Tag Archives: Bicycles

Kinzie, Dearborn, Milwaukee, …Clark?

Posted on by
4

This week, the protected bike lane on Milwaukee Ave in Chicago made a debut, now one of a few truly protected bike facilities in Chicago. Milwaukee Ave sees as many as 4,800 riders* daily. We can’t stop now, we’ve got to keep building more!

Everyone certainly has their own opinion on where the next lanes should go, and I have my own suggestion based on my normal commute home, and based on what I feel is a missing connection between two existing lanes.

Going north from downtown, the Dearborn protected lane stops at Kinzie, where it turns into a mess of taxis parked in the left-side bike lane, cars turning left (and almost always nearly hooking those on bikes), and lights that seemed synchronized to promote fast driving. At Chicago Ave, the lane used to abruptly end; as of this week, a bike lane has been striped 3 blocks north to Walton. Dearborn continues as a two-way street all the way to North Ave, with no bike lane.

New striped bike lane on northbound Dearborn. Credit: Shaun Jacobsen.

New striped bike lane on northbound Dearborn. Credit: Shaun Jacobsen.

Clark St, one block west, is striped with a bike lane, but there is no indication that Clark is a good northbound route from Dearborn at Walton. The lane is on the left side of Dearborn, meaning that it is a slightly complex maneuver to turn left with all the cars also confused on how to proceed. Unfortunately both streets are too narrow for a protected bike lane.

The Dearborn protected bike lane should be extended from Kinzie, where it currently ends, all the way north to North Ave. Unfortunately for all Chicagoans, this is infeasible due to the infamous parking meter “deal.”

You could make the case that a protected bike lane on Dearborn after Chicago Ave isn’t necessary, since the street is relatively calm as it is, but that ignores the fact that the majority of people who want to ride a bike, but don’t currently, probably aren’t riding because they don’t feel safe doing so. Protected bike lanes are a great way to get these people out on their bikes.

In addition, extending the lane all the way to North provides a good connection to the Lakefront Trail and Clark St or Lincoln Ave. Which brings me to my next point…

Clark St between North Ave and Armitage needs to be narrowed, with a protected bike lane installed:

Clark St at North. Credit: Shaun Jacobsen.

Clark St at North Ave. Credit: Shaun Jacobsen.


Right now, this half-mile stretch is about 62′ wide: that’s wide enough for (at least) one 11′ travel lane in each direction, two 7′ parking lanes, a 7′ bike lane in each direction, and 3′ of protection between the bike lane and parked cars. That’s also plenty of room to allow a bus island so that the buses don’t have to cross in front of the bike lane.
There are currently two travel lanes in each direction on this stretch of Clark, but I’d argue it’s more of a 1.5-lane arrangement; there are quite a few other people riding bikes along it that occupy enough of the pothole-ridden right lane that most drivers switch to the left lane, and many drivers anticipate continuing north on Clark instead of turning right onto Lincoln Park West, also forcing them into the leftmost lane.

Clark St near Armitage and Lincoln Park West. Credit: Google.

Clark St near Armitage and Lincoln Park West. Credit: Google.

Finally, the 4-lane layout of the street just doesn’t make sense. For just a half mile, drivers get two lanes: going north on Clark until North, there is only one lane in each direction; starting at Armitage, the street goes back to one lane. There’s no reason for there to be an extra lane in each direction for just a half mile.

The protected lane would end at Armitage, where Clark veers to the left and Lincoln Park West (arguably a pointless street that ends 3.5 blocks further north) continues to the right. Those on bikes could also get a head start on traffic, ensuring they can safely get on Clark ahead, which only has sharrows.

0.5 miles isn’t a lot of new space for people on bikes, but the city and several bike advocates are cheering over a 0.8 mile protected lane on Milwaukee Ave. Providing this is a good link into Lincoln Park from River North and downtown. With the limitations on what planners can do with parking, we have to take what we can get for now, and try hard to make Chicagoans feel safe while riding a bike so that more can do it!

* This page states there are 12,000 cars daily on Milwaukee and estimates 40% of the traffic is bikes. That is 4,800 bikes. Correct me if I am wrong.

Addition (6/17/2013): It was brought to my attention that Bike Walk Lincoln Park covered this stretch of Clark two years ago. Clearly it is still in need of a road diet. With the city building more protected bike lanes perhaps we will see this soon.

Paris is walking the walk with pedestrian priority projects

Posted on by
Reply

When we talk about “taking back the street” in the US, it often just means putting in a small bike lane (protected if we’re lucky) and striping a crosswalk correctly. The PC way to keep cars in the picture too, and dominantly.

Not so in Paris.

This morning, Olivier Razemon on the blog L’interconnexion n’est plus assurée, the transportation blog in the French newspaper Le Monde, wrote about more developments in to make Paris a better place to be without a car.

Without a doubt, many European cities are already friendlier than the best American city when it comes to feeling safe as a pedestrian or person on a bike. Automobile usage is already somewhat inconvenient since major freeways don’t run through the city, streets aren’t arranged in a grid, and fuel and parking are expensive. So as I read Olivier’s post, I laughed to myself, thinking of how crazy any of these proposals might be in a city like Chicago, where the automobile is still fairly dominant.

Source: Paris.fr.

The post, which you can read here (in French, although Google does a decent job translating some parts), refreshingly notes that there is as much rhetoric about “bourgeois tree huggers” (French trust-fund hipsters from Neuilly-sur-Seine?) vs. “rednecks in their SUVs” as we probably face this side of the Atlantic. The difference is that the mayor, Bertrand Delanoë, is prioritizing people and bikes anyway.

The new program, “Sharing the Road,” launched today. The program extends the 30 km/h zones (18 mph) that exist in Paris, creates new roadway markings, initiates the “zones de rencontre” (“meeting/mixing zones”) program, and helps out people on bikes.

  • Extension of 30 km/h zones: According to the program, the 30 km/h zones have “greatly reduced” the amount of accidents. According to the National Roadway Safety Office of France, a 5% reduction in speed reduces the accident mortality rate by 20%. It also lowers pollution and noise.
    There are already 74 30 km/h zones in Paris. The majority of the new zones will be adjacent to or surrounding the existing zones. The zones are largely in eastern Paris and do not encompass the major arterial streets.
  • Meeting/Mixing Zones: Known in French as “Zones de rencontre,” this phrase is harder to translate. Started in the Netherlands in the 1970s and welcomed in Belgium and France in the 2000s, these zones limit the speed to 20 km/h (12 mph!) and prioritize the pedestrian on the roadway, even when sidewalks exist. People on bikes come next, followed by drivers. The website instructs drivers to pay close attention, as “you must give way to all pedestrians and cyclists at any time.”
    A majority of these zones are in eastern and central Paris, further away from some of the large boulevards, such as the Champs-Élysées.
  • New street markings: Different markings on the pavement will denote the different zones mentioned above. See below for an image, or go to the webpage.
  • Bikes and red lights: People on bikes in Paris can now turn right on red and pass through an intersection on red, provided it is safe to do so, in all 30 km/h zones. The video below (I captioned it into English) shows the right-on-red in action (turning right on all red lights is not permitted in most European countries):

This is perhaps the one most worth talking about from a bike perspective. Paris is serious about getting people on bikes (if you couldn’t tell from the 18,000 Vélib’ bikes), and Paris was not formerly known as a city for biking. One way for a city administration to show it’s serious about non-automobile transportation is to make it easier, safer, and more convenient to ride a bike. This is exactly what Paris is doing in some 30 km/h zones: Acknowledging that bicycles and cars are different in operation and in danger. A bike rolling through a red light when it is completely safe to do so is different than a multi-ton vehicle doing so.

This news comes on the heels of news that Chicago aldermen approved stiffer fines for both cyclists and drivers in the city. Chicago is not doing it right: Building protected bike lanes (now also known as buffered bike lanes) at a glacial pace and amending laws that go widely unenforced do not acknowledge the difference between people riding bikes and people driving cars, of which there are several: Cars are heavy, lethal, and take up many times the space of their occupants without providing significant societal or economic benefit. Bikes can maneuver easily, are inexpensive, don’t pollute, take up a small amount of space, and don’t kill pedestrians. This in itself is an entire different argument for another time, and it does not mean that I can’t acknowledge the utility of a car in some situations. It does mean the government should take a look at what it wants to prioritize – if it’s biking and walking, it should not seek to level the playing field, but tilt it in favor of its own goals.

This is what Paris is doing: removing expressways in the city, creating pedestrian-priority zones, and making it easier to bike in some neighborhoods.

Map of “Mixing zones” in Paris.

Of course no city is ever perfect and Paris, like we see in our media, has its NIMBYs (they don’t have a fun word like we do), but Olivier leaves it to the end and it isn’t sensationalized. The roads surrounding schools in Paris are already limited to 18 mph, but the police last week in the 12th district (south-east) wrote 120 tickets to drivers exceeding the limit*, most of them “coming from within 3 minutes of home,” noted the mayor of the 12th district, Michèle Blumenthal. Conservative Claude Goasguen and the council of the wealthy 16th district (west) adopted a “vow” asking the police to tolerate parents who “have difficulties parking their cars at the start and end of the school day.”

At least they’re not coming up with excuses to avoid safer streets near schools.

Turning right on red is already illegal in most of Europe, but cyclists can now do so at marked intersections in Paris. Credit: Mairie de Paris.

So how can we take some of this and bring it further west? Considering our mayor is only talking about bike infrastructure and is cutting ribbons for every single block of new bike lane (is that really an exaggeration?), I’d say we’re a bit far off. However, it is certainly good to look at what other cities are doing as an inspiration. New York has a similar concept, the Neighborhood Slow Zone, to slow down traffic to 20-30 mph. However, most Americans know this usually means 30-40 mph.

As the image above shows, the go-ahead-on-red signs would be welcomed at certain T-intersections here in Chicago. One that comes to mind is Clark and Armitage in Chicago. The T-instersection means people on bikes can’t continue on red, even though it is almost always safe to do so, provided no pedestrians are crossing Clark. In fact, I usually go through red (after stopping) here, because it gives me a head start on Clark, a two-lane street in each direction that splits at one dangerous point a block or two further north. It is safe to proceed on red and gives me a safe head-start. It would be nice if the City acknowledged this and permitted such a maneuver.

A mixing zone with new pavement markings. Credit: Mairie de Paris.

We could also use official “mixing zones.” Lincoln Square is already a sort of mixing zone; pedestrians already cross most parts freely, cars are discouraged from using one-way Lincoln as a through street, and cyclists bike in either direction despite its illegality.

Lincoln Square. Credit: Google.

Places that feel like Lincoln Square are few and far between in Chicago. Credit: Google.

I can think of several other areas where “mixing zones” would be nice, even if only on weekends and weeknights (as a test), such as Clark St in Andersonville (#22 buses could be rerouted to near-parallel Ashland Ave), whose sidewalks are so narrow already and often overcrowded due to sidewalk seating.

With the upcoming launch of Divvy bike share in Chicago, many more bikes will be seen on the city’s streets, which will be good for safety in the long run. If we can get more Chicagoans out of their cars (and do something about that pesky parking meter deal), we might one day see the implementation of some of these urban planning ideas.

* I’m not sure what the “tolerated” speed limit is; e.g. in the US it is common to exceed the posted speed limit by 5 miles/hour.

Updated June 4 for spelling error and introduction.

Pedestrian Priority

Posted on by
2

City planners should always make an effort to make the pedestrian human feel safer no matter the neighborhood or circumstance, but unfortunately, relics from the auto-dominated, urban renewal era still exist. I would argue that many public projects still permeate the dominance of the automobile; even as (some) city politicians proclaim their love of bicycles and people-oriented neighborhoods, it still seems they don’t wish to sacrifice auto dominance.

One of the most obvious shortcomings here is how pedestrians are treated in cities, especially the most dense, most walked neighborhoods. One of the best examples I can think of is right outside Union Station in Chicago.

Union Station at Adams and Riverside Plaza, Chicago. Credit: Shaun Jacobsen.

Union Station at Adams and Riverside Plaza, Chicago. Credit: Shaun Jacobsen.

The photo of the scene above was taken around noon on a weekday. In the morning and the evening, it is much more crowded. Adams is a one-way westbound street with 3 lanes of traffic; there is no north-south street at this intersection, but there is a light for pedestrians to cross north or south on Riverside Plaza. I noticed that people seemed to wait a long time to cross here, so I timed it. Automobile traffic has 55 seconds of a green/yellow cycle, while pedestrians get only 25 seconds to cross*. What’s worse is that the high amount of inept taxi drivers and articulated buses means that the crosswalk is often blocked completely, giving pedestrians even less time to cross.

Just south of this intersection is another just like it, at Jackson and Riverside Plaza. There is noticeably less foot traffic here (likely because Riverside Plaza does not continue south), but the timing is even worse: pedestrians again have 25 seconds, but automobile traffic has 2 minutes and 20 seconds of green*.

I haven’t timed other intersections downtown, but most are pretty fair with their timing because there is pedestrian and auto traffic that has to cross 4 ways. But at intersections that are installed just for pedestrian crossings, there is clearly not enough priority given to pedestrians. You don’t need to do a scientific count to know that there are more pedestrians moving outside Union Station than auto traffic, and pedestrians should be given more time to cross.

Another instance of pedestrians not being given equal footing (ha) is with “push-to-walk” intersections, which I’ve already written about. Here’s an example at Ashland Blvd:

Crossing Leland Ave at Ashland Blvd in Chicago. Credit: Shaun Jacobsen.

Crossing Leland Ave at Ashland Blvd in Chicago. Credit: Shaun Jacobsen.

Unless a pedestrian presses the button before the light changes, the “Walk” signal will not display even when the light is green for cars, and you can either take your chances and hope the light doesn’t change mid-crossing, or just wait at least two minutes for another light. Leland is also an eastbound one-way street, so you can’t even see the light if you’re walking west. The bottom line is that pedestrians should never, ever, under any circumstance, have to “ask” to cross the street.

This sort of design also hurts people riding bikes, as they have to ride up onto the sidewalk to press the button, or wait for the signal to change on its own.

What’s your gripe with your status as a pedestrian? Do you have any intersections that are worse than the ones I posted above? Leave your responses in the comments.

*Timings done at 5 PM on a Wednesday workday in April.

What’s really the issue with bike share?

Posted on by
2

Chicago recently announced that it will be the next major American city this year (after New York) to receive a bike-sharing system, which I’ve posted about before (more coverage also over at Streetsblog). Stations for Citi Bike in New York have already been popping up in Brooklyn.

However, as is usually the case with anything involving bikes, there is the loud NIMBY minority, with disdain coming from both residents of “historic” neighborhoods (something Streetsblog NYC has been good at discussing), as well as street food vendors in Manhattan (as if there aren’t enough streets in Manhattan). There’s a New York Times piece about it.

So many have already elegantly debunked the illogic about taking some parking space for bike share, but it is worth pointing out that most people on residential streets do not pay for parking (or pay a small sum for the privilege of “permit parking”, a sum which does not even begin to cover the cost of the valuable space). But this is not even worth explaining to a driver who likes their free parking, because, taxes.

Hubway bike share in Boston on Boyslon St. That’s 17 public bikes in the space of about 4 cars. Credit: Cityphile.

We will hear more of the same thing in Chicago when Divvy stations start appearing. Some have already complained about the price. Yes, $22 million is a chunk of money to spend on some bikes. Or is it? We’re already spending $420 million on a downtown freeway interchange that will benefit only those who use it, or billions on a new freeway out in the suburbs. For some perspective, the cost of those two projects could fund Divvy for over 125 years.

In New York, there is opposition to having a bank’s name plastered all over the bikes and stations. This is something I can’t argue with; I do not like corporate sponsorship on “public” property. Citi is paying for the system, but there is opposition to the corporate branding. Capital Bikeshare in Washington, D.C. does not have corporate sponsorship plastered all over the bikes. Neither does Vélib’ in Paris; however, French advertiser JCDecaux has rights to some billboards in Paris in exchange for paying for the system. That’s a little sweeter of a deal – with tens of thousands of bikes and tons of users, there is no advertising on any of the bikes or stations, but it’s still privately funded.

While Divvy doesn’t have any corporate sponsorship now, Mayor Emanuel has said he hopes to in the future. I hope not. I personally would not like to ride around on a “BMO Harris Bike” or similar.

Finally, the typical “cyclists don’t follow rules” complaint comes up. A video like this or a 15-minute walk in most urban neighborhoods reveals that many drivers don’t either:

Most drivers “stop” at stop signs at the same speed as people on bikes do.

All petty disagreements aside, what I feel is the biggest issue with bike share is how safe riders will feel when using it. I consider myself a “confident” rider in that I’m not afraid to ride around on streets in the city, but I still get shaken up when riding to work in the morning and home at night. Just this Friday I was honked at by taxis and drivers, and witnessed several drivers yelling out their windows at other people riding their bikes downtown. One woman told a pair of cyclists riding side-by-side (on a 3-lane, one-way street) to “move over!” repeatedly while honking her horn.

This isn't enough room for drivers? Clark near Illinois. Credit: Google.

This isn’t enough room for drivers? Clark near Illinois. Credit: Google.

This kind of verbal and physical harassment (it’s “physical” when a driver uses their multi-ton car to threaten you) is not something that will make riders feel safer.

We need to seriously ramp up our bike lane construction. The only protected bike lanes in Chicago that will be near the Divvy stations this summer are going to be around downtown, and the only protected bike facilities aren’t much to call home about. More are scheduled to come downtown, but we don’t have a lot of options elsewhere. With the Participatory Budgeting process almost done in my ward, fellow Community Representatives in our streets & cycling group quickly found that the City and State makes it very difficult to put safe bike facilities on most streets. Where they can be put, they’re fragmented. For example, a new protected bike lane on Broadway from Leland to Montrose will be built in the coming months. This is only a distance of about 3 blocks! Many residents expressed interest in cycle facilities that would extend south on Broadway into Lakeview, but the street south of Montrose is too narrow (roughly 36′). This is too narrow for even sharrows. CDOT said it would be possible to build better bike facilities if parking were removed.

Yeah, right.

Broadway near Belle Plaine Ave is "too narrow" for sharrows, even though every street should technically have sharrows. Credit: Google.

Broadway near Belle Plaine Ave is “too narrow” for sharrows, even though every street should technically have sharrows. Credit: Google.

It’s too bad to see that so many people want better bike facilities, but our fragmented, shortsighted government won’t build them in a meaningful way. The same city that wants to  increase it’s number of cyclists is powerless to change the driving school curriculum or test, how hard it is to obtain a license, or to meaningfully change the behavior of drivers.

Safety for people on bikes comes in numbers. Hopefully, Divvy and other bike-share systems will get more people interested in riding a bike for practical urban transportation, and this will lead to a change in how we prioritize roadway funding and space allocation. Time will tell, and it’s usually kind: When’s the last time you heard someone complain about the Dearborn protected bike lane?

Unified Fare Payment and Chicago Bike Share

Posted on by
13

There hasn’t been a lot of recent news about the bike share system coming to Chicago (hopefully) this spring. As Twitter user @JustinHaugens points out, Alta Bike Share (a consulting firm) only recently posted management positions for Chicago (here’s one).

At this point, we really have no idea what the stations will look like, but we can look to Capital Bikeshare in DC and Nice Ride in Minneapolis to get an idea, since Alta played a role in both systems’ development.

Capital Bikeshare station. Credit: Bike Arlington.

We also don’t know what the “key” will look like, but here’s another idea:

Capital Bikeshare key used to unlock bicycles. Credit: Mr. T in DC

Ideally, the “key” used to unlock a bike at a station should not be a unique, distinct key, but instead should be integrated with the rest of Chicago’s transportation payment methods.

It’s a bit of a stretch to believe this would have happened initially, especially since not every transportation option in Chicago currently has the same payment system. But this is exactly how it should be. Everyone in the Chicago region should be able to use one card to pay for all public transportation in the region: Metra, Pace, CTA, and, soon, bike share.

I’m not in the position to suggest who exactly should oversee such a payment system or ensure that payment makes its way to the correct transportation entity, but the point is that it should exist in the future. So many American cities have disconnected transportation payment mechanisms. New York in particular is pretty awful at this: On a recent trip visiting a friend in Jersey City, a trip to Manhattan requires taking the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail ($2.25 per ride), then a PATH train ($2.25), and, depending on the destination, a ride on the Subway ($2.25). All require different farecards. Indeed, New York and New Jersey are different states, but we should expect more cooperation among transportation networks in the country’s largest metropolitan region. This is not unique, either; many cities across the country require different fare payments on their different transportation systems.

We’ll go across the Atlantic to—you guessed it—Paris, where transportation in the region (Ile-de-France) is spread across different brands, service levels, and government entities but is unified by one payment mechanism, including the bike share system, Vélib. The Syndicat des transports d’Île-de-France (STIF), or “Transport Organization Authority”, oversees the transportation in the region (similar to RTA in Chicagoland). You can get a ride from the suburbs on a regional Transilien or RER train to central Paris, where you can transfer to the Metro, and finally grab a bike from a Vélib station, all using just one card: The Navigo pass.

Wireless Vélib card used to unlock bike at staion.

You can, of course, still buy paper tickets (which are still unified across modes) for the Metro, RER, or Transilien, or get a Vélib card if you don’t use public transportation often. Paying the fare doesn’t get one a ride on Vélib, though: a separate annual subscription is still required, it’s just loaded onto the same card. In the future, you’ll likely be able to use your phone to do the same thing.

It should be noted that Paris is perhaps unique in integrating all modes, for even London’s Cycle Hire has not integrated its payment system with the Oyster card. If you’re aware of other cities that do integrate their bike share systems with their public transportation payment systems, let me know in the comments.

If CDOT were to talk with CTA and find a way to integrate the future bike share system with the forthcoming Ventra card, it could reduce a significant barrier to using the bike share system. If we assume the Chicago system will be similar to Minneapolis and DC, it means having to register online to receive a key or pay-per-day at a kiosk. By offering an option to pay an extra few dollars per month or year on the unlimited Ventra card in order to use bike share, a new connection could be made between CTA and a user’s final destination, and increase use of the bike share system. When the day comes where Metra integrates Ventra, it could create even more options. Could we see the day where denser suburbs, like Evanston and Oak Park, have their own bike share systems that also integrate with Ventra?

Aside from the payment mechanism, how the bikes are released is also important – if it is to be like Nice Ride, where the key is inserted into a slot to release the bike, it means there is no immediate possibility to implement wireless cards at the stations to release a bike. If wireless cards were implemented instead, we could see people unlocking bikes using smartphones, RFID-enabled credit cards, Ventra, or the bike share’s own card. It could even go so far as to wireless hotel keys being linked to the system – 24-hour memberships paid by hotels to help their guests get around, or single-use cards being issued for certain events.

Without a doubt, Alta has looked around the world at the best practices for bike share and has created some amazing systems. The fragmented organization of our city governments has also ensured that many of our transportation systems are inefficient. Smart transportation networks bridge the gap between these inefficiencies and create systems that are easy to navigate. A major part of this is ensuring that people can use the different systems with a common payment system. Hopefully, we will see more of this in the future.

EDIT: An earlier version of this post incorrectly stated that Alta manages Nice Ride in Minneapolis. Alta merely provided assistance in station location and site design guidelines.