The Chainlink

Hopefully you've heard by now that CDOT will begin construction this week on the city's first protected bike lane: Kinzie Street from Milwaukee Avenue/Desplaines Street to Wells Street. 

 

Full story on Steven Can Plan. 

 

I want to know what you think about this.

  • What do you feel will need special attention?
  • Is this the right or wrong location for such a facility? Why?
  • Are you going to thank/congratulate Rahm, Gabe, and the CDOT Bicycle Program?
  • Will you use it?

 

Cycle track and protected bike lane naysayers, this isn't the post for you. But if you've ridden in protected bike lanes before, then I welcome your constructive comments and criticism based on your actual experiences. 

Big intersection

The new beginning. Looking southeast at the intersection of Kinzie/Milwaukee/Desplaines. 

Views: 3735

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I can't agree more. A lot of roads need to be put on spot diets. Some of us are trying to get such a treatment on Humboldt Blvd/Sacramento south of Palmer Square, especially since there is going to be a mini road diet on  stretch between North and Division.

Bike Bloke said:

Yes, these sections of road, often 3 or 4 blocks long which widen out from one car lane to two and then back to one all need to be converted to one car lane and bike lane asap. T

I guess I'm not sure about the slow cyclists use lane? I think a mix of cyclists will use the lane, of all different speeds. Why do they need to make up a sign about who needs to use the lane and label it as less of anything at this point? I'm not sure cars will be doing much heavy thinking about who belongs where on the road. Most cars don't really think about cyclists very much at all either way--A sign is more about intercyclist community thought than anything to do with how traffic acts I think.

H3N3 said:

Semi-connected thought.

There should be signage making it clear to motorists that use of the protected lane by bicycles is not a requirement.  E.G. "slower cycles please use bicycle lane."

Otherwise we'll end up multiplying driver harassment, and making bitter enemies of the cyclists who are unable to ride at less than 20 mph.

Sounds like there's nothing I posted here you're going to agree with.  I guess I'll try to clarify on the chance I just wasn't clear.


Regarding fast and slow cyclists- did you follow the drama about the cycle track they installed in New York that resulted in a lot of complaints from cyclists? There were a few threads here and a few thorough articles linked-- I'm not going to retype the whole thing.

 

Regarding signage--there is a danger that drivers will assume that bikes -have- to be in the cycle track if it's present, and an extra level of harrasment could result. This has been a danger everywhere seperate bicycle facilities have been installed.  Faster cyclists will not want to use the "track"-- they'll prefer to ride in the street at automotive speeds.

 

I don't get the comment that a sign is about "intercyclist community" at all.

If I'm in the ballpark as to what you meant by it, it's a nice thought but it has no connection to our current reality.

 

 

jennifer james said:

I guess I'm not sure about the slow cyclists use lane? I think a mix of cyclists will use the lane, of all different speeds. Why do they need to make up a sign about who needs to use the lane and label it as less of anything at this point? I'm not sure cars will be doing much heavy thinking about who belongs where on the road. Most cars don't really think about cyclists very much at all either way--A sign is more about intercyclist community thought than anything to do with how traffic acts I think.

H3N3 said:

Semi-connected thought.

There should be signage making it clear to motorists that use of the protected lane by bicycles is not a requirement.  E.G. "slower cycles please use bicycle lane."

Otherwise we'll end up multiplying driver harassment, and making bitter enemies of the cyclists who are unable to ride at less than 20 mph.

I rode the mini stretch that's completed to Jefferson tonight on my way down to Iron and Wine. It's sufficiently wide and there's plenty of room to avoid the gutter debris without escaping the lane. I will have to see how efficiently the buffer zone is at absorbing open passenger doors. Steven did you say soft ballards were going in?
Yes, soft-hit bollards. Also called flexible delineators. 

Ash L. said:
I rode the mini stretch that's completed to Jefferson tonight on my way down to Iron and Wine. It's sufficiently wide and there's plenty of room to avoid the gutter debris without escaping the lane. I will have to see how efficiently the buffer zone is at absorbing open passenger doors. Steven did you say soft ballards were going in?

I agree. We need to pre-empt every possible complaint by putting up another sign. Can I make a minor addition to your suggested sign? The sign would be better if it read like this:

Slower cycles please use lane. (This sign is only meant to educate drivers who, as is generally known in the bicycling community, do not posess the mental capacity to deal with changing traffic situations.)"



H3N3 said:

Semi-connected thought.

There should be signage making it clear to motorists that use of the protected lane by bicycles is not a requirement.  E.G. "slower cycles please use bicycle lane."

Otherwise we'll end up multiplying driver harassment, and making bitter enemies of the cyclists who are unable to ride at less than 20 mph.

Great news.  Great blog.  I was hoping to see a map of the design.
I could see this aspect becoming more problematic as more lane space is dedicated to bikes. I've certainly seen the bike speed conflicts happening in bike lanes.

In a slightly different variant, I've occasionally had problems with drivers when riding Dearborn through River North, where the bike lane is on the left side. Some of them took exception to me riding outside the bike lane. In heavy traffic (such as evening rush hour), I usually feel safer riding on the right and avoiding the left turn mess at a few major intersections, especially Grand and Ontario. Because of those two intersections and hotel entrances at other locations, I've never felt that having that particular lane on the left side is safe. I know that some others ride on the right there for the same reason.

H3N3 said:

Regarding signage--there is a danger that drivers will assume that bikes -have- to be in the cycle track if it's present, and an extra level of harrasment could result. This has been a danger everywhere separate bicycle facilities have been installed.  Faster cyclists will not want to use the "track"-- they'll prefer to ride in the street at automotive speeds.

I ride Kinzie into the loop every weekday, and I have to admit I'm a bit divided on how this will impact the route.  I'm not entirely convinced it was really needed here, and I would have appreciated more of a focus on the bridge and the light-timing on Kinzie/Milwaukee instead of a dedicated cycle track.  Kinzie is probably already one of the least stressful streets I ride on during my commute.

 

That said, not sure how much of a problem car doors and the ability to pass other cyclists is really going to be on this stretch of Kinzie with the cycle tracks installed.  Very few cars park on Kinzie and those that do are almost all parked on the stretch after the bridge.  Also, during the rush hours, traffic is generally heavy enough in both lanes that cyclists already tend to ride single file and have fairly limited room to pass each other--which is especially true in light of the overflow traffic on Kinzie lately due to the Wacker Dr revamp. 

 

The only part that really worries me with regards to not being able to pass other cyclists is the downhill portion of Kinzie before the railroad tracks, where I tend to be comfortable picking up a good deal of speed while others may hit the brakes to keep it under 20 mph.  Even then, the rather large painted median they've laid out allows you a chance to pass slow riders before you get sucked into the narrower bike lane on the downhill.  I'm also fairly worried--as many of us probably are--about winter riding.  The City already seems unwilling/unable to clear bike lanes, so I'm not convinced in the slightest that they are going to spend any time clearing and salting the cycle track.  It would be a shame to lose what was already a calmer route into the loop during the cold months.           

Anne Alt said:

I could see this aspect becoming more problematic as more lane space is dedicated to bikes. I've certainly seen the bike speed conflicts happening in bike lanes.

In a slightly different variant, I've occasionally had problems with drivers when riding Dearborn through River North, where the bike lane is on the left side. Some of them took exception to me riding outside the bike lane. In heavy traffic (such as evening rush hour), I usually feel safer riding on the right and avoiding the left turn mess at a few major intersections, especially Grand and Ontario. Because of those two intersections and hotel entrances at other locations, I've never felt that having that particular lane on the left side is safe. I know that some others ride on the right there for the same reason.

H3N3 said:

Regarding signage--there is a danger that drivers will assume that bikes -have- to be in the cycle track if it's present, and an extra level of harrasment could result. This has been a danger everywhere separate bicycle facilities have been installed.  Faster cyclists will not want to use the "track"-- they'll prefer to ride in the street at automotive speeds.

Sorry, I'm a newbie, flame me if this isn't where I'm supposed to post news, but here is a Trib article describing the "crack down" on bicyclists at the Kinzie/Milwaukee intersection this morning, even as crews continue work on the new lane.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-police...

It seems you're hinting at a little irony in this situation. I agree. Maybe now's not the time to have an enforcement/education campaign at this location. Move it up the block to Grand. Come back a week or two after Kinzie is finished. 

Michelle said:

Sorry, I'm a newbie, flame me if this isn't where I'm supposed to post news, but here is a Trib article describing the "crack down" on bicyclists at the Kinzie/Milwaukee intersection this morning, even as crews continue work on the new lane.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-police...

All bike lanes in Chicago are at least 5 feet wide. Some are 6 feet wide. This one is no exception.

Stefanie Seskin said:

It's a little different in New York, as I'm pretty sure bicyclists are required to use bike lanes if present. In Illinois, they are not.

 

That said, I don't think signs are the answer. Slower auto traffic speeds, wider cycle track lanes (the piece that's done is ~4' +buffer zone), and, in the longer term, a different culture around transportation will help much more.

RSS

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service