Today’s Headlines for Tuesday, January 3

  • Hit-and-Run Driver Killed Woman Who Had Collapsed in a Crosswalk in Austin (ABC)
  • Teen Dies After Crashing Car Into Loop ‘L’ Pillar While Driving Against Traffic (Tribune)
  • 4 Officers Injured After Police Crash While Responding to a Call for Back-up (ABC)
  • GM Executive: Chicago Should Facilitate the Testing of Self-Driving Cars (Crain’s)
  • City Planners Lay Out Options for Extending the Bloomingdale Trail East (Curbed)
  • Bottlenecks Will Complicate Lakefront Trail Separation Plans (Tribune)
  • New Wilson, Edgewater, Washington/Wabash & 95th (South Terminal) Stations in 2017 (DNA)
  • CTA Announces Deal With Unions to Extend Job Program for Ex-Offenders (Tribune)
  • Metra: Customers Must Transfer Mobile Tickets on New Phones (NBC)
  • Extension of the Blue Line Past Logan Was Blamed for Decline of Car-Centric Businesses (DNA)
  • Kathy “Plates” Schubert, a Bike-Friendly Bridge Advocate, Also Promotes Blood Donation (ABC)
  • What’s on Your 2017 Chicago Development Wish List? (Curbed)

Get national headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • skyrefuge

    Thanks to Mary Wisniewski for being the first reporter to dig into my hobby-horse around the actual *details* of LFP separation! Funny (but not surprising) how the original headlines were “$12M donation allows the entire length of the path to be separated!”, yet apparently the actual facts at the moment are “we haven’t even looked at how we’re going to do this yet, so obviously have no idea how much it might cost”.

    She also brought up the already-obsolete-2-years-before-it’s-finished Navy Pier Flyover, whose 16-foot width will be forced to bottleneck 32-feet worth of path users into half the space they’re used to. That would be like reducing the Kennedy for 4 lanes in each direction to 2 for a mile stretch around North Ave. For some weird reason, I feel like that might cause some problems?

    And on top of the bottleneck, the Flyover is being set up for “cyclists in the middle, pedestrians on the outsides” lane division, which is not directly compatible with the “separated paths” concept. It seems like most people gloss over the complexity of switching from one layout to the other, assuming there’s an elementary solution that doesn’t even require any thought. But really, try to work out the conversion in your head. It turns out the only 3 options to choose from are “dangerous” (freeflow passage of pedestrians across bike lanes), “terribly inefficient” (a controlled intersection to stop cyclists as pedestrians cross), and “impossibly expensive” (interstate-style elevated ramps).