January 2018

New skyscraper will add more than 1,000 parking spaces above a subway station – Streetsblog Chicago

by Deena S. Hawkins on January 19, 2018

Yesterday, the Chicago Plan Commission approved a $500 million mixed-use development to be built at the corner of Chicago Ave. and State St. on a parcel now containing surface parking for Holy Name Cathedral. The development, “One Chicago Square”, will contain 795 rental units, 75 condos, multiple floors for commercial use and 1,090 parking spaces.

The existing surface lot has approximately 160 parking spaces, which means parking supply on this lot will increase by 580% in one of the densest, most walkable and busiest neighborhoods in the city. . It’s a shock to see the city’s transit-friendly policies so largely ignored.

Of these parking spaces, 225 are reserved for parishioners of the Saint-Nom Cathedral across the street, or 65 parking spaces more than currently. The remaining 865 spaces would be for residents and commercial uses. It is unclear if a resident parking spot will be attached to the price of the unit, or purchased/rented separately.

Aerial image of the existing surface lot in front of Holy Name Cathedral. Picture via Google Maps

Just above Chicago’s Red Line station, this development could technically be built without parking spaces thanks to Chicago’s Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Ordinance, which allows developers to cut 100 % commercial parking minimums and 50% residential parking minimums. minimum. Through an additional process, the residential parking minimum can also be reduced to zero spaces.

Since its introduction in 2013, the TOD ordinance has allowed developers to provide fewer parking spaces in residential and commercial developments within 600 feet of “L” and Metra stations. The ordinance was revised in 2015 to allow developers to completely eliminate parking for developments within 1,320 feet (¼ mile) of these stations.

Clearly, to maintain the city’s progressive TOD policy, the ordinance needs another update, especially in the downtown area. Any development this close to public transit should be subject to maximum parking, rather than just eliminating the minimums.

The development site currently sits on land with mixed zoning, DX-7 and DX-12; the proponent is seeking to change the zoning so that the entire parcel is zoned DX-12. The existing parking minimum in the DX-12 zone would require 478 parking spaces for residential use (0.55 spaces per unit) and 0 spaces for commercial use. With or without the TOD ordinance, this development far exceeds the number of parking lots that would need to be built in a downtown neighborhood.

Councilman Brian Hopkins (2nd Ward) posted earlier in the week that he was “inclined to support” the development – already approved by the Planning Commission – through a “Chicago Avenue Transit Improvement Program” which will be required as part of the development. This program will, according to Hopkins, “solve the traffic problems on Chicago Avenue”. The alderman may have misspoken, because the only transit-related commitments made during the planned development process and confirmed by his office involve paying up to $40,000 for the construction of a single “concrete bus pad” on Dearborn St., just north of Chicago Ave. , and move a CTA bus shelter on Michigan Ave., three blocks from the development.

Concrete bus platforms, unfortunately, do nothing for traffic or bus riders.

Access points on the ground floor. Source: OneChicagoSquare.com/JDL

Commitments made as a result of the now approved planned development process also include the requirement for the developer to pay for a Divvy station on the property, but that is where the requirements for sustainable transportation end. The developer will also be responsible for modifying eleven traffic lights and adding left and right turn arrows at several intersections along Chicago Avenue. The neighborhood itself will move several metered parking spaces on Chicago Ave. to unmetered blocks in the 2nd Ward to add more traffic lanes on Chicago Ave.

The zoning committee has yet to approve the planned development.

Hopkins claims that the result of adding additional traffic lanes “will be better traffic conditions”, but that is not true. Many studies find that increasing car traffic capacity – by adding more lanes – ultimately results in the same amount of traffic filling the new capacity, a result called induced demand.

One way to increase the number of people, not just vehicles, moving along Chicago Ave is to implement bus lanes along the corridor. In fact, the CTA provided data showing that its Chicago #66 buses only account for 2% of vehicle traffic on the street, but carry about 30% of all people traveling on the street.

Streetsblog and other local transit advocates have already covered the need for bus lanes on Chicago Ave., one of the city’s busiest bus routes. By improving the level of service, the bus lanes could also bring some riders back onto the route, which saw a 4.9% drop in ridership between 2015 and 2016.

The development approval also comes at a time when CTA is conclusion of a multi-year study regarding the “Bus Slow Zones” on 79th St and Chicago Ave, which it plans to deliver at the end of this month. Although a copy is not yet publicly available, notes from Alderman Hopkins’ office suggest that dedicated bus lanes and locations for queue jump signals are recommended for this route. Unfortunately, these recommendations aren’t currently required as part of development, and while Hopkins’ office has said they will work with the developer to consider CTA’s recommendations, it’s not as strong a commitment as those that end up being integrated into the plan. Development (such as the new Divvy station).

Since the parking spaces to be removed are metered spaces owned by Chicago Parking Meters, LLC, they will be relocated elsewhere in the neighborhood. Normally, moving metered parking is a process the city avoids and has used to justify not putting bus and bike lanes on city streets. Although moving paid parking is a difficult process that the City wants to avoid, it’s obviously a worthwhile move when it comes to moving more cars, but not always when it’s is about moving more people by public transport.

The increased car travel that will occur due to new traffic lanes and all the additional parking also poses an increased threat to people walking or biking on Chicago Ave. From Paulina St to State St, Chicago Ave is designated a “high collision corridor” by the city’s Vision Zero action plan and as such should be given priority when it comes to improvements However, the only major action taken here is to modify traffic lights with the sole aim of improving vehicular traffic – there are no explicit plans to improve walking and cycling safety along along Chicago Ave.

Adding capacity for over 1,000 vehicles and increasing road capacity is a misguided approach to solving traffic problems, especially in a dense, transit-rich neighborhood. The next stage of this development involves approval by the Zoning, Landmarks and Building Standards Committee, which holds regular public meetings at City Hall, and gives you the opportunity to provide feedback regarding Development.

The next meetings are scheduled for January 25 and February 22, but the agenda for the latter has not yet been set. Alderman Hopkins’ office can be reached online, by email at [email protected] or (312) 643-2299.

Parking spaces

Backing up in parking spaces is much safer. Why don’t we do it?

by Deena S. Hawkins on January 14, 2018

Each year, some 300 people are killed and 18,000 are injured by backing up drivers, usually in driveways or parking lots.

There is a simple way to avoid many of these accidents: we could back up in the parking space so that we don’t have to back up.

Note that I am talking about spaces in lots and garages that are perpendicular to the wall or perimeter. When it comes to parallel parking for a space on the street, Everybody returns, except for morons like George’s nemesis in this classic Seinfeld bit.

In a parking lot, the AAA thinks we should back down, recommending that “drivers back up in parking spaces whenever possible, except where the law or parking restrictions prohibit it.”

Tom Vanderbilt, author of the classic book Traffic, thinks, too much. In the same way Talking about car. Here’s how host Ray Magliozzi concisely explained the dangers of backing up a space: “As the butt of your car sticks out into traffic, you can’t see if there are any cars coming, because your view is blocked by the passenger compartments of the cars. or SUVs parked next to you.

And yet, most of us don’t.

It is cumbersome to get out of a space, that’s for sure. But it would seem many more difficult to move back in. In the first scenario, you step back into the universe, with all the margin of error that entails. In the other, you retreat into a ruthless rectangle.

In 1990, in their monograph Car park (designed to present “the best of contemporary North American practice in the planning, design and operation of parking spaces”), transportation engineers Robert Weant and Herbert Levinson only addressed the issue passing. Rear parking, they said, “is not generally practiced or encouraged.”

Things have changed in a quarter of a century. Recently in the parking lot I use on the campus of my employer, the University of Delaware, I counted 11 of 43 cars parked on the perimeter of the parking lot facing the front. (I limited my calculation to the perimeter because in the double rows in the middle, drivers might have the option of going to a vacant front space – the best of both worlds.) The day before it was nine of 49. This anecdotal percentage jibe with a survey conducted by AAA, which found that 24% of those surveyed said they supported.

Backed up in cars on the University of Delaware campus.

Ben yagoda

Incidentally, the photograph shows that cars parked closest to campus are more likely to have backed up. This is a constant daily trend and suggests that the first to arrive are go-getters and more willing to do a bit of homework at the start in order to have a smooth and clear exit. The idea of the go-getter is consistent with the thesis of the only academic to study of this subject which has never been undertaken.

There are several theories, but little evidence, as to why Americans don’t come back often

In “Prediction of productivity gains from parking behavior”, a 2014 article published in the International Journal of Emerging Markets, author Shaomin Li, professor of management at Old Dominion University, describes his visit to Taiwan. He notes that, unlike in the United States, most drivers have backed off into spaces:

“Needless to say, rear parking takes more time and effort than front parking. Still, it is easier, faster and safer to get out. So, we can surmise that people bother to back down by demonstrating their ability to delay gratification; they want to invest more time and effort now so that they can reap the rewards of their labor later. They demonstrate a culture of long-term orientation.

Li took photos of how cars were parked in the United States and Taiwan, and asked friends to do the same in the so-called BRIC countries: Brazil, Russia, India and China. The save percentage was:

United States: 5.7

Brazil: 17.1

India: 25.4

Russia: 35

Taiwan: 59.4

China: 88

Li then superimposed the declining parking rates with the countries’ annual productivity gain between 2001 and 2011. There was a positive correlation of 0.83. Brazil and the United States recorded the lowest productivity gains, at 1.3% and 1.5%, respectively, while China had the highest, at 17.8%.

His thesis is plausible, but the study has its weaknesses: it only shows a correlation; there was no logic in choosing the lots or the time of day; and, most disturbingly, the sample size was small, ranging from 106 to 159 cars per country.

Mary Smith, chair of the geometry committee Parking advisor advice, may have a better explanation for the low percentage of people in this country who return. As Smith observed in an email:

“Americans are not taught to back up in stalls neither during training nor by observing the habits of other drivers. As a result, the average American is not comfortable backing up in a parking lot… Europeans are more often challenged to get cars in and out in tight spaces and to learn how to back cars in tight spaces. parking spaces at an early age.

(Smith is yet another authority who recommends backing off, calling it “safer overall.”)

The internet also offers several theories as to why people who show up in spaces do it this way: it’s not that they want to delay gratification or that they haven’t been trained enough, but that they are women and / or women. Colorful explanations of this idea can be found all over the web, for example here.

To some extent, a 2010 to study by Claudia C. Wolf and her colleagues at German Ruhr University in Bochum confirmed the stereotype. The researchers took male and female drivers of different experience levels into a parking lot and asked them to face a car in a space, back up a car, and parallel park. The men parked much faster – perhaps not surprisingly, as many of them are still under the spell of Steve McQueen’s iconic parking job at Bullitt.

As for accuracy (measured by distance to neighboring cars), men were slightly better in all three maneuvers, only parallel parking showing statistically significant superiority.

Support requires mental rotation skills

The speed difference may have less to do with inherent ability and more to do with male propensity to take risks. In driving, the negative aspects of this trait outweigh the positive aspects. According to Insurance Institute for Road Safety, on a mileage basis, men are killed in traffic accidents 50 percent more often than women.

Still, there is a difference between men and women – and more generally, within the general population – on the skills that go into parking, especially backing up parking. The most important skill is what psychologists “Mental rotation”, or the ability to imagine objects in a position other than their actual position. (You can test your own mental rotation skills here.) For reasons still widely debated, men are on the whole better mental rotators than women.

But not this man. With me, in fact, it’s kind of a perfect storm of bad space skills: besides parking, I’m bad at drawing, lip-reading (even when someone shouts “Hello!”), And having intuition to turn right or left in a dead end in Venice. I suck so bad at Pictionary that the jaws of my playing partners drop in amazement. As a result, despite all the recommendations of the experts, I remain an unrepentant front-inner.

How technology can help us get back

There is hope for people like me, and it takes the form of technology. In recent years, many cars have been fitted with rear cameras and other systems that offer tremendous assistance in backing up, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has mandated that all new automobiles include some type of rear view camera by 2018.

Testing a car with an Around View system.

My 2013 Ford C-Max only has a beep that starts to sound when I’m about to back up into something, which doesn’t help me avoid cars on the sides. To see how well the new technology works, I asked my local Nissan dealer if I could try a car with the Around the view monitoring – considered one of the best systems. I got behind the wheel of a Maxima on their land, got out of a space and came back again.

Unfortunately, it took me 53 seconds. But I had a feeling that with this new technology and with enough practice, everyone, including me, will eventually be able to back up in the parking spaces diligently: not exactly Steve McQueen speed, but close enough. for jazz.

Ben yagoda is a professor of journalism at the University of Delaware and most recently author of The B-side: the death of Tin Pan Alley and the rebirth of great American song.

Uncategorized

Permanent suicide fencing will be installed on Ann Arbor parking structures

by Deena S. Hawkins on January 8, 2018

To deter suicides by jumping or falling from parking structures in Ann Arbor, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority is further committed to building more permanent fencing on the roofs of parking structures in the city. Installation of the fencing began last fall when city officials noticed a pattern of suicide attempts or completed suicides by individuals jumping or falling from garages over the past three years.

Between November 2015 and December 2016, three people died and two were injured after falling or jumping from city parking lots. Further incidents occurred in September and October 2017, when two men fell from parking structures at South Fourth Avenue and East William Street. These deaths were considered suicides.

The project will be funded by fees charged to those who park their vehicles at city structures. The DDA board determined at a meeting last week that bids will be due by Jan. 16 and work should be underway by the end of the month.

City Council Member Kirk Westphal, D-Ward 2, described the importance of having the fence installed in the first place to help deter individuals from ending their lives.

“As council members, our first priority is public safety,” Westphal said. “As an urgent need for public safety, the advice we’ve gotten from mental health experts is that, while not foolproof, this temporary fence was a prudent strategy to help interrupt some people’s resolve. to commit suicide.”

According to Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, temporary fencing was installed on the garages when the bid for the project cost $1 million more than expected. Contractor availability was also low during this time, resulting in more expensive estimates. As a result, the DDA Board approved a slice of chain link fencing on the structures rather than more permanent materials.

Pollay said city administrators hope to add fencing at other levels in parking structures, not just rooftops. She also said it was important to install the fences to better meet the needs of Ann Arbor residents.

“Perhaps it’s more important to focus on the needs of people in our community that aren’t being met,” Pollay said.

Some garages, like the Maynard structure, are already fenced. Pollay told the Daily in October that the structures that will be prioritized include the roof of the Fourth and Williams Streets structure – at the top of the list due to its sheer size – followed by the Ann and Ashley Streets structure, the structure of Fourth and Washington, the Maynard Structure, the Liberty Square Structure, and the Forest Avenue Structure. The DDA will also pursue other tactics such as signage and structure management.

After the deaths last September and October, city officials decided to take action on the temporary fencing. Matt Lige, a lieutenant with the Ann Arbor Police Department, was one such official who expressed initial frustration.

“I am frustrated with the volume of deaths in parking lots in the city of Ann Arbor,” he said at the scene of the October fatal fall. “I think it’s safe to say we’re all frustrated.”

The city also installed signage with the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline’s phone number and other information about psychiatric services to deter individuals from committing suicide.

Structures owned by the University of Michigan do not have the same obstacles as structures owned by the city.

In an email interview, Stephen Dolen, the university’s executive director of logistics, transportation and parking, said options are currently being evaluated to implement similar deterrent methods to structures. parking lot belonging to the university.

“The Logistics, Transportation and Parking unit has worked with parking consultants to assess options, review the effectiveness, operational considerations and costs of adding certain types of additional preventative measures and this continues to be a current topic of discussion,” Dolen wrote.

Uncategorized

Permanent anti-suicide fencing will be installed on Ann Arbor parking structures

by Deena S. Hawkins on January 8, 2018

To deter suicides by jumping or falling from Ann Arbor parking lots, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority is further committing to building more permanent fences on the roofs of city parking lots. Installation of the fences began last fall when city officials noticed a pattern of attempted or successful suicides by individuals jumping or falling from garages over the past three years.

Between November 2015 and December 2016, three people died and two were injured after falling or jumping from parking lots in the city. Further incidents occurred in September and October 2017, when two men fell from parking lots on South Fourth Avenue and East William Street. These deaths have been classified as suicides.

The project will be financed by fees charged to those who park their vehicles in the structures of the city. The DDA board determined at a meeting last week that bids will be due Jan. 16 and work is expected to be underway by the end of the month.

City council member Kirk Westphal, D-Ward 2, described the importance of installing the fence in the first place to help deter individuals from ending their own lives.

“As board members, our first priority is public safety,” Westphal said. “As an urgent public safety need, the opinion we got from mental health experts is that, while not foolproof, this temporary fence was a prudent strategy to help interrupt some people’s resolve. to commit suicide. “

According to Susan Pollay, executive director of DDA, temporary fences were put up on garages when the bid for the project cost $ 1 million more than expected. The availability of the contractor was also low during this period, which led to more expensive estimates. As a result, the DDA board approved the installation of chain link fencing over structures rather than more permanent materials.

Pollay said city administrators hope to add fencing at other levels in parking structures, not just on rooftops. She also said that it is important to install the fences to better meet the needs of the residents of Ann Arbor.

“Perhaps it’s more important to focus on the needs of people in our community who are not being met,” Pollay said.

Some garages, like the Maynard structure, are already fitted with fences. Pollay told the Daily in October that the structures that will be prioritized include the roof of the Fourth and Williams Street structure – at the top of the list because of its size – followed by the Ann and Ashley Street structure, the Fourth Street structure. and Washington, the Maynard Structure, the Liberty Square Structure and the Forest Avenue Structure. The DDA will also pursue other tactics such as signage and management of structures.

After the deaths last September and October, city officials decided to take action against the temporary fences. Matt Lige, a lieutenant with the Ann Arbor Police Department, was one of those officials who expressed his initial frustration.

“I am frustrated with the volume of deaths in parking lots in the city of Ann Arbor,” he said at the scene of the deadly October fall. “I think it’s safe to say we’re all frustrated.”

The city has also installed signage with the telephone number of the National Lifeline for Suicide Prevention and other information on psychiatric services to deter individuals from committing suicide.

The structures owned by the University of Michigan do not have the same barriers as the structures owned by the city.

In an email interview, Stephen Dolen, the university’s executive director of logistics, transportation and parking, said options are currently being assessed to implement deterrent methods similar to structures. parking lot belonging to the university.

“The Logistics, Transportation and Parking unit worked with parking consultants to assess options, review the efficiency, operational considerations and costs of adding certain types of additional preventative measures and this continues to be a current topic of discussion, ”Dolen wrote.