A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

cycling in Chicago



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 5th 16, 04:53 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default cycling in Chicago

Three items of note today:

separate lanes
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...304-story.html

social interaction
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...303-story.html

kiddy path gone wrong
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...304-story.html


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Ads
  #2  
Old March 5th 16, 11:36 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,374
Default cycling in Chicago


what reasons for living in Chicago ?

https://goo.gl/RAQYDT

are people biking Aleppo ?
  #3  
Old March 6th 16, 02:40 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default cycling in Chicago

On 3/5/2016 10:53 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Three items of note today:

separate lanes
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...304-story.html


From the article: "... the Clybourn curb-protected lane, a state
project, pegged at roughly $700,000..." If that's "between Division
Street and North Avenue" as in the first photo's caption, that's for
just 0.8 miles of roadway. Seems pretty expensive!


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #4  
Old March 6th 16, 03:09 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Mike A Schwab
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 443
Default cycling in Chicago

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 7:40:11 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/5/2016 10:53 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Three items of note today:

separate lanes
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...304-story.html


From the article: "... the Clybourn curb-protected lane, a state
project, pegged at roughly $700,000..." If that's "between Division
Street and North Avenue" as in the first photo's caption, that's for
just 0.8 miles of roadway. Seems pretty expensive!


--
- Frank Krygowski


http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago...t?oid=20305324

Held up for three years by a staffer for political reasons. City supported them, Governor Quinn supported them, but a staffer kept them from going through.
  #5  
Old March 6th 16, 08:21 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,374
Default cycling in Chicago

with city and State support, the staff blocked uh implementation
  #6  
Old March 6th 16, 04:44 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default cycling in Chicago

On 3/5/2016 7:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/5/2016 10:53 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Three items of note today:

separate lanes
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...304-story.html


From the article: "... the Clybourn curb-protected lane, a
state project, pegged at roughly $700,000..." If that's
"between Division Street and North Avenue" as in the first
photo's caption, that's for just 0.8 miles of roadway.
Seems pretty expensive!



Governments just love that sort of thing. Everyone involved
walks out with a pile of cash, taxpayer be damned.

In today's paper, a 'homeless' housing project for
US$6,200,000 will house 20 bums. That doesn't count ongoing
staff, utilities, maintenance or forgone property tax
revenue on the parcel. Yep, that's $300K per bum to start!
How many of you working taxpaying chumps have a $300,000+
house? [1]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburb...303-story.html

And it wasn't the biggest boondoggle in the paper today, as
every day.

[1]
My curiosity led me to look at that. Your average home in La
Grange sells for $130K

http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/La...market-trends/

Makes one wonder if they couldn't just give each pair of
bums a house to share and save $240,000 per bum.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #7  
Old March 6th 16, 06:05 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default cycling in Chicago

On 3/5/2016 9:09 PM, Mike A Schwab wrote:
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 7:40:11 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/5/2016 10:53 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Three items of note today:

separate lanes
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...304-story.html


From the article: "... the Clybourn curb-protected lane, a state
project, pegged at roughly $700,000..." If that's "between Division
Street and North Avenue" as in the first photo's caption, that's for
just 0.8 miles of roadway. Seems pretty expensive!


--
- Frank Krygowski


http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago...t?oid=20305324

Held up for three years by a staffer for political reasons. City supported them, Governor Quinn supported them, but a staffer kept them from going through.

I'm sorry, but that article reads like distorted propaganda.

First, there's the introductory tug at the heartstrings, that if only
this evil IDOT person hadn't asked for safety data before constructing
cycletracks, that poor Bobby Cann would be alive today. It's repeated
later in the article, and highlighted by a ghost bike photo.

But the crash that killed him happened at an intersection! Cycletracks,
whether behind concrete curbs, parked cars or plastic posts, do NOT
increase safety at intersections! If anything, they tend to surprise
motorists who must cross them. See this, for one example:
https://vimeo.com/23743067

Second, there is the continuing assertion that politics would be the
only reason that anyone would object to the cycletracks. But IDOT was
asking for three years of safety data. That's hardly unreasonable!
Cycletracks are the hot, fashionable "innovative" street treatment that
this Streetsblog site (and others) now say we MUST have. But the most
prominent bike facility design manual, by AASHTO, has for decades listed
a about a dozen reasons why such facilities are likely to be bad ideas.
AASHTO is an engineering organization, and has no particular politics.
It looks at traffic interactions, vehicle motion, driver capabilities
and expectations, etc.

The author claims there's no reason to ask for safety data, because
there's data claiming cycletracks add safety. He does NOT admit that
there's also data showing cycletracks add danger! In fact, the only
true before-vs-after study of cycletracks (in Copenhagen) showed very
significant increases in crash rates. (Jensen, "Bicycle Tracks and
Lanes: A Before-After Study", http://vehicularcyclist.com/copenhagen2.pdf )

And speaking of Copenhagen, even the rabidly pro-facility website
"Copenhagenize" is adamantly against two-direction cycletracks on one
side of the road.
See
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2014/06...cle-track.html

Another example is Davis, California, one of the most famous American
cities for bike facilities and bike use. Its bike mode share has been
extremely high since the U of California campus there exploded in size,
and made it near illegal to have cars on that campus. The little, flat
town with a perfect climate began building lots of bike facilities,
trying lots of designs. But they abandoned cycletracks early on, because
they proved dangerous. See http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=1927

Less well known, in Columbus Ohio during the 1970s, officials added a
cycletrack to one of the streets bordering the OSU campus. (A cycling
friend of mine lives within a few blocks.) That cycletrack lasted just
a couple years before it was ripped out. Why? Because of a big
increase in crash rates!

I think it's very likely that the engineers at IDOT were well aware that
cycletracks are not magic. They were certainly aware that one would not
prevent a fatality at an intersection - the very place that cycletracks
remove "protection" and increase confusion. They were probably
justifiably outraged at Streetsblog's 3000-person attempt at traffic
Engineering By Petition.

But Streetsblog isn't really about engineering. It's about paint and
path, by whatever means necessary. That's their mission, and that's the
behavior you get with True Believers.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #8  
Old March 6th 16, 06:18 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default cycling in Chicago

On 3/6/2016 11:05 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/5/2016 9:09 PM, Mike A Schwab wrote:
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 7:40:11 PM UTC-6, Frank
Krygowski wrote:
On 3/5/2016 10:53 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Three items of note today:

separate lanes
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...304-story.html


From the article: "... the Clybourn curb-protected
lane, a state
project, pegged at roughly $700,000..." If that's
"between Division
Street and North Avenue" as in the first photo's caption,
that's for
just 0.8 miles of roadway. Seems pretty expensive!


--
- Frank Krygowski


http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago...t?oid=20305324


Held up for three years by a staffer for political
reasons. City supported them, Governor Quinn supported
them, but a staffer kept them from going through.

I'm sorry, but that article reads like distorted propaganda.

First, there's the introductory tug at the heartstrings,
that if only this evil IDOT person hadn't asked for safety
data before constructing cycletracks, that poor Bobby Cann
would be alive today. It's repeated later in the article,
and highlighted by a ghost bike photo.

But the crash that killed him happened at an intersection!
Cycletracks, whether behind concrete curbs, parked cars or
plastic posts, do NOT increase safety at intersections! If
anything, they tend to surprise motorists who must cross
them. See this, for one example:
https://vimeo.com/23743067

Second, there is the continuing assertion that politics
would be the only reason that anyone would object to the
cycletracks. But IDOT was asking for three years of safety
data. That's hardly unreasonable! Cycletracks are the hot,
fashionable "innovative" street treatment that this
Streetsblog site (and others) now say we MUST have. But the
most prominent bike facility design manual, by AASHTO, has
for decades listed a about a dozen reasons why such
facilities are likely to be bad ideas. AASHTO is an
engineering organization, and has no particular politics. It
looks at traffic interactions, vehicle motion, driver
capabilities and expectations, etc.

The author claims there's no reason to ask for safety data,
because there's data claiming cycletracks add safety. He
does NOT admit that there's also data showing cycletracks
add danger! In fact, the only true before-vs-after study of
cycletracks (in Copenhagen) showed very significant
increases in crash rates. (Jensen, "Bicycle Tracks and
Lanes: A Before-After Study",
http://vehicularcyclist.com/copenhagen2.pdf )

And speaking of Copenhagen, even the rabidly pro-facility
website "Copenhagenize" is adamantly against two-direction
cycletracks on one side of the road.
See
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2014/06...cle-track.html


Another example is Davis, California, one of the most famous
American cities for bike facilities and bike use. Its bike
mode share has been extremely high since the U of California
campus there exploded in size, and made it near illegal to
have cars on that campus. The little, flat town with a
perfect climate began building lots of bike facilities,
trying lots of designs. But they abandoned cycletracks early
on, because they proved dangerous. See
http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=1927

Less well known, in Columbus Ohio during the 1970s,
officials added a cycletrack to one of the streets bordering
the OSU campus. (A cycling friend of mine lives within a
few blocks.) That cycletrack lasted just a couple years
before it was ripped out. Why? Because of a big increase
in crash rates!

I think it's very likely that the engineers at IDOT were
well aware that cycletracks are not magic. They were
certainly aware that one would not prevent a fatality at an
intersection - the very place that cycletracks remove
"protection" and increase confusion. They were probably
justifiably outraged at Streetsblog's 3000-person attempt at
traffic Engineering By Petition.

But Streetsblog isn't really about engineering. It's about
paint and path, by whatever means necessary. That's their
mission, and that's the behavior you get with True Believers.


Regarding your DC video, much of that trouble was mitigated
in NYC with the pithy admonition to car drivers, "don't
block the box".

About wrong-way kiddie paths on streets, I just routinely
ignore them and ride right side lane, as any other vehicle.
I rode a couple of miles this morning across the street from
one of those killer segregated whatnots. As the old sticker
proclaimed , "I Am Traffic." But hey, YMMV; make your own
decision.

Note to Gene: Today's Ride was balmy with a spectacularly
colorful sunrise halfway through.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #9  
Old March 6th 16, 09:49 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default cycling in Chicago

On 3/6/2016 12:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/5/2016 9:09 PM, Mike A Schwab wrote:
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 7:40:11 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/5/2016 10:53 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Three items of note today:

separate lanes
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...304-story.html


From the article: "... the Clybourn curb-protected lane, a state
project, pegged at roughly $700,000..." If that's "between Division
Street and North Avenue" as in the first photo's caption, that's for
just 0.8 miles of roadway. Seems pretty expensive!


--
- Frank Krygowski


http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago...t?oid=20305324


Held up for three years by a staffer for political reasons. City
supported them, Governor Quinn supported them, but a staffer kept them
from going through.

I'm sorry, but that article reads like distorted propaganda.

First, there's the introductory tug at the heartstrings, that if only
this evil IDOT person hadn't asked for safety data before constructing
cycletracks, that poor Bobby Cann would be alive today. It's repeated
later in the article, and highlighted by a ghost bike photo.

But the crash that killed him happened at an intersection! Cycletracks,
whether behind concrete curbs, parked cars or plastic posts, do NOT
increase safety at intersections! If anything, they tend to surprise
motorists who must cross them. See this, for one example:
https://vimeo.com/23743067

Second, there is the continuing assertion that politics would be the
only reason that anyone would object to the cycletracks. But IDOT was
asking for three years of safety data. That's hardly unreasonable!
Cycletracks are the hot, fashionable "innovative" street treatment that
this Streetsblog site (and others) now say we MUST have. But the most
prominent bike facility design manual, by AASHTO, has for decades listed
a about a dozen reasons why such facilities are likely to be bad ideas.
AASHTO is an engineering organization, and has no particular politics.
It looks at traffic interactions, vehicle motion, driver capabilities
and expectations, etc.

The author claims there's no reason to ask for safety data, because
there's data claiming cycletracks add safety. He does NOT admit that
there's also data showing cycletracks add danger! In fact, the only
true before-vs-after study of cycletracks (in Copenhagen) showed very
significant increases in crash rates. (Jensen, "Bicycle Tracks and
Lanes: A Before-After Study",
http://vehicularcyclist.com/copenhagen2.pdf )

And speaking of Copenhagen, even the rabidly pro-facility website
"Copenhagenize" is adamantly against two-direction cycletracks on one
side of the road.
See
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2014/06...cle-track.html


Another example is Davis, California, one of the most famous American
cities for bike facilities and bike use. Its bike mode share has been
extremely high since the U of California campus there exploded in size,
and made it near illegal to have cars on that campus. The little, flat
town with a perfect climate began building lots of bike facilities,
trying lots of designs. But they abandoned cycletracks early on, because
they proved dangerous. See http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=1927

Less well known, in Columbus Ohio during the 1970s, officials added a
cycletrack to one of the streets bordering the OSU campus. (A cycling
friend of mine lives within a few blocks.) That cycletrack lasted just
a couple years before it was ripped out. Why? Because of a big
increase in crash rates!

I think it's very likely that the engineers at IDOT were well aware that
cycletracks are not magic. They were certainly aware that one would not
prevent a fatality at an intersection - the very place that cycletracks
remove "protection" and increase confusion. They were probably
justifiably outraged at Streetsblog's 3000-person attempt at traffic
Engineering By Petition.

But Streetsblog isn't really about engineering. It's about paint and
path, by whatever means necessary. That's their mission, and that's the
behavior you get with True Believers.


Oh, and for the anecdote fans:
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/...nue-tinkering/

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #10  
Old March 7th 16, 01:28 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,374
Default cycling in Chicago

Frank Krygowski

Seattle is a work in progress

fifth....good show !



https://www.google.com/#q=cyclists+killed+in+chicago


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Trikes? Trains? Cycling routes from Milwaukee to Chicago? [email protected][_2_] Social Issues 11 July 10th 08 03:34 AM
Trikes? Trains? Cycling routes from Milwaukee to Chicago? Tom Sherman[_2_] General 7 July 10th 08 03:34 AM
Chicago Area Cycling John Everett General 11 April 4th 07 12:38 PM
Chicago Area Cycling John Everett Rides 11 April 4th 07 12:38 PM
NPR audio: Chicago Lures Commuters Into Cycling Robert J. Matter General 24 August 15th 04 12:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.