Tag Archives: car-oriented development

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?

No More Highways: Illinois Route 53 Extension is Wasteful

Posted on by
17

It takes a little perspective to actually understand how much we waste on needless highway infrastructure, whether it’s a $4,700,000,000, 52-mile highway bypass in Birmingham or a $118,000,000, 11-mile bypass near my hometown (if Google is to be trusted, it saves drivers a whopping 2 minutes to bypass the town’s 10,000 residents; if my observations are to be trusted, the bypass sees about 1 car every few minutes). Remember, that’s in a state whose governor rejected building a currently non-existent high-speed rail link between the state’s two largest cities on the grounds that taxpayers would have to pay something like $8 million per year to subsidize it. I could spend days researching the most expensive transportation boondoggles in the country, but its really just depressing considering we can’t even maintain what we already have, and other people are already doing it. We have enough – we’ve gone way past the point of diminishing returns because these new roads are making driving more attractive (in theory), therefore making traffic worse, and ensuring that we have to pay more for them in the future when they stop being all shiny and smooth.

So why exactly is the Illinois Tollway trying to extend IL route 53 12.5 miles north into Lake County? The proposed extension (map below) would take the existing freeway portion, which runs from Lake Cook Road at the Lake/Cook County border south to Schaumburg at Interstate 290, and extend it north through Lake County to route 120 in Grayslake.

Credit: Chicago Tribune.

To the Tollway’s credit, the plan does call for the road to be paid for through user fees, specifically congestion charging, something around 20 cents. However, this wouldn’t pay for the $2,500,000,000 price tag (yes, that’s $200,000,000 per mile, or about $3,500 per resident of Lake County, but who’s really counting, right?). Continue reading →

How Push-to-Walk reduces the quality of walkable neighborhoods

Posted on by
3

The downtown of my hometown could be classified as “walkable,” if only for a few blocks. This is one of Lake Geneva, WI’s main qualities and one of the reasons many tourists from the Chicago metro region and its environs go there for a visit. Downtown has small-town charm and history dating back to the US railroad era. I wrote about my last visit, and some information on the former train running to Lake Geneva (the old right-of-way is now a multi-use recreational trail).

The principal road, Main Street, is also State Route 50, meaning it is under WisDOT jurisdiction. This is generally not a good thing, since the state-level DOT never seems to really grasp the notion of anything except traffic movement. Luckily, nothing else can really be done to make traffic move faster through Lake Geneva’s downtown except remove angle parking on both sides, which would single-handedly destroy downtown business. There are two traffic signals within downtown, one at Main and Center, and one at Main and Broad (one block from each other). Formerly, they were not coordinated and operated on a timer. I had the timing down to a science when I was in high school and worked downtown. In the summer tourist season, traffic was awful: it could take as long as 20 minutes just to move along a 5-block stretch. The signals weren’t timed for traffic movement.


Main St and Broad, Lake Geneva, WI. View Larger Map

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but the City Council thought so. Just recently, new “high-tech” signals were introduced. I don’t see them as an upgrade for two reasons:

  1. There are new “push to cross” buttons at all crosswalks.”
  2. They are synchronized for maximum traffic flow.
    Continue reading →