#chicago dot

[qqkatie]

Well played, Chicago DOT

[justinhaugens]

Unused Policy: @ChicagoDOT Complete Streets

I was excited, State and Polk was finally being opened up completely with the completion of the building on the Northwest corner. The intersection had been suffering from blind spots, closed lanes and the general rumble tumble of construction.

Protected walkways had been removed, the sidewalk poured and now the final element, resurfacing and striping:

But what's wrong with this picture? These beautiful new international crosswalks and smooth resurfaced asphalt should be perfect!

Problem is that Chicago's Complete Streets Guidelines says otherwise on page 106:

Marked crosswalks should not be longer than three lanes.

This is a policy that Chicago's DOT implemented, nobody is holding a gun to to their head to enforce it. Well, except the residents of Chicago.

Why create a policy that you avoid using?

[justinhaugens]

Enough with being "bold," it's time for @ChicagoDOT to grow a spine.

First, I must comment on last week's post.

How pleasant it is to receive a response?

Just that, receiving a response to an inquiry can be the difference between frustration and appreciation, regardless of the outcome. To be ignored simply because you're putting another person or organization on the hot seat is discourteous to those affected.

Chicago DOT had replied to my twitter post linking to Hey @ChicagoDOT, what's your take on this?

@JustinHaugens Those signs should not be placed in the bike lane. We sent an inspector out, and the signs were removed. #bikechi 5/15/13 14:38

Thank you.

Whether my inquiry prompted their investigation, the fact that they replied and exposed their action was appreciated by others, not just myself. This needs to continue. However, should an inquiry to CDOT be required to divulge this information--or should CDOT be proactive and post this information on their own?

Yes, yes they should. They are already on the wrong end of a pointing finger regarding enforcement, by informing others it would expose their efforts rather than allow them to linger in the murky underworld of government bureaucracy.

Second, the meat of my post...

An oft-used description of an organization's new policy or desired approach is called "bold." This is as trite as "sustainable" or "green." When this is used, it's a dramatic departure from the status quo, approaching new grounds of implementation, ideas and fundamentals. So let's just stop right there, we know what needs to be done, so rather than talking about it, just do it.

New Yorkers have suffered enjoyed the years of Janette Sadik-Kahn since 2007. Maybe we outsiders are not getting the big picture, but from the sound of it, she has had more of a positive impact on the city than negative. I'll take that.

NYCDOT has put in the work to make things happen, whether it's the Citi Bikeshare program, open spaces like Times Square or adding bike lanes while fighting the push back from naysayers. If you're interested, look into the negativity surrounding Citi Bike. The city has gone to great lengths to involve the residents of New York City only to have residents flap their jaws while in shock over bike rack placement.

Does CDOT have the grounds to stand on for the implementation process? Data and details to defend their placement of racks against hoarding to specific demographics or neighborhoods? From what I've been told, the local process has not been as transparent or inclusive as the 400 or so meetings New York has had.

The Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT) today announced five public meetings to introduce Chicago residents and businesses to the city’s new bike share program, and has launched a website for Chicagoans to suggest locations for bike share stations.

Five meetings over the course of ten days, three of which were in the Loop and the other two were in Roscoe Village and Grand Boulevard. In comparison:

Eighteen months of meetings, demonstrations and discussion, 14 community planning workshops, and more than 10,000 online suggestions produced a vast quantity of information on where New Yorkers wanted to see Citi Bike stations.

Eighteen months of meetings alone is an amazing difference and increases grounds to defend their implementation.

CDOT, prepare to ward off naysayers with data or hope that they move on over time only to strengthen naysayers' view of our municipality as "The Chicago Way;" we know best and you know little.

Regarding bike lanes, where's the consistency? PBLs are suppose to be the future of American cycling, by cycling I mean non-sport oriented use. Look at Kinzie's PBL, there are green blocks all over the lanes to increase awareness of the lane at crossings. Why wasn't this continued on Dearborn? It's like they presented a great example of what American PBLs can offer, then decided to cut corners on Dearborn or lower the bar.

Why is there even a discussion over connecting Kinzie's PBL to Dearborn? We're talking about 1200 feet.

Earlier this year, CDOT has redefined what they are contributing to the, original, protected bike lane goal of 100 miles by the conclusion of Rahm's first term. I would rather CDOT accept missing their goal while retaining integrity than seeking a method to self-congratulate their achievement when the time comes.

I haven't even done enough research to comment on the bike mode share goal of 5% by 2015 for trips under five miles.

There's also a great opportunity for CDOT to push forward with their bike lane implementation on Milwaukee, I'm one to remain optimistic--that's just my nature. While others have expressed concern over the initial proposal being watered down due to pushback. Even John Greenfield refers to it as "BOLD" in his headline.

Cities aiming to improve cyclist and pedestrian safety will encounter a tipping point where the consideration of motorists becomes less than what is applied to pedestrians and cyclists.

The city takes proactive measures to prepare infrastructure for the future, today.

The city takes reactive measures to implement infrastructure when they are forced to.

The difference being that tough choices are made early, knowing that some will be offended with that choice. Waiting until the reactive tipping point encounters fewer opponents with a more broad approval of steps. By then, it's too late, the cost is greater than being proactive. Our motto is "The City That Works," our government needs to embrace it, too.

Why is their a concern over having a spine and doing what they know is right when the last time someone in this city was actually defeated over poor decisions happened in 1979. I have yet to hear of anybody defeated over the parking meter debacle that alderman are trying to figure out how to get out of. And these are hired employees? Do they really have anything to worry about?

I'm certain there are a lot of moving parts to this problem of implementation. Though we're slowly reaching a point where those problems must be disregarded and solutions put into play. We need to break down the fiefdoms, increase support for change and make bettering of our city the main theme.

CDOT, it's your job to do that regarding road infrastructure.

[justinhaugens]

Hey @ChicagoDOT, what's your take on this?

The Dearborn bike track was officially opened last fall to much rejoice by cyclists. Since then, there have been interactions, close calls and slow maturing of the users and the environment. I have not heard of accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists or motorists and cyclists. This is great, however, and I may appear to be biased, there seems to be a more lackadaisical approach coming from pedestrians and some buildings.

Pedestrians walk out into the bike track and simply stand idle as if they are waiting on an unraised curb bump out.

You're not, let's clarify that.

But you're able to point out that it's a bike track because you can talk to them. On the other hand, we now have a building tenant requiring employees to place signs in the middle of the track. This may appear harmless, but all it does is impede on the area designed for the flow of bicycle traffic. Illinois law does not allow pedestrians to cross a street that is controlled by traffic signals, if your patrons exit the building and proceed to cross on Dearborn between intersections, they are breaking the law. If they are exiting with the intent to arrive at their parked vehicle along the Dearnborn track, I suggest expecting your patrons to observe when it's safe to depart the curb and shuffle the 10 foot steps it takes to do so.

Placing a sign in the middle of the bike track is not the safe way to approach this.

This is located outside of Trattoria 10, located at 10 North Dearborn. Trattoria, did you ever place a sign of this nature in the middle of motorist traffic on Dearborn in an attempt to create a safe haven for your patrons when the track was not there?

It's CDOTs responsibility to curb these approaches by businesses while also educating them on how the infrastructure is suppose to work. At the same time communicate to frequent lawbreakers that neither condoning or condemning their visitors in parking in the bike track remains to enable their visitors' actions.

200 North Dearborn is frequently a problem even though there's drive up to their door.

What will it take? A call on cyclists to snap photos over the course of a week, to collect and display how frequent motorists and pedestrians poorly interact or break the law regarding the bike track? Who knows, maybe I'll rescind my negativity of how the track has been "protected" with a display of fewer submissions than expected to the request.