I read the op-ed by Ald. Daniel La Spata and three of his colleagues regarding the tragic death of Chicago Department of Transportation employee Riley O’Neil (“Riley O’Neil died a preventable death. We can’t cut funding for safe streets,” Sept. 15). By all accounts, O’Neil was a wonderful young man with a caring heart and a bright future. Tragically, his life was cut short in a cycling accident.
I live in La Spata’s ward, and like many, I know he is a passionate advocate for the cycling community, so I’m sure this hit him and others in that community hard and that’s what spurred the op-ed. I also can’t help but think of that old saying: “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Difficult or disruptive events can create opportunities to enact changes or policies that would be hard to implement during normal times.
Now I certainly don’t want to believe that this tragic event is being used by La Spata and others to advance an agenda that they’re passionate about, but La Spata is a politician, and politicians have been known to do such things.
That being said, the meat of LaSpata and his colleagues’ “want list” is long and expensive: Exempt the Chicago Department of Transportation from hiring freezes. Increase the number of traffic engineers. Grow CDOT’s funding. Expand protected bike lanes. And the list goes on.
I wish we could afford to implement all these safety measures and more, but the reality is that we can’t. O’Neil’s death, tragic as it was, was an accident. And accidents happen everywhere, every day, to everyone.
I don’t want to see anyone get hurt or killed riding on city streets. But to spend millions of dollars on bike lanes when the city is facing massive debt, rising property taxes, mounting Chicago Public Schools budget shortfalls and a pension fund crisis too big to think about? Bike lanes, while important to some, shouldn’t top our list of things to tackle in a city where it’s cold six months a year.
It’s just not a priority.
— Tony LaMantia, Chicago
Responsibilities of cyclists
Aldermen Daniel La Spata, Matt Martin, Julia Ramirez and Desmon Yancy lay out three steps for safer streets for bikers. While I agree that ensuring bike safety is vital for the two-wheelers, I do not see any suggestions for the riders themselves. I am a driver, a pedestrian and a bike rider. I follow the rules of the road regardless of how I am moving, but lately, I assume that no bikers, a few drivers and some pedestrians will do the same. I have been wary for good reason. Even in crosswalks, I have had close calls from both drivers and cyclists on multiple occasions.
As an automobile driver, I am required to have a license, functioning headlights and taillights, and insurance. When not in my car, I make certain that I can be seen by using bright lights. Driving at night, I am horrified at the number of riders who are almost invisible, disregard road rules and ride distractedly. While I was creeping out of my alley years ago, my car was hit and damaged by an electric scooter rider going at least 30 mph on the sidewalk. The high school kid, who thankfully was not hurt, left before I even thought to check the damage. Even if I had, would he have had insurance? I doubt it.
As for pedestrians, I just wish they would use crosswalks, get their heads out of the phones and not dawdle.
More Top Picks Vacuum Mop Combo Mini
Automobile drivers get painted as evil, but I think there is plenty of responsibility we can share.
— Paula J. Schneiderman, Chicago
Waiting on Cortland Bridge
In fights between new development and preservation, I typically find myself erring toward preservation. Our city is lucky to be home to so many world-class, architecturally significant buildings and structures, and I think it’s crucial that we have safeguards in place to ensure that this legacy remains intact for generations to come. The value of preserving this history is clear — if you need to be reminded just how special it is, simply spend an afternoon on the Chicago Riverwalk and watch tourists’ faces light up with amazement as they pass by on the architecture tour.
That said, we need to be mindful when preservation efforts halt progress, disrupt Chicagoans’ routines and negatively impact quality of life in our city. And in cases of critical road infrastructure, this becomes a much lower threshold to clear as opposed to buildings. At a certain point, we need to take a balanced approach to keep moving forward. In the case of the Cortland Bridge, we need to find a solution to keep us moving forward as quickly as possible.
If the bridge is truly so significant that we can’t afford to lose it, the Chicago Department of Transportation could pursue an alternate route on the vacant land immediately to the south of the bridge and leave the original structure intact. It could also remove the bridge and put it on display as an exhibit somewhere else in the city. The agency might even take the opportunity to completely redesign the disastrous Ashland, Armitage and Elston Avenue intersection and save generations of Chicagoans the headache of spending 15 minutes navigating through a single stoplight.
Each of these ideas sounds silly on the surface, but I’d argue they’re no sillier than standing by while a crucial city artery remains closed while we await an inevitable multimillion-dollar cost overrun on the eventual repair.
There are plenty of ways we can address the Cortland Bridge. The one thing we can’t afford to do is continue to sit still waiting on CDOT.
— Bobby Burk, Chicago
A name with cinematic flair
Regarding the boulder found at O’Hare International Airport, how about calling the boulder “Rocky O’Hare Show”?
— Gene Kocian, Wilmette
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected].