Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on March 10, 2013 at 5:54am

Mike Z,

CDOT is now taking responsibility for plowing the lanes, so they should be better maintained in the future:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/18655473-418/chicago-bike-lanes-...

The plastic posts don't provide the protection from moving traffic for cyclists (and peds on the sidewalk) - the parked cars do, and the narrower travel lanes discourage speeding. That said, if they remove parking from one side of Milwaukee to make room for the protected lanes, obviously that side won't have parked cars on the left side of the bike lane, just posts. So it would be great if CDOT used permanent bollard made of concrete or steel to the left of the curbside bike lane to provide protection for cyclists and peds.

Daniel G. is right. Although some of us on the Chainlink might prefer riding fast in regular bike lanes to riding in protected lanes, Chicago has less than a 2% bike mode share and that's never going to increase much as long as we're asking people to share the road with fast car traffic. So, although some of us might not care for them, if we're serious about getting a lot more people on bike here, protected lanes are going to be key.

Although I like protected lanes in general, I much prefer European-style separated lanes where you're riding on concrete raised above street level, like the one in Copenhagen, below. The riding surface is great, there are less maintenance issues, and sightlines are better so there's less of an issue of getting "right-hooked" by cars - they also have dedicated bike stoplights to prevent conflicts. Of course, when 35% of all trips are made by bike, no driver would dream of making a right turn without checking for bikes.

Hopefully CDOT will experiment with raised concrete bike lanes in the near future. They were listed as a strategy in the Bike 2015 Plan, but nothing ever happened with this:

3.7	Install raised bike lanes at appropriate locations. Raised bike lanes have a slightly raised edge to prevent motorists from driving in the lane, protecting bicyclists from fast-moving traffic. If successful, expand initiative.
3.7.1	Performance Measures: Identify 3 – 5 potential locations in 2006. Test 2 – 3 locations by 2010.

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on March 10, 2013 at 6:17am

+1

Slowing down/calming traffic to at least the posted speeds will do 10,000% more good than any "protected" lanes.

John Greenfield said:

Kevin,

Narrower travel lanes due to the protected bike lanes will discourage speeding - they might have made a difference in that case.

- John Greenfield

Permalink Reply by Mike Zumwalt on March 10, 2013 at 6:27am

"CDOT is now taking responsibility for plowing the lanes, so they should be better maintained in the future:"

I read the article previously.

I'll look forward to NEXT year, the 3rd year the lane has been there.

 

Permalink Reply by Mark Potts on March 10, 2013 at 2:41pm

Since I can maintain 20+mph for long durations, I like to just ride with the cars.  The protected/isolated/buffered lanes, though, are so much more conducive for cruising along at a slower speed and sightseeing... I can see the appeal to most cyclists, however I don't want to be "stuck" in them if I am capable of moving at the speed of traffic.

Permalink Reply by Crazy David 84 Furlongs on March 14, 2013 at 10:45am

Thanks for the link.   Reading the contract, its pretty clear that the City didn't put much thought into this and the other guys did.   That being said, the word "loophole" does still appear to be there.

The focus is on changes with respect to parking laws and parking taxes.   No matter who changes the law.  (In fact, an unfriendly Cook Country could solve its budget problems overnight and end up dumping the problem on the City...).  BUT,  and this would not appear to trigger a revenue event as defined in the contract.

The City has the right to regulate "vending" machines and points of sale.   The City could pass a law requiring any entity that controls and operates more than 100 (200,300... the job of filing in the blank means little) automated vending machines, for which the maximum which can be collected in a transaction exceeds $3.00, must provide a live person available during regular business hours within 400 yards for such machine.  This would exempt low value soda and candy machines and small mom and pop coin operated laundry facilities.  It would likely bring in at least a couple of "large" coin-operated laundries... but they have people on the premises... and it would bring in Laz and the parking meters.  But not, I would submit, as a kind of event triggered by the contract as it is not "targeted" at parking, is not a parking tax, and can be tied to a rational purpose -- ensuring that people who put money in coin or credit card operated machines have ready redress for machine failure.

Kevin K said:

If the City of Chicago passed such a law it would be a clear "Compensation Event" and any increased expenses borne by Chicago Parking Meters in the course of complying with the law would have to be reimbursed to them by the City, as "Concession Compensation." 

So bottom line, any and all costs of complying with that law, or any similar law, would be paid by the City.  It wouldn't cost Chicago Parking Meters a dime.

http://www.chicagoreader.com/old-blog-media/pdf/chgo_parking_agree.pdf

David crZven 10.6 said:

Yes.  Its a terrible parking contract.  It is easy to fix, but the city will not do it.   All it takes is the following piece of legislation.:

All entities that charge fees for more than 3,000 parking spaces within the city of Chicago must either maintain at least one live individual during the hours of 9am to 9pm within 1 mile of every such space or must contract with the City of Chicago to provide contact services at a fee of $10.00 per parking space per day.   

The justification.   If you park in a garage and you have a problem, you have a live person to talk to, and if necessary, physically show them the problem.  With Laz, you have a "phone call" access only which requires a phone and does not allow the parker the ability to show the physical problem.

Laz would, very quickly, want to break its contract with the City at this point and this STUPID contact would no longer stand in the way of things such as eliminating parking on large stretches of Lincoln to improve bicycling.

Permalink Reply by Juan Primo on March 14, 2013 at 11:33am

I'm with you, but what are the chances that the City will enforce all cyclists onto protected lanes?

Mark Potts said:

Since I can maintain 20+mph for long durations, I like to just ride with the cars.  The protected/isolated/buffered lanes, though, are so much more conducive for cruising along at a slower speed and sightseeing... I can see the appeal to most cyclists, however I don't want to be "stuck" in them if I am capable of moving at the speed of traffic.

Permalink Reply by Crazy David 84 Furlongs on March 14, 2013 at 11:41am

The chances that the City will force all cyclists into protected lanes on streets with protected lanes is probably pretty good.   This is certainly the experience in New York City.    A videographer who got a ticket in New York for not using the bike lane illustrated the problem. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ

Look up bike lanes by Casey Neistat on you tube if the link does not work.

Mind you, if the protected lane is done right, unlike many of the hardcore, I am okay with that... I know most of you are not.   But for cycling to ultimately work it can't just be for the folks Brave (?stupid?) enough to ride on Western or Irving Park Road.  And we need to recognize that compromises on BOTH sides are needed.   Unlike most of you, I am willing to give up a couple of arterials to just cars in exchange for better routes for bikes elsewhere.  Most of those streets, in practice, are already "bike free".

Permalink Reply by Julie Aberman (Hochstadter) on March 14, 2013 at 11:49am

at the meeting yesterday they said it will still be legal to ride on the street and the city's legal department would share a letter they write up stating that.  (Not sure who or where it will be shared), but they did mention they could produce something.  I guess it could be very handy to show motorists when they yell at you to get in the bike lane to show them some official document or code.

Juan Primo said:

I'm with you, but what are the chances that the City will enforce all cyclists onto protected lanes?

Mark Potts said:

Since I can maintain 20+mph for long durations, I like to just ride with the cars.  The protected/isolated/buffered lanes, though, are so much more conducive for cruising along at a slower speed and sightseeing... I can see the appeal to most cyclists, however I don't want to be "stuck" in them if I am capable of moving at the speed of traffic.

Permalink Reply by Crazy David 84 Furlongs on March 14, 2013 at 12:02pm

That's great that they say this.    The question is whether they will "change their minds after they have eaten".   I understand the fear that this is simply an intermediate step. 

Julie Hochstadter said:

at the meeting yesterday they said it will still be legal to ride on the street and the city's legal department would share a letter they write up stating that.  (Not sure who or where it will be shared), but they did mention they could produce something.  I guess it could be very handy to show motorists when they yell at you to get in the bike lane to show them some official document or code.

Juan Primo said:

I'm with you, but what are the chances that the City will enforce all cyclists onto protected lanes?

Mark Potts said:

Since I can maintain 20+mph for long durations, I like to just ride with the cars.  The protected/isolated/buffered lanes, though, are so much more conducive for cruising along at a slower speed and sightseeing... I can see the appeal to most cyclists, however I don't want to be "stuck" in them if I am capable of moving at the speed of traffic.

Permalink Reply by Juan Primo on March 14, 2013 at 12:50pm

I wonder if I sound like a jerk for being against PBL's, especially since some people are totally for it.  I fear that PBL's will segregate all cyclists to the crappy part of the street (right door zone, bad plowing, unofficial unenforced cab standing) and disenfranchise us from the "real street".  If it is truly legal to ride share a lane with the cars, I'm fine.

Question:  Who says it's legal to ride in a street or a PBL.  Is it State traffic laws or municipal code?  If the State traffic laws rule, then I'm cool with it.

Permalink Reply by Kevin K on March 14, 2013 at 2:50pm

Well, to start, parking meters aren't food vending machines, or laundry machines (definitions from the Chicago Municipal Code below.)  Those are governed by different portions of the city code.

Besides that, the contract is clear.  An Adverse Event (a Compensation Event) is defined as ANY action or actions taken during the Term, the effect of which "is to be principally borne by (CPM) or other operators of on-street parking systems."

So if your law was passed, and the only company in the city it effected was CPM, I'd say that fits the definition of Adverse Event precisely.  It's not just a law designed to be principally borne by CPM.  It's a law designed to be only borne by CPM.  

You might as well try a new law that says, "Any company operating an on-street parking system in the City of Chicago must have an annual Parking Meter Company permit, the cost of which shall be $500M per year."

There might be a way to get out of the contract, but this ain't the golden ticket. But keep digging.

______________________________________

The Chicago municipal code defines food vending machines as such;  "“Automatic food-vending machine” means any service container or mechanical device which upon insertion of a coin or token or by other similar means dispenses unit servings of food or drink either in bulk or in packages without the necessity of replenishing the device between each vending operation; and shall include a water-vending machine.

Coin-operated laundry services are defined as:  “Coin-operated, self-service laundry” means any establishment where washing machine units are available for use by the general public upon depositing a coin into such unit or paying a fee for the use of such unit to the operator of the establishment or such operator's agent."

David crZven 10.6 said:

Thanks for the link.   Reading the contract, its pretty clear that the City didn't put much thought into this and the other guys did.   That being said, the word "loophole" does still appear to be there.

The focus is on changes with respect to parking laws and parking taxes.   No matter who changes the law.  (In fact, an unfriendly Cook Country could solve its budget problems overnight and end up dumping the problem on the City...).  BUT,  and this would not appear to trigger a revenue event as defined in the contract.

The City has the right to regulate "vending" machines and points of sale.   The City could pass a law requiring any entity that controls and operates more than 100 (200,300... the job of filing in the blank means little) automated vending machines, for which the maximum which can be collected in a transaction exceeds $3.00, must provide a live person available during regular business hours within 400 yards for such machine.  This would exempt low value soda and candy machines and small mom and pop coin operated laundry facilities.  It would likely bring in at least a couple of "large" coin-operated laundries... but they have people on the premises... and it would bring in Laz and the parking meters.  But not, I would submit, as a kind of event triggered by the contract as it is not "targeted" at parking, is not a parking tax, and can be tied to a rational purpose -- ensuring that people who put money in coin or credit card operated machines have ready redress for machine failure.

Kevin K said:

If the City of Chicago passed such a law it would be a clear "Compensation Event" and any increased expenses borne by Chicago Parking Meters in the course of complying with the law would have to be reimbursed to them by the City, as "Concession Compensation." 

So bottom line, any and all costs of complying with that law, or any similar law, would be paid by the City.  It wouldn't cost Chicago Parking Meters a dime.

http://www.chicagoreader.com/old-blog-media/pdf/chgo_parking_agree.pdf

David crZven 10.6 said:

Yes.  Its a terrible parking contract.  It is easy to fix, but the city will not do it.   All it takes is the following piece of legislation.:

All entities that charge fees for more than 3,000 parking spaces within the city of Chicago must either maintain at least one live individual during the hours of 9am to 9pm within 1 mile of every such space or must contract with the City of Chicago to provide contact services at a fee of $10.00 per parking space per day.   

The justification.   If you park in a garage and you have a problem, you have a live person to talk to, and if necessary, physically show them the problem.  With Laz, you have a "phone call" access only which requires a phone and does not allow the parker the ability to show the physical problem.

Laz would, very quickly, want to break its contract with the City at this point and this STUPID contact would no longer stand in the way of things such as eliminating parking on large stretches of Lincoln to improve bicycling.

Permalink Reply by Eric on March 15, 2013 at 2:56am

I drive a delivery truck down Milwaukee often, especially around rush hour in the morning, and Milwaukee has got to be one of the WORST streets for cars recklessly passing each other using the bike lanes as their passing lanes.

Great example was the other morning at around 7 a.m. on Milwaukee just southeast of North Ave: 3 car pile-up I drove by, clearly caused by someone trying to pass using a bike lane.

Whatever the politics of getting bike lanes built, a protected bike lane seems to be the only solution to preventing these sorts of hazards for everyone involved.

Chi Lowe 12.5+ mi said:

Here's a headline "Chicago Cyclists Consider Taking The Lane Every Time On Milwaukee". 

Question: if 40% of the traffic on some stretches is bikes, and everyone started taking the lane, every time, how fast do you think cagers would abandon Milwaukee?   Answer: So fast.  They'd find somewhere else to race from light to light.  Trust me, it's that important to them.  Also important to them:CELL PHONE (which almost gets me killed about twice a week).

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page