.

Permalink Reply by Julie Aberman (Hochstadter) on November 6, 2012 at 5:45am

It's the beauty of diversity and community input!

Permalink Reply by Kathy Schubert 'n Suzy Schnauzer on November 6, 2012 at 5:52am

But the plates are too narrow.  They are only 4 feet wide.  Other bridges are 5 feet wide.  Please try it yourself and let CDOT know if you think they are not wide enough.

Permalink Reply by Night Owl on November 6, 2012 at 8:16am

I think that it is fine for a detour.  Not ideal by any means, but it'll do once drivers adjust to cyclists.  I do think, however, that the sidewalk south of Wacker is dangerous.  Pedestrians have been pushed on to the street because of construction, so it edges bikes and cars really close together on that spot.  After yesterday, I found myself jumping the light by 3-4 seconds just to make sure that I could clear the front of the car.  A bike box would likely solve this problem, but I'm not sure if there is enough space on the side to create the lane leading in to it.  Just my first thought, anyway.

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service