SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   CHICAGO: Transit Developments (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=101657)

ardecila Apr 10, 2009 10:16 PM

How can it be enforced universally? It's like speed traps. If you do them properly, then their locations are randomized and the fear of getting caught is the deterrent.

the urban politician Apr 10, 2009 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 4188950)
How can it be enforced universally? It's like speed traps. If you do them properly, then their locations are randomized and the fear of getting caught is the deterrent.

^ Agree.

I would advocate using the same technology as the red light cameras to ticket cars that don't give pedestrians the right of way. Have people watch various intersections from the camera and simply push a button when they observe a violation--bada boom bada bing, you been busted!

Abner Apr 11, 2009 7:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego (Post 4188893)
A law that 99% of drivers don't adhere to, and when I learned that pedestrians have the ROW in such situations and started stopping, I created hazardous traffic situations (including irate people behind me swinging out to the other side of the yellow line to pass me while gunning it). As much as I am for ped-friendly streets, this is another stupid (or rather, revenue-driven) idea like the red light cameras. Either it has to be enforced universally so all drivers adhere to it, or not at all, because the selective enforcement leads to even more dangerous traffic conditions.

I realize it's incredibly hard to change entrenched ways of driving, but you know, there are lots of places in this country where people actually follow that law. In a lot of Pacific Northwest cities, drivers ALWAYS stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk, and usually stop for pedestrians even when they're not in a crosswalk. I've seen the same behavior in small towns throughout the Upper Midwest, but then small town drivers are always more courteous.

That said, in Chicago I tend to drive like a Chicagoan for the same reason you do: driving courteously could put pedestrians in more danger because of psychotic drivers gunning it to get around you. But I still stop for pedestrians whenever it's safe to.

I think these operations should be happening all the time, but at signaled intersections since they can catch plenty of people flagrantly and dangerously breaking the law there. Maybe focus on particular behaviors, like drivers making right turns while pedestrians are trying to cross the street (I swear to god this happens like every time I walk anywhere).

lawfin Apr 11, 2009 8:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rilestone75 (Post 4188440)
This is such a load of CRAP!

If someone can find this information, I would love to know what the statistics behind these numbers are, how many of the 3,000+ accidents were a result of moron pedestrians? I'm not saying that drivers are 100% innocent, but I see people trying to cross the street against signals, in the middle of the street all the time. That's not to mention the number of pedestrians that are completely clueless to their surroundings because they are either listening to their IPOD, texting/emailing someone, or on their cell phone.

"It's all part of a nearly three-year-old campaign known as "Safe Streets for Chicago," designed to improve pedestrian and traffic safety through: technology, such as countdown signals; infrastructure investment, such as marked crosswalks, and education. "

How does placing an undercover cop in a sting, relate to any of the quoted methods to improve safety? This is just another B/S way to collect more money. Why doesn't the city start writing tickets for jaywalking?

I really don't know what your problem is....but anyhow...driving is a massive responsibility....unfortunatley many in our society do not treat it with the gravity that is deserves. Just think for a second, you are hurtling down the street in a minimum of a 2500lb car going 30 mph...more likely a 6 or 7000lb car going 45-50......the onus is on YOU....you are the one driving the deadly weapon.

Our culture has engrained such a sense of entitlement to drivers it is really maddening....

I had a guy in a v12 mercedes turn on me as I was crossing adams yesterday....so I kicked his door as he went by...he was not too happy. I invited him to dance, he declined and sped off. Maybe he will think twice next time before turning AGAINST the light while pedestrians were crossing at a cross walk WITH THE LIGHT......probably not.....he probably thinks all pedestrians are ....morons...and that their crossing at crosswalk is a load of crap....those brazen twits

cybele Apr 11, 2009 2:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawfin (Post 4189696)
....he probably thinks all pedestrians are ....morons...and that their crossing at crosswalk is a load of crap....those brazen twits

Pedestrians are impediments to rapid automobile travel. I'd like to see a study showing how much "walkability" adds to traffic congestion and all the associated negative effects that go along with it.

honte Apr 11, 2009 2:48 PM

I think Chicago needs to institute better flow separation between pedestrians and automobiles. Denver, and I think Boston too, have certain locations downtown where all intersection traffic is halted in all directions if a pedestrian presses the cross button. Otherwise, there is no walk sign, and traffic can proceed more smoothly, without the chaotic dangers of pedestrians crossing at random times. Sometimes with all that is going on downtown, you just don't see pedestrians beginning to cross. As careful as you try to be, accidents are waiting to happen - and some pedestrians are simply rude or unaware of their surroundings.

Not saying I'm against this ordinance overall, but I'd like to see some real solutions to real problems, not all these band-aids. Chicago seems permanently in band-aid mode, and a lot of these implementations decrease the workability of the city. Have through-traffic problems? Add in a cul-de-sac without thinking. Drivers going too fast? How about speed bumps all over the place? Chicago has no bike paths? Why not just throw some stripes down on major arterial streets? I have concerns that all of this adds up to a lot of headache and begins to make the city less desirable as a place to live and conduct business. As though we had perfect weather and low taxes already...

the urban politician Apr 11, 2009 3:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cybele (Post 4189814)
Pedestrians are impediments to rapid automobile travel. I'd like to see a study showing how much "walkability" adds to traffic congestion and all the associated negative effects that go along with it.

^ What's your point? Are you suggesting that making places less walkable is a good thing?

If so, you're on the wrong forum.

the urban politician Apr 11, 2009 3:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte (Post 4189842)
I think Chicago needs to institute better flow separation between pedestrians and automobiles. Denver, and I think Boston too, have certain locations downtown where all intersection traffic is halted in all directions if a pedestrian presses the cross button. Otherwise, there is no walk sign, and traffic can proceed more smoothly, without the chaotic dangers of pedestrians crossing at random times. Sometimes with all that is going on downtown, you just don't see pedestrians beginning to cross. As careful as you try to be, accidents are waiting to happen - and some pedestrians are simply rude or unaware of their surroundings.

Not saying I'm against this ordinance overall, but I'd like to see some real solutions to real problems, not all these band-aids. Chicago seems permanently in band-aid mode, and a lot of these implementations decrease the workability of the city. Have through-traffic problems? Add in a cul-de-sac without thinking. Drivers going too fast? How about speed bumps all over the place? Chicago has no bike paths? Why not just throw some stripes down on major arterial streets? I have concerns that all of this adds up to a lot of headache and begins to make the city less desirable as a place to live and conduct business. As though we had perfect weather and low taxes already...

Edit: Misinterpretation

cybele Apr 11, 2009 3:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 4189858)
^ What's your point? Are you suggesting that making places less walkable is a good thing?

Oh, just a talking point, really. We should look at the objective data rather than just assuming that making places more walkable is automatically a good thing.

the urban politician Apr 11, 2009 3:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cybele (Post 4189876)
Oh, just a talking point, really. We should look at the objective data rather than just assuming that making places more walkable is automatically a good thing.

^ I'm down with objective data, but I'm not down with the assumption that our goal is optimizing automobile traffic flow.

It is championing that particular issue where, trust me, you will find virtually no support around here. Most people here are concerned with livability, pedestrian safety, and improving mass transit--not making automobile flow more effective.

Nowhereman1280 Apr 11, 2009 4:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawfin (Post 4189696)
I had a guy in a v12 mercedes turn on me as I was crossing adams yesterday....so I kicked his door as he went by...he was not too happy. I invited him to dance, he declined and sped off. Maybe he will think twice next time before turning AGAINST the light while pedestrians were crossing at a cross walk WITH THE LIGHT......probably not.....he probably thinks all pedestrians are ....morons...and that their crossing at crosswalk is a load of crap....those brazen twits

Haha, I totally do the same thing all the time when people almost hit me or cut me off when I am walking. I've put scratches and dents in more luxury ass-hat transports than I can count! If they wanna try and sue me let them, I'll just say they hit me while I was crossing and the dent is from the impact with my body! A few times the people stop because they are scarred they hit me.

cybele Apr 11, 2009 4:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 4189890)
It is championing that particular issue where, trust me, you will find virtually no support around here. Most people here are concerned with livability, pedestrian safety, and improving mass transit--not making automobile flow more effective.

Yes, but it's a two way street. I travel a lot on foot and get aggravated with motorists all the time. However, I've also seen plenty of pedestrians wandering around like they own the place. The reality is that in the U.S. we'll probably be a car dependent society for the next 40 or 50 years at least, so everybody needs to learn to get along. It's not exactly easy operating an automobile on busy city streets if you're texting or talking on the cell phone.

the urban politician Apr 11, 2009 7:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cybele (Post 4189939)
Yes, but it's a two way street. I travel a lot on foot and get aggravated with motorists all the time. However, I've also seen plenty of pedestrians wandering around like they own the place. The reality is that in the U.S. we'll probably be a car dependent society for the next 40 or 50 years at least, so everybody needs to learn to get along. It's not exactly easy operating an automobile on busy city streets if you're texting or talking on the cell phone.

^ All due respect, I could care less what the US is doing.

When you're in Chicago, as a driver you should be a second class citizen--period.

Pedestrians do own the place, and it's good to see that the city is taking action to enforce that mentality. As I said elsewhere, pedestrians don't have a chance in hell in injuring a driver; but a car is a lethal weapon and a driver can easily end someone's life with the simple tap of his foot.

And if you're texting while driving, you certainly shouldn't be behind the wheel.

ardecila Apr 11, 2009 7:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 4189859)
^ You had me until you talked about cul-de-sacs.

Cul de sacs are not the right solution. If you add cul-de-sacs, I promise you that the number of angry drivers will double, and traffic violations will do the same. The streetgrid contributes to pedestrian safety in an indirect way.

honte is on your side... he is criticizing the careless way the city has installed cul-de-sacs where people complain of through traffic, and suggesting that more carefully-planned, less reflexive solutions might need to be implemented.

the urban politician Apr 11, 2009 8:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 4190101)
honte is on your side... he is criticizing the careless way the city has installed cul-de-sacs where people complain of through traffic, and suggesting that more carefully-planned, less reflexive solutions might need to be implemented.

^ Yikes, thanks for pointing that out. I deleted that last post (kind of pointless on retrospect, though, since you already quoted it!) :haha:

Abner Apr 11, 2009 8:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cybele (Post 4189939)
It's not exactly easy operating an automobile on busy city streets if you're texting or talking on the cell phone.

It is illegal in Chicago to talk on a cell phone or text message while driving.

It's not illegal to talk on a hands-free device, which means the law actually ignores the research that shows that it's the conversation you're having with someone who isn't present, not the use of your hand to hold the phone, that causes cell phone users to be so dangerous behind the wheel.

Abner Apr 11, 2009 8:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte (Post 4189842)
I think Chicago needs to institute better flow separation between pedestrians and automobiles. Denver, and I think Boston too, have certain locations downtown where all intersection traffic is halted in all directions if a pedestrian presses the cross button. Otherwise, there is no walk sign, and traffic can proceed more smoothly, without the chaotic dangers of pedestrians crossing at random times. Sometimes with all that is going on downtown, you just don't see pedestrians beginning to cross. As careful as you try to be, accidents are waiting to happen - and some pedestrians are simply rude or unaware of their surroundings.

But this would make it harder to be a pedestrian downtown. Intersections downtown have a constant flow of people walking when they have the signal, and the corners get crowded while people are waiting. If there were even more waiting to get the walk signal, wouldn't walking be even more of a hassle? I also worry that if drivers are ignoring current laws requiring them to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, there's no reason to think they'll suddenly start following the law if this new and foreign system is put in place. A better idea is just to enforce the existing laws, which would eliminate most accidents if drivers actually followed them.

honte Apr 11, 2009 9:25 PM

^ It's not as bad as it sounds. In fact, I find it quite preferable. You save time because you can walk diagonally across the intersection, and the number of pedestrians waiting at the corner is related to how long the waiting periods are. Boston is a far, far more pedestrian-oriented place than Chicago is, and while I am not highly familiar with this in their application, it certainly seems to work as I've observed it.

I think this would take some adjustment, sure. But today I don't see vehicles obeying pedestrian rights of way, and I don't see pedestrians observing walk signals or legitimate crosswalks. This is indicative of the fact that people perceive these systems as not being especially functional. Pedestrians learn to wait quickly when they learn that the turning traffic is not expecting to stop, but also when they see there is incentive to obey the signals because they actually get something from their good actions (increased mobility and safety).

the urban politician Apr 11, 2009 10:06 PM

The Urban Politician's Revised T Zoning Ordinance

Okay, I made a few small adjustments to a topic that I brought up a few months ago. If it's impossible to implement this concept please don't be shy to say so, but I would love to see city wheels cranking to get SOME sort of solution started that makes better use of the city's transit system.

Here goes:

1. T Zoning defined as all sites within 500 feet radius of every heavy rail stop in Chicago, outside of the Central Area

2. All Landmarked structures within 500 ft of a transit stop are permanently exempt from T Zoning. If they happen to be damaged, torn down, burned down, etc they will continue to keep their existing zoning and CANNOT be upzoned to T zoning

3. T zoning is broken down into the following:
a. T1 zoning allows for a much higher density (30 stories, etc etc)--
within 0-300 ft from the station
b. T2 zoning allows for medium density (10 stories, etc)--within 300-500
ft from the station

4. Parking in T Zoning depends on the building type (commercial, residential, hotel) but in general T zoning is defined by maximum parking ratios, not minimum parking ratios as is contained in the current zoning code

5. Residential, hotel, office, or mixed uses are allowable under T zoning

6. T Zoning is absolute and CANNOT be brought down by any action except the following exceptions:
a. Supermajority vote by City Council along with Mayor's signature--in
this process downzoning is perpetually temporary and must be
renewed by this very same process every 5 years or else it
automatically reverts to its prior T zoning

b. Landmarking (by the standard process) of an existing structure that
wasn't landmarked before--this is permanent

7. As a sweetener to Alderman who may be distraught about losing their Aldermanic "prerogative", TIF zones are created around transit stops with the spending of such monies being at the sole discretion of that neighborhood's Alderperson.


This is a rough concept, and I put a wee bit more thought into it, and yes it's kind of a dream. But would it be possible for Chicago to implement something like this if certain leaders put some muscle behind it? Any thoughts? I'd appreciate them..

Mr Downtown Apr 11, 2009 10:20 PM

^Well, it would certainly spur creation of a huge number of new landmark districts.


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.