Ethnocentric? What does that even mean in this context? One cannot cry “ethnocentric” when motorists dominate our transportation culture, require a very large portion of our property tax dollar revenue and cause most of our localized air pollution.

High horses? All “we” are attempting is to have a small increase in equity in our transportation options, small steps to improve the mess previous generations got us into but when more and more autocentric structures are built it is taking a step backwards. Edit: typo.

As I have said, it may not be the best solution, but it is a solution. It is at least something tangible, unlike the ideas being thrown around about having fewer cars in the neighborhood. That is too broad and abstract. At least this garage will be a place for people to park their cars. Will it solve everything? No. But it could at least do something.

I completely understand all about the ideals of those writing on this blog, but that line indicates that the author will use any argument he can as ammunition for his cause. Being against the garage because the entrance will cross a sidewalk where pedestrians walk? That is absurd.

Got anything to back up that claim, chief? Or are you just sticking to your anti-car rhetoric?

I would welcome a survey of our neighborhood, as Rogers Park is not Wicker Park, so the results of the study being discussed cannot immediately be deemed relevant us. There are definitely points worthy of consideration, such as using existing lots at churches or schools or business, but where in Rogers Park are there lots that are currently not used?

Also, where did it say in the article, written by another Streetsblog contributor, did it mention the dangers of parking garage entrances/exits?

Well said!

I understand that the idea of a driver having less visibility is dangerous, but as I have asked before, is there any proof that exits/entrances to parking garages are actually dangerous? Do you have stats showing that pedestrians are killed or injured specifically because of exits/entrances of parking garages?

Using this argument to further the anti-car movement without anything to back it up is irresponsible, especially for writer.

But does the possibility of a lack of visibility, and not proof of it, really justify not creating a parking garage at all? Just because a driver MIGHT lack visibility, a parking garage should not be created. That is not good logic.

Here’s what I could do in an hour for you, Alex.

Children are the most at risk in driveway and parking lot crashes, likely because of their small size. They often die instantaneously, even at low speeds. The studies I read said that prevention is the only effective injury mitigation strategy because there’s nothing a hospital can do differently to save the child.

1. “Studies of pedestrian non-traffic injury events have focused primarily on children. In one of the earliest such studies, Brison et al. (1988) examined coroner and other medical records for pedestrian fatalities involving children ages five and under in Washington State and found that 58% resulted from non-traffic events.” (non-traffic = parking lots, driveways, sidewalks, off-street trails)

2. “25% of injuries serious enough to require hospitalization in pedestrians under age 15 were incurred in non-traffic events” (non-traffic = parking lots, driveways, sidewalks, off-street trails)

3. “20% of in- juries to pedestrians under age 16 were due to non- traffic events”

1-3 from https://wiki.cecs.pdx.edu/pub/ItsWeb/BikeBoxes/Stutts_Hunter_1999.pdf

4. Driveway and parking lot crashes are highly underreported. [They are also often excluded in some statewide and national reports, and some jurisdictions don’t track them. Chicago tracks these, but there are only a handful (20-30 per year) and that I believe they’re under reported in Chicago, like a lot of other crash types.]

4 from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/98/6/1096.full.pdf

You imagine things a lot differently than I do. My goal is choice. Urban areas for living without cars and suburban living for car lovers. Between them is a continuum going from perfectly car-free spaces to perfectly car-full spaces. My view says that there are already too many people who want to live and pay taxes and too few places of the sort they want to live and work in.

So if my assumption is true (and it may not be) then the method of increasing disincentives for cars would slowly increase the amount of space to supply the pent up demand for car-free space.

You seem to be assuming that there would be a gap in time between the creation of quality car free space and its occupation by car-free lovers who can pay taxes. I assume there would be no gap and therefore no loss of revenue. I believe that the evolution of places like downtown Chicago from places with very little permanent residents to its current state of many many residential buildings bears that out. Is it a car-free utopia? No those are your words not mine.

We have different beliefs. Since neither of us has very much power to create or destroy talk is cheap for us.

I think we’ve already determined it’s common sense that garage exits are dangerous because they reduce drivers’ sight lines. Yes, the danger can be mitigated with lights and bells, but these things, plus the requirement to stop in one’s tracks for a vehicle crossing the pedestrian right-of-way, makes walking less pleasant.

Since the garage exit issue is only one of many arguments I made against the facility in this post and the previous one, why don’t we stop flogging a dead horse on this particular topic?

This whole thread is pointless because the garage already exists, so you anti-car people just have to deal with it.

I thought it would be interesting to see why people were so against this garage, and while there were a couple reasonable claims, most of the comments were filled with simple-minded, anti-car pandering that gave no realistic, comcrete solutions.

To the point of your claim that entrances/exits are dangerous, I just want to see any kind of evidence to support it. I understand your reasoning, but as a writer, you should use FACTS, not solely your opinions. I just want you to admit, Mr. Greenfield, that you let your own personal biases influence your writing and you don’t use facts to back up your claims.

Sorry you feel that way. I just strongly feel when people use the emotional pull of “it’s for the children” to shore up their argument, without any statistics, its a pretty poor argument. Now back to my coffee.

It certainly has not changed my quality of life. The scale is actually consistent with the surrounding structures. Thankfully it’s not some revisionist faux-vintage mess. Given the landscaping it does not have a hulking and overbearing feel given the setback. I’m cool with it. More cars off the street = more chances for bike lanes.

You choice is no choice at all. Cars out of the city and dont like it, there’s the suburbs for you.

Pent up demand? Yeah there is some of that, but who’s to say that demand will stay steady except where transit is easy and cheap. People may want the 350 sq ft TOD, for awhile, but who’s to say those units won’t turn over regularly as people’s lives change.

close in dense dowtown development is great. But its also the most expensive development to live in even without a car.

My idea of choice is if people want to live car free in TOD, have at it. But if you make life difficult for everyone else to the point they leave Chicago, will there be enough tax base left to suppoet a great city?

Please leave the poor horse alone.

Not invalid, just not conclusive. I am for reasonable arguments, but using information from a completely different neighborhood is not a way to justify an argument based around our neighborhood. It can be a place to start, as in using the results to draw support for a survey of Rogers Park, but it proves nothing about our neighborhood.

Do a survey in Rogers Park. See what happens. I honestly don’t care the outcome. It would be interesting to see the results.

I am in no way not considering his viewpoint. In fact, I am definitely considering it, and choosing to disagree with it. What I have been saying is that this particular point of his argument is flimsy, in my opinion. Not only are there no stats to back it up, there isn’t even enough to suggest a correlation, at least to me.

The fact that he states parking garage exits are dangerous because of A) and B) does nothing for me because he provides nothing to substantiate why A) and B).

As far as my argument goes, it is simple – there are a lot of cars in the neighborhood, and not enough parking. I am not trying to convince you of anything, but at least I have a basis for my thoughts.

1. There are a lot of cars in Rogers Park.

It is plain to see that there are a lot of cars in Rogers Park, as most of you would probably agree, and many of you have stated as such. If I try to get some stats, although not entirely accurate because there is no specific information for Rogers Park (which is why I welcome a study like the one in the article Mr. Greenfield posted), it at least infers something that can hopefully be researched more in depth.

According to the 2010 Census, there are 54,991 residents in Rogers Park.
According to a 2014 study done by the University of Michigan, 28% of Chicago households do not have cars. Mr. Greenfield previously stated that 40% do not have cars, so I will compromise and average the two figures, leaving 34% of households without cars. While it is not specific to just our neighborhood, it is simply a basis for comparison until real data focused on just our neighborhood is available.
So, of the 54,991 residents, and an average household size for Chicago being 2.58, again from census information, we can assume that there are approximately 14,067 cars in Rogers Park. That’s a pretty large number for a neighborhood that is only 1.85 square miles.

2. Not enough parking.

Without a study, there is no data to show how many street parking spaces we have in Rogers Park, but this new garage will take 200 cars off the streets, leaving space for some of those other cars that currently struggle to find space.

Like I said, I really don’t care if you believe how I do, it doesn’t matter. I just hate seeing someone so anti-car using such a weak argument against this garage. I don’t care if he hates the garage. I care about a writer being able to back up his opinions with some evidence that can cut through the bias and shed some light on his argument.

I said “In most Census tracts in Rogers Park, 40 percent or more households don’t own cars.”

So *that’s* why all of Google’s travel times are wrong. Good to know.

I, of course, obey the law, unlike the dangerous criminals who speed.

I wish I had the thousands of dollars a year that it takes to subscribe to LexisNexis or whatever database of journals I need to be able to search, find, and excerpt the right research articles I need to satisfy your bickering.

The difference between exiting a driveway parking garage and exiting a parking lot is…not there. The presence of a ceiling doesn’t make a difference.

The articles I excerpted here, which were what I had access to freely via Google Scholar, were about all kinds of parking/driveway incidents, including backing crashes.