Bicycling in Chicago has consistently been a contentious topic among city residents and advocates.
Despite the city’s efforts to improve its cycling infrastructure, many residents feel that Chicago lags behind in safety and overall bike-friendliness compared to other major U.S. cities.
The cycling community acknowledges the positive aspects of biking in Chicago, including off-street paths like the Lakefront Trail and Bloomingdale Trail, a flat grid allowing for easier navigation, and the availability of the Divvy bike-share system.
However, the dangers presented by reckless, distracted, and intoxicated drivers on the road contribute significantly to the fear of cycling in the city.
Annual cycling fatalities are alarming, with the city averaging five deaths per year, forcing many potential cyclists to reconsider.
Despite the expanding network of protected bike lanes, Chicago still lacks a cohesive, citywide system of low-stress cycling routes due to its complex ward system, allowing local alderpersons to veto transportation projects in their districts.
This situation has led to disappointing rankings from organizations like People for Bikes, which lists Chicago as one of the least bike-friendly large cities in the United States.
People for Bikes’ recent assessments have placed Chicago’s score well below those of cities such as Jacksonville, Los Angeles, and Atlanta, despite the latter cities having lower cycling mode shares and higher fatality rates.
For example, Chicago earned a score of only 11 out of 100, while cities with less bike-friendly policies ranked higher, causing frustration among local cycling advocates.
In a July outreach, Streetsblog Chicago requested an interview with People for Bikes to discuss these ratings and shed light on their methodology, particularly why the organization continues to rate Chicago unfavorably every year.
The response from People for Bikes was a new article using Chicago as a case study, but it did not address the underlying concerns directly.
The new article from People for Bikes acknowledged that, while Chicago has made progress by installing more than 30 bike projects in recent years, the city’s bike network remains fragmented with minimal overall score improvements.
They pointed out that dangerous intersections and disconnected routes pose significant challenges to biking in Chicago.
However, critics argue that these findings do not justify the disproportionate weight given to minor differences in speed limits between cities.
People for Bikes expressed concern over the 30 mph default speed limit in Chicago, suggesting that reducing speed limits is essential for improving road safety for all users.
Advocates for cycling in the city agree that lowering the speed limit could make a considerable difference, as seen in other major cities that have enacted similar measures.
Despite this shared concern, many in the community feel that a speed limit alone should not be the decisive factor in determining bike-friendliness or the potential for safe cycling in Chicago.
Moreover, Streetsblog Chicago noted that some of the cities that outrank Chicago in the People for Bikes assessments also lack comprehensive, low-stress bike networks.
The critiques of People for Bikes’ rating system continued, as their reliance on speed limit differences did not account for the complexity of Chicago’s urban landscape.
For instance, while People for Bikes acknowledged recent progress in protective bike lanes, they failed to recognize that Chicago has been implementing road diets and concrete barriers for years, similar to high-ranking cities like Seattle and San Francisco.
Recent Chicago bike infrastructure developments have included more than 15 miles of protected bike lanes, yet many new projects remain disconnected from other parts of the biking network.
Still, the People for Bikes piece suggested that Chicago learn from other cities instead of recognizing the progressive developments already happening in its own back yard.
Another notable critique of People for Bikes comes from their geographic mapping tool, which oversimplifies the city’s biking environment with a binary classification system of ‘low-stress’ and ‘high-stress’ zones.
The mapping system mischaracterizes certain popular cycling routes, labeling them as ‘high-stress’ areas despite being low-traffic and suitable for cyclists, leading to confusion among riders.
This misrepresentation highlights a significant misunderstanding of local cycling conditions and geography by the People for Bikes organization.
Although People for Bikes has the right intentions aiming to encourage safe cycling across the nation, the organization must take the context of specific cities into account.
With continued advocacy from local cycling groups and clearer communication from national organizations, there is hope for improving Chicago’s standing in biking networks across the nation.
If People for Bikes cannot develop a rating system that accurately reflects Chicago’s complexities, some argue that it may be in the best interest of the organization to reevaluate whether they should include the city in their yearly rankings.
This ongoing discourse on biking in Chicago illustrates the challenges faced by urban cycling advocates and the critical need for an inclusive rating system that genuinely reflects the diverse realities of different cities.
image source from：chi
