Activists can't stress enough that installing bike infrastructure is basically free if you compare it with road maintenance for car. Let alone building a new highway. Every "to expensive" argument should be compared to road costs. It's basically just a few buckets of paint and a couple of flexsticks.
Absolutely! Relative to the cost of road construction, bike lane improvements are like a rounding error. And traffic-calming enhancements like curb bump-outs and raised sidewalks benefit the overall people-friendliness of the entire area, for pedestrians as well as cyclists.
If you combine the economic multiplier effects of cycling, and assume even a minor mode shift from cars then this kind of bike infrastructure isn't just free, it makes the city a lot of money.
Totally false. You're talking about painted gutters which are not the type of bike lanes that work. The problems with painted gutters have long been talked about by infamous yt not just bikes. Protected bike lanes are what is actually considered a bike lane in most of the world and they are not just paint.
“We don’t need a bike lane on this street, there’s already one just one block to the south!” Okay, then. Why do we need car access to this street if there’s already car access one block to the south, two blocks to the south, three blocks to the south, and one block to the north, two blocks to the north, three blocks to the north… What a silly argument.
It is funny how car culture gets ingrained in us. Of course every street should have vehicle access, and of course every street should have parking, and of course the stores should all have huge parking lots, and of course every high rise should have enough parking for every unit. If that's what you grew up with, it just seems normal. I hope we get to that same point with safe bike lanes eventually, where it would be silly to even question the idea of not having them.
@@pointtopoint-cp6hr Agreed! Big thanks to people like you for all you’re doing to draw attention to the issue. I’m subbed now, looking forward for future content :)
In any US big city less than 1% of all passenger miles traveled are by cyclists. Way less. City streets are for everyone. Not just a tiny special interest group. In every city I'm familiar with far less than 1% use bikes as primary transport. The other 99% use road vehicles. Less than 5% light rail / rail when available. These are the real numbers. Not the made up numbers from people like Critical Mass / bike crank 'activists". The < 1% who you do see cycling are 80%+ white males, aged 20 to 45 overwhelming from affluent backgrounds. Even in a city that has been minority majority for decades and this demographic is less than 5% of the population. Most people have real lives with family and work obligations. Big city cycling is a luxury for rich white folk or people whose time is worth little or nothing. Bike lanes are the 1%'er lanes. Special lanes for "special" white folk. And yes, I was a big city cyclist long before you were born. Long before the current cycle lane plague. Most of the current big city cyclists need to be removed from our streets until they learn the basic skills of road safety. Which few of them have. Which is why so many end up dead. You sum up the arrogance of cyclists. We are a tiny minority and we demand 20% to 50% of road space because we are special people. Better than everyone else. And we dont care about the other 99% of road users. Who have real lives, real jobs, and real family obligations so need fast reliable big city transport. Which means a car in all US cities. And all European ones too.
@@kbezier7484 Cite those statistics please. The only thing you’ve proven with this comment is that you misunderstand equity and accessibility in transportation, that our cycling infrastructure is not ubiquitous and safe enough to make it a viable choice for most people, and that we need more and better implementations. Good transportation design is not a zero sum game. Our infrastructure can and should have viable and ubiquitous support for cars, cycles, trains and buses. It’s possible and it’s imperative.
That kind of sums it up. Maybe I should just copy and paste your comment as my video description? I agree that it can be incredibly frustrating when changes that are clearly for the greater good get delayed or cancelled because a handful of people only focus on their personal interests.
2:40 Those raised crosswalks are impressive! That's something I want to see a lot more of. Such an intuitive tool for making drivers feel like guests in a shared space.
Thanks for watching! Chicago has added these most frequently near schools, but I agree it would be great to see more of them, especially in areas with a lot of foot traffic. It's a subtle but effective way to get drivers' attention.
We call them ‘wombat crossings’ in Australia, they are fantastic at T junctions and roundabouts where cars enter or exit too fast. It slows all motor vehicles down to bike speeds, and everyone has time to see and mutually negotiate a safe route past each other, including pedestrians. So long as the sight-lines are good enough they must be one of the best bits of urban infrastructure available. From Canberra, Cheers!
I think urbanists need to be more ok with being reasonably anti-car. The argument I always use is that just because planes are objectively beneficial to society doesn't mean that every street should be designed to double as a runway. By the same logic, we can acknowledge that cars absolutely have a place in society, but that not every single street needs to cater to them.
Any new development that reduces and discourages automobile use is objectively better for people's physical and mental health. Car-unfriendly is almost synonymous with people-friendly.
Thanks for watching! As a person who mostly bikes but sometimes drives, when I find myself in areas where people-friendly improvements creates vehicle bottlenecks, I remind myself that this is why I prefer being on a bike. I also hope there are others sitting in that traffic, thinking they might ditch the car and get on a bike then next time they're in the area.
2:00 The 'bikes go too fast' arguement is infuriating as bikes rarely go more than even 1/3 of the top speeds seen every day on Interstate highways. The underlying issue is weak bikelane engineering where pedestrians are not sufficiently separated from through cycling routes.
I think this could be an interesting concept to try on a handful of street in Chicago. State Street in Madison is a great example of how this can work well.
@@pointtopoint-cp6hr Honestly, it is so obvious on so many streets! my top pics? State street, mag mile, Clark in Andersonville, humbolt drive in Humboldt park, E 75th in South shore, 43rd in Bronzeville, 71st in South shore. But here's the Big Takeaway.. private cars do not belong in the vast majority of parks, full stop.
An effective bike/mixed use path network throughout a city benefits everyone, including drivers. Drivers benefit because: People on bikes and pedestrians are more likely to use these pathways, so bikes are out of car traffic and out of the way of drivers. Everyone who chooses to use these new bike paths to commute is potentially one less car on the road, so traffic volumes are reduced. Nobody likes driving in traffic! Bikers benefit because: obviously this new infrastructure is tailored to bicycles. People who choose to ride their bikes or walk won't have to deal with car traffic, making their trips more safe and pleasant. They won't have to worry about distracted or hostile drivers running them off the road or killing them. It's a public health benefit, people who choose to cycle or walk will be getting more exercise reducing obesity and depression, and will be breathing in less exhaust fumes and brake particulates and other byproducts of car traffic. People using these paths are less likely to be hit by cars, reducing healthcare costs all around. And a separated path (not a lane on the inside of parallel parked cars) means cyclists won't be crashing into car doors opening on the right side, better for drivers and cyclists. Cities benefit because: bicycle infrastructure is much cheaper to build and maintain than roads. Reduced car traffic means roads will need less maintenance, saving the city money in the long run. More people choosing to cycle means less pollution in the city, making it a more pleasant place to live. Businesses benefit because: more people getting around outside of cars means more people traversing the city at a human scale. People are much more likely to visit local businesses if they don't have to find a parking spot first. And obviously bike shops will do very well. And I haven't even mentioned the benefits of an effective transit system as well on top of this, but that's a topic for another video.
So many excellent points! Thanks for the thoughtful comment! This really shouldn't be an us-versus-them discussion because many of us that ride bikes are in a car or on a bus stuck in traffic from time to time. We want vehicles to move (safely) around the city, but we also want some of those people in cars to leave the cars behind and make trips on bikes or on foot more often. Every time there's an improvement to the bike network, there are a few new people who decide to try something new.
@@pointtopoint-cp6hr Exactly! I'm not about waging a war on cars or restricting people's freedoms. I want to expand the freedoms people have by providing new safe options for transport. The key words here are "choice" and "decision". The only downside I can think of is the initial cost to the city to acquire the land and construct the things in the first place. And as I pointed out, it pays for itself in the long run.
I used to always take Cortland to Racine to Armitage to Clark to get to the lakefront. This past weekend I took Dickens to Stockton instead, and I didn't feel like I had to fight for my life the whole time. Huge improvement. The terminus should be bricked and made into a permanent plaza. Stockton is a literal nightmare of congestion and car parking while being an active bus route. We need to stop giving away handouts to constituents who insist on driving over other modes of transport.
Thanks for the comment, and glad you enjoyed the ride on Dickens! "I didn't have to fight for my life the whole time" isn't exactly a resounding endorsement, but it's progress! I agree there's still some work to do at the Stockton terminus. To get all the way to the lake, you either have to ride on Stockton, which can be pretty busy, or you have to navigate a few park sidewalks that really aren't wide enough to share with pedestrians, so you have to walk your bike a bit.
Thanks for watching! It really is a glass-half-full/glass-half-empty question, isn't it? My optimistic view is that some drivers who view change like this as car-unfriendly eventually decide to ditch their cars more often and take advantage of the improved bike infrastructure.
@@pointtopoint-cp6hr In a conflict between a car and a bicycle the latter one always loses . These biking lanes are meant to create conflict as they equalize that which is unequal by design.
Yea, not a fan tbh. There's plenty of good possible reasons why bike infrastructure is bad, but that's not explored here. Just another copy+paste armchair urbanist video
Great stuff. Worth noting that right now bike infrastructure in Chicago is largely at the mercy of each ward's alderperson. Wards with staunchly pro-cycling leaders are going to see much bigger gains in bike infra than wards with apathatic or even anti-bike leadership. This will be somewhat self-reinforcing as residents take up cycling at higher rates in accomodating neighborhoods, and are more likely to avoid riding in hostile areas. We can and should advocate for safer streets citywide. Better leadership from City Hall and CDOT would go a long way as well.
Thanks for watching, and I appreciate the comment! It would be great for Chicago to have a better and more transparent city-wide plan. In terms of lack of investment in some neighborhoods, I understand it's a function of the alderperson, although in some cases, it's probably not so much that bike lanes aren't wanted as much as other issues need to be addressed first. Those neighborhoods generally have lower car ownership, so in theory, safe bike lanes connecting people to grocery stores/drug stores, etc. could be incredibly valuable.
I agree that nearly all changes that benefit bikes benefit the community as a whole. In contrast, most concessions to cars are going to have a negative impact on every non-driver in the community.
Good stuff! I really hope that we can get more stuff like this on the SW side. I wish I could just get on a safe bike lane with my kids to get to a park. As is, i would have to go on a shared lane on a major diagonal. Its safer to just drive there and haul their bikes to the park.
Thanks for watching! We need safe streets across the city where families can ride together! It's crazy to think it's necessary to drive a bike to a park just to use it.
It is always hard to place a bike path on city streets. Someone is going to be unhappy. I live in Montreal and in my corner of the city there are three separate bicycle paths that traverse the city to the downtown that are separated from road traffic. Along an abandoned industrial canal, along an aqueduct, and along the river front. This is ideal for cyclist. What is interesting to observe is how over the last 50 years or so the improvements were made to the path by changing the position of intersections with automobile traffic to make it safer. Also raising the grade of the path to be less prone to flooding during rain. The trails have all been resurface at least 3 times in most places. Vegetation has been changed along the paths to be more suitable for the environment. The design evolved over time. Urban streets are much harder to change to accommodate a cycling path. How does the garbage collection change? Having children standing between parked cars and a cycling trail when getting on or off a school bus. Is there a safety issue? Not that easy to figure out in my opinion. I wonder how those Chicago paths will evolve?
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. Nothing is easy with this, and as a city official, I'm sure it's hard trying to balance the needs of a variety of constituents. The beauty of bike lane improvements is that they can start with very little upfront cost. I'd love to see more ideas being tested with paint and plastic bollards. If it causes too much stress on that street and neighboring streets, you can remove it or dial it back. If it works, upgrade with a more permanent, durable design.
It works in a lot of places in Europe, so in theory, it should work in the US, even though our city centers aren't as compact. I think some form of the State Steet Mall idea brought back to Chicago now could get better traction than it did in the 80s and 90s.
@@pointtopoint-cp6hrAs someone who works one block off State, I can tell you how dangerous it is because of drivers treating it like a speedway. Even the buses fly up & down State. Everyone would benefit from traffic-calming measures.
I use the Glenwood Greenway every single day -- It's much safer and more comfy than riding on Clark, even where Clark has a bike lane. The more the merrier imhfo
The neighborhood greenways really are fantastic, aren't they? I profiled the Glenwood and Leavitt Greenways on my Contraflow and Advisory Bike Lane videos. Check them out if you haven't already.
Thanks for watching! Yes, that was, in fact, some of the initial feedback, and the term "bike highway" was quoted in a few articles. The designers ended up adjusting both entrances to Oz Park with sharp turns to ensure that bikes would slow down.
drivers getting a bit upset reminds me of my area in the UK, they built a 2 lane cycle lane down this long stretch of road that leads out of the town. It didnt even hamper the 2 car lanes at all, it just made it safer for cycling. And a lot of car people got upset because the idea of being reminded that cyclists and other road users exist causes them psychic damage for some reason.
Unfortunately bike infrastructure isn't built on the south side because many alders for those areas don't want it, even if their constituents would be fine with it. We need to make bike infrastructure a default part of our streets instead of asking communities for permission to take action on traffic safety, reducing congestion, expanding mobility, and climate resilience.
Thanks for the comment! For the reasons you mentioned, making bike improvements a requirement for every road project would definitely be positive for the city in the long run. We need all the alders to keep a long time horizon in mind, but unfortunately, that's not usually the case.
Thanks for watching! I sometimes wonder about this myself. Or maybe the complainers haven't experienced the difference between riding in traffic and riding in a nice, protected bike lane.
Why is the bike lane placed in between the car lane and the parking lane? Wouldn't it be better to place it in between the parking lane and the side of the street? With that riding would be calmer and you would not interfere with the door zone (I mean the drivers' door zone, passengers' one is less often used)
That's a fair suggestion. Typically, I see the curbside treatment used on more commercial streets where cars pull in and out more often (this would make sense on Armitage, except I think that street is too skinny). On residential streets with minimal parking activity, these streetside lanes work okay. Cost may also be a consideration, even if the difference is pretty small.
I wonder if Armitage would’ve been better-served with a center bike lane or sharrows. Door zone bike lanes are also dangerous because drivers can’t see you as well when they’re pulling out of driveways or side streets, due to parked cars blocking the way. There was one time I was riding along Apache Boulevard in Tempe, by the ASU campus, and almost got hit because of that problem.
@grahamturner2640 It might be, especially between Halsted and Sheffield where it's most commercial. Vehicle traffic has stops ever half block, so no one is moving that quickly. If bikes just rode in the middle of the lane, drivers might be okay with that for a couple blocks.
Love to see it. N Glenwood is another one of those quiet residential green ways that has similar two-way bike lanes despite it being a one-way street for cars. Super convenient as a cyclist to be able to travel in both directions and not have to worry about being in the wrong.
Thanks for watching! Yes, Glenwood is great, and one of the key routes featured in the contraflow lane video I made last year. Check it out if you haven't already!
I gotta ask what in the heck is going on with S Wells Street east side of the river? I had planned a ride when I was last in Chicago to ride that street and was shunted over to Clark Street which ultimately sux... Excellent video, hope to see the channel grow!
Thanks for watching! Though most of the work related to the Wells-Wentworth Connector was completed more than a year ago, the road still hasn't opened for vehicle or bike traffic. I don't think CDOT has provided any recent guidance for an opening date, but hopefully it won't be much longer.
While not practical, it would be really interesting to see how little traffic there would be if only "essential vehicles" were allowed on most roads. Or maybe if non-essential vehicles were prohibited during certain hours.
It's misleading to point out the danger of bicycle-pedestrian encounters. Just the curb bump outs alone are going to save many more and make it so much more pleasant. They need to widen that path though, a very busy ped/bike path should be something like 12-16ft wide, probably? I also never understood why you would put bike lanes between parking and vehicle lanes. The bicycle is in the door zone, they have nowhere to swerve to if they are going to be hit, and to add insult it's more stressful if you are driving, one more thing to watch out for when pulling out of a parking spot. It just seems like such terrible design you really need proper bike-vehicle separation if you are going to have that much of both kinds of traffic. But yeah cars are more dangerous for sure.
Thanks for watching! I didn't focus on it, but you're right that the traffic calming improvements add to pedestrian safety much more than a few more bikes detract from it. The design could have been much more bicycle-friendly, though this is pretty typical. I haven't seen many curb-side protected lanes in residential areas.
All you are saying can be summed up with ONE thing: the state needs to update its road rules to make it ILLEGAL to NOT have bike lanes both on old and new roads.
Thanks for watching! I agree that there are some outdated laws on the books that limit the potential of bike infrastructure at times. Though I think it would be great to have bike lanes everywhere, I'd give up those tight lanes shoehorned into busy streets in favor of more of a network being built out on quiet side streets.
@@pointtopoint-cp6hr If we don't advocate for a systemic approach like when it's the law to have "a" sidewalk in a residential zone we are going to fight NIMBYs for the rest of our lives.
I will agree with part of a statement, it can be summed up in one sentence, let's have inclusion and not have motorized vehicles pay NOTHING and have all of it payed by cyclists. Then we can see how much they really want to cycle
That's a good question. The city was making progress in replacing plastic bollards with concrete on some protected bike lanes, although typically just with pre-cast curbs. I'd be surprised if the city did much here, since they probably want the option to remove the plastic at some point in the future, either temporarily or permanently.
Thanks for the comment. Very similar to a couple others on here, and it's what struck a chord with many of us. To live in this neighborhood and not be thinking about how to improve it for everyone is really a selfish perspective.
Thanks for the comment! I actually had this initial thought when looking as some of the footage from before the improvements were made. It was a great street for biking even then. The key difference is that now bike traffic can move in both directions.
@@pointtopoint-cp6hr Just a thought exercise about what I'd do with Chicago coming from a Dutch viewpoint who has some interest in urban planning. Slap the ETW label on all those quiet neighbourhood streets meaning traffic calming where necessary and no bike lanes, all traffic mixes. You could do it with speed bumps, road narrowing, cobblestones and raised crossings. Pick something I guess. That way you make it safe for all road users also pedestrians, removing jaywalking out of the dictionary would also apply for those local roads. Residential blocks would appear with only local traffic like for instance between W51st, W55st, S California avenue and S western Avenue where it'd be safe enough for kids to play on the street comprising of what looks to be around 16x4x20 households so 1280 households so the size of a town. Children can now also easily walk or cycle to that Florence Nightingale elementary school in the middle of the block. Next staying with the same block, Dunno if it's becaus of parking minimums or R1 zoning, but redesignate that ugly slab of concrete next to the church as commercial. Get a local barber, corner store, daycare whatever in a small commercial center with bike racks in front there. The roads surrounding that block will be GOW's so 50km/h with seperated bike lanes. One lane each way is plenty if you remove parking and because I like them and for better traffic flow a Dutch style roundabout at the intersections between them. Leave some parking spots at the back or something for access to local shops, although the name says it local so cars aren't the main form of transportation to those shops so not a lot of parking needed. All of this is really politically impossible I imagine though😅, but it is what I imagine a Dutch planner might come up with. And yeah, no bike paths on or next to ETW's
@@frisianmouve a GOW shouldn't have on-street parking anyway - it's for through-traffic, not for "everybody waits for somebody parking their tank"-traffic. And yep, still have to find any city that's free of this sin :) And for residential: Germany allowed 30 km/h streets to be opened for counter-flow biking in 1997 - without any extra paint. In all those time I haven't heard of even a single fatal accident caused by this.
@lailahmann1823 Unpainted, unofficial contraflow is sort of what was here before, and the street was wide enough to accommodate it. With street designations and well-communicated rules on what is permitted where, this could work in the US, although there would be a bit of a learning curve.
@frisianmouve Thanks for watching, and thanks for the comment! I agree it would be really beneficial for US cities to consult with Dutch or other European planners to see how they might address bike infrastructure challenges. It feels like some US-trained planners have a hard time breaking the mold, and I'm sure it doesn't help if they grew up in car-dependent areas.
At 3:18 those three posts to the left of the cycle lane. Don't know why they were there (posting from the UK so unfamiliar with US road law) but I only just saw them they blended in with the tarmac so well bloody dangerous!
They look like flex posts so they would flatten if hit. I think that's where the parking ends and it's to prevent cars parking there for visibility reasons related to that drive way that crosses the bike lane.
Exactly. That street has some sections where the bike lane is designed to sit between parked vehicles and the curb. It's hard to tell because there weren't any parked cars on the day I rode by, but the plastic posts mark the end of the parking zone.
Tbh if a street is quiet and residential and does barely have any traffic, do you even need a bikelane? I am all for bikelanes (european here who leves in a city with very inadaquate bike infrastructure) but not on residential streets. There is no added value and I even feel restricted as a cyclist. Normally riding with 2 side by side is fine, but if there is a bikelane you HAVE to use it. And often they dont find 2 people. So cyclists lose space by adding bikelanes on quiet streets
Thanks for watching, and you make some good points. The addition of the bike lane paint does have the effect of "squeezing" the entire street a bit, forcing bikes to the edge. The most critical addition was the contraflow lane, adding a lower-stress route down to the park and lakefront. If this had been a two-way street, advisory lane markings could have worked well (see my advisory lane video for an overview of what those looks like).
Ha! Well, in my defense, I was referring more to the street closure than to the lane itself. I'm sure drivers view that as an unnecessary obstacle. There is really nothing else about the lane that's a special accommodation to bikes or an inconvenience for cars.
Most of what I see here are painted gutters that are not protected and weave in and out of main traffic as if the biker is a car. Basically exactly how not to design bike lanes but what Americans think bike lanes are. 😂
You're right. This new greenway is far from an ideal bike lane, but it's still an improvement over riding a block south on a busy commercial street (that's the footage with lots of traffic, doors, and cars pulling out of parking spots).
Recreational paths. Conveniently forgetting those paths connect to the places people want to shop for groceries. The moronic ideology for car infrastructure.
Thanks for watching! I see this as part of Bike Lanes 2.0 here in the US. To an extent, the focus to date has been on quantity (how many miles can I, the politician, get credit for installing) rather than quality. The next phase should be about a usable, efficient network, connecting bike lanes to other bike lanes and to the destinations people want to reach. No "bike lanes to nowhere".
I'm thinking there has to be a racial component to whatever has developed there for bike paths and such. Your map shows nearly all the development in the northside area, not to the south. It's not my city, but I know there are a lot of blacks there and it would have to factor in. I'd imagine that the mugging rate would also factor in and that might very well be higher in the southside area. For myself I think any 20 MPH speed limit in residential areas is a plus, even if there're no bike lanes at all. Sometimes it might not make the best sense too. It depends. On a downhill it just looks like a ticket trap. I think that probably it not being lowered is based on what everyone expects the lowest speed limit to be, i.e. 25, and also all the signs they'd need to put up in making it unambiguous as to what it is changed to.
Thanks for the watching! I was amazed myself to look at the map, and I wondered about the reasons. Currently, a lot of these improvements are guided by each ward's alderperson, so there isn't a cohesiveness to building a city-wide network. Some ward leaders have publicly declared their personal disinterest in bike lane improvements or voiced that their residents don't want them. I wonder, though, if that's more a statement about other investment that these neighborhoods need more desperately.
I can't speak for all people riding bikes, but I'd be surprised if most ignore stop signs. Rolling through four-way stops at a low speed shouldn't be an issue as long as the bike can stop quickly if needed, either for a pedestrian, vehicle, or another bike.
@@difflocktwo in my state: Bicyclists are required to slow down and come to a complete stop at stop signs and traffic devices signaling red. Bicyclists must signal when turning or coming to a stop. Bicyclists must use hand/arm signals when turning and stopping.
Thanks for watching! We definitely need balance in how bike infrastructure is built out. While I'm not a huge fan of paint-only improvements, they do have the benefit of being easy to modify if a design ends up not working as well as expected.
Thanks for watching! What's funny is that I actually debated having an equal sign on the thumbnail instead of the word "Or". In which case, your answer would have been "Yes"!
Sorry to bust your bubble, but the USA is NOT Europe. 1) we don't have a mass transit system in the US. Less than 5% of trips are made by transit. 2) US cities are too spread out, and rents in the cities are not affordable. 3) US citizens are unwilling to pay 50% In taxes to fund the billions it would take to make transit a viable option. 4) they are taking away capacity on existing roads. Less capacity equals time wasted, more pollution, more stress, increased energy consumption . They did this in DC and it made driving a misery. So much so i gave up working in downtown DC. I'm all for more and better alternatives to driving, but DON'T make driving a car IMPOSSIBLE.
You are the poster boy for "we need more lanes, that will solve my driving problem" LOL (funny how you just mention a random "50% in taxes" to scare people) And as a long time DC resident I'm sorry to "bust your bubble" but you don't need a car in DC. Many cities in America are very good for mass transit and alternatives means of transportation
Thanks for the comments! I really do feel bad for those US cities that grew after vehicle ownership became more common. They were designed specifically around cars, whereas European cities and older US cities were built before cars even existed. Yes, it's an uphill battle to modify the infrastructure of US cities, but it can be done with enough political and public will. Space dedicated to vehicle travel just needs to be re-imagined for other modes of transportation. And the better the re-designs are, the more people will consider switching.
I rarely come to a full stop at a four-way stop, unless there are pedestrians present. I'm also moving slowly enough that I could stop if needed. But it's true that some cyclists fly right through some of these intersections without slowing down at all, which can be quite dangerous.
We definitely need stop signs, but it would be good if some city and state laws were revisited to be more thoughtful about how the rules of the road apply to people on bikes. For example, in some areas with traffic lights, bikes can go when the crosswalk signal turns for pedestrians, giving them a head start (and making them more visible) before cars get a green light.
@@pointtopoint-cp6hr Nop. If you want everybody to slow down and look, then use yield signs. Stop signs are for blind corners and thus everybody, even cyclists or the president himself needs to stop at them.
Activists can't stress enough that installing bike infrastructure is basically free if you compare it with road maintenance for car. Let alone building a new highway. Every "to expensive" argument should be compared to road costs. It's basically just a few buckets of paint and a couple of flexsticks.
Absolutely! Relative to the cost of road construction, bike lane improvements are like a rounding error. And traffic-calming enhancements like curb bump-outs and raised sidewalks benefit the overall people-friendliness of the entire area, for pedestrians as well as cyclists.
If you combine the economic multiplier effects of cycling, and assume even a minor mode shift from cars then this kind of bike infrastructure isn't just free, it makes the city a lot of money.
And if you combine the addition of bike infrastructure with scheduled maintenance it’s even cheaper.
Totally false. You're talking about painted gutters which are not the type of bike lanes that work. The problems with painted gutters have long been talked about by infamous yt not just bikes. Protected bike lanes are what is actually considered a bike lane in most of the world and they are not just paint.
@@cmdrls212 true but the costs are still negligible if you compare it to heavy use car lanes.
“We don’t need a bike lane on this street, there’s already one just one block to the south!”
Okay, then. Why do we need car access to this street if there’s already car access one block to the south, two blocks to the south, three blocks to the south, and one block to the north, two blocks to the north, three blocks to the north…
What a silly argument.
It is funny how car culture gets ingrained in us. Of course every street should have vehicle access, and of course every street should have parking, and of course the stores should all have huge parking lots, and of course every high rise should have enough parking for every unit. If that's what you grew up with, it just seems normal. I hope we get to that same point with safe bike lanes eventually, where it would be silly to even question the idea of not having them.
@@pointtopoint-cp6hr Agreed! Big thanks to people like you for all you’re doing to draw attention to the issue. I’m subbed now, looking forward for future content :)
In any US big city less than 1% of all passenger miles traveled are by cyclists. Way less. City streets are for everyone. Not just a tiny special interest group.
In every city I'm familiar with far less than 1% use bikes as primary transport. The other 99% use road vehicles. Less than 5% light rail / rail when available. These are the real numbers. Not the made up numbers from people like Critical Mass / bike crank 'activists".
The < 1% who you do see cycling are 80%+ white males, aged 20 to 45 overwhelming from affluent backgrounds. Even in a city that has been minority majority for decades and this demographic is less than 5% of the population.
Most people have real lives with family and work obligations. Big city cycling is a luxury for rich white folk or people whose time is worth little or nothing.
Bike lanes are the 1%'er lanes. Special lanes for "special" white folk. And yes, I was a big city cyclist long before you were born. Long before the current cycle lane plague. Most of the current big city cyclists need to be removed from our streets until they learn the basic skills of road safety. Which few of them have. Which is why so many end up dead.
You sum up the arrogance of cyclists. We are a tiny minority and we demand 20% to 50% of road space because we are special people. Better than everyone else. And we dont care about the other 99% of road users. Who have real lives, real jobs, and real family obligations so need fast reliable big city transport. Which means a car in all US cities. And all European ones too.
@@kbezier7484 Cite those statistics please. The only thing you’ve proven with this comment is that you misunderstand equity and accessibility in transportation, that our cycling infrastructure is not ubiquitous and safe enough to make it a viable choice for most people, and that we need more and better implementations.
Good transportation design is not a zero sum game. Our infrastructure can and should have viable and ubiquitous support for cars, cycles, trains and buses. It’s possible and it’s imperative.
Oh my god. I was thinking that but this comment opened my eyes a bit even though I’m already an urbanist
We have to spend years in planning just to change a mile of a quiet road thanks to obnoxious pro-death nimbies who hate their neighbors
That kind of sums it up. Maybe I should just copy and paste your comment as my video description? I agree that it can be incredibly frustrating when changes that are clearly for the greater good get delayed or cancelled because a handful of people only focus on their personal interests.
“These bikes go too fast. I only want 2,000 lb cars going 3x as fast on this road.”
“These bike lanes are too expensive. I only want to spend 100x as much on car infrastructure.”
Ha! Wait, are you saying these are illogical arguments?
2:40 Those raised crosswalks are impressive! That's something I want to see a lot more of. Such an intuitive tool for making drivers feel like guests in a shared space.
Thanks for watching! Chicago has added these most frequently near schools, but I agree it would be great to see more of them, especially in areas with a lot of foot traffic. It's a subtle but effective way to get drivers' attention.
We call them ‘wombat crossings’ in Australia, they are fantastic at T junctions and roundabouts where cars enter or exit too fast. It slows all motor vehicles down to bike speeds, and everyone has time to see and mutually negotiate a safe route past each other, including pedestrians. So long as the sight-lines are good enough they must be one of the best bits of urban infrastructure available. From Canberra, Cheers!
@mikewatson1105 Wombat crossings! I love it. I'm going to start calling them that here and see if it catches on.
I think urbanists need to be more ok with being reasonably anti-car. The argument I always use is that just because planes are objectively beneficial to society doesn't mean that every street should be designed to double as a runway. By the same logic, we can acknowledge that cars absolutely have a place in society, but that not every single street needs to cater to them.
Reasonably anti-car. Maybe that's a new slogan for the biking community. Thanks for the comment!
Funny you say that, a lot of roads in Sweden do double up as runways, runways for jets hidden in nearby hanger bunkers...but still runway streets xD
Any new development that reduces and discourages automobile use is objectively better for people's physical and mental health.
Car-unfriendly is almost synonymous with people-friendly.
Thanks for watching! As a person who mostly bikes but sometimes drives, when I find myself in areas where people-friendly improvements creates vehicle bottlenecks, I remind myself that this is why I prefer being on a bike. I also hope there are others sitting in that traffic, thinking they might ditch the car and get on a bike then next time they're in the area.
2:00 The 'bikes go too fast' arguement is infuriating as bikes rarely go more than even 1/3 of the top speeds seen every day on Interstate highways.
The underlying issue is weak bikelane engineering where pedestrians are not sufficiently separated from through cycling routes.
Thanks for watching, and you make a great point! These concerned citizens should actually be asking for a safer, more robust bike lane!
Stockton should be ENTIRELY closed to automotive vehicles except for busses/ emergency vehicles!!
I think this could be an interesting concept to try on a handful of street in Chicago. State Street in Madison is a great example of how this can work well.
@@pointtopoint-cp6hr Honestly, it is so obvious on so many streets! my top pics? State street, mag mile, Clark in Andersonville, humbolt drive in Humboldt park, E 75th in South shore, 43rd in Bronzeville, 71st in South shore. But here's the Big Takeaway.. private cars do not belong in the vast majority of parks, full stop.
Because emergency vehicles do not always pass at regularly frequent basis, unlike carbrains.
@@selflesssamaritan6417 Also emergency and service vehicles can be given access to blocked roads using smart retractable bollards
Babe (Chicago) wake up a new point to point video just dropped!!
Thanks for watching!
An effective bike/mixed use path network throughout a city benefits everyone, including drivers.
Drivers benefit because: People on bikes and pedestrians are more likely to use these pathways, so bikes are out of car traffic and out of the way of drivers. Everyone who chooses to use these new bike paths to commute is potentially one less car on the road, so traffic volumes are reduced. Nobody likes driving in traffic!
Bikers benefit because: obviously this new infrastructure is tailored to bicycles. People who choose to ride their bikes or walk won't have to deal with car traffic, making their trips more safe and pleasant. They won't have to worry about distracted or hostile drivers running them off the road or killing them. It's a public health benefit, people who choose to cycle or walk will be getting more exercise reducing obesity and depression, and will be breathing in less exhaust fumes and brake particulates and other byproducts of car traffic. People using these paths are less likely to be hit by cars, reducing healthcare costs all around. And a separated path (not a lane on the inside of parallel parked cars) means cyclists won't be crashing into car doors opening on the right side, better for drivers and cyclists.
Cities benefit because: bicycle infrastructure is much cheaper to build and maintain than roads. Reduced car traffic means roads will need less maintenance, saving the city money in the long run. More people choosing to cycle means less pollution in the city, making it a more pleasant place to live.
Businesses benefit because: more people getting around outside of cars means more people traversing the city at a human scale. People are much more likely to visit local businesses if they don't have to find a parking spot first. And obviously bike shops will do very well.
And I haven't even mentioned the benefits of an effective transit system as well on top of this, but that's a topic for another video.
So many excellent points! Thanks for the thoughtful comment! This really shouldn't be an us-versus-them discussion because many of us that ride bikes are in a car or on a bus stuck in traffic from time to time. We want vehicles to move (safely) around the city, but we also want some of those people in cars to leave the cars behind and make trips on bikes or on foot more often. Every time there's an improvement to the bike network, there are a few new people who decide to try something new.
@@pointtopoint-cp6hr Exactly! I'm not about waging a war on cars or restricting people's freedoms. I want to expand the freedoms people have by providing new safe options for transport. The key words here are "choice" and "decision". The only downside I can think of is the initial cost to the city to acquire the land and construct the things in the first place. And as I pointed out, it pays for itself in the long run.
I used to always take Cortland to Racine to Armitage to Clark to get to the lakefront. This past weekend I took Dickens to Stockton instead, and I didn't feel like I had to fight for my life the whole time. Huge improvement.
The terminus should be bricked and made into a permanent plaza. Stockton is a literal nightmare of congestion and car parking while being an active bus route. We need to stop giving away handouts to constituents who insist on driving over other modes of transport.
Thanks for the comment, and glad you enjoyed the ride on Dickens! "I didn't have to fight for my life the whole time" isn't exactly a resounding endorsement, but it's progress! I agree there's still some work to do at the Stockton terminus. To get all the way to the lake, you either have to ride on Stockton, which can be pretty busy, or you have to navigate a few park sidewalks that really aren't wide enough to share with pedestrians, so you have to walk your bike a bit.
I think "bike friendly" s t a r t s with "car unfriendly".
Thanks for watching! It really is a glass-half-full/glass-half-empty question, isn't it? My optimistic view is that some drivers who view change like this as car-unfriendly eventually decide to ditch their cars more often and take advantage of the improved bike infrastructure.
@@pointtopoint-cp6hr In a conflict between a car and a bicycle the latter one always loses . These biking lanes are meant to create conflict as they equalize that which is unequal by design.
>Is Bike Infrastructure Going Too Far?
So to anyone wondering what the title is it's called CONCERN TROLLING.
Yea, not a fan tbh. There's plenty of good possible reasons why bike infrastructure is bad, but that's not explored here. Just another copy+paste armchair urbanist video
@@MaximillionBucks I want to believe quantity will eventually transform into quality. Right? ¡¿RIGHT?!
Great stuff. Worth noting that right now bike infrastructure in Chicago is largely at the mercy of each ward's alderperson. Wards with staunchly pro-cycling leaders are going to see much bigger gains in bike infra than wards with apathatic or even anti-bike leadership. This will be somewhat self-reinforcing as residents take up cycling at higher rates in accomodating neighborhoods, and are more likely to avoid riding in hostile areas. We can and should advocate for safer streets citywide. Better leadership from City Hall and CDOT would go a long way as well.
Thanks for watching, and I appreciate the comment! It would be great for Chicago to have a better and more transparent city-wide plan. In terms of lack of investment in some neighborhoods, I understand it's a function of the alderperson, although in some cases, it's probably not so much that bike lanes aren't wanted as much as other issues need to be addressed first. Those neighborhoods generally have lower car ownership, so in theory, safe bike lanes connecting people to grocery stores/drug stores, etc. could be incredibly valuable.
Anything that takes power away from cars is by far the best decision.
I agree that nearly all changes that benefit bikes benefit the community as a whole. In contrast, most concessions to cars are going to have a negative impact on every non-driver in the community.
Good stuff!
I really hope that we can get more stuff like this on the SW side. I wish I could just get on a safe bike lane with my kids to get to a park.
As is, i would have to go on a shared lane on a major diagonal. Its safer to just drive there and haul their bikes to the park.
Thanks for watching! We need safe streets across the city where families can ride together! It's crazy to think it's necessary to drive a bike to a park just to use it.
It is always hard to place a bike path on city streets. Someone is going to be unhappy. I live in Montreal and in my corner of the city there are three separate bicycle paths that traverse the city to the downtown that are separated from road traffic. Along an abandoned industrial canal, along an aqueduct, and along the river front. This is ideal for cyclist. What is interesting to observe is how over the last 50 years or so the improvements were made to the path by changing the position of intersections with automobile traffic to make it safer. Also raising the grade of the path to be less prone to flooding during rain. The trails have all been resurface at least 3 times in most places. Vegetation has been changed along the paths to be more suitable for the environment. The design evolved over time.
Urban streets are much harder to change to accommodate a cycling path. How does the garbage collection change? Having children standing between parked cars and a cycling trail when getting on or off a school bus. Is there a safety issue? Not that easy to figure out in my opinion. I wonder how those Chicago paths will evolve?
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. Nothing is easy with this, and as a city official, I'm sure it's hard trying to balance the needs of a variety of constituents. The beauty of bike lane improvements is that they can start with very little upfront cost. I'd love to see more ideas being tested with paint and plastic bollards. If it causes too much stress on that street and neighboring streets, you can remove it or dial it back. If it works, upgrade with a more permanent, durable design.
All city center should be closed to cars...
It works in a lot of places in Europe, so in theory, it should work in the US, even though our city centers aren't as compact. I think some form of the State Steet Mall idea brought back to Chicago now could get better traction than it did in the 80s and 90s.
@@pointtopoint-cp6hrAs someone who works one block off State, I can tell you how dangerous it is because of drivers treating it like a speedway. Even the buses fly up & down State. Everyone would benefit from traffic-calming measures.
I use the Glenwood Greenway every single day -- It's much safer and more comfy than riding on Clark, even where Clark has a bike lane. The more the merrier imhfo
The neighborhood greenways really are fantastic, aren't they? I profiled the Glenwood and Leavitt Greenways on my Contraflow and Advisory Bike Lane videos. Check them out if you haven't already.
2:00 are people really worried about bikes going too fast as compared to cars?? 💀
Thanks for watching! Yes, that was, in fact, some of the initial feedback, and the term "bike highway" was quoted in a few articles. The designers ended up adjusting both entrances to Oz Park with sharp turns to ensure that bikes would slow down.
drivers getting a bit upset reminds me of my area in the UK, they built a 2 lane cycle lane down this long stretch of road that leads out of the town. It didnt even hamper the 2 car lanes at all, it just made it safer for cycling. And a lot of car people got upset because the idea of being reminded that cyclists and other road users exist causes them psychic damage for some reason.
Psychic damage. That's good stuff. Imagine what kind of damage would have been done if the new bike lane had actually cut down on vehicle capacity.
Unfortunately bike infrastructure isn't built on the south side because many alders for those areas don't want it, even if their constituents would be fine with it. We need to make bike infrastructure a default part of our streets instead of asking communities for permission to take action on traffic safety, reducing congestion, expanding mobility, and climate resilience.
Thanks for the comment! For the reasons you mentioned, making bike improvements a requirement for every road project would definitely be positive for the city in the long run. We need all the alders to keep a long time horizon in mind, but unfortunately, that's not usually the case.
I am sure that people who complain about bike infrastructure haven't truly experienced the joy of riding.
Thanks for watching! I sometimes wonder about this myself. Or maybe the complainers haven't experienced the difference between riding in traffic and riding in a nice, protected bike lane.
Why is the bike lane placed in between the car lane and the parking lane? Wouldn't it be better to place it in between the parking lane and the side of the street?
With that riding would be calmer and you would not interfere with the door zone (I mean the drivers' door zone, passengers' one is less often used)
That's a fair suggestion. Typically, I see the curbside treatment used on more commercial streets where cars pull in and out more often (this would make sense on Armitage, except I think that street is too skinny). On residential streets with minimal parking activity, these streetside lanes work okay. Cost may also be a consideration, even if the difference is pretty small.
I wonder if Armitage would’ve been better-served with a center bike lane or sharrows. Door zone bike lanes are also dangerous because drivers can’t see you as well when they’re pulling out of driveways or side streets, due to parked cars blocking the way. There was one time I was riding along Apache Boulevard in Tempe, by the ASU campus, and almost got hit because of that problem.
@grahamturner2640 It might be, especially between Halsted and Sheffield where it's most commercial. Vehicle traffic has stops ever half block, so no one is moving that quickly. If bikes just rode in the middle of the lane, drivers might be okay with that for a couple blocks.
Love to see it. N Glenwood is another one of those quiet residential green ways that has similar two-way bike lanes despite it being a one-way street for cars.
Super convenient as a cyclist to be able to travel in both directions and not have to worry about being in the wrong.
Thanks for watching! Yes, Glenwood is great, and one of the key routes featured in the contraflow lane video I made last year. Check it out if you haven't already!
your Favorite TV Show Must be Early Edition 😁
Equality always feels like oppression to those benefiting from extreme privilege.
I gotta ask what in the heck is going on with S Wells Street east side of the river? I had planned a ride when I was last in Chicago to ride that street and was shunted over to Clark Street which ultimately sux...
Excellent video, hope to see the channel grow!
Thanks for watching! Though most of the work related to the Wells-Wentworth Connector was completed more than a year ago, the road still hasn't opened for vehicle or bike traffic. I don't think CDOT has provided any recent guidance for an opening date, but hopefully it won't be much longer.
Building bike infrastructure is easy , just ban cars completely and use the existing roads, they will need less maintenance as well
While not practical, it would be really interesting to see how little traffic there would be if only "essential vehicles" were allowed on most roads. Or maybe if non-essential vehicles were prohibited during certain hours.
It's misleading to point out the danger of bicycle-pedestrian encounters. Just the curb bump outs alone are going to save many more and make it so much more pleasant. They need to widen that path though, a very busy ped/bike path should be something like 12-16ft wide, probably?
I also never understood why you would put bike lanes between parking and vehicle lanes. The bicycle is in the door zone, they have nowhere to swerve to if they are going to be hit, and to add insult it's more stressful if you are driving, one more thing to watch out for when pulling out of a parking spot. It just seems like such terrible design you really need proper bike-vehicle separation if you are going to have that much of both kinds of traffic. But yeah cars are more dangerous for sure.
Thanks for watching! I didn't focus on it, but you're right that the traffic calming improvements add to pedestrian safety much more than a few more bikes detract from it. The design could have been much more bicycle-friendly, though this is pretty typical. I haven't seen many curb-side protected lanes in residential areas.
All you are saying can be summed up with ONE thing: the state needs to update its road rules to make it ILLEGAL to NOT have bike lanes both on old and new roads.
Thanks for watching! I agree that there are some outdated laws on the books that limit the potential of bike infrastructure at times. Though I think it would be great to have bike lanes everywhere, I'd give up those tight lanes shoehorned into busy streets in favor of more of a network being built out on quiet side streets.
@@pointtopoint-cp6hr If we don't advocate for a systemic approach like when it's the law to have "a" sidewalk in a residential zone we are going to fight NIMBYs for the rest of our lives.
I will agree with part of a statement, it can be summed up in one sentence, let's have inclusion and not have motorized vehicles pay NOTHING and have all of it payed by cyclists. Then we can see how much they really want to cycle
Anything, long day !!@
Are there any plans to replace those flex sticks with something that'll actually provide some sort protection for peds and cyclists?
That's a good question. The city was making progress in replacing plastic bollards with concrete on some protected bike lanes, although typically just with pre-cast curbs. I'd be surprised if the city did much here, since they probably want the option to remove the plastic at some point in the future, either temporarily or permanently.
"equality feels like injustice to privileged people"
Thanks for the comment. Very similar to a couple others on here, and it's what struck a chord with many of us. To live in this neighborhood and not be thinking about how to improve it for everyone is really a selfish perspective.
Bike lanes shouldn't be necessary on quiet residential streets, just slow down the cars. And bike lanes on through roads should be seperated.
Thanks for the comment! I actually had this initial thought when looking as some of the footage from before the improvements were made. It was a great street for biking even then. The key difference is that now bike traffic can move in both directions.
@@pointtopoint-cp6hr Just a thought exercise about what I'd do with Chicago coming from a Dutch viewpoint who has some interest in urban planning.
Slap the ETW label on all those quiet neighbourhood streets meaning traffic calming where necessary and no bike lanes, all traffic mixes.
You could do it with speed bumps, road narrowing, cobblestones and raised crossings. Pick something I guess.
That way you make it safe for all road users also pedestrians, removing jaywalking out of the dictionary would also apply for those local roads.
Residential blocks would appear with only local traffic like for instance between W51st, W55st, S California avenue and S western Avenue where it'd be safe enough for kids to play on the street comprising of
what looks to be around 16x4x20 households so 1280 households so the size of a town. Children can now also easily walk or cycle to that Florence Nightingale elementary school in the middle of the block.
Next staying with the same block, Dunno if it's becaus of parking minimums or R1 zoning, but redesignate that ugly slab of concrete next to the church as commercial. Get a local barber, corner store, daycare whatever in a small commercial center with bike racks in front there.
The roads surrounding that block will be GOW's so 50km/h with seperated bike lanes. One lane each way is plenty if you remove parking and because I like them and for better traffic flow a Dutch style roundabout at the intersections between them. Leave some parking spots at the back or something for access to local shops, although the name says it local so cars aren't the main form of transportation to those shops so not a lot of parking needed.
All of this is really politically impossible I imagine though😅, but it is what I imagine a Dutch planner might come up with. And yeah, no bike paths on or next to ETW's
@@frisianmouve a GOW shouldn't have on-street parking anyway - it's for through-traffic, not for "everybody waits for somebody parking their tank"-traffic. And yep, still have to find any city that's free of this sin :)
And for residential: Germany allowed 30 km/h streets to be opened for counter-flow biking in 1997 - without any extra paint. In all those time I haven't heard of even a single fatal accident caused by this.
@lailahmann1823 Unpainted, unofficial contraflow is sort of what was here before, and the street was wide enough to accommodate it. With street designations and well-communicated rules on what is permitted where, this could work in the US, although there would be a bit of a learning curve.
@frisianmouve Thanks for watching, and thanks for the comment! I agree it would be really beneficial for US cities to consult with Dutch or other European planners to see how they might address bike infrastructure challenges. It feels like some US-trained planners have a hard time breaking the mold, and I'm sure it doesn't help if they grew up in car-dependent areas.
I'm all for making streets car-unfriendly
You're not the only one. Thanks for watching!
No it has not gone far enough. I want to feel safe biking in Chicago and I want others to feel safe enough to bike with me
Thanks for watching!
Nope. It's still not enough.
At 3:18 those three posts to the left of the cycle lane. Don't know why they were there (posting from the UK so unfamiliar with US road law) but I only just saw them they blended in with the tarmac so well bloody dangerous!
They look like flex posts so they would flatten if hit. I think that's where the parking ends and it's to prevent cars parking there for visibility reasons related to that drive way that crosses the bike lane.
Exactly. That street has some sections where the bike lane is designed to sit between parked vehicles and the curb. It's hard to tell because there weren't any parked cars on the day I rode by, but the plastic posts mark the end of the parking zone.
Tbh if a street is quiet and residential and does barely have any traffic, do you even need a bikelane? I am all for bikelanes (european here who leves in a city with very inadaquate bike infrastructure) but not on residential streets. There is no added value and I even feel restricted as a cyclist. Normally riding with 2 side by side is fine, but if there is a bikelane you HAVE to use it. And often they dont find 2 people. So cyclists lose space by adding bikelanes on quiet streets
Thanks for watching, and you make some good points. The addition of the bike lane paint does have the effect of "squeezing" the entire street a bit, forcing bikes to the edge. The most critical addition was the contraflow lane, adding a lower-stress route down to the park and lakefront. If this had been a two-way street, advisory lane markings could have worked well (see my advisory lane video for an overview of what those looks like).
lol the bait: "Is Bike Infrastructure Going Too Far?" then shows a video about a new UNPROTECTED bike lane, not even any buffer!
Ha! Well, in my defense, I was referring more to the street closure than to the lane itself. I'm sure drivers view that as an unnecessary obstacle. There is really nothing else about the lane that's a special accommodation to bikes or an inconvenience for cars.
Most of what I see here are painted gutters that are not protected and weave in and out of main traffic as if the biker is a car. Basically exactly how not to design bike lanes but what Americans think bike lanes are. 😂
You're right. This new greenway is far from an ideal bike lane, but it's still an improvement over riding a block south on a busy commercial street (that's the footage with lots of traffic, doors, and cars pulling out of parking spots).
Recreational paths. Conveniently forgetting those paths connect to the places people want to shop for groceries. The moronic ideology for car infrastructure.
Thanks for watching! I see this as part of Bike Lanes 2.0 here in the US. To an extent, the focus to date has been on quantity (how many miles can I, the politician, get credit for installing) rather than quality. The next phase should be about a usable, efficient network, connecting bike lanes to other bike lanes and to the destinations people want to reach. No "bike lanes to nowhere".
I'm thinking there has to be a racial component to whatever has developed there for bike paths and such. Your map shows nearly all the development in the northside area, not to the south. It's not my city, but I know there are a lot of blacks there and it would have to factor in. I'd imagine that the mugging rate would also factor in and that might very well be higher in the southside area. For myself I think any 20 MPH speed limit in residential areas is a plus, even if there're no bike lanes at all. Sometimes it might not make the best sense too. It depends. On a downhill it just looks like a ticket trap. I think that probably it not being lowered is based on what everyone expects the lowest speed limit to be, i.e. 25, and also all the signs they'd need to put up in making it unambiguous as to what it is changed to.
Thanks for the watching! I was amazed myself to look at the map, and I wondered about the reasons. Currently, a lot of these improvements are guided by each ward's alderperson, so there isn't a cohesiveness to building a city-wide network. Some ward leaders have publicly declared their personal disinterest in bike lane improvements or voiced that their residents don't want them. I wonder, though, if that's more a statement about other investment that these neighborhoods need more desperately.
Bike lanes are a pain in the azz. Bikers usually ignore stop signs. The person with the camera ignored a stop sign.
I can't speak for all people riding bikes, but I'd be surprised if most ignore stop signs. Rolling through four-way stops at a low speed shouldn't be an issue as long as the bike can stop quickly if needed, either for a pedestrian, vehicle, or another bike.
Stop signs are for cars. Bikes don't need stop signs.
@@difflocktwo in my state: Bicyclists are required to slow down and come to a complete stop at stop signs and traffic devices signaling red. Bicyclists must signal when turning or coming to a stop. Bicyclists must use hand/arm signals when turning and stopping.
@@janibeg3247 Those three things you mentioned make zero sense. A bicycle can navigate the roads perfectly fine without any of that theater.
@@difflocktwo that is State Law
Watching this video I know thing maybe bike infrastructure shouldn’t go too far as it becomes an major inconvenience.
Thanks for watching! We definitely need balance in how bike infrastructure is built out. While I'm not a huge fan of paint-only improvements, they do have the benefit of being easy to modify if a design ends up not working as well as expected.
Bicycle friendly is equal to car unfriendly.
Thanks for watching! What's funny is that I actually debated having an equal sign on the thumbnail instead of the word "Or". In which case, your answer would have been "Yes"!
Sorry to bust your bubble, but the USA is NOT Europe.
1) we don't have a mass transit system in the US. Less than 5% of trips are made by transit. 2) US cities are too spread out, and rents in the cities are not affordable. 3) US citizens are unwilling to pay 50%
In taxes to fund the billions it would take to make transit a viable option.
4) they are taking away capacity on existing roads. Less capacity equals time wasted, more pollution, more stress, increased energy consumption . They did this in DC and it made driving a misery. So much so i gave up working in downtown DC. I'm all for more and better alternatives to driving, but DON'T make driving a car
IMPOSSIBLE.
You are the poster boy for "we need more lanes, that will solve my driving problem" LOL (funny how you just mention a random "50% in taxes" to scare people)
And as a long time DC resident I'm sorry to "bust your bubble" but you don't need a car in DC. Many cities in America are very good for mass transit and alternatives means of transportation
Thanks for the comments! I really do feel bad for those US cities that grew after vehicle ownership became more common. They were designed specifically around cars, whereas European cities and older US cities were built before cars even existed. Yes, it's an uphill battle to modify the infrastructure of US cities, but it can be done with enough political and public will. Space dedicated to vehicle travel just needs to be re-imagined for other modes of transportation. And the better the re-designs are, the more people will consider switching.
Cyclists never yield to stop signs either.
Stops signs need to be abolished
@@nevertrustgoogle what?
I rarely come to a full stop at a four-way stop, unless there are pedestrians present. I'm also moving slowly enough that I could stop if needed. But it's true that some cyclists fly right through some of these intersections without slowing down at all, which can be quite dangerous.
We definitely need stop signs, but it would be good if some city and state laws were revisited to be more thoughtful about how the rules of the road apply to people on bikes. For example, in some areas with traffic lights, bikes can go when the crosswalk signal turns for pedestrians, giving them a head start (and making them more visible) before cars get a green light.
@@pointtopoint-cp6hr Nop. If you want everybody to slow down and look, then use yield signs. Stop signs are for blind corners and thus everybody, even cyclists or the president himself needs to stop at them.