City of Chicago City Council.
Rules of Conduct for Public Meetings 2023 to 2027.
Pursuant to the Chicago City Council Rules of Order
and Procedure Rule 49,
the sergeant at ARM sets forth the following rules
of conduct to be followed during the public comment period
and the duration of all committee and city council meetings.
Profane, vulgar, threatening, abusive,
or disruptive language is not permitted, demeaning,
discriminatory, or harassing behavior
and speech directed towards others is not permitted.
Disruptive behavior, including disruptive
or disrespectful conduct
during others presentations is not permitted.
Banners, flyers, or signage are not permitted.
Backpacks, large bags and sharp objects are not permitted.
Clear bags not tinted in color that do not exceed 12 by 12
by six inches will be permitted in our subject to search.
Health, food and beverages,
including in metal canisters are not permitted.
Cell phones must be placed on silent prior
to entering the meeting room.
Individuals must remain seated.
Public comments, speakers are permitted
to stand only when providing public comment.
Small handheld devices may be used only while seated,
and the user must refrain from interfering with the view
or hearing of other individuals, individuals or groups.
Failing to adhere to these rules will be asked
to see such disruptive convict
and failure to comply will result in their being.
Subject to removal from the meeting by the Sergeant at Arms,
city of Chicago City Council.
Rules of Convict for Public Meetings 2023
to 2027.
Pursuant to the Chicago City Council rules of Order
and Procedure Rule 49,
the sergeant at ARM sets forth the following rules
of convict to be followed during the public comment period
and the duration of all committee and city council meetings.
Profane, vulgar, threatening, abusive,
or disruptive language is not permitted, demeaning,
discriminatory, or harassing behavior
and speech directed towards others is not permitted.
Disruptive behavior, including disruptive
or disrespectful conduct
during others presentations is not permitted.
Banners, flyers, or signage are not permitted.
Backpacks, large bags and sharp objects are not permitted.
Clear bags not tinted in color that do not exceed 12 by 12
by six inches will be permitted in our subject to search.
Health, food and beverages,
including in metal canisters are not permitted.
Cell phones must be placed on silent prior
to entering the meeting room.
Individuals must remain seated.
Public comments, speakers are permitted
to stand only when providing public comment.
Small handheld devices may be used only while seated,
and the user must refrain from interfering with the view
or hearing of other individuals, individuals or groups.
Failing to adhere to these rules will be asked
to see such disruptive convict
and failure to comply will result in their being.
Subject to removal from the meeting by the Sergeant of Arms,
city of Chicago City Council.
Rules of Convict for Public Meetings 2023 to 2027.
Pursuant to the Chicago City Council rules of Order
and Procedure Rule 49,
the Sergeant at ARM sets forth the following rules
of convict to be followed during the public comment period
and the duration of all committee and city council meetings.
Profane, vulgar, threatening, abusive,
or disruptive language is not permitted, demeaning,
discriminatory, or harassing behavior
and speech directed towards others is not permitted.
Disruptive behavior, including disruptive
or disrespectful conduct
during others presentations is not permitted.
Banners, flyers, or signage are not permitted.
Backpacks, large bags and sharp objects are not permitted.
Clear bags not tinted in color that do not exceed 12 by 12
by six inches will be permitted in our subject to search.
Health, food and beverages,
including in metal canisters are not permitted.
Cell phones must be placed on silent prior
to entering the meeting room.
Individuals must remain seated.
Public comments speakers are permitted
to stand only when providing public comment.
Small handheld devices may be used only while seated,
and the user must refrain from interfering with the view
or hearing of other individuals, individuals
or groups failing to adhere
to these rules will be asked to cease.
Such disruptive convict
and failure to comply will result in there being subject
to removal from the meeting by the Sergeant at Arms.
The meeting of the Committee on Pedestrian
and Traffic Safety is now called to order
for October 21st, 2024.
We will now have a roll call to establish Quorum.
Chairman Luta present, vice Chair Cruz
here in the void.
Thank you. Vice Chair Cruz. We'll vote you in momentarily.
Uh, alderman Hopkins.
Alderman Robinson, maybe with us online,
uh, alderman.
Nancy Alman Ko
Alman Quinn Alman Moore
Selection read selected Alderman Curtis?
Yes, sir. Vice Mayor Burnett, alderman Irvin,
alderman Knutson, alderman Lawson,
alderman Martin and Alderwoman Mana Howorth.
There are nine members present.
We have a quorum, uh, committee members Robinson
and Cruz have requested
to participate in the meeting remotely pursuant to Rule 59.
Can we, can we get the zoom up on the screen?
There they are. Welcome. Welcome.
Can I have a motion to allow Alders Robinson
and Cruz to participate remotely?
Give this one to Alderman Martin. All in favor say aye.
All those opposed say nay in the opinion of the chairs.
The ayes have it. Altman Robinson
and Vice-Chair Cruz are present here today
by video conference and will be accounted
accordingly for the roll call.
At this time, we will begin the public comment period.
Out of respect for everybody's time.
Each speaker is limited to three minutes.
We will begin with our virtual speaker.
Stephanie Blumenthal. Stephanie.
Stephanie, can you hear us all right?
Hi. Uh, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you.
Okay, fantastic. Good morning everyone.
My name's Stephanie Blumenthal.
I'm here to make comment on behalf
of the Illinois Environmental Council
as their climate policy manager.
Um, IEC represents over a hundred organizations,
including Active Transportation Alliance Ride, Illinois,
and others focused on transportation policy in Chicago.
I'm commenting today in support
of Vision Zero ordinances introduced
by my alderman Alderman LaSpada.
We appreciate his leadership as we seek to pass legislation
that ensures the safety of all those
who use our roads across the city.
Each of these ordinances is well intentioned
to prioritize Chicagoan safety
and uplift the growing number
of Chicagoans utilizing alternative modes
of transportation in our city.
By reducing overall speed in the city,
Chicago will optimize our streets
for bike e-bike e scooter users and pedestrians.
IEC supports legislative actions
that recognize micro mobility as an important element
of a clean and equitable trans transition
to a future in Chicago that includes sustainable, clean,
safe, and accessible transit systems.
Convening a working group
that includes community groups is an important step
to creating a fair system
that enforces equitable mixed uses of our roadways.
Lastly, the implementation of resident based system,
resident based systems for reporting bike
and bus lane blockages can uplift the work our enforcement
officers do every day.
Enacting these Vision Zero policies will help Chicago be a
climate leader by supporting a reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions as well.
IEC supports this package
and thanks Alderman LaSpada for his continued support
of these important safety standards for our city.
I encourage you all to vote in favor of this package.
Thank you.
Thank you, Stephanie. Our next speaker is Tim Shambrook.
Good morning everybody. I just
wanted, my name is Tim Shambrook.
Wanted to stop by to, uh, express my support for majority of
what you're trying to do today.
Uh, I expressed concerns though about the, uh, reporting,
you know, citizen reporting based on some interactions
that I've had by trying to report people
to things like bike lane uprising.
Drivers get very angry if we just roll out the CTA pilot
program where we would automate bus, uh, bus ticketing
for bus and, uh, bus lane
and bike lane infractions that would remove
that entire thing if we could get that rolled out citywide.
Not sure why it's taking so long to get
that going, but that's another committee.
I think, uh, I just think
that lowering the speed limit 25 miles an hour does not
really change the speed at which people get around our city,
and it makes our city so much safer.
And that's about all I got. Thanks.
Thank you, sir. Our next speaker is Alex Perez.
Alex is coming up. Tim, I can share that there are rollouts
and testings of the Safe Streets pilot happening this week.
It is happening this October. Thank you.
Hi there. Uh, dear Chairman
LaSpada and members of the committee.
On behalf of Coalition of Organizations across the city
of Chicago, we support the passing of the ordinance
to lower speed limit as well as the resolution
that will be boarded on today, uh,
by lowering the speed limit, reforming our traffic fines
and fees, and giving residents new tools
to address hazards in the roadway.
These pieces of legislation will help, uh, improve mobility
and safety that will also provide Chicago the opportunity
to lead the coun the country in creating a more equitable
approach towards traffic safety while maintaining
accountability for reckless driving behind the wheel.
Uh, traffic safety is a public health
and safety crisis in Chicago.
And speeding and reckless driving
by motorists are at the heart of the problem.
According to CDOP 136 people were killed in traffic
crashes in 2023.
Uh, speeding and reckless driving were involved in 68%
and 84% of those, uh, fatal crashes respectively.
Like so many problems facing our city, uh,
these issues reflect deeper inequality.
Um, our older adults are also among the most vulnerable,
experiencing the highest pedestrian fatalities at any
age group in the city.
The city of Chicago, the City Council
of Chicago has the opportunity to take action
and pass legislation
that will immediately address the public health
and safety issues in the city.
This is not rocket science. The physics are simple.
The faster a dri driver travels,
the slower their reaction time
and greater the impact upon collision and collisions.
At 32 miles per hour, about 25%
of pedestrians will not survive.
According to ProPublica research for older pedestrians
that people with disabilities, the odds are even worse.
Uh, when someone is struck
by a car going at 23 miles per hour,
the person has a 90% chance of survival.
Furthermore, we have a proven solution at our fingertips.
Uh, many other places such as Boston, Seattle, Portland,
and the city of, uh, New York City,
have reduced urban area speed limits
and the results have been tangible in life saving.
Demonstrating that lowering the speed limit is an effective
low cost step that can implement
swiftly to make our streets safer.
Lowering the speed limit
and, uh, is particularly effective at addressing
the most reckless high-end.
Speeding. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found
that when Boston lowered the city speed limit from 30 25
miles per hour, deadly speeding was, uh,
from 35 miles per hour, was reduced by almost 30%.
By setting a new expectation
that drivers operate their vehicle at safe speeds,
we also unlock other tools like speed bumps, uh,
curb extensions, and protect the bike lanes
that can work in tandem with lowering the speed limit.
To create a holistic approach to traffic safety,
we must invest in these
critical infrastructure improvements.
Uh, so drivers intuitively travel at safer speeds.
We urge you and your colleagues to support the passing
of the ordinance of the bridge solution
that's being boarded on today.
Sincerely, uh, the Active Transportation Alliance
and a list of 12 other organizations that are, uh,
supporting onto Signon letter. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Dominic Amato.
Good morning. My name is Dominic Amato
and I am the co-chair of the Transportation Group
for the Chicago Chapter of Sierra Club.
Uh, we are here to, to voice our support
for the proposed vision Zero
legislation being voted on today.
This legislative package is just the starting point
for making Chicago a more sustainable and safer city,
and we look forward to working together with you,
our elected officials, to ensure that we reach the goal
of zero fatalities on all roads in Chicago.
Five miles per hour might seem like a small change to make,
and ideally we'd want speeds
to be even lower on all residential roads,
but the speed of 25 miles per hour has some significant
benefits that could really help us change
how our roads are used.
Additionally, establishing resident based reporting
and enforcement of bus bike lane violations will go a long
way for the everyday users of these systems.
The more we protect and improve our transit systems,
the more we encourage people to choose more sustainable
and green modes of transportation.
And lastly, the fine reform is important to establish
that breaking the law is not just an inconvenience for some
and potentially a difference between
food and a warrant for others.
A cynical line of thinking is that the police don't enforce
parking and speed violations as it is.
So why would these laws matter?
Well, some will continue to speed.
Most people follow the law within reason,
and the data shows that to be true in other cities
that have lowered their speed limit.
That being said, we are happy
to see the cities being proactive about potential abuse
of lowering the speed limit as a way to police
and harass, uh, people who have been historically targeted.
By identifying fine reform as a key element of
of equitable implementation,
we hope the city will include stakeholders from these
communities to help inform them of what they see as a win
for them and the city, too.
It is our belief that parking violations shouldn't be
handled by police in the first place as well.
That is why the ability for resident reporting will be an
important deterrent and catalyst for more conscious driving.
Among the populace. Too long have we hand waved these
violations as insignificant,
but when it causes our bus system to run behind schedule
or force bikers to veer into traffic
and risk their life, that is a significant
and potentially fatal problem
that should not have to tolerate.
Please make reporting an easy and quick thing to do.
The current 3 1 1 implementation is awful
and incredibly hard to find, to the point
that it feels purposely done to avoid having
to take any real action given the current
fiscal situation for the city.
Some will also cynically say
that lowering the speed limit is just a cash grab,
but I would argue that shows a lack of vision
for what this change could mean.
Consider this lowering the speed limit changes the designs
we prescribe when we reevaluate our streets.
A road would not need to be as wide, giving pedestrians more
of the public way and making it nicer to walk.
A restaurant would be able to have a more pleasant outdoor
experience as lowering the speed limit.
Also lowers ambient traffic, noise, noise,
which has been shown to cause
stress and affect our wellbeing.
Low speed vehicles, think a golf cart with seat belts
and a max speed of 25 miles per hour could safely drive the
speed limit and legally use the road.
A majority of car tips are currently single occupant
and under five miles the type of rides
that low speed vehicles are best suited for.
Most importantly, the change show this, these changes show
that pedestrians, trans users
and bikers that we care about their safety
and the roadways of Chicago are truly meant
for everyone. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Also noting orders, Irvin
and Knutson present for purposes of quorum.
Our next speaker is Alex Montero.
Good morning. My name is Alex Montero
and I'm speaking on behalf
of Strong Town Chicago local organization focused on street
safety, housing and transportation.
I applaud the city council's efforts
to lower the city speed limit to 25 miles per hour
as some previous speakers have noted,
the difference in fatality rates for pedestrians
and cyclists on being hit for a vehicle between 35
and 25 miles per hour are massive.
It's an inversion of the statistic
of 90% death rate versus 90% survival rate
and would go a really long way.
And making our streets safer for everybody who uses them,
not just people driving through them with cars,
as people have pointed out.
This also informs the design speeds at which our streets are
designed and redesigned in the future, including
how CDOT prioritizes bike lanes on the side, the width
of sidewalks and the width of lanes, which is the primary
determinant in how quickly people actually drive day to day.
This is not just a symbolic decision.
It will inform how our streets
and our city are designed going forward.
One additional point I want to make is
that the default speed limit
of 30 miles per hour in Chicago is one
of the primary reasons why Chicago is not ranked higher
by national cycling organizations As a cycling friendly
city, these ratings matter.
People look at them and they use them
to make decisions about where they're going
to get their first jobs
after school, where they're going to move,
where it'll be safe for their children to go to school.
And lowering
that speed limit will go a long way in highlighting
Chicago's already strong natural cases
to be a good cycling city.
This is very flat terrain.
There are many months of the year
where people can cycle in relatively comfortable
temperatures, and the city has invested a substantial amount
of resources in prioritizing active transportation.
This measure would go a long way in making sure those
resources pay off, and the people who use these lanes
and who use our streets
and sidewalks as pedestrians day to day, are able
to safely move around the city.
Uh, highly support this, uh, ordinance
and, uh, thank you all for listening.
Thank you, sir. Uh, our next speaker is
Jonathan Stefanovich.
Good morning everyone. Uh, my name's John Stefanovich.
I'm a resident of Lakeview
and a professional working in the transportation
and safety SEC sector.
So my first topic is supporting the re the legislation
to lower the default speed to 25 miles per hour.
I also want to, uh, um, give kudos to setting the cap
to 55 miles per hour
because, um, anytime vehicles are going above
that 55 miles per hour threshold, it actually re is, um,
making cars and vehicles less fuel efficient.
So this will actually help address the 2022 climate action
plan that the city has set to lower our emissions.
Um, as far as the ticketing, I also would
recommend extending the timeframe of these offenses
to longer times for maybe five or 10 years
because this will help address serial aggressive drivers.
If one can get a ticket every year o over a lifetime
of a resident, the likelihood of them being pulled over is,
I would envision very low.
So help, helping
and extending this timeframe would help get, um,
those serial drivers and make sure we're we're
addressing those problem drivers.
I also support the interagency working group resolution
and then finally for the residents based re reporting
program and enforcement, um, bike lane uprising
and many other organizations do a great job reporting.
I also enjoy, um, see these offenses everywhere
and I think a way to incentivize others is
how New York did similar with their sound, um,
incentivize their sound, um, ordinance for residents
where they actually get, um, a bit of the proceeds for of
that ticket revenue towards the resident.
So this will help incentivize to be proactive for residents
to report this.
And also I would envision that some
of this revenue is dedicated towards more infrastructure
and bike lanes, some towards the administrative costs,
and then the revenue reporting,
and then as well as the citizen, the Chicago General fund.
So I was thinking probably about a quarter for each one, um,
that way we know that when we're reporting these,
we're actually getting it incentivized,
and that's actually going towards good causes that this, uh,
issue is being addressed. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Karsten Lohan,
Member members of the Pedestrian Traffic Safety Committee.
Good morning. My name is Carsten Lohan
and I'm a resident of the Second Ward.
I stand before you today in full support of items one, two,
and three on today's agenda.
As for item one, the proposed amendment
of the municipal code to set the default speed limit
to 25 miles an hour, I am fully
and enthusiastically in support of this
CDOs 2024 annual traffic crash report informs us
that 46 pedestrians were killed last year in traffic
crashes on Chicago streets.
68% of those fatalities involve speeding.
Data shows us that a reduction in speed is directly
correlated to pedestrian survival.
According to the US Department
of Transportation's National Roadway Safety Strategy Report,
a pedestrian struck by a vehicle traveling 23 miles an hour
has a one in 10 chance of survival while a pedestrian struck
by a vehicle traveling 32 miles an hour has a one in
four chance of survival.
One in four chance of death. Excuse me.
The time has come for Chicago
to join other American cities like New York, Boston, DC,
Seattle, Atlanta, and lower our default speed limit
to 25 miles an hour.
I would also like to address the proposed amendment
to create a resident reporting system
for vehicles illegally parked in bike and bus lanes.
I have testified before this committee, the CTA board,
the RTA board
and to the press about the overall lack
of bus lanes in Chicago
and the lack of enforcement of our existing bus lane.
Network Bus lanes do not function to their full potential
with when private vehicles obstruct them
and bus lanes are nothing without proper enforcements
via Freedom of Information Act request.
There is solid evidence from the Department of Finance
that bus lane citations are down
after COVID-19, even though our citywide mileage
of bus lanes has increased since 2019,
based on ticketing data from the Department
of Finance 2023 bus lane standing violations are down
38% from 2019.
The data shows that around 11 tickets were issued per
weekday in 2019 for bus lane blocking as opposed
to approximately seven tickets per weekday in 2023.
Some may suggest this is due to increased compliance due
to motorists not parking in the bus lanes.
But based on my personal
experience, I do not find this true.
The fact is more
and more motorists are using our bus lanes
for temporary parking knowing
that they have a very low chance of a ticket.
While the Smart Streets pilot ordinance will equip a handful
of buses with cameras to detect cars parked in bus lanes,
I encourage this committee to vote
for the resident reporting system that would allow millions
of cell phone cameras in Chicagoan's hands
to help keep our bus
and bike lanes free of illegally parked vehicles.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Noah Ayub.
Hi, my name is Noah Uob.
I'm a resident of the First Ward
and I'm here to express my complete support
for the three pieces of legislation that are part
of the Vision Zero package.
Today in a city of 2.8 million people, a sizable portion
of our residents, like myself, do not own a vehicle
and rely on public transit as well as safe
and accessible streets to get around.
Lowering the citywide default speed limit
to 25 miles an hour is a crucial
and easy act to make our streets safer.
And giving residents the ability to report bike
and bus lane violations is a necessary
and laudable goal as well.
When bus stops are blocked by cars
and delivery vehicles, bus drivers are forced
to stop in the middle of the street and impede traffic
and force those waiting at the bus stop
to step into the street to board.
It also prohibits senior citizens
and people with disabilities from boarding in a safe
and respected manner.
Law enforcement officers cannot reasonably be expected
to keep all of the city's bus and bike lanes clear
and free of idling vehicles all the time.
And giving residents the ability
to share this responsibility
to report on these infractions is an important step towards
Chicago achieving its vision zero goals.
Thank you. Our next speaker is Taiwan Sims.
Wow. So, um, in July, 2020, I was attacked
by two officers, um, and Rogers Park Officer Al Kazar
and Officer Netta, that number, that case was sent over
to Northern District.
The number is two two CV 5 6 9 1.
This committee has heard me speak about this more than maybe
four times now to no end.
Um, the Freedom Move Coalition.
That's, and you, we actually, I was in a meeting with you
and you here, this committee.
Wow. Um, because y'all could care less.
Y'all could care less. And trust me, I, y'all, I I'm sure
that y'all aware of what took place in 2020 Now, um,
that crook Maria, I'm sure this, I'm sure
that this committee knows.
I'm sure that I've been dragged, I'm sure
that I've been going through what I've been going through
because y'all think that the citizens,
y'all constituents are a joke or a game
and that y'all can have personal
or that they're like little ponds
or whatever, that y'all could personally move
around to whatever end.
That's why I haven't gotten any justice.
And that's why, because I'm homeless still
and unemployed, I'm dragged
and I'm, I'm, I'm coming up here for what reason?
To the civil rights man, to the seven
or eight attorneys in this room that understand
that everything that's taking place with us
or with me personally is criminal and unjust
and violates more than one constitutional right
from the first to the fourth, but no justice.
And we gonna talk about the speed limit,
the Freedom Move Coalition is a group of organizations
that said, Hey, you know what, we're going, um, come up to
champion the, the pedestrians that can't.
Well, black Americans, the ones that can't freely move,
but they talking about speed limits.
There was two officers that
that just shot at each other in the road.
Rages incident. What?
The Blue Island officer and the Chicago pd
and the what the Blue Island officers shot at the,
um, cop the other cop.
For what reason? You know why he did it?
Because he felt he had a right to fueled off the power.
And that's coming through y'all though.
Y'all gonna, it's gonna come through here though.
But we talking about a speed limit.
Let that been another, let that officer
who just thought he could just shoot at somebody.
I imagine how many people he done beat up just degraded
because look, hey, I'm a cop.
Hey. So now it caught up
with him way find himself shooting at another person he
thought was just a civilian.
But we talking about the speed limit.
I'm, I'm a black man who was attacked
by two criminals dressed up like cops.
Y'all know this. The judge who want to try
to make the the case nine and void is a criminal himself.
The criminals coming in outta this, um, room. So
Thank you, sir. Our next
speaker is Mr. George Blakemore.
I, I don't see many black people down here.
Matter of fact, I just see about three or four.
So racism is, is always, uh, in our city,
walking white, black talking white, black
driving white black.
The police department
and the transportation department,
whatever seemed like they, they use us.
When you go to traffic court, you see more for black people
paying these traffic tickets than white people.
Racism is alive here.
And I told this young man to watch my three minutes
because my three minutes click real fast.
They say the screen. I don't care what that says.
I've been sitting here.
Listen, these other three minutes are longer just
by existence.
Now, uh, I'm totally against residential parking.
These streets are paid by everyone. Paid tax.
'cause you live in a reside in a a neighborhood you
shouldn't have a, a preferred parking.
You, you need a garage.
These streets belong to everyone.
So, uh, you, you,
you are talking about the 35 miles an hour.
Okay? But I'm talking about residential park.
These bull that, uh, uh, uh, in influential citizens
live in certain areas, they get together
and have per, uh, uh, a special parking for them
when we all paid for that street.
Now you need to get you a a a carron
and, and they have a lot of these residential, uh,
apartments and these rich influence white ward.
Another thing, see, we, we,
we are two different people through.
I'm black and they're white.
They have certain issues that I care less.
I don't want no vigilante the citizens going
around here being vigilante and,
and say, ticket this person, I saw 'em do that.
No, no. White vigilante. I'm, I'm against that.
So it's very important for a person like me
to come to these meetings.
I bring another dimension.
They came up to go to traffic court
and you see mostly poor people and poor black people,
but uh, not white folk.
So racism is, is very, uh, rapid, uh, uh,
here in this city.
Racism again, walking while black,
talking while black and driving while black.
The police will harass you. Just you driving and black.
Thank you. Okay,
SEARU, I'm gonna do my best with your last name.
I want to flag that in advance. Our next speaker is Searu.
Dala. Shahi.
Hi everybody. So I'm about
to talk about the speed limit again.
That's okay. I appreciate it.
I have family overseas who are going through a lot worse,
but today I literally was just coming
to talk about the speed limit.
So, uh, uh, I just want to say I am in favor of that.
I'm also in favor of, uh, the pilot program.
I don't know if, you know, definitely
I feel like there are snitching jokes
that I haven't even thought of yet
that are probably gonna come up if we have people taking
pictures of parking lane or bike lane
and bus lane violations.
But, um, at the minimum,
I think it'll get people like thinking about it more,
you know, just being more mindful of like
where they're parking those bus lanes.
Like the guy
before said don't function as well
when somebody's double parked in it,
getting their Starbucks.
But like, they don't function at all when
somebody is double parked in that bus lane.
That's like 2050 people on a bus waiting.
'cause one person's double parked the bike lane
obstructions are legit dangerous.
So if we're just thinking about it more
with a pilot program, even if we don't,
if we just issue warnings to drivers, you know, if we don't,
we don't have to punish 'em
right away or anything like that.
I think it's a good thing. So, uh, yeah,
I'm all about it. So thank you.
Thank you very much. Our, uh, oh two speakers,
two speakers to close, uh, ms uh, Chloe Groom.
Chloe.
Hello and good morning.
Um, my name is Chloe Groom,
and again, kind of I think with almost every other speaker,
I strongly support all three items, um,
for street safety today.
I wanted to make a couple points
that I haven't really heard yet.
Um, tying into equity.
I think people have really covered how
there's huge public benefits in safety
to lowering the speed limit.
So I'll sidestep that.
Another thing I wanted to note is the concerns
around equity, especially for black
and brown people in Chicago.
Um, definitely speed limits should be enforced
with cameras wherever possible to avoid, uh, cops having
to perform traffic stops, which haven't shown
to be extremely biased.
Also, it's just a better use of their time cameras.
Um, you know, especially with citizen reporting for bus
and bike lane violations, everyone has a phone.
Um, it's just more efficient in my view.
Another thing I wanted to note is
that even though black people are less than a third
of Chicago's population, there are more than two thirds
of the people that are killed in traffic
collisions on our streets.
And so, yes, um, enforcement may be tricky.
There are definitely aspects of equity
that need to be considered.
So I'm glad that that interagency, um,
coalition is part of this.
Um, but just it also goes the other way.
Um, black people are more likely
to be killed on our streets,
and so that safety will also greatly benefit there.
Um, one other thing I wanted to note is that with the bike
and bus lane reporting, um, in New York City,
they've had this for a couple years now.
And so in 2021, um,
they had over 12,000 citizen-based reports,
and 92% of those resulted in tickets being issued.
So, um, it does appear to work.
And again, everyone has a phone
and I don't see why we shouldn't take advantage.
Thank you so much.
Thank you very much. And our final speaker is Kyle Lucas.
Good morning chair and committee.
Um, my name is is Kyle Lucas.
I'm the executive director of Better Street Chicago,
and I'm here today to voice my full support
of all three items that are
before you for street safety today.
Um, I also really want to thank a few people
for their public support of lowering the speed limit.
Um, first I wanna thank Mayor Johnson
for his repeated public support at multiple events
of lowering the speed limit, um,
including most recently at a press conference on Friday.
He said that he supports lowering the speed limit,
and I think that's so encouraging
to have a leader at the top, um, saying that he's willing
to back this legislation.
Um, I also want to note that it was in the, uh,
transition report, um, that he committed
to lowering the speed limit.
So I'm really grateful that we have the opportunity
to follow through on that today.
I also wanna thank the Chicago Department of Health, um, for
recognizing the real public health crisis that comes
with injuries and fatalities caused by speeding drivers
and for their support on this issue.
I also wanna thank CDOT Commissioner Tom Carney, um,
for his support, um, including, um, I I want
to quote at his confirmation hearing, um, this past fall,
he said, I can say affirmatively that the,
that it's something that the Department
of Transportation supports.
We're eager to work with council
and other city departments to work out the details.
It's a starting point in changing the overall mentality.
It's going to take a long time to change the mindset
that we have to slow things down later.
Talking about the implementation,
he reaffirmed his commitment to working out the details
with council and said, we think it's worth it to do,
and we're happy to work on that.
I understand, too, that this is also a matter of equity
and enforcement is really critical in this component,
but we have to ensure that enforcement is equitable,
which is why we support fully the resolution calling
for establishing a working group
to study fines and fees reform.
And we think that that is a critical component
to implementing this equitably.
Um, I also wanna point out that in a 2022 report by cdot,
they actually found that black Chicagoans are killed
by traffic violence at a rate five times higher than white
residents and three times higher than Hispanic residents,
uh, according to city data.
And this is further reflected by the fact that 60%
of all traffic crash related emergency room visits are made
by black residents.
So it's really important that we lower speed limits
because there is a disproportionate impact happening in our
city on who is actually on the receiving
end of traffic violence.
So I also want to point out that
by lowering the speed limit, it's not just about changing
behavior of residents,
but it's also about changing the designs of our streets.
Lowering the speed limit will actually change the way
that traffic engineers approach designing streets,
which means it has a long-term effect
of making our streets safer.
And this is not being rushed
through implementation will be in 2026.
So we have a long time to work out the details,
but it's really critical
that this council supports this. Thank,
Thank you very much.
This concludes our public comment period,
also noting Alderman Hopkins present
for the purposes of quorum.
Thank you. We will now begin
with the items before the committee.
And just as a brief preamble, this is a part,
a part of the city's work towards Vision Zero
that began nearly a decade ago.
The idea being that we can
and should achieve zero traffic fatalities in this city.
If anyone, uh, has yet had an opportunity
to check out the 2023 traffic fatality report
that was actually generated through an ordinance
that this city, this committee passed, uh,
through chief sponsor Deborah Silverstein.
Last year we had 136 individuals killed
in traffic crashes.
We had
two hundred and forty, twenty four hundred seventy three
victims of serious injuries
and deaths from traffic crashes.
To put that in context, the city had 29 43
shootings, so about 85% the same number of people
hit by cars as were hit by bullets in the city
of Chicago last year, we take gun violence
very seriously and we have to, and we should.
The work here is to make sure
that we're taking traffic violence as seriously
as we take gun violence.
Now, the, when we talk about Vision Zero, this is not a
utopian idea.
There are four wards in the city actually
that had zero traffic fatalities last year,
and four of those three
of them are actually represented in the room.
Uh, the 43rd ward, the fifth ward,
and the first ward all had zero traffic
fatalities last year.
So we, we know what it looks like.
We know the direction that we can move in, we know
where the hotspots are, and we know that there are specific
and actionable tools that we can use to
dramatically reduce traffic fatalities.
So let's talk about that. We, uh, first, uh, apologies.
We also received 25 written comments
that were distributed via email,
and we'll be recorded in the monthly Rule 45 report.
We're going to go out of order
and go to item three on page one,
which is a resolution that calls for the establishment
of an inter inter-agency working group to assess
and redesign speed limit or enforcement structures
and practices in the city.
We know that black Latina
and low-income residents pay a disproportionate share
of fines and fees relative to income, leading
to financial hardship, leading to bankruptcy for many.
When we talk about lowering the speed limit, the goal is
to change driver behavior, not
to raise revenue for the city.
In many of the conversations
that we've had about lowering the speed limit,
the number one concern we've had is over
inequities in enforcement.
It was the number one concern
that we had heard from many in this room.
It was the number one concern from the mayor.
The, the notion is,
and I'm grateful when he says publicly,
that he fully supports lowering the speed limit.
The question is, can we do this
and we implement it in a way that is equitable?
So that is the goal Here is
the purpose of the working group.
The city clerk's office has previously done work
around fines and fees reform,
and a number of organizations
around the city are currently engaging in that work.
We believe that between the passage
of the speed limit ordinance
and the implementation at the beginning of 2026,
this city can fully evaluate
and reform best practices for enforcement.
Let's look at a few of those potential ideas
that the committee has already researched
and believed could be best practices for the city
to make sure that we're using revenue generated from
specific speed cameras to implement infrastructure changes
that support slower speeds at that location.
Cameras that are generating high amounts
of revenue now should not be generating high amounts
of revenue in the future.
We should be correcting the behaviors that are leaving,
leaving to those citations.
Establish a driver education program that is free to replace
or supplement much smaller fine amounts
for certain violations.
So to give an example of what we mean, imagine if
you receive a speeding citation
and rather than receiving a fine that we know
that you can't pay, you get a module sent
to your phone the same way that a lot of us do
with our ethics training online.
Understand the laws, understand why those laws exist,
have an ability to answer questions about what happened
and why, and see if education is more effective than
money in getting people to change their behavior.
Institute, Institute ability to pay
determinations whereby qualifying low income persons are
able to apply for reduced fine amounts for tickets.
Again, like no one's fines should be leading
to financial hardship in bankruptcy in this city.
And conduct a thorough overview of existing fines
and adjust fine amounts for violations
to be lower than the cost of complying
with this requirement.
I'll add briefly to this list
that if you were to go to the municipal code nine dash 1 0 1
dash 0 6 0 limits on expenditures of net proceeds.
This x-ray has to do with
where we direct our automated enforcement dollars.
It says the net proceeds received from civil penalties
for violations of an automated speed enforcement do
shall be maintained in separate accounts
and shall be expended
or obligated subject to appropriation by the city council.
Now currently we don't actually do that.
Currently our automated enforcement revenue
goes into the corporate fund.
So step number one
that we could take is actually looking at this revenue
that calls for that revenue to be kept,
kept in a separate account
and keep it in a separate account.
Oh, also counting Alderman Curtis present
for purposes of requirement.
Hello, sir. And, uh, alderman Spaza present
as a non-member with us.
So all of this said we do have a substitute resolution
that was emailed and distributed today.
That's that substitute adds language that calls
for the working group to convene within 60 days of passage
of the resolution and report recommendations
to the committee by August 1st, 2025.
Can I have a motion to accept
that substitute, uh, alderman Martin?
So moves, seeing no objections. So ordered.
Do before we have any motions,
are there questions related to the resolution?
The working group? Yes. Alderman Moore.
Yes. So not not questions, but um, more of a statement
and hopefully something can be added.
I'm willing to go as far, um, we're talking about, um,
um, black and Latino, um, drivers
or, um, we start saying that, that it's this impact them,
but so does the, um, speed cameras themselves.
And so, um, but not only black and Latino,
but all of Chicago, I don't care if you are, um, um, white
or you know, whatever ethnicity.
If you got a family of four
and you get hit with a hundred dollars ticket, um,
and I don't care if you're making a a hundred thousand
dollars a year with a family of four, that
that hits you in a pocket bad.
And so my thing is, I I always support more education,
more information to make sound decisions,
but I also wanna include in there if we want to,
if we wanna help, um, these families, we really need
to get rid of speed cameras.
Um, the reality is, is
that people slow down at the speed camera
and then as soon as they get past it, they're flying.
And so that's it.
But you know, if, if grandma or somebody get hit with that
or, um, you know, um, and I've spoken on this
before in previous administrations,
but I know it's a revenue thing.
But if we serious about,
as we always consistently say helping, um, um, black
and brown families
and families that are hurting, then we would totally get rid
of these cameras and then look at these other enforcement,
um, mechanisms because this is what hurt,
what's hurting their pockets.
But I, I do, but let's, let's get real about this.
Let's not play on the fringes on this thing,
but I don't think nobody have the guts
and the appetite for that, nor this administration
because what they need, what revenue,
but it's the revenue on the people
that they saying they wanna help.
So you putting, we talk about putting
money in people's pockets.
This is the best way to help, um, these constituents.
And I just wanna say, if we wanna get real about this,
let's remove, um, those speed cameras.
But other than that, uh, if we can't add this today,
which I wish we could amend it to add that, um, you know,
um, I I I'm, I'm in support of this resolution,
but, uh, I'm gonna go ahead
and make a motion to amend this on it face
to add Eliminating speed cameras.
So I will say, sir, a lot of our contract
with speed cameras actually goes through OPSA
and much of the policy actually
around speed cameras is governed at the state level
rather than the municipal level.
Um, we can eliminate our speed cameras.
That's not at the state level.
The state didn't authorize speed cameras here.
Somebody, let's talk about that.
'cause that, that don't sound right to me.
The city has home rule.
We don't You're telling us, you're telling me now.
The state is controlling the fact
that we have speed cameras in this city.
The state statute controls
where speed cameras can be placed.
Okay. That's where they can place,
we can remove them though.
We can put, we can put in this ordinance if we want to move.
And I just made a motion that we amend on this, on it face.
I, i, we could take a vote on it.
That's all I'm asking to amend it
and add, removing the speed cameras in this.
Okay. Are there questions related to the motion?
Yes. Uh, alderman Alderwoman, mana Haworth.
Thank you Chair. Uh, I, I just wanna comment
that in Edgewater on Sheridan Road on Broadway,
even on Clark Street, um, on any road
that has a public school
like Gaudi on foster hate on Grandville,
people want people to slow down.
And we have a very diverse ward. We just wanna be safe.
And one way to do it is through infrastructure.
So I appreciate the work that my office
and other wards are doing that are adjacent to mine
with CDOT and DPD to figure those things out.
But I, I just wanna make a comment that,
that my ward is asking for safer streets.
Thank you. Thank you Alderman Curtis?
Yes. Thank you. Uh, chairman.
Uh, uh, I, uh,
I, I felt the same way.
Uh, you did Alderman Moore, uh,
about speed cameras at the beginning.
Uh, the original ordinance, uh, that we had it,
it allowed for speed cameras to be, uh, what was it?
Schools and parks, is that correct? Uh,
Volume state statute.
I now feel that.
And, and I don't know if, if we can chairman, uh,
I know I see you have the, a computer right in front of you.
If we could Google Earth, because I actually was gonna,
and I have had the conversation
with Department of Transportation.
I'm actually now asking, uh, the Department
of Transportation and, uh, through my community,
uh, because they've been asking for a speed camera
to be placed on, uh,
my Columbus Street.
And I have a diverse community also.
And it's actually a highway
Southwest Highway runs from Western Avenue
South to 87th Street.
The only reason why once it gets to 87th Street,
it becomes Southwest Highway.
And that's exactly what it is. It's a highway.
And I have accidents between Western
and 87th Street all the time,
and I have had fatalities
and there's no school
or park in between those locations.
Okay. So I've, I've, I've tried everything.
We, the street is too wide for speed bumps.
It is considered arterial. It is considered a highway.
So you can't put speed bumps. There's no way.
I have the racing, I have the drifters.
The only way to to control this is speed cameras
is the only other option that I have at this moment.
So, um, at, at, at this time, I would only,
I would want to amend this to add speed cameras
to my Southwest highway.
So I I hear the perspective, sir.
I would, I would add,
and perhaps law can clarify the state statute rather than
municipal code governs where speed cameras can be placed.
Is that accurate? Yeah. May, may I ask opinion from law,
Uh, Justin Edge, um, assistant corporation counsel,
legal counsel division, um, I have
to say generally, um, members of the committee that
this is a, I'm gonna state some generalizations,
but we have to get into specifics
before I can give you specific answers.
Okay. So generally this is the,
probably the one area of law that most limits local
and specifically says within the Illinois vehicle code
that we're talking about limiting preempting local,
including home rule powers.
Now, it's not to say we don't have powers,
they're just limited to very specific areas.
To get to the specific question, yes.
The statute that enables the traffic enforcement cameras,
and there are different rules for the stoplights versus the
speed, but we're talking about the speed cameras
limits those to only the uses
that we have been discussing.
And that in the reports that I believe they were circulated
the committee, so we're talking about schools,
we're talking about parks, um,
we could, we'd be happy
to help look into further applications
or applica, you know, uh, opportunities to limit it
because this is in fact one of the areas
that local governments, including home rule, um, uh,
governments can legislate
within the limits of the state law.
So we do have some say on how we use them,
where we use them, but within the limits of
typically school zones typically parks.
Did that answer your question? It
It, it does. So,
so alman memoir. Yes.
Going back to your motion specifically,
you would like the resolution for the working group to add
to its purview the placement
and elimination of speed cameras.
Is that accurate? That placement. Okay. The elimination.
Got it. So I, I will add
before we vote, 'cause we're gonna bring it forward.
Roll call, vote. I'm personally a no vote on that.
Most of the residents in my ward recognize
that a speed camera is not the only tool,
but it is one of the tools that is used
for speed enforcement.
We do have reporting that shows
that overall speed cameras are actually the least biased
form of speed enforcement that we have.
But we will have that come for a roll call vote.
The motion is to add to the purview of the working group,
the exploration of the elimination of speed cameras
in Chicago.
We will take the role.
Alderman LASA votes No Vice-Chair Cruz.
No. Alderman Hopkins.
Alderman Robinson. Alderman Robinson.
Alderman Yancy Alderman Chico, alderman Quinn,
alderman Moore, alderman Curtis,
vice Mayor Burnett, uh,
alderman Irvin, alderman Knutson,
alderman Lawson, alderman Martin and Alderwoman.
Mana Haworth.
10. Yes. Three. No, the 10. No, I'm sorry. 10. No three.
Yes. The amendment fails.
Uh, do you have any further
questions? Yes. Ottman
Quinn. Thank you Mr.
Chairman. I, I think it's worth
at least exploring the idea, and you
and I had spoke about this once before about some sort
of mobile camera where
alders are getting pressure from around schools
around parks, and we don't have an immediate reaction.
It's not to say that it has to be permit,
but to be able to put a camera in a place where
communities are, are bringing that to our attention
and to get some results
and then maybe move it somewhere else.
I think that's certainly worth exploring.
Um, as we continue,
I think every ward gets pressure on traffic
and speed, specifically around schools and parks.
So I would like to explore
that within the boundaries of the state law.
Of course. And I think,
I think we agreed in the past conversation
that we do have that authority.
And so, um, I think that would behoove all of us as alders
to really look into that and, and to be more proactive
and collaborative with our constituents, um, in dealing
with park and school speed.
So I just wanted to make sure that I brought that up
for this discussion.
Really appreciate it.
As, as, as the alderman is sharing, we previously,
and I believe still do,
we just signed a new contract related
to automated enforcement speed cameras had the right
to pursue mobile speed cameras.
I think that's a great conversation
as we get into the season with,
'cause it tis the season with OPSA with, uh, other bodies
to explore what that procurement would actually look like.
But great point. Yes. Altman Martin,
Quick point of information.
Are we currently utilizing any such technology?
I do not believe so, but let us confirm
and get you that information through the chair.
Thank you. Yes. Ancy,
I'd like to add, is there a way as we think about, um,
traffic calming, particularly along South Shore Drive
and Lake Shore Drive, like I have a big chunk of
that on the south end
and the challenge that I have as a state road, right?
And, uh, bordered by a park, the park,
the lakefront is the park district,
but I've got a couple stretches
where people are not only just, you know,
exceeding the speed limit,
but right where Lara Beta Hospital is at South Shore Drive,
we have people who run the light going
to oncoming traffic in order
to avoid being stuck at the light
and have just a number of concerns from constituents
and from Lara Beta Hospital
and Park District employees who have said, you know,
knock on wood, thankfully we had no traffic fatalities last
year, but that is a spot that seems to be ripe for the kind
of traffic calming that we need.
And if it is having to jump through some sort of hoops
with the state or like how do we figure this out
as a city since Lake Shore Drive
and Route 41 runs right on the eastern part of our city?
I, I will tell you, sir, it, it,
it's is both a great point
and it is a hearing that this committee has been working
for a bit to set up.
'cause there is a MOU memorandum of understanding
between IDOT and CDOT that is supposed to facilitate
that kind of infrastructure.
Is that MOU working? How well is it working?
Is a conversation that we should be having in this chamber
and we're, we're trying to get IDOT to be willing
to be a part of that conversation.
Well, well said. Um, any further questions?
If, if not, uh, uh,
if I may, so if I may, can I have a motion
to recommend approval of this item SR 2024
to 0 0 1 0 9 9 2 by the same roll call vote as was applied
to determine quorum alderman more so moves,
hearing no objections, so ordered up.
Next item one on page one is an ordinance
lowering the citywide default speed limit from 30
to 25 miles per hour.
So committee members may recall we had
a hearing on subject matter hearing on this topic back in
May, which led to
the ordinances being introduced
before us in July that are now up for a vote.
So let's, let's talk this through.
Many of these slides you may have seen
before, so my apologies.
But again, when we look at this, the benefits
of a lower speed limit are
grounded in physics rather than politics.
We know that pedestrians struck
by a vehicle traveling at 25 miles per hour
or half as likely to die
as those struck at 30 miles per hour.
And when those crashes do occur, the severity
of injuries is reduced at a lower speed.
Next slide please. We also know
that they significantly reduce the braking
distance for vehicles.
So vehicle stopping distance improved
by 45 feet when traveling at 25 miles per hour versus 30.
It's just a small change, a very small change,
but it means that we can avoid many crashes altogether.
Next slide. Does this
policy actually work?
Does changing statute change behavior?
We have data that confirms that it does.
And not to put everyone through a long lit review,
but in Boston the speed limit reduction from 30
to 25 was associated with 2.9%,
three 8.5,
and 29.3% reductions in the odds
of vehicles exceeding various speeds, 25, 30
and 35 miles per hour.
Well, all of that is a long way
of saying when you reduce speed limits by statute,
it does factually lead to drivers driving slower.
Does it reduce crashes and fatalities? It does.
Most notably in New York,
which reduced their statutory speed limits
25 miles per hour.
Back in 2014, their New York Department
of Transportation estimated the total crashes were reduced
by an average of 39% on streets
that fell within the statutory default speed limit.
Uh, unposted streets compared to streets
where the speed limit was unchanged.
Those with posted limits, they also credit the lowering
of the speed limit with a 23% reduction
in pedestrian deaths.
We are not the first, we won't be the last. In doing this.
Seattle, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Portland, Atlanta,
Washington, dc including our neighbors
to the north up in Evanston,
have all lowered their statutory speed limit.
Evanston actually credits this with one of the two major
decisions that resulted in them
actually achieving Vision zero,
achieving the zero traffic fatalities
in our neighbor to the north.
Next slide please.
One quick moment. So
before we make any motions on this item,
do we have questioned comments from colleagues on this?
Yes. Alderman Moore. Do,
Do we by any chance get any information from these states
about, um, how many tickets are written by their,
um, police departments in comparison?
It is a good question,
and it's actually, while we don't have their departments,
we did actually reach out to the deputy chief of patrols.
We met with them for about an hour last Friday,
and they confirmed that there's nothing that we are doing
today via ordinance that would change the general policies
around speed enforcement in the city of Chicago.
They said we should not expect
to see officers act any differently when it comes to
speed enforcement in the city.
Now that that can receive, be received positively by some,
might be received negatively by others.
But that is what was confirmed to us by the Deputy Chief of
Patrol. And I, I didn't
expect them to change
what I was asking from, like, say Boston
and New York, um,
with their reduction in speed limit, did their, uh,
is there, do we, and we probably don't have that data.
I was trying to see, did that data show that
more tickets were written?
Yes. Or did they have to write less tickets?
So, and that's all, that's what I'm asking.
Did they write more tickets or did they write less tickets?
I'm, because I need to be convinced that
the reduction in speed is due to the, I mean is,
I mean that the reduction in people's speeding is due
to the reduction of the speed limit
and not the reduction of Mm-Hmm.
More tickets being written. So
I will say in the study
that we're referencing from Boston, Massachusetts,
this happened without any changes to infrastructure
or in, uh, enforcement.
It wasn't an increase in enforcement.
No, sir. In fact, there's, uh,
if you want other studies,
'cause I wanna also confirm for members,
we are not bringing this for a full council vote on Tuesday.
We want to take more time for the breadth of our colleagues
to digest all of this information,
make the most informed votes possible.
There's not gonna be a 24 hour turnaround on the
full city council vote.
So we can get you more studies
on that through the chair, sir.
Thank you Chairman. Yes. Alman, VIN
Oh two one to follow up to his point.
And second, if, if we're not gonna take this
to council for a time, why,
why are we passing it outta the committee right now?
If, if we're not gonna take it to council for,
Why would cer outta the very,
with respect outta the very important work
that you're gonna be conducting for
the city over the next couple months?
Well, if that's the case, then hold it in committee.
I think it's important for us to,
to vote today in committee to make sure that we have our
votes here in committee.
Usually our committee would meet at least a week or two
before city council out of respect
for the difference in our current timeline.
That's why we're now having the vote tomorrow.
So that is not,
Hold, hold on. Lemme
let me finish.
Uh, my other question, um, is in relation to the number
of citations that have been issued
after implementation of such changes in speed, uh,
and speed limit, and what does that look like?
Could you repeat, sir? I'm sorry.
Changes in the amounts of citations that have been issued
after the implementation of these speed,
these speed changes reductions.
What, what we have seen from, again, from the,
we're nowhere near the first to do this.
So we have a lot of studies and research that backs us up.
We have several cities that have confirmed to us
that this did not result in a significant increase.
I can send you all the data from New York.
I can send you all the data from Boston.
They confirm exactly what your concern is
and what the mayor's concern is.
Is this going to lead to additional citations against black
and brown Chicagoans?
It didn't. In other cities, we don't expect it to here,
but on top of that, we are going to take meaningful steps
over the next year or to ensure that it doesn't,
we don't want more revenue.
I want to be so clear, the goal is not more revenue.
The goal is to change behaviors and save lives.
So there is, that is the whole point of the resolution
that we just voted on in committee, is
to assure that we do that.
Well. Uh, the challenge is that in this, uh,
I'll call it this post covid environment, um,
driving is like different, right?
I mean, you see people driving on shoulders,
you see people running red lights, you see people, um,
like driving is different.
And, and in a pre covid environment, I would look at this
and say this, this might make some sense.
We've gotta like recalibrate people's thinking
around driving.
And I don't know what the stats look like going forward pre
and post covid on fatalities.
Um, I know that for example, Madison,
of which a very long stretch of which goes through my ward,
does have, uh, a high level,
I think it has the most traffic fatalities of any,
any street outside of the central business district.
Um, and does lowering
that speed limit to 25 miles an hour have
a dramatic impact on that?
On that number if we still have individuals
who are in a different mode.
So I I I think that a lot of the conversations
and studies that have been done in a different environment
with a different set of driving standards
may not be applicable to where we are today.
And I don't know if these,
and I don't know if, if other cities are experiencing
what we're experiencing here in Chicago,
but I don't think I'm alone when I,
I've noticed a difference in driving behavior, um,
post, post covid. Well,
Your, your assumptions are right
where the 28th ward is concerned,
when you look at the 2023 report,
your ward actually had the most individuals seriously
injured or killed in traffic violence. 153.
No, hold on. I No,
please don't, don't use the term violence.
Don't, do not use the term traffic violence.
That that is not a fair statement.
And it somewhat trivializes the,
what some people are experiencing in their, in their homes.
I, I mean, okay, you understand that accidents happen
or whatever, but don't, please don't do that.
What I would say then, so let's just say
that there were 153, I will just speak subjectively,
153 individuals seriously injured
or killed in crashes in the 28th ward.
But you're, you're right in terms of post covid.
But the fact is Chicago was on a different trajectory
for most cities pre covid, which is to say we were one
of the few cities that was not significantly pursuing
or achieving reductions in traffic fatalities.
We were stalled, we were stagnant.
If anything, Chicago's fatalities were holding steady
or going up where other cities were seeing decreases.
I think we are closing in on where we were pre covid.
That, that, that's not a good thing for Chicago.
It, it should be unacceptable to us, the, the tolerance
that we often have for the number of people
who are dying in this city.
And now we have the opportunity to vote on something
that we know factually set the politics aside.
We know factually based off of physics
and data will result in fewer people dying in this city.
Well, if that's the case, why not reduce
it to 10 miles an hour?
Is that, is that something that you're proposing, sir?
It's not something that
I'm proposing, but I'm just saying.
I mean, it it, of course, if you, if you, if you walk,
if nobody drives, yes, we have zero traffic fatalities,
but that's, that's not grounded in the terms reality.
Um, I I do understand that. Uh, sure.
On a pure physics basis,
if you reduce the speed, of course,
if you reduce the amount of speed, the less the likelihood
of someone dying in a traffic incident does go down.
There's, there, there's arguably no,
you can't argue against that.
Not, and I totally understand that. Mm-Hmm.
But that has to be balanced with people's ability, um,
to move, you know, move, move around.
Right. And so, um,
Well, you are Absolutely right. We've got
enough challenges
and I'm, I'm just be honest with you,
we've got enough challenges, um, in, in, in our city,
and, and again, and I,
and it goes down to what everyone's, uh,
perspective issues are.
And, and I think that for some people, this is,
you know, when you're, when you're dealing
with homelessness, violence, lack
of economic opportunity, a plethora of issues,
I'm sorry, but reducing the speed limit is not the number
one issue that's my community is looking at.
Now, again, I think that
what you're arguing is totally correct in
speed reduction in fatalities,
and it kind of goes back to some other issues.
But communities have different challenges
and I think this one size fits all approach
is not necessarily in the best interest
of all the, all the Chicagoans.
And yes, I, and I get it.
Um, but again, uh, many
of our communities have other challenges.
And, and I would, I would ask that until we have that
fuller conversation, especially something
that's gonna have the greatest impact that you're designing
for black and brown communities.
And a lot of black
and brown alders aren't in support of this.
And so that's why, you know,
alderman Moore had made his suggestion, I will too,
make the same suggestion that, that we hold on this.
And so there's a greater consensus among members of the,
even of the black caucus that this, that this moved forward.
So let, let's talk particularly about your item around
moving this to 10 miles per hour.
'cause I found that was interesting. Why, why 25?
Why not 10 miles per hour or 15 miles per hour, or even 20?
It's because we actually looked at our peer cities.
So we looked at New York, we locked, looked at Los Angeles,
where their residential streets speed limit is
25 miles per hour.
That's why we looked at all of these cities.
If you cross the street into Oak Park,
25 miles per hour is the speed
limit that you're gonna drive.
Nobody wants to be silly or have an unserious conversation,
and everybody wants to actually take reasonable steps
that will take, keep more Chicagoans safe.
But this, the state,
the state has a unposted speed when if there's no post
and the speed limit is 30 miles an hour, why isn't,
why aren't we asking this at the state level versus
just in Chicago?
We're doing that as well. So we're actually
communicating with
Why not let the state, Well,
because we're the city of Chicago
and we have a responsibility to use our municipal power
to keep our residents safe.
This is the committee on Pedestrian and Traffic safety.
I don't, I don't chair a committee on.
I'll remember that you said that. Yeah, do as you wish.
Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um,
Did you mention the date of implementation if this were
to pass, is 21st,
January 1st, 2026. Okay.
And do, do we have a cost associated with
what it would implementation?
So the, the cost varies on the, the steps
that we can potentially take alongside idot.
So, but for Chicago
to change the speed limit, there needs to be signage
indicating that the new posted speed limit, Mm-Hmm.
The cost of that is quoted to us by
CDOT as approximately 3 million.
Now, if idot follows suit,
and the conversations that we've heard is if the city leads,
if CDOT leads idot will follow suit, then
we do not have to install the signs
posting the new speed limit.
I would argue that it's extremely important for IDOT
to follow suit, particularly since they control 10%
of the roadways that, uh, go through Chicago.
But that 10% account for 45%
of our traffic fat fatalities.
So idot being a partner with us, uh,
and essentially wipes out the cost of implementation,
the financial cost,
and that is a partnership we're already pursuing.
Okay. I think that's all I have right now.
Thank you. Thank you, sir.
Thank you. Alderman Curtis,
Chairman, I, I, um,
So I, I wanna say this, um,
traffic safety is a big priority in my ward,
but, but, um,
I am in agreeance with Alderman Irvin when he says that
a one size fit all will not work, uh,
uh, in all the wards.
It, it doesn't, um, is, is there a way
that we can hold this as
Alderman Moore saying, and I, I think what needs
to happen is, can it be a way where
when we decide on the
miles per hour, can someone
from Department of Transportation decide what that is?
In, in, in each ward by the,
the arterial streets, the, the secondary mains?
The, the, the, uh, the, um,
the actual mains, the secondary mains, uh,
uh, now what do they call the, the, the other streets?
The, the, um, the, what is it?
Yeah, the collector streets is is that possible even
because again, all of our wars are totally different.
So let's, let's talk about that, sir.
So in all of our, many of our wards right now,
we do have posted speed limits that are lower than
that statutory 30 miles per hour.
In some cases they're 25 in com. Some cases they're 20.
I know that's the case in the first ward.
We are talking about lowering that maximum speed limit.
That does not say mean
that you can't have other speed limits for other streets
where it's appropriate.
It just would not be able to exceed a certain number.
Now, I will also note that this doesn't have
a cascading impact on those other speed limits.
So like in my ward, Augusta,
the speed limit's set to 20 miles per hour.
If we do this, the speed limit then doesn't, uh,
consequently lower to 15 miles per hour.
Those speed limit numbers stay the same.
But you're right, like in our wards for various streets,
the the discretion will still be there
to have other speed limits where appropriate,
they just won't be able to exceed a statutory speed limit.
Yes. I think, uh, Ottoman, did you have a question? No. Yes,
Sir. Okay, thank
you. Thank you. And the committee.
But it felt important to come to this meeting.
Uh, first you could put on record that, uh, Jason Irvin
and me agree on something.
So, uh, the record show that October 20, October 21st,
19, 20 24, we agree on something.
So I too think we should hold this for a while.
I commend you for your, your thoughts on safety,
but there's just a couple things I wanna touch on.
And you don't have to answer these.
I could rattle 'em off to you.
One would be the unintended consequences.
You think people are nuts right now.
You try to do 30 down the street,
people wanna run you off the road.
Imagine, imagine when it's, if it's when it's gonna be 25,
the road rage problems we're gonna have
with it is just gonna be through the roof.
A question also, and you don't have to answer this now,
but does this mean speed cameras now go down to 31
as opposed to 36?
No. So they stay at 36. Wait, no.
So the limit is 25, but speeding is 36.
The, the speed that, so the standard that is set of,
I think it's up when you're above five miles per hour,
that standard still holds
It's six. Oh, it'll be 31
then. Yes, sir. So 31 is now speeding. Okay.
That's not a good thing. I don't think, uh,
the everything go down five miles.
So if some places are 35
or 40, is that now going down to 35 or 30?
Is everything going down five
or just going down from 30 to 25?
Could you rephrase? I'm sorry, sir. So
You wanna lower it from 30 to 25.
My question to you is, is everything going down five?
So if a limit is 35 or 40, they still say 35 or 40.
Why wouldn't everything be lowered? Five?
Because it's, that's not how the,
the ordinance works. It's
Not Well, I know that.
Yes, but why wouldn't it be lower everything? Five.
We're talking about safety.
Then why wouldn't you lower 'em all by five?
I I'm sure everybody in this council has streets
that are 35 or 40 in their ward.
Why wouldn't we lower everything
by five? Any particular reason?
So you, you actually can't go above in our wards.
You, you can't, and I'm talking side streets.
I'm talking main arterials that signs are posted
that say 35 or 40 or whatever.
So I, I'm not sure if those are idot streets. Okay, sir.
But in Chicago, the maximum street speed limit for city
of Chicago controlled speeds is 30.
So if you have streets that are posted at 35 or
40 am I the only, am I the only guy in this room
that has signs in, in his ward
that's say 35 miles an hour? Okay.
So they may be state road,
sir, I think that's what you're referencing. Okay.
All right. Whatever. So why, why is, why is revenue
ccpd and CDOT not here?
Why is revenue not here to let us know
what to expect with this?
Why is CPD here not to know how, what their plans are?
Enforcement and then cdot,
because the cost for this, we have to change all the signs
that say 30 to 25.
Correct? We know side streets, you know, you don't have
to change, put 'em on side streets,
but the cost, I couldn't, couldn't imagine the amount of
of signs we'd have to change throughout the city.
So why do we have a cost for that?
We do, sir. We just discussed the cost.
The cost, um, without idot collaborating with us
is approximately 3 million.
If I Ido follows suit with the, the roadways
that they have jurisdiction over, then
that essentially wipes out the implementation cost.
Okay. Alright.
So my particular ward,
I know we're hearing about black and ward.
Black and brown wards a, a negative impact.
Personally I believe it affect everybody the same,
but whether you're black, brown or white,
but I'm surrounded by the suburbs
and some suburbs have signs that are
a little faster than they are in Chicago.
So now Johnny's driving down the street
and he's going from 35 to now 25.
And that would create a, a, a somewhat
of a speed trap I would guess,
which would kind of be unfair to people.
But I just wanted to add that.
But, uh, I commend you for safety.
I'm a big safety guy, but I just,
I just think the consequences
and of of, of doing this, it,
it just needs to be more thought out.
And I'd like to see us just hit the brakes a little
and talk about this a little bit. So
Alderman, that's, that's exactly why we have
this extended implementation.
Yeah. Period. If we were trying
to imp implement this in the next 60, 90 days, you're right,
we would be functionally creating a trap for folks.
We would be wanting to catch them in that trap.
That is why we have,
and this is actually through collaboration with cdot
who partner with us on the traffic sta safety related
to this, who have been working with us
like hand in hand to get to this point.
That's why we settled on that one year implementation point
to make sure that no Chicagoan is surprised when a lower
speed limit in Chicago takes effect.
And, and we don't see any road rage incidents happen
because of this be well
how people wanna run you off
the road if you're doing the limit.
I mean, is it just my ward that, that happens?
It doesn't happen to anybody else's ward.
I mean, I, I pay attention a lot when I'm driving.
I look at people behind me. It was maybe about a month ago.
I'm, I'm driving down Irving Park Road.
I'm sure most people know where Irving Park is.
Certainly northwest siders. I'm doing the limit.
I'm doing 30 some guy's honking, honking, honking behind me.
I thought maybe my back door is open, I pull over to look,
the guy gets along side.
I mean he gives me the finger. 'cause I was doing the limit.
I mean, he, I wasn't going fast enough for him.
I mean, I, I just, you know, now you're making a 25
and the people that are abiding by the rules,
they're gonna have the people behind them
that are gonna be totally p****d
off 'cause they're driving too slow.
I mean, I just, I just, you know, like I say, once again,
come inia for the safety part on it.
But I just think it's just a very complicated thing
to implement this
and, um, I just, you know, would just like us to reconsider
and certainly would like to see revenue, revenue, CDOT
and CPD here on, on these hearings.
So thank you.
I appreciate it. Do yes. Alderman Hopkins?
Yeah. Uh, thank you Mr. Chairman.
In the previous item, uh, we, we contemplated the need
for driver education, uh, in lieu of fines.
So to move towards buy-in to get drivers
to understand the necessity of
behavior change behind the wheel.
Um, and you don't always accomplish that
with punitive measures.
There's a place for punitive measures.
There's, I believe there's a place for fines.
Um, but there's certainly a place for driver education too.
And that speaks to the necessity of promoting the idea
that we need to make changes in our public infrastructure.
I was a part of the Vision Zero task force.
I served on that task force.
I believe in the concept of achieving
zero traffic fatalities.
How you get there is another matter and how you get there.
When a majority of Chicagoans still rely on cars
as their primary means of transportation,
whether they own the car or whether they rely on Uber
or Lyft Rideshare, whatever, we still have a majority
of Chicagoans that are fully vested in our current system
of using cars to get around.
We need their buy-in to make these kinds of changes.
This is not the way to get there.
And this is also the reason
that I am a strong supporter of speed cameras.
And yet I opposed the effort to lower the threshold
for enforcement of speed cameras
and to change the criteria of where you put them,
because I knew what would happen.
What would happen was reflected by Alderman Moores, uh,
talking about his opposition
to speed cameras from his constituents.
People rebelled against it.
They didn't like our approach,
they didn't think it was fair.
They thought it was too much too soon overly punitive
to get a ticket for one mile over.
You know, when, when your speed camera,
that does not create the environment of support that we need
to make these types of changes
that does not foster buy-in from the very people whose
behavior we're trying to change.
That is not the correct approach.
To suggest that a 25 mile an hour maximum speed limit
applies across the board on the city.
Makes zero sense.
It doesn't make sense on Irving Park in
aldermans Posados Ward.
It doesn't make sense on Harlem Avenue
on the Far Northwest side.
It doesn't make sense on Stony Island
Avenue on the south side.
It doesn't make sense
to use this one side fits all approach.
I generally support the idea of lowering speed limits
incrementally where it makes sense,
where there's local support, where there's local buy-in.
And you could bring communities involved in this
process to the table.
We're not doing that here. And I also, it,
and it's your prerogative, Mr.
Chairman, to, to call for a vote today.
If we have a vote today, I'm a no vote on this committee is
where you work this out.
It's not the right approach to try and pass something
and then say you're gonna, you're gonna sit on it
and eventually get to a full city council vote.
This is where compromise is forged in committee.
I don't think this is ready,
but again, I I I'm not gonna make a motion
to hold it if you wanna try to move it today.
I'm not really sure what the outcome would be,
but unfortunately at this point I'm a no vote. Thank you.
I so I hear you, sir, and I appreciate it.
For, for what it's worth that we have met
with Chicagoans across the city
on this very topic on the south side and the west side.
On the north side. We've been working, doing the work
that you're talking about here.
So I, I hear where you're coming from.
The, the reason we would not vote tomorrow is
because that we try to avoid a 24 hour turnaround
on ordinances, particularly ordinances of great import,
which is, I would say that this is, so that's where I,
I hear your feedback though.
Um, uh, all the woman Cruz, your hand is up.
Yes. Thank you, chairman. I just wanna take the time
and say thank you for, for your work.
And I know this is something
that it is important in my ward,
so I just wanna also have the opportunity to say
that while I understand there's a lot
of different urgent matters, and I agree, um,
but we're talking about this committee,
which is being the committee, pedestrian traffic safety.
These are the issues that are important to this committee.
So that's why there's been a pro upon us
to talk about these things.
And this is something that has affected my ward,
especially around schools.
I know one of my colleagues, uh,
mentioned about her schools as well.
And this is something we're experiencing, you know, a lot
of the drivers are speeding through,
through parks, through schools.
Um, one of them, you know, Chicago Academy being one
of my focus and thinking
and also always working with, um, you know,
complete Streets, talking about what are the common
measures, what are some of the things that,
that we can work together?
And, and this is one of them, this is
what I have received good positive feedback from my
residents is to lower the speed limit.
I have been in contact with, um, also state senators, um,
state representatives, and they're hearing the same thing.
So I think this is something important for, for communities
as a whole, as a Chicago to protect our pedestrians.
We understand a lot. We're, we're, you know,
this is a car centric and,
but we also have those who, who walk to school to walk
to parks and how do we protect them as well.
So I am fully support of this.
I mean, this is something that should be
happening a long time ago.
How do we bring that, um, safety to,
to all of our residents?
Or again, I just wanna say thank you for your work.
And I think 25 miles per hour is, is is very realistic
to set something very low.
I think we sh it is just setting for failure.
So I think 25 makes, um, the perfect fit.
And, and see how that, you know, with time
we can see the patterns of how we can track
how everything it's working.
Um, but again, I just wanna, um, say how support I am.
Thank you for your work
and I hope my colleagues will understand this as again,
there is other important matters,
but this is a important matter for this type
of committee. Thank you.
Thank you. Vice Cruz.
Uh, noting Alderman Rodriguez
and Alderwoman Julia Ramirez, present as non-members,
uh, Alman Rodriguez.
Thank you Mr. Chair.
Um, first of all, I wanted to commend you
on working on this for such a long time.
I know you've been doing the due diligence on this matter
and, uh, the fact is, is
that this effort is not without significant precedence.
I won't belabor the point,
but I do believe our city is actually behind the times.
So this is actually an effort,
a catchup effort, uh, in many ways.
So I think this, uh,
should not be delayed anymore than it needs to be.
I do understand, um, your sense of, uh,
going from committee to, uh,
city council and I respect that.
Um, but as an alder who, uh, uh,
last year was cited by one of, uh,
our great entities here in the city of Chicago
as being top five in utilizing my menu money in trying
to slow down traffic via traffic circles, bump outs,
speed, humps, et cetera.
Um, it behooves me to stand here today
with you in this efforts saying that we need
to join the times and we do need
to decrease the speed limit on our city streets.
And I commend all those who are supporting this effort
and urge, uh, my committee members, uh,
to move passage today and committee. Thank you Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much. Auman Rodriguez,
do we have any other questions?
That said, I appreciate,
I appreciate the diverse perspectives in the room today.
As our, our council right now is full
of diverse perspectives
and I think democracy is supposed to be hard
and it's supposed to be difficult,
and we're the strongest when we can have those hard
and difficult conversations in ways that are respectful.
And it's why I am really grateful for the opportunity
to lead and chair this committee.
All of that said, I believe in the work
that we're talking about today, I believe that the ordinance
that we're voting on today sets us on the pathway
to save the lives of hundreds of people, hundreds
of Chicagoans over the next decade.
I believe we're doing it in a way that is feasible
and responsible as the mayor shared in his
support for this work.
We're doing it in ways that is grounded in equity
and enforcement for Chicagoans
that hopefully is static
or even negative in the revenue
that it produces for the city.
And that is why we're here today.
So with all that said, I would ask if I can have a motion
to re recommend.
So, um,
a hold is hold an actual,
I don't believe holding is a motion that you can make.
It is a request that you can make Is your, is your motion
to like table?
Okay. Is that your motion, sir?
So that to be, to be clear, like,
and am I permitted to, to inquire
of LRBI?
I shall so pursue.
I I do not believe motioning to hold
is a motion within our rules of order.
May I ask confirmation?
I'm just exercising my, this is my permit. Yes.
Permission grant.
Okay. Thank you.
Do you have a, is there a substitute motion
that you would like to make, sir?
Okay. May I ask for a motion? Yes, sir.
I, I would move that we table the matter then.
Okay. We will take, take a roll call vote on the motion
to table
Chairman Lasa.
So to, as our president often does, a motion
to table means that we would not move forward
with a vote on this ordinance.
A no vote. A yes Vote on the motion to table says
that we will not vote on this item today.
Voting no on the motion to table
would then potentially move forward.
A motion on the ordinance. Chairman LaSpada votes.
No. Vice Chair Cruz.
No. Alderman Hopkins.
Alderman Robinson Alderman.
Nancy Alderman Chico.
Alderman Quinn. Alderman Moore.
Alderman Curtis or Vice Mayor
Burnett no longer with us.
Alderman Irvin. Alderman Knutson.
Alderman Lawson. Alderman Martin.
Oh, oh, I'm sorry. Wo men. Haworth.
That is 11, no votes to two Yes votes.
The motion to table fails.
May I ask a motion to recommend approval of this item?
Oh, 2024 dash 0 1 0 9 9 0.
Uh, by the same roll call vote as was applied
to determine quorum vote Call it is,
uh, have, are you?
Okay. So motion
to recommend O 20 24 0 0 1 0 9 9 0.
Chairman, Ana Votes. Aye. Vice Chair Cruz
Aye.
Derman Hopkins. Alderman Robinson.
Alderman Yancy Derman. Chico.
Alderman Quinn. Alderman Moore.
Alderman Curtis. Alderman
Irvin Derman.
Knutson Derman Lawson Derman.
Martin Alderwoman.
Manal Haworth, uh,
vice Mayor Burnett?
Yes. Eight Yes. Votes. Five no votes.
The motion carries. Thank you.
Now we will move back to item two on page one,
which is an amendment to the municipal code chapter nine
dash 1 0 8.
Establishing a public enforcement pilot program for
to Citizens, let's say residents, 20%
of the people in this city are foreign born.
And they're, they're right. Are is valid. Any, sorry, sorry.
Um, the pilot program for residents
to submit recorded evidence of covered parking permits.
We do have a substitute for this one as well,
which was emailed out and distributed today.
The substituted ordinance,
the submitted ordinance mistakenly included all covered
offenses for the Smart street pilot as eligible
for resident based reporting.
The substitute makes the correction
that only section nine dash 12 dash 0 6 0
and section nine dash 40 dash six bike lane
and bus lane blockages are covered offenses
for resident based reporting pilot.
Can I have a motion to accept the substitute ordinance?
Alderman Martin? So moves, hearing no objections.
So ordered. This ordinance
would establish a resident based reporting pilot.
The pilot would be citywide residents could,
can report bus and bike lane violations.
Let's talk about what that means as opposed to
what the current system is right now.
You can report bus and bike lane blockages.
You can report them through 3 1 1.
Those are categories that exist.
What happens when you report a bus or bike lane blockage?
Unfortunately, nothing gets, nothing happens.
It gets logged, it gets logged in 3 1 1.
It can potentially inform, uh,
where enforcement goes in the future.
But what you absorb observed nothing actually happens
with that instance.
So this would actually change it
and it builds off
of the framework described within the Smart Streets pilot.
Um, residents could, through 3 1 1, take photographs
of vehicles that were blocking bike or bus lanes.
They would have to capture data points that were required
for it to be valid evidence when it would go
before the Department of Administrative hearings.
We have received what those data points are that would have
to be included, uh, from the Department of Law.
If it is a passenger vehicle, it would
result in first warning.
And then second warning for our neighbors.
We are not out to get our neighbors.
We represent our neighbors.
We want them to act right by their C community.
Um, if it is a pa uh, commercial vehicle,
or it goes to a third
citation for a specific vehicle within
that first year of the pilot.
'cause again, this is a one year pilot, at
that point it would generate an a o an
administrative notice of violation.
The individual who submitted the evidence,
who submitted the request,
the whoever was driving the vehicle, would both have
to go to a hearing.
And if the judge determines
that the evidence does show a violation of that code,
it would result at that point in the $250 citation
that is part of City Statute.
Why is it required for folks to actually
come downtown for this hearing?
Well, as many have actually voiced the concern around
where we're going as a society with artificial intelligence,
with Chad GPT, we don't want people submitting
fraudulent evidence.
We know that New York actually has technology
that can detect AI generated images.
But say somebody did get exceedingly clever
and put forward a image that had a
specific Chicago driver's license for the vehicle that had
that car at a specific address, at a specific
timestamped location for a, uh,
parked in a bike or bus lane.
Number one, I'd say that person is very clever
and is better at technology than I am.
But that individual then at the end of the day, still has
to show up in person to defend an image
that arguably will be proven to be indefensible.
We've met with administrative hearings on this.
They have confirmed to us that they have the capacity to
absorb the site, the AAVs that would be generated
through this ordinance.
They said, as long as it does not exceed
a hundred thousand in the one year of the pilot, uh,
which I have zero expectation that it would, that uh,
chief Administrator Koyak confirmed
that it is within their abilities to take on the a knobs
that would be generated potentially through this pilot.
And again, it would operate for one year,
starting from the day the first violation
or warning is issued, which is very comparable actually
to the timing of the Smart Streets pilot.
Which again, if you haven't heard about the briefings,
is is happening, is happening.
They're starting the testing on Yes,
they're starting the testing on that this October.
Exciting times. Um, I believe that is our only, so why,
why are we doing this?
Because in many of your wards, um,
you are creating some exceptional infrastructure.
You are designing infrastructure to keep people safe way,
whether they are on buses, bikes, pedestrians.
But we also know
that infrastructure in itself isn't sufficient.
And why, I'm going to use a very, uh, first word example.
There is a Cisco truck that every Friday
between 11:00 AM
and 1:00 PM is going to show up in front of my office
and make their delivery to a restaurant.
And they park one set of wheels in the protected bike lane,
a concrete protected bike lane,
and they park the other set set of wheels outside of it.
This is the gold standard for
what infrastructure is supposed to look like.
And yet the best infrastructure is failing us.
So we know that this is necessary for our infrastructure
to function effectively.
Similarly, if you've taken the Chicago bus, uh, as I
I love it, it's a great bus, takes you
to the middle gold district downtown, very effectively,
anyone who has taken that bus, knows that one car,
one vehicle in that bus lane eliminates the value
of having that infrastructure there.
And it's a sad thing for that to be true.
So we know that it's gonna keep transit moving more
efficiency, it's gonna reduce those slow times that bunching
that we want to avoid.
It also gives CPD as one of our speakers points out,
gives CPD more time to respond to urgent situations.
'cause here I am, I'll go back to that Cisco example.
Every single week, every single Friday,
my staff is out there calling 9 1 1 on this Cisco truck
because that is the only tool
that we can avail ourselves of.
And it really stinks when I know what's happening in my ward
to be pulling officers a away from what I would like them
to be doing to be responding to this situation.
I would much rather have a more
effective tool for doing that.
Any tool we have for enforcement in this system,
this city comes with risk.
We all know cases where
like the building code
and building its inspections can be weaponized
against our neighbors.
We've all seen cases where how business code is enforced.
It can be weaponized, can be used
to lean into con conflict.
This is a tool, any tool needs
to be used responsively and effectively.
But it is a tool I believe that Chicagoans deserve to have,
that our offices and our neighbors deserve to have.
Next slide. That is all of our slides.
Um, before we move to any motions,
do we have any questions?
We know that yes. Derman Quinn.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Um, why are we eliminating this
to just bike lanes?
I, one of the biggest con complaints I get is, um,
people parking illegally in handicap spots.
Um, I've stones for, from Midway airport, I've got,
got travelers parking on side streets
unloading their luggage leaving for a week.
And it's difficult to get real time enforcement.
So that would be a question, you know, we're,
we're limiting it here when we have all sorts of infractions
that are coming our way in our ward offices.
So is there any, any thought about expanding?
I, I, I very much hear you, sir.
There is actually, in the original version, it was much more
expansive and what we're choosing to do in self-limiting is
because we are doing an exceedingly new thing here.
The, this is a, a very new thing, at least in Chicago, to,
to give this kind of reporting power to residents,
which is why we wanna make sure we're studying, starting
with a broad geography,
but with a, a narrow space of citations.
Um, we're gonna study this together.
We're gonna see if it works. We're gonna see what,
assuming it passes, see what the intended impacts are,
what the unintended impacts are,
and then we can, we can look at that down the road
because I see exactly what you're talking about.
There's a part of me that
whenever I see a scooter blocking the public way,
I have the exact same thoughts that you do.
But I want to, I would rather start something narrow
and, and build out and be responsible in that respect.
But I will say to you like New York has a very, as one
of our public speakers talked about,
New York has a ordinance related to diesel idling vehicles.
It actually goes far beyond what we're talking about there.
In New York, you actually get a portion of every citation
that a vehicle pays in.
And I think nobody wanted, oh, I'm not gonna say nobody,
but like this chairman didn't want to create that kind
of a bounty system
because I think that that would potentially encourage
the, the worse, uh, the worst impulses
of our residents rather than their better impulses.
Thank you. Thank You, sir. Yes. Orman Lawson.
Thank you Chair. Um, I was gonna add crosswalks
to the list as far as a pedestrian safety measure.
Let's start here and let's move on.
I think obviously it's easy to see, uh,
a bus stop at a bike lane, maybe sometimes easier than a,
a fire hydrant or a handicap space and,
and who's got the placard there.
But I think, um, when it comes to enforcement, there's a lot
of opportunities, uh,
especially in a busy neighborhood like mine.
I just wanna make sure I understood the timeline
so I know it becomes effective January one
and then roll us out from there.
Uh, from there it is in effect for one year from
the first, uh, warning or citation that is issued.
So like, uh, this committee couple months back passed a
similar amendment to the Smart Streets pilot where the,
the clock was ticking.
And so we passed an amendment brought forward
with Altman Riley that comparably extended the,
the deadline of that pilot from the start date
of when the first citation is issued.
So we're, we're kind of piggybacking off of that language.
So I, I guess then the question is do we have some sense
of what that timing would be to stand the program up?
I mean, on January 2nd, I can take, I won.
They won't be ready for me to take a photo,
uh, and send it in. Right? Do we?
That's gonna be pretty cold.
Um, so we wanna make sure that all of our technology is
prepared to take this on functionally today.
You could, you could do this today, right?
Like you can through the 3 1 1 app, attach photos
to the 3 1 1 request that you submit.
We wanna make sure that we're prepared to receive
that evidence effectively to make sure that
however we are receiving it, it can recognize
that the appropriate data points are there for it
to be considered valid evidence.
And this is something that we are,
we're having really productive meetings
with administrative hearings, with law, with CDO about.
Um, so making sure that we can do this
as effectively as possible.
That's sort of my next question then.
So I take a photo of the jerk in the bike lane,
who's there every day, what sort of,
we anticipate the timing from that, right?
I put it into 3 1 1, um,
and then it goes to law for a title search
or explain sort of that process
and timing as, as we understand it,
It, it would go.
So it depends on the technology
that's going to accompany this.
Potentially it would be, there are technicians currently
who review photo evidence currently for
that initial review to make sure
that the appropriate data points are there.
Um, if it was a passenger vehicle, it's going to go
generate a warning that goes back to them, Hey,
at this time, at this date,
you were potentially blocking this bus or bike lane, right?
You do it a second time, Hey, hey, hey, the second warning,
third time four passenger vehicle, first time
for a commercial vehicle generates an aav.
That would then require both the driver
and the submitter
to be present at an administrative hearing over on superior,
at which time the judge would review the evidence
and determine the appropriateness of a citation.
Right? So I guess one of the things that's frustrating,
you know, if we write a sanitation ticket, um, to,
for an overflowing dumpster ticket is written, it goes
to law, it gets sent out months later,
obviously we wanna solve the problem.
In addition, you know, uh, in addition
to having it be punitive, so as, as short
as we can turn this around, we don't want anybody
to come home and all of a sudden there's three warnings and,
and they didn't even know it was a bike line.
Not, I don't know how that's possible, but, um, there's,
there's a, an advantage in having a better turnaround time
for all of our an offs that have to go through any type,
type of title search process.
Um, obviously I I also want to say too,
CDOT has to be a better partner.
When we talk about location of bike lanes,
there are some standards where the street is this wide.
So we're putting a lid in without any conversation
with the local alderman, the business community,
or really an examination of how some of the streets work.
And when we put a bike lane in,
we're telling people this should be a safe place to bike,
but sometimes all we have done is paint it, right?
And so, um, they've got like, I, I have bike lanes
that are gonna be blocked constantly
because that's the way that street has always functioned.
And so I worry that if we don't have better consultation,
then it becomes that right vigilante,
someone's just out there taking pictures Mm-Hmm.
Because it's an easy Gotcha. mm-Hmm.
You know, um, so this has my support again, you know, I need
to, I think we need to lean into tech when it comes
to enforcement, uh, in all levels.
And I'm curious to see
how effective this could be. Thank you.
I appreciate it. Thank you sir.
Do we have any other questions or comments?
I know that we're, we're running up against time.
Um, may I have, I believe we need to.
We already did. Uh, can I have a motion
to recommend approval of this item?
So 2024,
but the same for call voters was applied
to determine quorum Altman Howorth.
So moves, hearing no objections.
So ordered, recorded with, uh,
alderman Chairman Irvin recorded as a no.
Uh, moving on item one on
item one on page two is an ordinance
that was mistakenly referred to this committee.
Can I have a motion to recommend re-referral of this item
to the committee on licensed and consumer protection?
By the same roll call voters was applied
to determine quorum Alderman Martin.
So moves hearing no objection. So ordered.
We will now move to the routine items, starting
with a direct introduction of ordinances.
On page three, can I have a motion to recommend approval
of all direct introduction ordinances On page three
by the same roll call, voters was applied
to determine quorum, uh, all person loss.
And so moves hearing no objection. So ordered.
Let us turn to pages four through nine
for the recommended portion of the agenda.
Can I have a motion to recommend approval
of all recommended ordinances on pages four through nine
by the same roll call vote as was applied
to determine quorum alderwoman mana howorth.
So moves, hearing no objection. So ordered.
We will now turn to pages 10 through 13
for the no no recommendation portion of the agenda,
which are items that received no
recommendations from city departments.
These ordinances were submitted
as overrides on the agenda at the request
of the older person or do required departmental approval.
Can I have a motion to recommend approval
of all ordinances on pages 10 through 13
by the same roll call vote as was applied
to determine quorum al person Martin.
So moves, hearing no objections so ordered.
We will report these items out at the next regularly
scheduled city council meeting.
With there being no further business by the committee.
Can I have a motion to adjourn? Au auman Martin? So moves.
All those in favor signify by saying aye. We are adjourned.
Thank you. I.