Garrido Grandstands Against Milwaukee Road Diet at Public Meeting

IMG_1410
John Garrido and Dave Wians, holding stack of petitions. Photo: John Greenfield

Last night, announced aldermanic candidate John Garrido hijacked a crowded community meeting about the city’s proposal for a safety overhaul of Milwaukee from Lawrence to Elston. He interrupted the event to present Chicago Department of Transportation engineers with what he said were 4,000 signatures in opposition to any reconfiguration of the street that would involve fewer travel lanes.

Most of this stretch of Milwaukee is a five-lane speedway, and the project area saw 910 crashes between 2008 and 2012, causing at least 17 serious injuries and three deaths, according to CDOT. In January of this year, two men were killed in a rollover crash on the 6000 block of the street, just south of Elston.

This section consistently averages well under 20,000 vehicles, making it the least busy stretch of Milwaukee in the city. But while Milwaukee south of the Kennedy Expressway is generally a two-lane street, north of the Kennedy it has two travel lanes in each direction, plus turn lanes, and the excess capacity encourages speeding. Recent CDOT traffic studies found that 75 percent of motorists broke the 30 mph speed limit, and 14 percent exceeded 40 mph, a speed at which studies show pedestrian crashes are almost always fatal.

This stretch of Milwaukee is slated to be resurfaced next year, and CDOT plans to use the opportunity to reconfigure the street to improve safety for pedestrians, bike riders, transit users and drivers. The project would use $1.5 million in funding, eighty percent of which would come from federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement grants.

IMG_1416
Current conditions on Milwaukee north of the Kennedy. Photo: John Greenfield

At the open house at the Copernicus Center in Jefferson Park, CDOT presented various scenarios for the street makeover [PDF of presentation]. Currently, Milwaukee between Lawrence and the Kennedy, including the area around the Jefferson Park Transit Center, is a two-lane street with rush-hour parking controls. CDOT has proposed eliminating the RHPCs on this stretch to make room for buffered bike lanes.

The department presented three possible configurations for the stretch of Milwaukee between the Kennedy and Elston, which has five lanes. Option A would retain all travel lanes and add a buffer on one side of the existing conventional lanes. Option B would convert one travel lane in each direction to wide bike lanes with buffers on both sides. Option C would convert travel lanes to parking-protected bike lanes, which would provide the greatest benefit in safety for all road users, since the bike lanes would also shorten crossing distances for pedestrians and discourage speeding by motorists.

All three scenarios would also add high-visibility crosswalks, pedestrian islands, and better traffic signal coordination. Studies have shown that street configurations with a total of two travel lanes plus a turn lane in each direction can easily handle up to 20,000 vehicles per day, so CDOT predicts that options B and C would have little negative impact on traffic flow and would actually improve northbound traffic flow during the morning rush.

Option C would require removing roughly 20 percent of on-street parking spaces to maintain sight lines. However, parking counts show that, in general, spaces on this stretch of Milwaukee are currently used as little as 50 percent of the time, and not more than 90 percent of the time, so there would be a relatively minor impact on the availability of parking.

Milwaukee Ave 2nd Pgublic Meeting Presentation 2014-07-01
Rendering of the proposed street layout near the Jeff Park Transit Center.

Meanwhile, by making walking and biking safer and more pleasant, the project is likely to encourage more foot traffic. In other cities where travel lanes were converted to protected bike lanes, retail sales have increased after implementation. For example, in 2007, a protected bike lane and pedestrian islands were installed, and a travel lane removed, on Ninth Avenue in Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood. Sales increased 49 percent over three years, outpacing both neighboring retail streets and the rest of the borough.

At the hearing, CDOT officials collected input from attendees to incorporate into the final design, which will be presented at a meeting later this summer. Despite the fact that the road diet configurations would bring major safety, mobility and economic benefits, with minimal drawbacks for drivers, many attendees said they were against options B and C.

However, I counted nine bikes locked to the fence outside the center, and spoke to several people who supported travel lane conversions for safer walking conditions and protected bike lanes. “I think we need more pedestrian and bike [facilities] for people in this city,” said Tom Czaczynski, a retired carpenter who lives in neighborhood. “I’m tired of dealing with cars all the time. Even though I have two cars of my own, I like to ride my bike and I like to walk.”

Pete Czosnyka, a longtime local resident and civil engineer, was also firmly in support of Option C. “Option A sucks,” Pete said. “The mild buffered bike lanes with no road diet – that’s not going to change anything for people who are afraid of biking next to fast traffic and opening car doors. It’s not anybody’s idea of a complete street.”

Milwaukee Ave 2nd Public Meeting Presentation 2014-07-01
Rendering of Milwaukee north of the Kennedy under Option C.

Local alderman John Arena, who has hosted the meetings on the street reconfiguration, said he has not yet endorsed any of the options, but wants to see major improvements made to Milwaukee. “We know that the data shows we have a high number of crashes here, a lot of them related to the increased speeds,” he said. “That negatively affects our business climate here. We need to think of this roadway as being for more users here than just the auto-centric use that it is now.”

Garrido, a Chicago police officer and part-time lawyer who narrowly lost to Arena in the last election, has spearheaded opposition to the lane conversions. In January, after the first hearing on the CDOT proposal, Garrido launched an online petition opposing a road diet on Milwaukee, which has garnered more than 780 supporters. In response, bike advocate Bob Kastigar started his own online petition endorsing plans for lane conversions, which has over 700 signatures.

In the middle of yesterday’s open house, Garrido and Gladstone Park Chamber of Commerce president Dave Wians showed up with a large entourage, including TV news cameras. From the middle of the room, Garrido loudly announced that they had collected 4,000 signatures from residents opposed to lane conversions, which they then presented to CDOT consultant Nathan Roseberry.

Garrido told me he’s not opposed to the safety overhaul. “We’re not trying to be obstructionist,” he said. “We want this project here. We don’t want to stop it. We want to slow down traffic. We want the pedestrian islands, traffic light timing and bumpouts at the major intersections. We don’t mind the buffered lanes.” He confirmed that he’ll be running against Arena again in February’s election.

Showing up at the open house with a thick stack of petitions for the benefit of news crews was a shrewd political move by Garrido. However, by lobbying to largely maintain the status quo on a street where speeding is the norm, and crashes take place roughly every other day, the candidate is working against the safety of his would-be constituents.

Instead of blocking changes that could potentially save lives, he should take a look at streets like Kinzie, Dearborn, South Chicago and Vincennes, where similar road diets for PBLs have already reduced speeding and improved safety. In those parts of town, the aldermen showed real leadership, not just bravado.

Streetsblog Chicago will resume publication on Monday. Have a great Fourth of July!

  • I’m sure Mr. Garrido would like to explain to the family and friends of the young women killed this morning while riding a bike near his neighborhood why she didn’t deserve a protected bike lane.

  • duppie

    The pro bike petition was started by Bob Kastigar, not Bob Matter

  • tooter turtle

    It looks like this neighborhood will continue to be an unpleasant place to travel to and through. I’ll keep spending my time and money elsewhere. Glad I don’t live around there.

  • Pete

    The people of Jefferson Park have made themselves quite clear: they do NOT want bike lane communism in their neighborhood!

  • madopal

    Right, you’ll just accept the communism of public funds for roads for a different group, that’s all. If not, maybe you’d like the free market to make the businesses on that strip have to pay for the road in front for each? See how that goes over with them.

  • Small type-o: Garrido did the petition opposing the lanes. Not Arena.

  • kastigar

    Go stand along Milwaukee Avenue anywhere north of Lawrence. There is very low traffic, but it’s going very fast because there is so little traffic. Reducing the lanes would be very beneficial and because of the law traffic would do very little harm.

  • BikeMike

    I second that. The population density far north on Milwaukee is low, meaning its already an area where there is more energy used per capita. If the residents think they would like to afford their money away on gas, heat and electricity–let them. There are plenty of people that are interested by either economic, environmental, or other reasons to reduce emissions. If bike lanes and urban density ARE actually the solution to the problem, it’ll sort itself out in one way or another. Why not spend the money where its desired?

  • tooter turtle

    Driving through there is like doing multiple drag races between traffic signals. Slower and steady would be just a fast, and much safer. So sad that this is too difficult for the locals to understand.

  • Mishellie

    And how well the roads are maintained by said businesses thereafter.

  • Mike McCune

    I used to bike up this stretch of Milwaukee every day and regularly saw people driving in excess of of 50mph, running yellow lights (and often missing). I have seen several accidents along here, most of them pretty bad. Even though it is longer, I take Elston and cut through the side streets when in this neighborhood. Milwaukee north of Lawrence is horrible and needs to be fixed before more people get maimed and killed.

  • Lightspeed for life

    That accident happened at Cicero and Belmont. Approximately 30 blocks east and over 30 blocks north of the location of this proposed “road diet”. How you could possibly connect the two is mind boggling! I live in the neighborhood and it is the lack trafgic along that stretch that is refrshing considering the bottleneck on almost every other main street in the entire area! Why punish everyone because there are a few inconsiderate fools that can’t resist their gas pedal or aren’t smart enough to not walk in front of a moving vehicle? ! I’d rather see a few speed cameras or directed radar missions from the CPD.

    But those don’t fit your agenda…

    I’m a lifeling cyclist who uses the forest preserve trails regularly. I don’t feel fear while getting to and from these trails. I also don’t take stupid risks like blowing red lights, stop signs and “white lining” between cars, unlike FAR to many others cyclists.

  • Rose Jakub Niedorezo

    I was at this meeting- the news crews were there long before Garrido arrived, and a couple had actually left before he made his announcement. As a resident and business owner in this neighborhood, I am grateful that someone (Garrido) has taken it upon himself to LISTEN to and REPORT what WE, the RESIDENTS, are really saying. No One is opposed to improving safety conditions here- but it can be done without removing a lane of traffic, and most likely creating bad traffic conditions for everyone. I know that I modify my route of travel to avoid streets that I know are congested. As a business owner, I can’t afford to have other people making that same decision, and avoiding the stretch of MIlwaukee that my business is on. Traffic flows fine here- let’s keep it that way. As far as the number of accidents reported- 20 out of the 910 mentioned were serious- in 4 years. That doesn’t scare me from walking, cycling, or driving here, and I would like to know how that compares to national averages. It seems that we are getting a lot of feedback and opinions from people who don’t live here. And with 5-7 months of winter, I’m just amazed that some people think it’s so important to accommodate bicyclists- who often don’t obey traffic signals. I’d wager that more than 50% of people who are riding their bike in winter have lost their driver’s licence to a D.U.I. As a driver, I PAY for the privilege to use the road. Bikes are often not even registered, and they pay nothing to use the road. It’s not fair to overhaul the structure of our traffic for them. And if safety is the real issue- MAKE IT A LAW THAT BICYCLISTS MUST WEAR A HELMET.

  • from_Chicago

    You’re joking right? You’re obviously not a member of our community. There’s times coming off of Lawrence onto Milwaukke that you have to wait 3-4 lights to get through the intersection. You’re obviously a planted troll that has no clue!!

    Do you want to sign my petition to get all bicycles registered, licensed and insured??

  • Belmont and Cicero is 2.2 miles, about 18 blocks, southeast of the southern terminus of the proposed road diet area, in the neighboring 30th Ward.

  • from_Chicago

    Want to know what I found amazing at that meeting, that was attended by our law abiding bicyclists?
    The bicyclists parked their bicycles in the handicapped spots in the parking lot.
    A handicapped couple was trying to get out of their vehicle.
    Wife trying to get husband into a wheelchair with a stupid three-wheeled adult bicycle parked where they couldn’t get out! The bicyclists were still at their bike and didn’t move until I took a photo and told them I was sending it to the media!! How ignorant!! Other bicyclists started doing the same thing, till we yelled at them!
    THIS is why no one respects bicyclists any more. They think they are above the law!
    Time to register, license and insure these people!

  • I was at the open house for about an hour before Garrido arrived and didn’t see any TV news cameras until they came in the main room with him.

    It’s interesting that you’re concerned about people avoiding this stretch of Milwaukee after it is reconfigured to have a similar number of lanes as Milwaukee in the rest of the city. The dense, walkable, lower-speed business districts on Milwaukee south of Lawrence seem to be doing much better economically than the high-speed stretch north of Lawrence, where there are lots of empty storefronts.

    “As far as the number of accidents reported… I would like to know how that compares to national averages.” Here you go: the crash frequency on this stretch of Milwaukee is 120% higher than predicted for this type of roadway by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ Highway Safety Manual.

    Setting aside the various statements about bicycling in the second half of your comment, your words do highlight an important point. A big reason this proposal is getting a negative reaction from locals like yourself is that it’s being perceived as mostly benefiting a relatively small number of bicyclists at the expense of drivers.

    Actually, this proposal is less about improving conditions for biking than making the Milwaukee safer for everyone. The high speeding and crash rates are caused by an excess of space on the roadway — five lanes is way too many for a street that gets less than 20,000 vehicles a day. The main purpose of the road diet is to calm traffic and shorten pedestrian crossing distances by converting the excess travel lanes to another use.

    The protected bike lanes are largely a fringe benefit of the project, but once this stretch of Milwaukee becomes a safe place for biking, we’ll probably see a big increase in the bike mode share. After protected lanes were added to Kinzie and Dearborn downtown, the number of cyclists rose by 55 and 171 percent, respectively.

  • from_Chicago

    How could Garrido “interrupt” an event that nothing was happening at?
    I tried to get answers to numerous questions that no one representing this project
    could answer…including our alderman!!
    The responses to each of my questions were….can’t answer your question. You need to call CDOT!!??

    Why were they there!? Everyone there was disappointed at not getting responses to
    their questions and were standing in little groups discussing their disappointment in this so called “meeting”? We did not “vote” on anything. No question and answer session. Nothing!!
    Just posters of streets and people standing next to them that you had to stand in line to speak with them and get a response….call CDOT!!

    One thing I did find out from a citizen that attended was this!
    With the bicycle lane at the curb….guess what?? Tax payers (that’s me, don’t know about the author of this) will be stuck paying two (2) times for snow plowing!!!!
    CDOT will plow at the curb, bike lane, and streets and sanitation will plow the street!!!
    And…this makes sense to this author???

  • Please refrain from personal attacks, which will be deleted in the future. Bob is a former Jeff Park resident who currently lives a couple miles east in North Park.

  • Rose Jakub Niedorezo

    While I respect your opinion, we’ll have to agree to disagree on some points. Were we at the same meeting? Because the news crews were there as soon as it started, John. And I clearly recall that WGN was gone before Garrido’s announcement. I also watched all the reports that night, switching between channels to catch it all, and not one TV news report included Garrido’s presentation. I don’t think he was trying to ‘Grandstand’. I think he was trying to present the petitions to the appropriate person, in a public setting, to make it known. But enough on that-

    I DO agree with, as I stated before-“No One is opposed to improving safety conditions here- but it can be done without removing a lane of traffic.” As for the accidents- only 20 reported serious injuries. Are they counting fender benders in their numbers? I am not trying to downplay the seriousness of getting into a crash, but numbers and percentages don’t necessarily include all the facts. For example, the rollover crash that happened at Elston was a tragic fluke- if every street were narrowed and modified because of seldom events like that, where would we be?
    you state that “The main purpose of the road diet is to calm traffic and shorten pedestrian crossing distances by converting the excess travel lanes to another use.”
    I simply disagree that there is an “excess lane of travel”. We can shorten crossing distances with pedestrian islands. Data and numbers from the ‘engineering matrix’ that the project leaders have presented- it’s just numbers to me. During high peak traffic hours, we don’t have problems on this stretch- why would we want to change that? Especially when there are terrible bottlenecks and traffic jams surrounding this area DAILY. When we need the space for emergency vehicles, funeral processions, and deliveries, especially during our long winters, I think removing a lane of travel will be very damaging.

    I have a suggestion, which I mentioned to John Arena in person, and also left on my comment card. Let’s try it out- to collect REAL DATA. Give it one to three months, (which is how long they studied current conditions, so it seems fair) with temporary cones (or something else temporary). See how it, IF it, actually works, before it’s permanently installed. See if the crash rates go down, or up. Speculations and predictions are just that. I am not convinced that punishing ALL drivers for the mistakes of few is O.K. And I’m sorry, but I don’t care if the number of cyclists increases in this area. I find the majority of cyclists to be more dangerous to share the road with than other cars.

  • Rose Jakub Niedorezo

    I also agree (somewhat- not exactly with the tone- we are all entitled to express our opinions, and can do so in a mature, polite manner) with ‘from_Chicago’- about getting some sort of registration in place for the bicyclists who share our roadway. I PAY A LOT for the privilege to drive, and I don’t think it’s fair to modify our roads to accommodate those who choose not to drive.
    Also- John- any thoughts on making it a law that cyclists must wear helmets on roadways?

  • Jefferson Park Resident

    Safety to bicyclist! Yeah right they don’t even obey the rules of the road. Do you know how much more traffic this is going to create. Driving down Milwaukee closer to downtown is a nightmare with these swarms of bicyclist who surround you at a stop- This is SAFETY? I call this dangerous. I am not for these road diets this is the city not a suburb nor the backfields. There are a lot of vehicles, and bicycle lanes only benefit the bicyclist. It surely doesn’t benefit drivers, nor businesses that need to take in their deliveries, what about semi’s that need space to make those turns into the docks? What about those car washes where the vehicle line to to get into the car wash is on the bike lane, and bikers get upset. Well guess what if I am not in line in the bike lane, I am forcing cars to drive around onto on- coming traffic, which is NOT safe and causing a more dangerous situation. As a matter of fact businesses would benefit if there were no bike lanes and instead free street accessible parking. Also, we don’t even have a long summer. There is more cold days than warm ones which decreases bicycle and increases vehicle use. So, how are we actucally decreasing traffic? We are not. I see these road diets with these bike lanes, and constantly I see how most bicyclist do not stop at stop signs, roll through lights, etc…and most of all cause backups and impede the flow of traffic. I am for no BIKE LANES on Milwaukee.

  • Jefferson Park Resident

    @from Chicago – I love your response. Kastigar is obviously not from the area. THe traffic North of Lawrence on Milwaukee is super crazy! It is always backed up and it sucks. Cars are backed up North of the Viaduct especially during rush hour.

  • The nice thing about Chicago-style protected bike lanes is that they basically just consist of paint and flexible plastic posts that are bolted onto the pavement, so it’s pretty easy to tweak the design if necessary.

    Most of your concerns, such as the idea that the road diet will increase congestion, hurt businesses, and delay first responders, are addressed in this fact sheet from the AARP and the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute. If you haven’t already, take a look at page 2 and let me know what you think: http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/livable-communities/documents-2014/AARP-Livability-Fact-Sheets-Road-Diet-20140610.pdf

  • Rose Jakub Niedorezo

    It is a tragedy, what happened here. And please know that I am truly upset, and I know this is terrible thing that occurred, no matter how it happened. Having said that, I think it’s important to note that, quoting from the article-“Police on Friday said it was still unclear whether the driver didn’t see Eno, or if she came up quickly while he was making a turn. Detectives in the major accidents unit were looking for surveillance video and talking to witnesses.
    The truck’s driver, a 51-year-old man, has not been ticketed or arrested.”

    And I would like to know if she was wearing a helmet. I don’t mean to sound antagonizing- AT ALL- it’s hard to convey tone, in type. I take this tragedy seriously. Also, there is more to it than just the one point of a bicyclist being killed. I don’t think drivers are ‘running down’ bicyclists for sport- each accident has unique circumstances. I also think a Helmet Law would lower the number of serious injuries to those cyclists who are brave enough to travel on a two wheeled aluminum toy next to 2 ton passenger vehicles. I choose to ride my bike in the park, and drive on the road, because it is a safer decision for me. If I chose to enter a swamp containing alligators and crocodiles, should I demand the state or swamp owner remove the teeth of the animals to make it safer for me?

  • Rose Jakub Niedorezo

    I have read this, and thank you for continuing the discussion with more information points, but John- this seems like simple propaganda. Much like the “presentations” of the project planning committee at the last meeting. The Qualitative assessments of each plan using red minus and green plus symbols was INSULTING. Like, we’re so dumb, that of course we should believe that the plan with most green pluses is the best- It was just insulting, without any real purpose other than to lead people, and again, containing only QUALITATIVE information- negative & positive impact- based ON PROJECTION, and c’mon- negative and positive to who? I don’t see why this proposal can’t come to a public vote. That’s like saying, “the residents don’t know what’s good for them- but we do, so even though they oppose it, we’re doing it anyway.” As insulting as THAT is, think about what else that comes with, and the dangerous loss of freedom and control that accompanies an approach like this.

  • It’s a common misconception that bicyclists are freeloaders who don’t pay their fair share to use the roads. Actually, cyclists pay more than their fair share. Our road system is heavily subsidized — direct taxes and fees for drivers don’t even come close to covering expenses of building and maintaining our roads. The subsidy comes from other revenue sources such as sales, income and property taxes. Therefore, people who bike instead of driving are paying to maintain roads, even though cycling puts almost no wear-and-tear on streets.

    In other cities that have enforced bike helmet laws, cycling rates have dropped. When there are less cyclist on the road, drivers are less likely to watch out for them, so you lose the “safety in numbers” benefit. The net effect is that cycling becomes more dangerous. I think it’s fine for cities to encourage helmet use through ad campaigns, etc., but helmet laws are a bad idea.

  • Fred

    Bicycle helmets prevent injuries, but they don’t necessarily prevent death. I have no idea whether this young woman was wearing a helmet or not, but I seriously doubt it would have made any difference in this particular scenario.

    I have an established history on this site of being very pro-helmet, but even I acknowledge their limitations. No piece of personal safety equipment is going to save you if you end up under the wheels of a big heavy truck.

  • Rose Jakub Niedorezo

    I think parking lots at bars are a bad idea. I don’t think requiring people to protect their noggins is. Please see my comment at the end of this thread. This isn’t Copenhagen, or Seattle, or Portland- it’s Chicago. And while we seem to be on opposite sides about the positivity of increasing cycling, the bigger picture here is that we are losing control of our neighborhoods to politicians, special interest groups, and project managers who are temporary, and that is a very slippery slope.

  • Rose Jakub Niedorezo

    agreed- but why not enforce personal safety? As drivers, we are required by law to wear safety belts. I see no difference in requiring bicyclists to wear helmets.

  • Fred

    I mostly agree, but the other side uses these 2 main arguments:
    a) Helmet laws discourage new riders since not having a helmet is a reason not to ride
    b) The city should have adequate bike facilities such that helmets are not necessary

  • Rose Jakub Niedorezo

    John, if people stop riding their bikes because they’re required to protect their safety, isn’t that ignorant?

  • Rose Jakub Niedorezo

    So, are you saying that if we don’t want to accept funding for the resurfacing of the streets if it includes losing two lanes of traffic, that we should have to pay for it ourselves? Dang, did you see the cheese grater section of Milwaukee that wasn’t improved until recently? With cars driving in the center lane to avoid the dangerous road condition and possible losing a tire on their car? Are you telling me it should be the business owner’s responsibility to repair that, and not CDOT? We put up with that until the end of June- it’s shameful, it should have been fixed long before that. But why should I be penalized for operating a business on Milwaukee Ave?

  • Rose Jakub Niedorezo

    I respect your opinion, and my response is:
    a) If you buy a bike, buy a helmet. If that discourages you from riding your bike, then you’re probably not responsible enough to ride your bike in vehicular traffic anyway.
    b)Why should the city have to make accommodations for people who chose to be so ficle about their personal safety?
    Wearing a helmet isn’t a big deal. I choose not to wear one if I’m riding in the park, and I feel stupid for admitting that, but I’m just being real. But I own one, and I gladly would wear it if meant avoiding a ticket. Not trying to be hypocritical- I get that sometimes it’s not very comfortable- but I also choose not to ride my bicycle amid the traffic of cars. A good friend of mine declared that he would not help me tune up my bike if I didn’t show him that I owned a helmet. He is a highly experienced bicyclist, who has rode from Chicago to Wisconsin, and back, multiple times. He had the simple misfortune of hitting a stone on his trek one day, and woke up from unconsciousness next to tree that he had flown into, with his helmet cracked in half. It had nothing to do with traffic, or cars, or adequate bike facilities- it was an accident – those happen, and having the mind to protect ourselves from head injuries- if we don’t encourage and enforce at least that, then what are we really talking about when it comes to talking about bike safety?

  • Mishellie

    I’m pretty sure I was agreeing with you in a sarcastic manner against the original commenter.

  • Rose Jakub Niedorezo

    Oh- sorry. It’s very hard to read sarcasm in type.

  • Rose Jakub Niedorezo

    I just read your posts from May of last year, and I realize we are pretty much on the same page, although you are more diligent about wearing your helmet than I, and I am inspired to heed your, and my own, words, to always wear one from now on. It just makes sense.

  • Rose Jakub Niedorezo

    It is a CHOICE to ride a bike. It is a CHOICE to wear a helmet or not. Shouldn’t it also be our choice of how the infrastructure of our roadway is changed? It just seems like these proposals are being shoved at us, and HELLO- Not everyone wants to ride their bike on this stretch of Milwaukee. REGARDLESS of their reasons for that, WHY must we be FORCED to accommodate those that make the CHOICE to ride their bikes here? It’s not right.

  • Jon Jackson

    A stack of papers from residents is not a reason to change a plan. These people do tons of economic studies ect. vs a bunch of opinionated know it all. I am NOT a bike rider but i do understand the importance of protected bike lanes. I also don’t understand why such car centric people decide to live in the city. Part of the appeal is the ability to walk and ride to places. If you’re just gonna speed everywhere, move to Naperville. You are missing the point of city living if you’re never walking anywhere.

  • Jon Jackson

    you also make a CHOICE to drive. If you don’t like the congestion, i suggest moving to one of the 75 sprawling suburbs surrounding the city. What’s the point of living in congestion if you’re not going to walk or ride anywhere.