57th Street Viaduct

I attended a meeting at Ray School tonight for a discussion of the proposal to make 57th Street 2-way under the viaduct near Stony Island.  Tonight's audience consisted mostly of residents who are against this proposal and there's another meeting on the same subject on March 12 at 8am at Ray School, where the audience will probably be more business-friendly.  I entered the meeting pro-2-way because I want to make it easier for others to come & spend their money in Hyde Park and I'm tired of having to explain how you get to my place just south of Dorchester from Lake Shore Drive via this weird, circuitous route.  But I wanted to attend this meeting for concerned residents so I could hear the opposing viewpoint.  (Hyde Park Progress has a nice pic of this location.)

Duel from the University's Office of Community Affairs explained that the merchants along 57th Street, as well as some residents, had been meeting off & on for decades.  Out of those discussions, ideas about other issues were generated and Irene was brought in to help as a consultant.  They've distributed pamphlets about 57th Street and last year held a Midnight Madness event. 

Susan from the Univ's OCA stated that the Univ has not taken an official position on this matter, which is, of course, disingenuous.  (Alert Hyde Parkers may also note that the Univ took no official public position on the Co-op until a month before the election.)  Clearly, the Univ is in favor of this change-- maybe not "let's ram this down their throats" in favor-- but they're clearly in favor.  Especially Irene, whom no one acknowledged paying for her work on this, but I think we all know what's going on.  So why not just be up front about it?

Alderman Hairston had requested that the Chicago Dep't of Transportation (CDOT) do a study of the proposal and CDOT sent out a young engineer to present their findings.  The civil engineer looked like he was right from central casting, although he apparently forgot his pocket protector tonight.  His presentation was earnest & thoughtful and the slides weren't that bad.  He also withstood the withering criticism our local officials have come to expect from Hyde Parkers.

CDOT certainly answered the concerns I had about safety.  The west side of the viaduct, where 57th Street meets Lake Park, would become a 3-way stop and a "stop sign up ahead" sign would be posted east of the viaduct to warn west-bound traffic.  Crosswalks would be painted on the asphalt and the sidewalks would be made ADA-compliant.  Also, more traffic generally means slower traffic.  With the additional stop signs, this looks like a safer situation, in my opinion.

The most common concern the residents brought forth was safety and I was obviously not won over by it.  A gentleman who's been in Hyde Park for 40 years was disturbed that this change is being contemplated solely to accommodate the "motorcar".  Well, that's mostly true, I guess, and an argument I'm usually receptive to.   

There are many examples of how we non-drivers benefit drivers-- we're not taking up those precious parking places, your sons & daughters aren't dying in Iraq to bring home oil for us and we're not polluting the air with exhaust.  But, drivers benefit non-drivers, too.  I bum rides with friends a lot.  The more eyes on 57th Street, the more secure it's likely to be.  And if the businesses along 57th St do a little better because more folks are stopping to run in and buy something, then that's probably good for the rest of us, too.

Alderman Hairston is likely to have public meetings on this subject soon.  The more people she hears from, the likelier it is that she'll make the right decision.

Comments

[Jennifer]

"The west side of the viaduct, where 57th Street meets Lake Park, would become a 3-way stop and a "stop sign up ahead" sign would be posted east of the viaduct to warn west-bound traffic."

Well, that takes care of my concern.

[Noel]

This is a done deal, whether we like it or not. The University is again using Irene Sherr and Brad Jonas (possibly some other businesses) to carry water for it. When the dust settles, 57th St. will be 2-way and the University will say it was for the benefit of small businesses. The first time someone gets hurt or killed because of the increased through traffic, it will be tragic. The eyes that are already on 57th St. understand the problem all too well. But we don't count.

[BJ]

The eternal question:

Where are all the new business customers going to park? 57th street is already terribly congested.

In exchange, we will get more exhaust fumes, noise, and stalled traffic outside our windows at home and school.

I can't imagine that traffic would flow very quickly given the number of stop signs and pedestrians --and it would not be safe for traffic to move very quickly under these conditions.

For safety reasons, Bret Harte School now shuts down part of 56th in the morning and afternoon when children are coming and going. Would this be the case for the 57th street schools? So twice a day, the street is blocked and traffic stalled.

I like the idea of having the viaduct open for residents, but I don't like the idea for bringing in business customers, because I do not think most of the traffic won't be customers for local businesses.

I imagine most of the traffic will be en route to the University of Chicago Hospitals or to the expressway.

And will the short leg of Lake Park between 56th and 57th be made two way so traffic can increase along there as well?

[Dingbat]

This really is more a matter of image than anything else; an open street doesn't deliver customers to local businesses, especially without parking (as BJ points out). However, the image of Hyde Park saying, "Go away! We don't want you sullying our dirt with your uneducated presence," is one that needs to be alleviated.

No one who tries to use 57th as a short cut across the neighborhood will do that twice, but on that first run through, they may decide that they'll come back with time and money.

Latly, BJ's proposal to make Lake Park 2-way, combined with making 57th two-way, would vastly increase safety for Bret Harte attendees, by encouraging the in-a-hurry traffic not to travel right in front of an elementary school.

[jane]

safety issues NOT solved by stop signs. Eg, without "left turn only" arrow at 56th street & Lake Park, have nearly been creamed several times by cars going straight south from what should be and was previously a left turn only lane - stop sign or not. Do not wish to also in serious danger of being hit by not clearly visible vehicle headed west on 57th. Also most importantly, what is REALLY the point of a two way under the viaduct?? No one can seriously think 57th St. businesses would benefit - with Blackstone one way north and no way to drive around the "block" to look for parking, still would be no place to park the car. Greater congestion & still no parking? Good reasons to avoid shops on 57th altogether.

[Cal Audrain]

Making the viaduct 2 way is not a good idea.
My recollection is that in rearranging one way streets 50+ years ago, the University actually wanted the piece of 57th at Stony Island one way in order to block traffic from Lake Shore Drive or the Museum of Science and Industry from using 57th as a short cut to the Dan Ryan and bringing all that traffic through the campus between University and Drexel.
As someone else has noted, the businesses on 57th can't handle any more parking and the convoluted access via 56th St. and Lake Park just slows and reduces overall traffic in this section of Hyde Park.

[AF]

Making the viaduct 2 way is [an excellent] idea.

I live near 57th and Dorchester, I own a car, and I park it on the street.

First, there is no parking problem in Hyde Park. Lincoln Park might have one, and I've lived in Brooklyn where they arguably do too (though you learn to live with it, and it was tolerable).

Second, if there is a parking problem in Hyde Park, it is not a residential problem: it's caused by commuters (students, profs, workers) coming to Hyde Park for the day. I almost never have any trouble finding parking near my building in the evening, and I often can park directly in front of it.

Third, I would love to be able to drive directly home on 57th rather than the silly loop up to 56th and down Lake Park.

Fourth, Cal, I've heard that the University's decision to make streets one way was to make the neighborhood difficult to enter and to navigate for car-driving criminals coming in from outside (maybe just a rumor). The idea is that non-locals would get lost trying to get away and then the police would catch them.

Fifth, we need as many outsiders to come into Hyde Park and possibly shop at its businesses as we can get. If this adds even a few, that will be good for us residents.

Finally, if you actually look at the corner of 57th and Lake Park, you will realize that it is not nearly as much of a blind spot (for drivers coming down Lake Park) as it seems at first. Go there and picture where the stop sign for westbound 57th Street traffic will go. Then picture a car stopped at it. Almost the entire car will be completely visible to southbound Lake Park drivers, even if you won't be able to see any farther under the viaduct.

[Noel]

Increasing safety for Bret Harte students is good. Decreasing safety for Ray and Lab School students is not good. I believe the University is behind this change so traffic can flow from the planned hotels on Stony Island (former Doctors Hospital site) to campus and the hospitals. The viaduct is due for an overhaul and this is the opportune time to reconfigure it. Of course we don't want through traffic, but we're going to get it. Meetings are pointless because no one is listening.

[AF]

A point that some have made (I think I read it on Hyde Park Progress) is that more traffic equals slower traffic. Thus, if through-traffic past the Ray and Lab Schools increases, it may increase the safety for school children. When traffic is light, people tend to speed, and speeding on a street as narrow and full of pedestrians as 57th can be particularly dangerous. Of course, any gain in safety may be entirely offset by the fact that more cars means more chances for an accident, even if the cars are going slower.

Noel: The impression I've gotten, though I've never attended a Hyde Park community meeting, is that the people who go have all made up their minds already. It's just a venue to fight, which is disappointing.

[Noel]

The point, AF, I'm trying to make is that it is very frustrating to go to a meeting that is run by people whose agenda is already set and they are pretending to solicit community input. What they in fact are doing is to go through the motions of presenting a plan that is already set to take off. The people who got to Ray School on a chilly night and climbed three flights of stairs to sit in a classrom thought they were going to be heard. Instead, they were treated with contempt and given very short shrift. The University intends that 57th St. be opened up, and it will be. End of discussion. Residents of the street see the dangers ahead. Double parked cars and trucks present hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists and other vehicles as they attempt to pass. Our voices mean nothing. The "crowded, congested streets are good streets" argument doesn't fly if you live on one and see the problems daily.

[AF]

Noel: I live on Dorchester, right near the corner of 57th. I walk on 57th almost every single day, sometimes many times per day. I drive on it multiple times a week. I don't buy your claims of excess danger. It's a narrow street with many stop signs. The only effect that 57th Street congestion has ever had on me as a driver is to slow me down.

Sure, cars are always hazardous to pedestrians. Theoretically, more cars may mean more danger. But this is not necessarily the case. The only time it is safe for a pedestrian to walk across the Dan Ryan is when it's at a complete standstill--that is, when traffic is at its worst.

I appreciate that it is frustrating to go to a community meeting only to have those running it ignore the community. It certainly makes the meeting seem just for show. However, I think the University may feel a similar level of frustration in holding such meetings. People don't come to such meetings open minded, willing to listen and consider what the University wants to do. Instead, they come simply to block whatever change the University wants to make (the default is: change is bad).

There are good reasons to make the viaduct two-way. But if there are real concerns about safety, they absolutely should be addressed as well. It's an empathy problem, I think. If the community members were to say: "We see your reasons for making the viaduct two-way, and they are good reasons. Let's see how we can make it two-way and still keep 57th Street safe for pedestrians and bicyclists," the University would listen.

[Noel]

AF, the 3-5 was not billed as a meeting where the University posed "what they wanted to do." It was a meeting called by Irene Sherr to hear a CDOT report about feasibility of opening 57th St. CDOT found it "feasible." The first University spokesman said the University was "neutral." The second was rude and completely partisan to the proposal to open 57th St. to 2-way traffic, disrespecting the audience except for the Powell's owner and a man from 56th St. (You and I are neighbors. I live on 57th between Kenwood and Dorchester, by the way.) I'm trying to remember an instance in the community's history when it was ever successful in "blocking whatever change the University wants to make." If you can, please advise.

[withrow]

Well, Noel, the crowd was rude at times to the younger CDOT fellow and the vast majority of our neighbors speaking up at this meeting showed very little desire to weigh the issues. It's possible that Susan, in particular, wanted the small minority of pro-2-way neighbors present to feel free to have their say.

I don't get the feeling that the Univ wants to move ahead with this change in the face of great community opposition-- although I could be wrong. (The new administration has a lot less interest in maintaining a healthy relationship with the neighborhood IMO.) Plus, this is in Ald. Hairston's district and she's obviously a bit peeved at the Univ right now. I'd be surprised if she gives the go-ahead for things to move along quickly unless she senses that most of us want this change made.

[Noel]

If the University would be up front about their plans, I would have respect for their position and weigh it carefully. This is what they should say:

We plan to build one or two hotels and a conference center on Stony Island near 57th St. They are badly needed for visitors to the University and for families of patients being treated at the hospitals. There has been community opposition to the design of the hotel buildings but not to the concept of hotels per se. We will try to develop architecturally interesting and pleasaing plans for these buildings.

When guests from the hotels travel to the University and/or hospitals, we could whisk them down the Midway, but would rather bring them in through a welcoming portal of 57th St. They would find the bookstores, restaurants, grocery stores, beauty and barber shops and general street ambience of interest and hopefully might track back to patronize some of these establishments. We will do our utmost to ensure street safety features for vehicles, bicycles and pedesterians alike and are very mindful of existing issues of traffic and parking.

Even I would have a problem fighting this argument. They are not saying these things. They are saying the University is "neutral" and that the impetus for the proposed change is coming from Powell's and other, unnamed, small businesses who want spill-over traffic from MSI.

Do I trust the UC to be honest? Not so far.