CDOT considers stripping parking on Milwaukee to make room for protected lanes

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on March 15, 2013 at 9:14am

Sharrows are not bike lanes.   Cars are allowed to "Share" them every bit as much as bikes can. 

The conflict issue comes into play when bicyclists think they are "safe" in bike lanes and sharrows from any motorized interlopers when in reality a little bit of paint on the ground doesn't really do much to change the mind-set of motorists. 

I don't mind when an auto safely goes around a stopped car turning left in front of it.  As long as they do it in a safe manner and check for bikes or other road users I don't have a beef with this (Although I see many people do.)  

Remember that the road user over-taking another road user never has teh right of way.  If a vehicle goes around a left-turning vehicle and pulls into the lane you are using it doesn't mean that you automatically have the right of way because it is in your path.  He's in front of you and YOU have a responsibility to over-take safely -whether it is on the left, or overtakign on the right as us bicyclists often do in sharrows. 

The real issue, IMHO, is that motorists feel entitled to drive much faster than posted speeds.  As an occasional driver who drives the posted speed and NO more 99% of the time (sometimes a few MPH under it if conditions warrant) I find that other drivers become ENRAGED that someone, anyone, is slowing them down in the slightest bit.  I've been passed by autos in the bike lane MANY times while going the posted limit.  I've even had people go up and over the curb to pass me when they thought I wasn't going fast enough for them.

I don't think most people realize the speed limits on many of Chicago's surface streets are 25MPH or 30MPH at the most.  The number of autos actually going 25MPH is but a tiny fraction of the total cars on the road. Speeds in excess of 10 or even 15MPH over the posted limit is very common, if not the rule. 

THIS is the real problem.   Speed really does kill, especially with a collision involving a ped or a bike.  I think, off the top of my head, that survivability of a ped hit by a car goes down by over half with every 10MPH increase in the car's speed.   Traffic needs to be calmed and slowed down.  A ped or bicyclist gets killed just about every week in this city.  It's outrageous!

Permalink Reply by Juan Primo on March 15, 2013 at 9:30am

At some point we have to know that we cannot controllable.  What stopped the driver from going the wrong way down Lake Shore Drive last night?  It wasn't the fact that the northbound and southbound are separated by guardrails and parkway.  It isn't that there are giant DO NOT ENTER signs pointed the mouth of the exit ramps.

There are some things we cannot traffic engineer.

Permalink Reply by Adam Herstein on March 15, 2013 at 9:42am

Protected bike lanes will slow car drivers down because the usable road becomes narrower and they are unable to pass using the bike lane (if bollards are spaced closely enough).

Traffic congestion is a good thing because it ultimately forces people to drive slower, and therefore safer. All the highway administrations trying to mitigate congestion have it completely ass-backwards in regards to safety.

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on March 15, 2013 at 10:26am

You can't out-think stupid. 

I agree with Adam.   Road diets are the best way to calm traffic.  Push cars closer together as they pass by each other and they will naturally & instictively slow down.

The very WORST thing that traffic engineers can do is put a big wide mall space between oncoming traffic lanes.  That separation only emboldens them to drive faster and faster.  

Look at the bridge on Damon over the river between Fullerton and Diversey.    There is a huge 12" yellow-hashmark dead zone in the center of the bridge.  Traffic rolls over that bridge at 45-50MPH on average, regardless of the 30MPH limit.   Giving them "room" just makes them want to go faster. 

Road diets are the answer, ROAD DIETS!

Juan Primo said:

At some point we have to know that we cannot controllable.  What stopped the driver from going the wrong way down Lake Shore Drive last night?  It wasn't the fact that the northbound and southbound are separated by guardrails and parkway.  It isn't that there are giant DO NOT ENTER signs pointed the mouth of the exit ramps.

There are some things we cannot traffic engineer.

Permalink Reply by blair on March 15, 2013 at 10:37am

They'll probably be placed close enough, but then half will be removed a year later like Kinzie.

Adam Herstein (5.5 mi) said:

Protected bike lanes will slow car drivers down because the usable road becomes narrower and they are unable to pass using the bike lane (if bollards are spaced closely enough).

Permalink Reply by Crazy David 84 Furlongs on March 18, 2013 at 10:33am

Okay.  The following would appear to not "primarily" fall on the parking meter entities.

Impose a requirement that the operator of more than three customer operated point of sale terminal that handles transactions with credit cards, debit cards or cash in an amount exceeding $4.00 must provide a live attendant within 300 yards during the hours from 9 to 5 M- Sa and noon to 5 on Sunday.  For every machine that is not within such a range, a tax of $5.00 per day per machine is imposed.  That would apply to Grocery and Drug Stores with self-check out, gas stations with self-service pumps, parking garages in the loop, ticket dispensers for movie theaters, and so forth.   It would also cover the unattended parking lots with the automated meter boxes.   They would likely find it less expensive to pay the $5.00 per day per machine tax.     It would not bring in ATM's as they are not point of sale terminals.

That or redefine Chicago law to bring in vending machines, coin laundries and the like into the same general category for purposes of regulation, and then regulate the whole kit and kaboodle.

That law would appear to "regulate"  a much broader range than just meters and the requirement for a live attendant would fall upon a great many entities and thus would not be principally borne by CPM and other operators of on-street parking.   While they may be the ones who have to pay most of the money collected on under the scheme, that's because they elected not to comply with the other option.

Kevin K said:

Besides that, the contract is clear.  An Adverse Event (a Compensation Event) is defined as ANY action or actions taken during the Term, the effect of which "is to be principally borne by (CPM) or other operators of on-street parking systems."

So if your law was passed, and the only company in the city it effected was CPM, I'd say that fits the definition of Adverse Event precisely.  It's not just a law designed to be principally borne by CPM.  It's a law designed to be only borne by CPM.  

* * "

There might be a way to get out of the contract, but this ain't the golden ticket. But keep digging.

Permalink Reply by Kevin K on March 19, 2013 at 6:28pm

Say you have 200,000 such point-of-sale terminals in the City.  You pass the law, or series of laws, as you described below, imposing the requirement that they all have a live attendant within 300 yards of each terminal.

Of those 200,000 terminals, 194,500 already have a person within 300 yards, so they're not affected by the law. Of the remaining 5500 terminals, 5200 are parking meter stations owned by CPM, and 300 are in random unattended parking facilities.  94.5% of the affected POS terminals are owed by CPM, so clearly the effect of the law is principally borne by CPM.

The contract doesn't say, "The law(s), action(s), or combination thereof have to explicitly mention CPM, LLC by name."  As long as the effect of the law or actions is principally borne by CPM, it's an Adverse Event.  

No party, remotely concerned about their economic self-interest, would enter a long-term contract like this, with a municipality, without such language.  Yes, it was a dumb, remarkably short-sighted idea for the city to hawk 75 years of future meter revenue to plug up a budget hole for a year or two, but preventing the City from jamming them at will wasn't particularly unusual or nefarious on the part of CPM.

David crZven 10.6 said:

Okay.  The following would appear to not "primarily" fall on the parking meter entities.

Impose a requirement that the operator of more than three customer operated point of sale terminal that handles transactions with credit cards, debit cards or cash in an amount exceeding $4.00 must provide a live attendant within 300 yards during the hours from 9 to 5 M- Sa and noon to 5 on Sunday.  For every machine that is not within such a range, a tax of $5.00 per day per machine is imposed.  That would apply to Grocery and Drug Stores with self-check out, gas stations with self-service pumps, parking garages in the loop, ticket dispensers for movie theaters, and so forth.   It would also cover the unattended parking lots with the automated meter boxes.   They would likely find it less expensive to pay the $5.00 per day per machine tax.     It would not bring in ATM's as they are not point of sale terminals.

That or redefine Chicago law to bring in vending machines, coin laundries and the like into the same general category for purposes of regulation, and then regulate the whole kit and kaboodle.

That law would appear to "regulate"  a much broader range than just meters and the requirement for a live attendant would fall upon a great many entities and thus would not be principally borne by CPM and other operators of on-street parking.   While they may be the ones who have to pay most of the money collected on under the scheme, that's because they elected not to comply with the other option.

Kevin K said:

Besides that, the contract is clear.  An Adverse Event (a Compensation Event) is defined as ANY action or actions taken during the Term, the effect of which "is to be principally borne by (CPM) or other operators of on-street parking systems."

So if your law was passed, and the only company in the city it effected was CPM, I'd say that fits the definition of Adverse Event precisely.  It's not just a law designed to be principally borne by CPM.  It's a law designed to be only borne by CPM.  

* * "

There might be a way to get out of the contract, but this ain't the golden ticket. But keep digging.

Permalink Reply by Crazy David 84 Furlongs on March 19, 2013 at 6:53pm

All 200,000 terminals are covered by the law.   194,500 of those terminals decide to have a person within 300 yards.   They don't have to.   They could choose to pay the fee.  That means that the "burden" does not fall primarily on CPM.   They are less than 3% of the terminals subject to the law.    Its a power that falls reasonably under the city (or county) regulatory power.   Certainly, I think, you will concede, that the City could require, for example, that all unattended credit card terminals require the input of a zip code.    It protects, or at least reduces, credit card fraud.  Are you suggesting that if this were passed, since CPM doesn't have this on their meters and since virtually all remote terminals do, that the burden would apply to them?  Nonesense.   They just happen to be the ones who aren't engaging in this practice.  

I think CPM loses with the POS argument as the argument that it "primarily" applies to CPM is sophistry.

Kevin K said:

Say you have 200,000 such point-of-sale terminals in the City.  You pass the law, or series of laws, as you described below, imposing the requirement that they all have a live attendant within 300 yards of each terminal.

Of those 200,000 terminals, 194,500 already have a person within 300 yards, so they're not affected by the law. Of the remaining 5500 terminals, 5200 are parking meter stations owned by CPM, and 300 are in random unattended parking facilities.  94.5% of the affected POS terminals are owed by CPM, so clearly the effect of the law is principally borne by CPM.

The contract doesn't say, "The law(s), action(s), or combination thereof have to explicitly mention CPM, LLC by name."  As long as the effect of the law or actions is principally borne by CPM, it's an Adverse Event.  

No party, remotely concerned about their economic self-interest, would enter a long-term contract like this, with a municipality, without such language.  Yes, it was a dumb, remarkably short-sighted idea for the city to hawk 75 years of future meter revenue to plug up a budget hole for a year or two, but preventing the City from jamming them at will wasn't particularly unusual or nefarious on the part of CPM.

David crZven 10.6 said:

Okay.  The following would appear to not "primarily" fall on the parking meter entities.

Impose a requirement that the operator of more than three customer operated point of sale terminal that handles transactions with credit cards, debit cards or cash in an amount exceeding $4.00 must provide a live attendant within 300 yards during the hours from 9 to 5 M- Sa and noon to 5 on Sunday.  For every machine that is not within such a range, a tax of $5.00 per day per machine is imposed.  That would apply to Grocery and Drug Stores with self-check out, gas stations with self-service pumps, parking garages in the loop, ticket dispensers for movie theaters, and so forth.   It would also cover the unattended parking lots with the automated meter boxes.   They would likely find it less expensive to pay the $5.00 per day per machine tax.     It would not bring in ATM's as they are not point of sale terminals.

That or redefine Chicago law to bring in vending machines, coin laundries and the like into the same general category for purposes of regulation, and then regulate the whole kit and kaboodle.

That law would appear to "regulate"  a much broader range than just meters and the requirement for a live attendant would fall upon a great many entities and thus would not be principally borne by CPM and other operators of on-street parking.   While they may be the ones who have to pay most of the money collected on under the scheme, that's because they elected not to comply with the other option.

Kevin K said:

Besides that, the contract is clear.  An Adverse Event (a Compensation Event) is defined as ANY action or actions taken during the Term, the effect of which "is to be principally borne by (CPM) or other operators of on-street parking systems."

So if your law was passed, and the only company in the city it effected was CPM, I'd say that fits the definition of Adverse Event precisely.  It's not just a law designed to be principally borne by CPM.  It's a law designed to be only borne by CPM.  

* * "

There might be a way to get out of the contract, but this ain't the golden ticket. But keep digging.

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