Gave Klein is stepping down. This is a sad day. Very much liked him, whomever is put in place next will be important to the future of the city.

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#sectio.../p2p-78014837/

^ Yeah, that's indeed sad news. I hope Rahm appoints somebody with a similar agenda as Gabe to the position

A shame about Klein. He was a great guy, and he will be missed. I hope his resignation is for legitimate personal reasons and not politics.

Now that he's leaving, I wonder who the replacement will be? It would be nice to see Rahm choose somebody within CDOT for promotion... It's in the middle of his term so he doesn't need to make a splash with some impressive outsider. CDOT managers like Janet Attarian and Michelle Woods are great people with a strong track record, I'd love to see them in the top job.

If usual Chicago hiring practices follow, he will pick someone he went to school with - who has
Deep-water Mining experience; or a White House associate able to successfully run a Campaign.

Someone who's got what it takes to Head the Planning Department of a Major Metropolitan Area.

NEVER FORGET that in Chicago -- E V E R Y T H I N G is P O L I T I C S....

What a bummer about Gabe. Hopefully he is only stepping down because he feels he has made his mark on the institution. Hopefully he's cleaned house enough that all the progress he's been making will continue.

My guess is he stayed as long as he did to make sure Divvy bikes was properly implemented. Now that it seems fairly well entrenched, he'd rather be back in DC.

Given the importance Rahm has placed on pedestrian and cyclist friendly design I think it is safe to assume that another progressive will be placed in Klein's position.

^. I tend to agree with this. Rahm probably had a lot of choices but decided to go with Klein for a reason. I think Rahm has demonstrated that bikes, pedestrians, and transit are a priority for him. In addition, he and other newer city leaders are becoming advocates for these modes of transportation in a way that was never the case in the past, when only autos had any sort of advocacy.

The timing of Gabe's leaving seems abrupt, though. Was he perhaps frustrated with IDOT's roadblocks? Is it the city's political culture (Aldermen-driven land use planning)?

Hard to say. There's no denying that IDOT has been a hindrance more than a help in the city's effort to tame streets.

This problem is especially acute at the expressway L stations, where CTA and the city control tiny islands inside of a massive swath of pedestrian-unfriendly IDOT territory.

I don't really know what to say about aldermen. It will take time for politicians to realize that pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users are important constituent groups. No American city has fully made this shift but it's happening slowly. Land-use planning isn't really Klein's domain so I doubt that was a reason.

It's worth noting that that was sandstone rather than limestone and that Minneapolis doesn't have the water table issues that Chicago has.

Fair enough, although at O'Hare the dolomite bedrock is at least 75' below the surface. Shallow tunnels though the clay would be cheaper and easier to integrate with airport facilities. Water table issues might complicate things but it's not a dealbreaker.

Given Gabe's history, I really think his reasons for leaving are actually family and income related. Even as a commissioner, you're not going to make nearly as much money working for a city as you can in the private sector. For someone wanting to start a family and provide the best possible life for children, it's entirely understandable that choosing a life in the private sector would win out. It's abrupt in the press, but that doesn't mean it was abrupt in his discussions with Rahm. In a position like Gabe's you become a lame duck and lose a lot of influence once people know you're out, so there'd be plenty of reasons not to make announcements too early.

I see that Divvy announced a 75 station expansion to Evanston and Oak Park.

I use the system frequently to do errands and it cuts walking time to some of my favorite drinking establishments like Scofflaw that are a good distance from the nearest CTA station. I just need to convince my woman to be comfortable riding a divvy bicycle in high heels!

^ I have seen this done. When you see bankers and lawyers riding bikeshares in work attire, you know the city has arrived to whole new level of bike culture. The commuting looks far less marginalized

Unfortunately, the constant drumbeat of "cycling is so dangerous that it can only be done wearing a helmet" is working against that perception for most people. Yesterday I read that a Chicago company had been successfully sued for renting a bike to visitors without providing them helmets and training (they were injured in a dooring). This will set off another round of bleating about how irrational and irresponsible it is to get on a Divvy bike without a helmet. I already hear talk radio callers equating being helmetless with being incompetent, as in "those people shouldn't be allowed on the street."

Training?

I think it was just stupid of the company not to include helmets with the rental - I just got back from San Francisco and they don't require helmets there, but every rental place I looked into included helmets in the cost of the rental. As a company, even if you think they're unnecessary, it's just stupid not to provide them with a bike rental. I don't think that lawsuit would have worked if it just complained about "training." I mean, any competent shop would have had them sign a waiver about risks and safety wherein the renter would claim to know the risks. Such disclaimers aren't ironclad, but would at least be evidence that the renters claimed to know what they're doing.

While I always wear a helmet when I ride my own bikes, I have never worn a helmet with a Divvy bike. Part of the reason is that I ride more aggressively with my own bike, but a larger part is just convenience.

You could make an argument about riding styles. Divvy bikes force an upright riding position and slower speeds, which was initially very annoying for me when I realized I would have to allow a LOT more time to get from Point A to Point B.

But it works the other way - the bikes help reinforce safe, responsible cycling that shouldn't require a helmet. Providing helmets to Divvy riders isn't even feasible.

Yeah, I live 1.5 riding miles from my office - I used to walk - and I can make it home in 7 minutes on my bike if I don't hit too many lights - usually 10 minutes, but I have to budget a minimum of 15 minutes for a Divvy ride and try to allow 20. I did make it home on a Divvy in 10 minutes once, but I was riding really hard and didn't hit any lights.

Can you provide a source? No such "company" exists that I'm aware of that would be so reckless and irresponsible not to provide helmets free of charge along with a helmet refusal waiver. Maybe it was a bike shop that so happened to also rent...not aware of the liability implications?

Yes yes yes. I have never worn a helmet on CaBi and never will. On a faster bike, helmets are super important, but they just aren't necessary and would be a huge hinderance to bikeshare usage.