The Tribune Editorial Board’s editorial responding to the opposition to the Illinois Department of Transportation’s Redefine the Drive plans advances a common and pernicious viewpoint (“A broadside against the plans for North DuSable Lake Shore Drive, but cars have to go somewhere,” June 16). This position argues that opposition to car-centric planning is ideologically driven, eco-radicalist whining — and that decisions made in service of the safety and livability of our city’s neighborhoods should be shelved in favor of decisions that maximize convenience for the drivers speeding through them.
In the course of making this argument, the editorial board advances three especially troubling perspectives.
First, the board defames “traffic calming” measures as a conspiracy to force drivers into using transit, biking or walking by making driving prohibitively inconvenient. The board need only review the trends in traffic fatalities to see that encouraging drivers to drive less aggressively is, in fact, an honest and good faith effort to save the lives of Chicagoans — regardless of their chosen mode of transport.
Next, the board argues that “car drivers don’t really have anyone representing their interests.” This statement is so blithely detached from the political realities of federal, state and local budgets that it inspires breathlessness ahead of laughter. If you rightly believe that a government’s priorities can be found through its checkbook, then you need only to follow the money.
Consider the $806 million price tag on IDOT’s Jane Byrne Interchange. Compare that to the paltry $17 million Chicago spent on bike lanes in 2023, and it becomes abundantly clear whose interests are being efficiently represented in the halls of government.
Finally, as the board surveys the strength of the opposition to IDOT’s plan, it summarizes the issue neatly: “At the end of the day, all of Chicago has to openly debate what’s really at the core of this disagreement. Refine the Drive makes many changes but nonetheless keeps NDLSD as an express road. … The foundational question is whether this is what Chicago still wants.”
When the editorial board hears the voices of our aldermen, state lawmakers and citizen-led advocacy groups, it asserts that, somehow, all that effort is in spite of — not a direct response to — the wishes of voters. To hear the real voice of the people, the board says: Defer to the state’s unelected bureaucrats.
— Elliot Luke, Chicago
Pains of protected bike lanes
The city has been adding concrete barriers to bike lanes on some of the city’s brilliant avenues that cut diagonally through the city’s grid — and they are horrible.
Elston, Grand and Milwaukee avenue are all streets I drive on every day as a professional shopper. These concrete barriers have eaten up parking spots that otherwise would be used by eager consumers looking to spend money on local businesses. Now there is nowhere to park! So I have to take my money elsewhere.
What are first responders supposed to do when the street is confined and there is no way to pass in either lane if traffic is tight? It’s a safety mess.
How about plowing snow? Sounds like we now need more labor and equipment to deal with these lanes.
These concrete barriers need to be removed for the good of public safety, local businesses and those of us who travel through the streets every day. Are these bike lanes that much safer and convenient for bikers? Or is this pork project run by people who know people?
— Thomas J. Glynn, Evanston
Require licensing for bikes
I do not wish to enter into a debate about bicycles nor the loss of roads and economic hardships they produce. Let’s be fair, once and for all. These are not toys that children ride; they are methods of transportation. They need to be licensed as any vehicle on the road is.
If city leaders do not wish to license for fear of political retribution, then allow golf carts to have the same priority as bicycles.
Stop playing politics. Let us get on with the hustle and bustle of a major metropolitan area.
— Tom Coulter, Chicago
Taking away children’s joy
Our grandchildren have been robbed of a family tradition. During the 50 years we have lived in Wilmette, we often took our three children to the Gillson Park’s south beach. During these visits, many castles were built in the sand. The only time the kids went near the lake was to get water to fill in the moats of their castles. Yes, there were times when swimmers flouted the rules, despite the whistles of the lifeguards, but for the most part, it was a time of beauty and fun.
Now our grandchildren’s enjoyment of this same stretch of the lake is being curtailed by the fence and fees being charged. Their carefree beach playground has been taken away and has become just another space regulated by adults.
These adults need to find ways to curtail the behavior of the unruly visitors, but not at the expense of taking away the joy of the innocent castle builders.
— Mary Ann McGinley, Wilmette
Editorial on in-flight advertising
The Tribune Editorial Board takes up the weighty issue of in-flight advertising in “Hey, United Airlines, no targeted ads at 30,000 feet, please” (June 11). The editorial board is missing a key point. The alternative to targeted in-flight advertising is not the absence of advertising; it is seeing other ads that are not personalized and are therefore less personally relevant. How many customers would opt in to pay an extra dollar for their flight to have that privilege?
The editorial board should consider the other alternative to seeing personalized ads in-flight: Turn off the screen and read a book or the airline magazine filled with ads that are not personalized.
— John Lynch, professor, University of Colorado at Boulder
Meaning of the Fourth of July
It’s too bad the kids are out of school for the summer. It’d be the perfect time for grade school history and English teachers to have their students write a paper titled, “What the Fourth of July means to me.”
Certain words would not be allowed, including “fun,” “sun,” “vacation” or “fireworks.” Instead, students would have to research the true origin of the holiday and pick out an individual for further study.
Who knows? They might learn that George Washington didn’t really have wooden teeth or that the Boston Tea Party wasn’t a party at all but a rebellious act initiated by radicals who grew tired of excessive taxation.
They might also discover that the Declaration of Independence was actually signed on Aug. 2, 1776 — as if that date really matters anymore.
And that when Patrick Henry reportedly said, “Give me liberty or give me death!” he wasn’t showboating like so many of today’s shrillest political voices but was showing genuine concern for the freedom of all colonists.
While I realize that summer homework is the last thing on the minds of our youth, at some point they need to learn that our independence was often a violent struggle waged by brave individuals who put self-sacrifice ahead of personal glory.
At least that’s what the Fourth of July means to me.
— Bob Ory, Elgin
Inspired by book on jazz giants
Thank you for publishing Larry Tye’s opinion piece, “Louis Armstrong liberated himself and his music form in the Second City,” on Juneteenth.
His piece was so intriguing that I immediately bought the recently published book on which it is based and celebrated Juneteenth learning about how Armstrong, Count Basie and Duke Ellington revolutionized American music and the world’s image of African Americans.
It was the perfect way to celebrate the holiday and wouldn’t have occurred without Tye’s piece.
— Ann Therese Palmer, Lake Forest
Note to readers: If you are a cyclist, we would appreciate knowing your thoughts on the city’s bike infrastructure and your experiences using a bicycle for transportation, whether positive or negative. Send us a letter of no more than 400 words to letters@chicagotribune.com. Include your name and your contact information.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
