The Chainlink

So, I noticed these new signs on what used to be the bike path today and wondered what people thought of them. Are they enforceable? If so, are there similar enforceable signs for "No pedestrians" on the new bike route?

Views: 628

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Is this the new separated path on the Lakeshore Trail?  You didn't mention where.

I'm actually heading there for the day in a moment or two.

This is actually where the one and only bike path used to be. The photo is from in front of the track at Wilson/Montrose, but it's the side closest to LSD, not the new path near the lake and behind cricket hill. They have these "no bikes" signs up now from Foster to Montrose.

The opposite signs exist near Queens Landing. 

Someone one will vandalize or tear them down soon. Regardless they'll be ignored, and if the alderman can be persuaded to give a damn some cops may turn up for a few days and then everyone will give up.

Soon only commuters will be out there, anyway.

So have they posted corresponding "No Pedestrian" signs on the "Bike Only" portion of the LFT between Foster and Montrose?

No. Actually, they’ve posted signs here and there in that area indicating to bikers that there are pedestrians all over. As if seeing pedestrians all over isn’t warning enough. It’s infuriating and why I don’t feel bad biking the running path especially in the morning when no one is on it anyway. 

So much for "separated" paths.  What a waste in this section!

I rode the new "bike path" yesterday on the way home and aside from running into kids and families along all the soccer fields that abut the new path, I counted no fewer than 3 of these pedestrian signs from the soccer fields just south of Foster and the stop sign (!) before crossing the parking lot to the beach house just north of Foster. Why they didn't make the area closer to the lake the running/pedestrian path and leave the bike path as the bike path is beyond me.

Gotta love the double standard.  Similar to the "walk your bike" signs on the Riverwalk. When are they going to tell joggers to slow down and stop squeezing by people walking?

The whole separation thing is foolish when the two trails are spaced so far apart. Peds are walking on the new bike section, which just shows there is ped demand there. There should be just bike and ped space on both the old and new sections. I don't really mind sharing the bike path with a few peds because double the amount of path space is overall a good thing. It's just too bad they wasted the opportunity.

So if I have to share a path with pedestrians, I'd rather share it with runners on the original path than with families with unpredictable little kids or pulling a cooler on their way to a picnic or a soccer game or a playground next to the new "bike" path.

I agree.

Putting the bike path with no real ped options in that area invites peds to use it getting to and from picnic areas. Clearly there is a demand for a ped path here too. But I don't blame them, I blame the crappy design.

Can't wait for the trail separation of the trail separation!

That and the 'bike' path is about a fourth of a mile longer and narrower than the original trail. There are some real passive aggressive elements to the jogging trail at Wilson or Lawrence (I don't remember which) with sharp turns and a very narrow area someone thought would deter bikes.

And all the fences around Montrose forcing people people to the dogleg underpass are kind of amusing, too. People already go around it and when the fences are taken away it'll be just as bad. The kinks there are very sharp for bikes, too, and they're actually supposed to be for bikes.

RSS

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service