Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on July 31, 2013 at 12:01am

Those are good concepts, especially the comparison to Milwaukee.  How about going to one of those meetings and talking about them?  Here, you are just singing to the choir!

Shaun Jacobsen said:

Re: those intersections starting at Montrose:

Wilson should be gone away with as an exit completely. There's three exits in a half mile. The others should just terminate at the LFT (like at Belmont) and the roads there into the park should go away, too. So much cheap parking there leads to all those people having to exit LSD and cause traffic in the first place. There's so many roads and parking spots in that park.

My "big idea," since we all have them, for LSD is that it becomes a boulevard. It's just an idea. I'm not an engineer. I don't know how they'd do it but it would be so much better with more stop lights, slower traffic, and less tunnels for pedestrians to use.

I think of the lakefront drive in Milwaukee as a good example. Relatively slow by design, opportunities to cross, and not too intrusive and obstructive like LSD is now. They did say they wanted to limit the speed to 35 by design, right? You aren't going to do that keeping it like it is now.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on July 31, 2013 at 12:38am

Here's a page related to last night's Chicago Tonight feature on the meetings and project, including video from the show.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shaun Jacobsen on July 31, 2013 at 1:37am

I will definitely be there and would like to join a task force too!

Lisa Curcio 6.5 mi said:

Those are good concepts, especially the comparison to Milwaukee.  How about going to one of those meetings and talking about them?  Here, you are just singing to the choir!

Shaun Jacobsen said:

Re: those intersections starting at Montrose:

Wilson should be gone away with as an exit completely. There's three exits in a half mile. The others should just terminate at the LFT (like at Belmont) and the roads there into the park should go away, too. So much cheap parking there leads to all those people having to exit LSD and cause traffic in the first place. There's so many roads and parking spots in that park.

My "big idea," since we all have them, for LSD is that it becomes a boulevard. It's just an idea. I'm not an engineer. I don't know how they'd do it but it would be so much better with more stop lights, slower traffic, and less tunnels for pedestrians to use.

I think of the lakefront drive in Milwaukee as a good example. Relatively slow by design, opportunities to cross, and not too intrusive and obstructive like LSD is now. They did say they wanted to limit the speed to 35 by design, right? You aren't going to do that keeping it like it is now.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adam Herstein on July 31, 2013 at 4:39am

I'll be attending the Nature Museum meeting next week.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tricolor on July 31, 2013 at 5:28am

Considering LSD is the only large road heading north from Chicago anything reducing its capacity would hurt the entire north shore.  Since there's a lot of money and influence at the county and state level up there (and even city influence from Edgewater and Rogers Park) any plan to reduce LSD/Sheridan isn't going to be possible until there's another high-capacity option.  But any big road inland isn't really feasible because unlike the post war period Chicago can't rip out neighborhoods and build a proper highway, let alone afford construction.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Barish on July 31, 2013 at 5:50am

Lake Shore  Drive is a Boulevard. That term means that no trucks are allowed on LSD.  It doesn't mean that LSD is a Boulevard as in a one of Geoffrey Baer's programs. However, as mentioned, it has a median and a sub freeway posted speed limit.

I think the biggest issue with LSD and bikes/peds is the intersections.  Cars are exiting LSD at the same place where other cars are coming East into the park or West out of the park.  Bikes and Peds on the path are going north/south at these same intersections. A light would create potential backups onto LSD and that could be dangerous but cold make people wait their turn.  Those who feel entitled to race from  Hollywood to Navy Pier would be offended. There are stop signs for cars that have to figure out when the bikes and peds will allow them through. Great awareness and sensitivity is required of all to avoid having collisions. I do not know how realistic it would be to have pedestrian and bike bypasses but that is the perfect solution.  I leave it to the engineers and urban planner types to come with the reasonably cost effective solutions.

There are a lot of vehicles near Wilson as there are a lot of soccer and baseball fields, grilling areas and of course a lovely great lake. Players and parents are going to and from their games along with families going to picnics, occasional  concert goers and others for this multi-use park that is a wonder of urban planning over a century ago.

Shaun Jacobsen said:

My "big idea," since we all have them, for LSD is that it becomes a boulevard. It's just an idea. I'm not an engineer. I don't know how they'd do it but it would be so much better with more stop lights, slower traffic, and less tunnels for pedestrians to use.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michelle S on July 31, 2013 at 6:03am

I hardly think that LSD is the gateway to the entire north shore. I think people likely use it to get from the Loop to north side neighborhoods, and certainly Evanston, but not much after that. That's what they have the Edens for, and Skokie Road, for that matter. I don't see people using 7 miles of LSD and then crawling through local traffic for an additional 11 miles to get to Winnetka.
 
Tricolor said:

Considering LSD is the only large road heading north from Chicago anything reducing its capacity would hurt the entire north shore.  Since there's a lot of money and influence at the county and state level up there (and even city influence from Edgewater and Rogers Park) any plan to reduce LSD/Sheridan isn't going to be possible until there's another high-capacity option.  But any big road inland isn't really feasible because unlike the post war period Chicago can't rip out neighborhoods and build a proper highway, let alone afford construction.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shaun Jacobsen on July 31, 2013 at 6:58am

It is not the only large road. There is 94 and 294, which are pretty large. If they're backed up, it's not a reason to build another one. That just creates more traffic.

Chicago did rip out and eviscerate neighborhoods to build freeways, and they're doing it now (see Circle interchange). If you want to reduce the number of people driving on a roadway you should toll it. Using these high speed roadways shouldn't be free because everyone else wants to use them.

I agree with Michelle. This isn't a road to the entire north shore. It serves the northern portion of the city to a certain point, and parts of Evanston. People who live on the north side aren't entitled to a high-speed road along some of the most beautiful parkland in the country.

Tricolor said:

Considering LSD is the only large road heading north from Chicago anything reducing its capacity would hurt the entire north shore.  Since there's a lot of money and influence at the county and state level up there (and even city influence from Edgewater and Rogers Park) any plan to reduce LSD/Sheridan isn't going to be possible until there's another high-capacity option.  But any big road inland isn't really feasible because unlike the post war period Chicago can't rip out neighborhoods and build a proper highway, let alone afford construction.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Julie Aberman (Hochstadter) on August 1, 2013 at 12:33pm

If it wasn't shared yet, you can fill out this form to join the taskforce - http://www.northlakeshoredrive.org/pdf/NLSD%20Interest%20Form.pdf

And for information to get involved - http://www.northlakeshoredrive.org/involved_task_forces.html

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by SlowCoachOnTheRoad on August 1, 2013 at 2:36pm

Easier and cheaper than electric lights or building more tunnels would be simply rerouting the existing trail to go along Montrose Road into the park and up along the lake to Foster but building a super protected bike lane like we have on Dearborn.  Electric lights would only worsen the existing traffic problem in which cars get backed up horribly for long periods of time.  Incidentally, no one really has to use those intersections if they don't want to as it is, for example just south of the Montrose intersection a hill can lead a biker up and down into a tunnel that already goes under the street - this is true for all streets - and that is what I, a local resident, does.  I live very close to the Montrose intersection and frequently on a nice summer day hop the bike for just a few minutes with my camping chair attached so I can plunk a chair near a shady tree for an hour's read.  What I have found is that the city planners who designed the streets for cars in this part of the park are totally bonkers.  The cars south of Montrose, at Irving Park Road entrance, must contend with those two sides of the road along the tennis courts, that small car park near the golf course, and the stretch along the north side of Belmont Harbor.   Given how many cars can already park in this area, I am not even sure why even more cars are allowed in along Montrose up to Foster at all.  But if they are, why not just limit them to the existing car park that is just West of Montrose Harbor?  By letting even more cars in along that entire road from Montrose to Foster, and then additionally that stretch along the Montrose Harbor, it gets so crowded with cars some days one can't enjoy the park at all.  This is madness - surely there are basic city designing principles when it comes to how many cars should be allowed in a park?  There must be such principles because look at the Brookfield Zoo or the Botanical Gardens, for example - they don't have a long road of cars coursing along every animal exhibit of the Brookfield or every segregated display of the Botanical - cars are limited by how many will fit in that car park that you first arrive at.  Same with North Park Village Nature Center or any other preserve or state park you can think of - one ordinarily is limited by the small car parks one finds when one arrives - if there are no spaces, you just leave and do something else.  But somehow whatever basic design principles are in use for almost any park I can think of simply are not being adhered to when it comes to the Montrose to Foster park.  It is as if the planners are all on drugs and out of their minds - who can possibly enjoy a park with 3 miles of congestion running along it?  Why allow more than a few hundred at a time as is the case with any other park you can think of, like those I mentioned?  Or, alternately, why not simply allow no cars and just let people park for free on the inner drive from Irving Park to Foster and then walk in to the park (what a novel thought, walking to a park).  But of course local residents tend to use that strip (which is probably a good thing) so I don't see the practicality of my last suggestion.  Either way, the city planners are clearly not thinking by letting periodic overpopulations of traffic into a park - aren't our parks precisely to get away from congestion and pollution?  Anyway, it all seems mad to me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim S on August 2, 2013 at 3:24am

There are plenty of options for getting to the North Shore. Reducing the capacity of LSD will not hurt the North Shore. 

I honestly dont get why anyone in their right mind would choose to use LSD during the rush. CTA, Bike, Walk... hell even a tortoise is faster at times than that road. Every study has shown that when you increase capacity on a highway it is filled and does not provide relief.

Cars are like water they find a way to fill the void. 

Tricolor said:

Considering LSD is the only large road heading north from Chicago anything reducing its capacity would hurt the entire north shore.  Since there's a lot of money and influence at the county and state level up there (and even city influence from Edgewater and Rogers Park) any plan to reduce LSD/Sheridan isn't going to be possible until there's another high-capacity option.  But any big road inland isn't really feasible because unlike the post war period Chicago can't rip out neighborhoods and build a proper highway, let alone afford construction.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeff K on August 2, 2013 at 8:12am

"for example just south of the Montrose intersection a hill can lead a biker up and down into a tunnel that already goes under the street"

I did not know that. From Google satellite view it looks like Wilson also has an underpass.

Routing the bike path through those is a great idea.

• ▶ Reply

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