|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
cycling in Chicago
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
cycling in Chicago
with city and State support, the staff blocked uh implementation
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |