The aldermen who wrote a recent op-ed (“Halt all work on the DuSable Lake Shore Drive project,” June 9) were right about how misguided the plans are for Redefine the Drive. They were reflecting their constituencies’ views after years of unrealistic plans for Redefine the Drive being put forth. The Tribune Editorial Board (“A broadside against the plans for North DuSable Lake Shore Drive, but cars have to go somewhere,” June 16) has listened to only one side: that of the Illinois Department of Transportation and the Chicago Department of Transportation. Neither IDOT nor CDOT has listened to Chicago residents who live near DuSable Lake Shore Drive and/or use the lakefront park. The meetings with residents have been one-sided; CDOT and IDOT make presentations at these meetings but do not acknowledge other opinions.
The issue is not opposition to cars but how the plan is to be implemented, although most cars contain only one person, the driver; I see the cars when I take the bus in the mornings.
The Redefine the Drive plan is not thoughtful. It ignores the input of residents affected by the changes. The plan says it will create more green space and parkland. If we take into account the green space that would be taken away to create more lanes, the increase in green space is nominal. In addition, implementing the plan would destroy many old-growth trees that absorb pollution from the cars on the road.
Don’t be fooled by these glib planners.
— Holly Reiter, Chicago
In best interests of residents
The editorial regarding the Illinois Department of Transportation’s plans for North DuSable Lake Shore Drive is reasonable and I think represents the opinions of the majority of the road’s users. As a frequent bike rider, an occasional driver and a resident along the drive, it is clear to me that reducing the number of traffic lanes would be a horribly bad idea, negatively affecting residents as well as visitors to the lakefront. The drive is the only limited-access highway in the city that is not plagued by congestion during most of the day. Making the drive as bad and congested as the Kennedy and Eisenhower expressways would have a devastating effect on air quality for residents and recreational users alike, not to mention the lost time and productivity due to yet another clogged highway. We all know that pollution is way worse from cars stuck in stop-and-go traffic than from cars cruising along at 50 to 55 mph (the de facto and reasonable speed limit along the drive).
There were public hearings and years of public input into the Refine the Drive project. The op-ed by the aldermen represents a small minority viewpoint and is not in the best interests of the residents along the drive or the city at large.
— Mark Robbins, Chicago
Drop David vs. Goliath mindset
I own an electric vehicle. I live near the Red Line. I work in the Loop. The editorial about North DuSable Lake Shore Drive poses the current design process as a one-sided David versus Goliath. I had to read it twice to really grasp who, in the Tribune Editorial Board’s view, was the supposed David (the Illinois Department of Transportation?) and who was Goliath (bike and transit advocates?).
The humor doesn’t end there. Of cars, the editorial board assumes the aldermen behind a recent op-ed “don’t like (cars), want them nor wish them to be so warmly accommodated (for free) as in the past.” Seriously, is that a fact? And the editorial board writes that “honesty requires acknowledging that … car drivers don’t really have anyone representing their interests, beyond perhaps IDOT.” Oh yeah, just that little startup, IDOT, that has a multibillion-dollar budget.
Meanwhile, no one can argue that car versus transit is even the point. I drive my EV to work. I take transit to work. I drive my EV for errands and pleasure. I take transit for errands and pleasure. If anything is one-sided, it is the David versus Goliath mindset from which we must break. How about considering only the current and future number of people, including students and tourists of all ages, who need efficient, cost-effective transportation for work and leisure — in other words, for their overall livelihood?
I thank the editorial board for reminding me of the aldermen’s overarching point: “We want modern solutions that prioritize non-car travel and put pedestrians, cyclists, public transit users, recreation, green space, commercial growth and property values ahead of cars.”
By the way, here are the days I choose to take transit: when road blockages or special events or weather affects my drive. In other words, things that increasingly happen regularly.
I was pleasantly surprised that the aldermen’s op-ed tried to rebalance the conversation to reflect what their constituents need — not, as the editorial board argues, what any one group wants.
— Joseph Zambrano, Chicago
How we can make streets safer
In pushing back against a call by Chicago aldermen and community-based organizations to halt work on a car-centric DuSable Lake Shore Drive redesign, the Tribune Editorial Board laments that “car drivers don’t really have anyone representing their interests, beyond perhaps IDOT.”
This came as a shock to me as a resident of Chicago’s Southwest Side — one of many areas of our city that cater to drivers in a way that not only sidelines pedestrians but also makes the driving experience itself a whole lot more miserable. Travel 5 miles south and 5 miles west of DuSable Lake Shore Drive to South Pulaski Road, and you’ll see the consequences of Illinois Department of Transportation’s approach.
In my neighborhood of Archer Heights, Pulaski (a state route) stretches across seven wide and dangerous lanes that divide neighbors to the east and west. Our sidewalks remain virtually empty because who wants to walk next to a steady stream of cars speeding through the parking lane? The streets around our schools become clogged at drop-off and dismissal because many neighbors choose to drive, even if they live a few blocks away. And Pulaski slows to a crawl at rush hour, despite the abundance of traffic lanes.
When my neighbor, Jiekun Xu, was struck and killed by a hit-and-run driver earlier this year, IDOT no-showed at a community meeting about traffic safety convened by Ald. Jeylú Gutiérrez. When another neighbor, Charlie Mills, was struck and killed a few months later, IDOT received a letter signed by elected officials in the area urging the agency to prioritize public safety. If IDOT has lifted a finger to do that in the months since, I certainly haven’t noticed.
The editorial board admonishes supporters of a transit- and pedestrian-friendly DuSable Lake Shore Drive redesign that “cars have to go somewhere.” But if we devote space to reliable public transportation, safer sidewalks and protected bike lanes, then the countless short trips we all take — to the grocery store, to school, to local restaurants and businesses — don’t need to create additional traffic.
This is true along DuSable Lake Shore Drive, on Pulaski and in every Chicago neighborhood.
“Cars have to go somewhere” — sure, but in many instances, that “somewhere” can easily be the garage.
— Dixon Galvez-Searle, Chicago
Advocacy for vehicle drivers
Bravo for the editorial on DuSable Lake Shore Drive, even though it doesn’t go far enough. Does the Illinois Department of Transportation have complete control of these plans? What about all the taxes paid by drivers and not paid by cyclists?
Driving has become a problem with all these bike lanes. It’s also interesting to note that bikers pay little or no attention to traffic laws.
We need an advocacy group for car drivers and an IDOT that treats us all equally.
— Richard Prince, Chicago
Making things harder for drivers
The editorial regarding the debate over redesigning DuSable Lake Shore Drive is spot on. We need frank, open discussions. The problem is that the anti-car advocates who seem to have so much influence don’t really want discussion — they want to fight their battles in the back rooms and then surprise us with the results. This is what they did with the permanent closure of Dickens Avenue at Stockton Drive.
During years of public meetings about the Dickens Greenway, the closure of Dickens was not mentioned. It just happened over a few days last winter. And Ald. Timmy Knudsen, who appeared before many community groups after the closure of Dickens and appeared to favor its reopening, now appears to be among those seeking to make use of cars in the city much harder.
— Jonathan Meyer, Chicago
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
