Gavel, gavel, gavel, gavel.
The meeting of the Committee on Pedestrian and Traffic Safety is now called to order for September 15, 2026.
We will now have a roll call to establish quorum.
Chairman Laspata, present Vice Chair Cruz, Alderman Hopkins, Alderman Robinson, Alderman Yancey, Alderman Chico,
Alderman Quinn, Alderman Moore, Alderman Curtis, Alderman Burnett, Alderman Irvin, Alderman Knudsen, Alderman Lawson, Alderman Martin, Alderwomen Minah Hoppenworth.
No non-members at this moment.
There are eight members present.
We have a quorum.
We have several members who have requested to participate online.
I see with us Alders, Yancey, Irvin, and Hopkins.
Gentlemen, can you confirm your presence with us today?
Alderman Hopkins, present.
Alderman Yancey is here.
Thank you, Alderman Yancey.
Alderman Irvin is present.
Thank you so much, Chair Irvin.
They have requested to participate with us through Rule 59.
Can I have a motion to allow?
Alderman Irvin.
Alders, Yancey, Irvin, and Hopkins to participate remotely.
Alder person Burnett so moves.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed say nay.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
Alders, Yancey, Irvin, and Hopkins will be counted, are present here today by video conference and will be counted 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.
Speakers, in accordance with Rule 58 of the City Council Rules of Order, please refrain from profane language, obscene conduct, or disruptive comments.
Our first speaker is Mr. George Blankmore.
Thank you, sir.
Obscene.
This is obscene.
This is totally obscene.
Obscene.
A meeting and being on time.
And if we must.
This is my time.
Disregard.
This is my time.
You call me.
They call in virtual and making this kind of money and it's a part-time job.
They should be present.
They're getting paid to be here.
And this system is supposed to be if someone is sick in an emergency.
They do it over.
And that, Mr. Blankmore, you're off the topic, driving while black, walking while black, talking while black, with all these Steve Campbells in the black neighborhood.
This residential parking.
Resident.
Because that's a public street.
And you should have your.
Cyclists.
These streets in the city of Chicago were not designed.
Bus cycles.
You used to have to ride your.
Cycles and schools and everything along a trail along the lake.
It's totally out of control.
Then they have seen it.
Barriers in the wintertime.
You all are out of control.
This.
This.
This is terrible here.
And I notice when I come and speak.
A man of my high caliber.
The white.
Black.
I guess.
A little black hand here.
They just.
They are treating you like an end.
Why?
You're part of the problem.
You are part of the problem.
Why this government is a non-functional government.
You.
Are part of the problem.
So let's.
Come to these meetings.
To speak out.
You understand me.
See clearly now.
Something from the machine.
Maybe you'll corrupt yourself.
Thank you Mr. Blakemore.
Noting.
Alders.
Curtis and Alderman Moore.
With us for purposes of quorum.
Great to have you gentlemen.
Our next and final speaker is Mr. Jim Merrill.
Thank you chairman.
Members of the committee.
My name is.
The managing director of advocacy for.
Alliance.
So it wasn't just.
I think we.
Jim I think we may have a battery issue.
Can someone.
Confirm that our battery is tested and strong.
Ah.
Let's try that again.
The state of the park support.
Yes.
It feels like a life.
All right.
That's the ticket.
Ready to rock.
Thank you chairman.
Members of the committee.
Technical support.
Staff.
My name is Jim Merrill.
I'm the managing director of advocacy from active transportation.
Alliance.
Excited to be here to hear more about the smart streets program.
Which we're really excited about.
And hope to be made permanent.
And in fact that request is one of several priorities that were released in a letter today.
An aldermanic sign on letter that 20 members of council have have joined on to.
Including a number of members of the committee.
So in particular I just want to say a quick thank you to chairman.
Carmen Laspata, vice chair Cruz, Alders Robinson, Yancey, Knudsen, Lawson, Martin, and Mana Hoppenworth for their support.
And a special thank you to Alders Martin, Yancey, and Laspata who along with Alder Julia Ramirez co-authored an op-ed that is in today's Chicago Tribune.
Talking about really kind of three main priorities when it comes to traffic safety.
And this is really motivated after the fatal crash on June 5th that took the life of CDOT employee Riley O'Neill.
Trying to think about how can we make sure even in this difficult time for government that we really hold the line and grow our investments in safe streets programming.
So we want to ensure that CDOT has adequate staffing and resources they need to do their life-saving mission.
We need to partner with the city clerk on improving driver education.
And we need to expand equitable enforcement programs like Smart Streets.
So that's in particular what I wanted to come here today to say.
You know, we've seen programs like Smart Streets are really effective at changing behavior.
And there's a really low rate of recidivism or repeat offenses using this really smart technology.
So it's a win-win for the city protecting our people who are on bikes, using bike lanes, but also speeding up our buses, which is really the backbone of our transit system.
So it's a win-win for the city for the city for the city for the city.
Excited to work with all of you to continue to advance good policy like Smart Streets and look forward to continuing to work together to make sure we have the resources we need to make Safe Streets for All.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
This concludes our public comment period.
Our first order of business is the Rule 45 report from July, which was sent out via email and distributed to committee members.
Can I have a motion to approve the July Rule 45 report?
All the woman, Manah Hoppenworth, so moves.
All those in favor of passing the report say aye.
All of those opposed say nay.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
We're going to go out of order to begin with the routine items before the committee, starting with the direct introduction ordinances on pages 2 through 5.
Can I have a motion to recommend approval of all direct introduction ordinances on pages 2 through 5?
Show me that again.
Yeah, there we go.
Alderman Curtis, so moves.
All of those in favor of passing the report say aye.
Wait.
Time out.
See, this is – I'm doing a Ron Burgundy where I'm just reading the script.
All of those in favor of – all of those in favor of passing our direct – the direct introduction ordinances on pages 2 through 5 say aye.
All those opposed say nay.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
The do pass recommendation for these items will be reported at the September 23rd City Council meeting.
Let us turn to pages 6 through 25 for the recommended portion of the agenda.
For item 6, on page 6, we received a substitute ordinance that makes a change to the language per CEDAWN's recommendation.
Can I have a motion to accept this substitute ordinance?
Alderman Martin, so moves.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Can I have a motion to recommend approval of all recommended items on pages 6 through 25, including the previously accepted substitute?
Alderman Martin, so moves.
All of those in favor of passing the – all of those in favor of passing the – all of those in favor of passing the recommended items on pages 6 through 25,
including the previously accepted substitute say aye.
All those will say nay.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
And the do pass recommendation of these items will be reported at the September 23rd City Council meeting.
We will now turn to pages 26 and 27 for the no recommendation portion of the agenda, which are items that received no recommendation from City Departments.
These ordinances were submitted as overrides, are on the agenda at the request of the alterperson, or do not require departmental approval.
For item 11, on page 26, we received a substitute ordinance that makes a change to the language per CEDAWN's recommendation.
Can I have a motion to accept this substitute ordinance?
Alderman Lawson, so moves.
Hearing no objections, so ordered.
Can I have a motion to recommend approval of all no recommendation items on pages 26 and 27, including the previously accepted substitute?
Alderman Martin, so moves.
All those in – all those in favor say aye.
All those will say nay.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
And the do pass recommendation for these items will be reported at the September 23rd City Council meeting.
We will now return to page 1 of the agenda, beginning with item 2.
O-2026-0027125, which is an amendment of Municipal Code Chapter 9-108-070, regarding bus terminal loading and unloading zones.
This item is sponsored by the mayor and grants the commissioner of the Department of Transportation the authority to revoke curbside loading and unloading permits for intercity bus operators.
CDOT currently has the authority to grant these permits, but the Department of Law advised that they should also have the explicit authority to revoke the permits.
We have Mary Nichol, Department – Deputy Commissioner for the Division of Planning and Policy at CDOT, present for any questions.
And yes, at the moment, yes.
Alderman Lawson, I see questions.
I believe the description was in my court, and the ball is now on yours.
All right, great.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good morning.
I just have a couple quick questions.
Wrigley Field is in my ward, and so we have a lot of buses that come in.
Does this apply to charter buses as well, or just the inner-city buses?
Testing.
Hi.
Good morning.
Mary Nichol, Deputy Commissioner, Division of Planning and Policy.
My understanding of the text is that this would apply to all buses, but the intention is for it to be used in the vicinity of the newly purchased terminal.
In particular, the one company that's doing curbside service, Peoria Charters, we've spoken with them, and they very much now, under city ownership, would like to get back into the station.
Okay, great.
I just want to make sure, because I know we have staging areas and loading areas on street for charter buses that come from all over.
Or sometimes we – I think we've got a spot that's good for now, but we play around with a lot of things around Wrigley.
So I just wanted to make sure that if it does apply to those that are dropping off in the neighborhoods, if they do need to get commissioner's authority or whatever it is, that we're making sure that they're up to speed on it.
Because sometimes there's a rogue operator there, too, and we want to make sure that they're following the right protocol.
So I guess my next question is, and again, as it applies outside of the main terminal, but the approvals are given – do they sort of – are they coordinated with the venue, in my case, Wrigley, or the main terminal, or through the operator?
The approval – so the process is that there's – and we can make sure, Alderman, that you have all the information of the process to make sure that folks are up to speed.
But, yeah, the process is coordinated with CDOT, and as typical with any of our decisions that involve dense areas, similar to Wrigley Field,
we would certainly work with your offices to figure out the best locations for these services.
Sure, and everything's going all right right now.
I just want to make sure we're following the law, and if we do need to make tweaks or changes based on new conditions, that we have a flexibility to do that.
If I may, from behind you, sir, explicit in the language of the ordinance is also in consultation with the local alder.
Oh, yes. Thank you. I did catch that.
There we go.
Yes. Thank you very much. Appreciate it, Chair.
Do we have any further questions or comments?
I will note Alderman Robinson with us for purposes of quorum.
With all of that said, may I have a motion to recommend approval of this item, 02026-0027125.
Alderman Lawson, so moves.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, say nay.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the due pass recommendation of this item will be reported at the September 23rd City Council meeting.
Thank you so much, Deputy Commissioner Nicole.
We will now hear a report on the Smart Streets pilot program in accordance with Municipal Code Section 9-108-070.
The pilot program is currently set to expire December 21st of this year.
We have Sean Wydell, Deputy Commissioner at CDOT, and Chuck Bellows, Deputy Director at the Department of Finance,
here to present on what we've seen so far in this pilot program.
And I feel like I would be remiss, although they're not in the room, to thank Alders, Riley, Hopkins, Vasquez, and others for their leadership in the passage of this pilot program.
And I'm not sure the level of commissioner I should ascribe to him, but Vic Krishnamurthy, for a lot of the work that he partnered with you all on the implementation here.
All of that said, gentlemen, take it away.
Good morning.
Excuse me.
Good morning, Chair Lesbada and members of the Pedestrian Traffic Safety Committee.
We're excited to be here to tell you about some of the results.
The pilot for the Smart Streets program has been running for almost two years now,
and we've got some preliminary results that we'd like to share with you to get your input and also so you can understand how the program is working to date.
And then I'm Sean, sorry, I'm Sean Wydell, Deputy Commissioner for Citywide Services at CDOT.
Chuck Billows, Department of Finance, Deputy Director, Operations.
All right.
Thank you.
Excuse me, gentlemen.
Sure.
The briefest question.
Sean, if you could move yourself just slightly closer to the mic.
Sure.
And for our – there we go.
I was going to say to the folks at Tech, you might have noticed we had a very awkward screen on screen where the viewing on our little screens is challenging at the best of times,
but it was extraordinarily small previously.
This is, I'll say, substantially improved.
Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Please continue.
Sure.
So if you remember, the City Council passed the Smart Streets Ordinance in 2023,
and what we wanted to do when we launched the program was to make sure that we communicated to residents of the city and visitors as well the goals of the program
so that they could actually make informed choices to hopefully not violate the ordinance.
But really the primary focus was on –
safety of pedestrians and cyclists, but also transit efficiency as well.
And then the work that we did, you can see some of the information.
We tried to do it in sort of a fun way.
We ran these on the city's digital network.
We did some social media.
We put together FAQs that we shared with all the alders as well to share with their constituents.
And there's a website as well that has all this information on it.
But really wanted to give people the information they needed to hopefully not violate the ordinance.
So the timeline, as I mentioned, City Council approved the pilot in 2023 and really was
focused on our growing network of complete streets across the city.
The original pilot area you can see on screen here is North Avenue on the north, Ashland
on the west, and Roosevelt Road on the south.
We worked on contracting and then the pilot launched with bike and bus lane enforcement
in 2024.
And then in 2025, we added bus stops and three unpaid meter violations.
That's not unpaid meters in the CBD, unpaid meters outside of the CBD, and then commercial
loading zones.
And then this year in 2026, we expanded the pilot area further, which is on the next slide.
And we're currently enforcing seven code violations.
Current pilot area was expanded this year, as I mentioned.
And the boundaries are Irving Park on the north, Ashland Avenue on the west, and then 26th
and Ashland Archer on the south.
We expanded this year from about eight square miles in the original pilot to about 18 square
miles currently.
So I wanted to walk through just some of the changes that we've seen and some of the expansions
as we've...
Sorry, the computers...
Let me snooze that one second.
I wanted to walk through some of the changes that we've had, that we've seen over the last
couple of years since we've been running the pilot.
Again, a partnership, a strong partnership between CDOT and Department of Finance.
We started out with about 232 miles of roadway in the original pilot area.
This year, there's about 429 miles of roadway total in the pilot area shown on screen.
Citywide, just for context, there's about 4,100, a little over 4,100 miles of roadway in the
city of Chicago.
Bike lanes, we started with about 40 miles of bike lanes.
Currently, the area outlined in red, we have about 69 miles of bike lanes.
And then for context, you can see the entire city of Chicago, there's over 360 miles of
bike lanes citywide, shown in green.
Bus lanes, we started with about six and a half miles of bus lanes.
We currently have 7.6 miles of bus lanes that we're enforcing.
And then citywide, there's about 23 miles.
You can see primarily the western section of Chicago Avenue.
There's some bus lanes on Western Avenue.
And then 79th Street and then the Jeffrey Jump are the areas outside of the current pilot
area that we're not currently enforcing.
Bus stops.
There's about 706 bus stops in the original pilot area.
Currently, as you can see on screen, there's about 1,300 bus stops.
And then citywide, there's nearly 10,000 bus stops in the city.
And then finally, meter zones, we've got, we were not enforcing meters in 2024.
We started rolling out meter enforcement this year.
And there's, in red, there's about 2,000, almost 2,100 meter zones in the city.
And then citywide, there's about double that number and mostly concentrated along major commercial
corridors outside of the business core.
And then finally, street cleaning.
We launched street cleaning in 2026 with about 18 square miles of the city enforcing street
cleaning.
And citywide, if you take out some of the industrial areas on the southeast side and O'Hare and
Midway, you've got about 200 square miles of street cleaning that could be enforced with
the Smart Streets pilot.
With that, I'm going to turn it over.
Oh, actually, I'm talking about data.
I apologize.
So some of the numbers, just wanted to give some context.
We've issued about 140,000 warnings and violations since the program launched in fall of 2024.
75% of those are zero fine warnings.
But one of the things, and Jim Merrill referred to this from Active Trans referred to this when
he was speaking, one of the things we're really seeing is that reoffending is not particularly
prevalent when you see people getting warning, you know, 84% of drivers who got a zero fine
warning never received a fine.
And then if you look at folks who get one, somewhere between one and three tickets, over
90% did not get another ticket.
And that's for two years.
So that's actually a good track record of data at this point.
90% of the warnings and violations went to Illinois license plates.
And about two thirds of those went to drivers inside of Chicago.
About 37% went to drivers outside of Chicago.
And then as we launched, and the primary goal was really around bike lane safety and also
bus lane, bus efficiency.
I wanted to talk a little bit about some of the data we've seen.
You'll notice that passenger data or passenger vehicles, which are in red, are kind of over
represented here.
But the reality is those folks are in those buckets that I talked about where they don't
get another ticket.
They're actually, while there's a lot of people who have gotten an initial warning or initial
ticket, they haven't gotten additional since then.
The trucks and truck tractors are the vehicles that we consistently see continuing to violate
the Smart Streets ordinance.
And now with that, I'll turn it over to Chuck.
Okay.
We're going to talk about revenue since the start of this pilot.
In 2024, one in four events were bike lane, three in four events were bus lane at a 60% collection
rate.
In 2025, one in three events were bike lanes, two in five events were bus lanes at a 65%
collection rate.
And now in 2026, one in five events are bike lanes, one in five events are bus lanes, and
one in two events are meter violations at a 40% collection rate currently.
May I ask you a quick clarifying question?
When you refer to a collection rate, what does that mean?
Sorry if that's an obvious question.
No.
So the way we're calculating it currently is based on when the ticket was issued.
So we give the percentage.
So if we issue 100 tickets and 60 of them are received, that's 60% collection rate on those
violations.
Does the collection rate vary between commercial and passenger vehicles?
I think that would be an interesting breakdown at some point.
Yeah, we could share that through the chair.
Thank you.
So we broke it down on the right side starting in 2024 in December when we started this pilot.
We issued a total of 3,150 violations of those.
302 resulted in actual citations.
2,840 of those were warnings, the zero fine warning, for a potential revenue of $37,100.
And we collected $32,023 in 2024.
Followed by 2025 when we added parking meters, 49,348 total number of violations issued.
Of those, 12,199 resulted in an actual violation with 37,149 warnings.
Potential revenue for that year was $1.8 million, and we collected $1.416 in 2025.
Followed by 2026 where we're currently at, we've issued 87,851 violations.
22,487 of those resulted in an actual ticket.
65,364 of those are warnings.
Potential revenue is $2.6 million, and we've collected so far, year-to-date, $1.134 million.
So total, since 2024, we've collected $2.5 million with a potential revenue of $4.4 outstanding.
I'll briefly note before you continue, non-member Alderman Vasquez with us.
Good to have you, sir.
Perfect.
So we're going to talk about a little – so this is the technology that we're currently using.
Eight DOF and CDOT vehicles have two affixed ALPR cameras with two evidence cameras attached
that provides the stitched image of the vehicle in violation.
We're currently enforcing bike lane, bus lane, and parking meters in the pilot.
The issue with the current limitations, there's no video evidence, and it requires manual enforcement
of the driver with this current technology.
CTA is also currently using six CTA buses, currently on Route 20, 36, and 66.
They're enforcing bike lanes, bus lanes, and bus stops.
The limitations with that system, it only enforces on the right side of the street.
We are also currently using three no-cost pilots underway, additional two mobile camera options
and one fixed camera option for testing additional use cases, such as double parking, street sweeping,
crosswalks, no parking, and all the other cover defense violations.
Features include capture 10-second video as part of the evidence package, ability to enforce both sides
of the street simultaneously, and rear-facing cameras to capture disabled parking hang tags
for vehicles that are exempt from paying the meter.
Also have the ability to extensively subdivide enforcement zones.
We're available for any of our customers.
We're available for any of our customers.
We're available for any of our customers.
We're available for any of our customers.
We're available for any of our customers.
Any questions?
Well, I suspect there may be – okay, he keeps walking away.
So I thank you very much.
I find it fascinating.
I suspect the room does.
I know that we also have with us Raquel Cochado, program manager from CEDA,
and Elaine Herman, managing deputy director.
Kiran Koka, I hope I'm saying that right, deputy director.
Raquel Rivera, assistant director.
And Matthew McGork, I hope that's correct, assistant director from the Department of Finance,
as well as representatives from the CTA for any questions.
And I will afford, as a co-sponsor of the original ordinance, Alderman Andrei Vazquez.
And then next to Alderman Lawson.
Thank you very much, Chairman.
Really appreciate this.
It's definitely been a subject that we've been discussing a lot, trying to see expansion.
I apologize.
I came in a little late, but I had questions about what I just saw.
So you mentioned some of the – there's different pilots, one that have vehicles that only get one side of the street,
some that get both.
Because – and pardon me for my ignorance, if you're just getting one side of the street, but the cars are going all directions,
they still catch the street, right?
So you're just talking about the ability to catch more at the same time?
No, it's more important on a one-way street when there's vehicles on both sides of the street,
and we want to enforce both sides.
That's what I'm really – so we're learning through the testing and through this pilot,
that, okay, this works for this and this works for that.
God, this is more tailoring to what streets we're talking.
Perfect.
I think the thing that I'm trying to – one, it's great that the collection is happening.
The thing that's just been – I've been challenged by is – and not to put on anyone more of the results.
It's just been very slow to get to the scale we're talking about,
and it feels like a lot of testing of little things when in reality I imagine you could have just got a whole bunch of cameras
to cover the whole city, figure out the revenue,
and that revenue itself would help you continue to make upgrades as it's covering the whole city.
I guess what's the thought process, if you know, as to why it's like a small pilot here, small pilot there,
and we're talking like three, four years later still not having a citywide one done?
I would say since we've started this pilot, there's been a lot of growing pains with different technologies
and noticing – making sure that we're noticing the proper vehicle that's in violation.
So we're very cautious in making sure that it's a good packet that we're sending out during this pilot.
Okay.
But that to me, because I appreciate that, is less about, hey, coverage for the whole city
and more like if we do cover the whole city, how do we follow up and make sure where the tickets are being implemented,
that they're actually going where they need to?
Are those things happening concurrently as far as scaling up while also trying to learn that?
Because, again, I don't understand why we're still stuck in certain neighborhoods
rather than getting more than six cameras on buses across the city.
We're definitely working on scaling up.
I think part of the challenge that we have is all of the technology vendors we're using,
both the no-cost pilots and the actual paid vendors, require annotation.
So all of the routes that either our vehicles or the CTA vehicles drive down need to have all of those sections
essentially put in a big GIS file.
And so that does take time.
We also, as Chuck mentioned, want to make sure that as we're adding additional violation categories,
that we're getting good data, that actually they're good violations because the worst thing would be for a bunch of violations
to go to administrative hearings or other things like that and end up getting dismissed.
Yeah, totally.
I think that's why, for me, I think about what the cost would look like to outfit everything with the cameras
and maybe you're not implementing the tickets until you're letting that run for like a year
or some number of months to go, okay, this feels more accurate.
We're getting better in the accuracy.
But as far as the scale itself, we're there.
I get that it's a capacity thing.
Is it also maybe a cost thing?
What would it cost if you wanted to outfit all the vehicles we have with a camera
and then work on this at a larger scale?
I think the other thing, actually, which neither Chuck nor I mentioned, but is authority.
We only have authority to enforce in the current pilot zone, which is Irving Park, Ashland, and 26th and Archer, basically.
So that's where we have authority to enforce using smart streets.
Meaning us.
Correct.
All right, Vazquez, may I ask a clarifying question?
Yeah, yeah.
So I think part of what I hear my colleague getting at is to see the map expand last year,
but to not see an expansion of the number of vehicles observing and issuing citations was admittedly confusing for myself.
Is council authorization needed to expand the number of vehicles?
I would say it was based on what we had budgeted for last year.
That's what we allocated for our resources.
So I appreciate that because it actually, it's both.
It's one, more vehicles than the current, but also expanding the map citywide.
Because if you're saying part of the reason you can't go larger than the pilot area is because that's what you're mandated by the municipal code.
Correct.
Then we just say, hey, we're going to go citywide just to open it up and give you the capability
and then figure out both, right, more vehicles, but also the ability to find out different streets,
other neighborhoods where it's maybe less dense and you can get more done quickly.
And that part is just us changing the code as far as the map.
It's, yes, it's city council action changing the code.
It's also working together to establish reasonable timelines and then the funding.
And I think that funding includes additional staffing, additional vehicles, certainly.
And then there's other expenses on software and hardware as well.
If through the chair you could send the most, like the Cadillac version of what we're talking about,
the midsize and the Pinto to figure out what we can actually appropriate,
because this is going to return revenue if you're putting it on the front end.
And I appreciate that the map is just the map.
You're going to take however much time you need in the pilot,
but being able to expand that gives you the ability to move elsewhere and try it out.
So that's great.
Expect that we'll be introducing stuff.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Sharon.
I appreciate the Pinto reference.
You are a true child of the 80s, Alderman Vesquez.
We will now go to Alderman Lawson.
Thank you, Chair.
I don't know anyone who drove a Pinto in the 80s.
You should talk to me tomorrow.
That paid off.
Well, fair, fair.
Somebody came into my office the other day and they got a ticket for parking in a bike lane.
And they were kind of upset because we were very conscious about bike lanes and we want to be safe.
And I said, oh, maybe it's one of those smart enforcement ones.
No, it was on Southport, where someone actually had to get out and write the ticket,
which means they were there a lot longer than maybe they thought when they were so respectful of a bike lane.
But which raises a couple of things, right?
Like we love the quick enforcement because lots of times people are just running in and out.
And I'm just running in and out, you know, and everything that comes behind them is waiting on their latte.
But also, I don't have a bus on Southport.
And so neither does Lincoln Avenue, right?
And these are well-metered, heavily trafficked streets.
We've got bike lanes.
How are we being intentional about some of those areas that are heavily metered and trafficked with our revenue and seat-out vehicles?
Or how are we looking at those?
Because I don't see a lot of tickets on Southport.
I guess Chuck and I have been working on this issue since 2017, long before Smart Streets.
We set up a 311 code for people parking in bike lanes where cyclists could actually report that data.
And that's something that Chuck and his team have been using since then.
So we definitely have been using 311 reports and other data.
But I'll let Chuck add to that.
Yeah, I would just say that even with Smart Streets, bike lane violations are even up this year with employees walking on foot.
So they're still patrolling and forcing.
As we get more data, 9-1-1, 311, it's making our staff much more precise on where the issues are happening.
So every year it gets better and better.
I guess I would just like to target some of those streets that have meters and bike lanes and lots of crosswalks and pedestrians without a bus.
And we could probably give you, you know, a few on the north side or at least in the pilot area to look at.
Southport's the one for me.
And I know we're issuing tickets for seven code violations right now.
Is crosswalks one of them?
It's not currently, but it's something we're exploring and something we're testing in the no-cost pilot.
So that's really important to me, right?
Everyone's a pedestrian first.
And, you know, I understand how the technology would be different, but certainly around schools, around some heavily congested areas, you know, the visibility on the crosswalk is something we spend a lot of time on.
And so you have my support there and want to roll that out.
Obviously, people might have seen Wrigley Field in your pilot zone on Clark Street.
I'm very excited for that pilot and to see how it works, and we'll talk more about that later.
But I think, you know, as we go into more automated enforcement on everything, this is a really key tool for safety, for our budget, not to be naive.
Is this program currently revenue-generating, or do we have a projection as to when it might be?
It is currently revenue-generating.
Great.
How can we expand the scale then to be more revenue-generating might be the question of next month and beyond, but I want to put that in your head right now.
And the pilot expires in December?
December 21st.
And we would have to reauthorize that.
Yes.
So, because this all came out of a budget negotiation, I think, at some point, right?
Or that's when the expansions happened?
The expansion was last year during budget.
Right.
I mean, do we have to wait for budget to do that, or can we do that on our own, which might be a question for my colleagues?
We certainly can do it on our own.
Great.
Great.
You know, I would say I have some questions about some of the data in that.
But, you know, the reoffenders being trucks, most of those trucks are labeled and go to a corporation that we can probably have a conversation with so that it's not a cost of doing business, because I think a lot of them think that way.
I know we have some rental car companies that they eat the ticket.
They might get a batch deal.
Thanks, Michael.
or whatever they get, but, you know, that's in a parking space, not in, you know, a loading
situation. Have we added any loading zones of any significance since this came out either?
Because that's the one thing, you know, we have to start to be smarter about loading and being
in strategic loading zones in areas that have a lot of traffic and a lot of deliveries as well.
We could look into that through the chair. I'm sure we've added loading zones. I'm not sure
about the number within the SmartStreet's pilot area, but that's definitely part of the solution.
I would agree. Great. This is exciting stuff. It's good work. You know, I would encourage my
colleagues that aren't in it to sign up and see what we can do to expand and appreciate working
with you and look forward to in the future. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much, Audman Lawson. Before we go to Audman Martin's questions,
if I may ask a clarifying question on something that the author said, I remember in the original
iteration of this that passed, there was a piece related to smart loading zones. It seems to have
gone a bit by the wayside, at least to my recollection. Can you speak to what is or is not
happening with that component of the original pilot? Sure. We at CDOT worked with DOF to identify some
potential smart loading zones in the original pilot area, so primarily the CBD. And ultimately,
there was interest in better enforcing what we currently had from the elected officials in those
areas rather than adding new parking zones at that time. For the benefit of the public, could you also
define what we're talking about when we say a smart loading zone? Oh, sure. We were looking at
the potential of adding a designating part of the street for loading with potentially a fixed camera
that we were still exploring the technology, but potentially with fixed cameras that could be
integrated into a parking meter deal or some other payment mechanism to actually have someone pay for
that parking spot or that smart loading zone while they were using the loading zone based on the actual
dwell time in that zone. I do believe, and then I will go to Audman Martin, that as we expand the
geography and bring more wards into the pilot, I think you may see an increased appetite for
revisiting smart loading zones. But we can table that for the moment. Audman Martin?
Thank you, Chairman. Good morning. I was actually going to start where he left off, so I'll just plus
one that piece. I don't think we need to belabor it because it's certainly not the first time we've
talked about it in this committee, but I do think that we're long overdue to be able to start
piloting some of these the ways that some other cities have done. I think Philadelphia comes to
mind is one that's been exploring this, so keep us posted in terms of a timeline by which we can
start bringing this publicly. Following up on a few things that people have already asked, I just
wanted to confirm with my notes. In both 2025 and 2026, how many personnel have been assigned to the
program, FTEs specifically? We've got that. Just hold on.
And if it's not immediately at the ready, happy to take it through the chair. But if you can find it
quickly, that's great, too. We'll get it through the chair.
Okay. And same question with regard to number of vehicles. And then I know that Alderman Lawson had
mentioned, is this revenue generating? I assume you mean it's a net positive, like it's bringing in
revenue beyond the cost. So it'd be great to be able to identify that for both 2025 and 2026.
At what point would we want to see some indication of a reduction in violations across corridors,
especially in the areas that are currently a part of the pilot? Because I think we have consistently
pitched this as not something to help chip away the city's budget gap, but something to, at the end of
the day, change habits. Right. And I think we are definitely seeing that with bike and bus lane
violations, especially the, you know, the Ubers, lifts, the taxis, and individual passenger cars or
passenger vehicles. The more challenging moving the needle is on those delivery vehicles. That's really
the continuing repeat offenders. The other folks kind of who personally own vehicles get the message,
um, but I do think, uh, that it becomes a cost of doing business to some of the larger delivery
companies. And that's, that's the challenge we're facing. What have, what has some of the outreach
looked like to them to say, how do we get this information over to not just people who might work
with them, but some of them obviously employ third-party contractors such that it's not, for example,
Amazon employed drivers who are doing this work. That seems to be another layer of potential
complication. Honestly, we haven't done a lot of outreach to those companies. I think it's just,
um, we don't necessarily, I mean, I think our, the, the response we've gotten when we have done
outreach is it's a cost of doing business. I think that's, um, the unfortunate reality.
Yeah. And I think that that dovetails with the point that Audemann LaSvada mentioned most recently
about these smart loading zones, if both for delivery vehicles and to some extent ride shares,
because even in areas like mine, I think for the proposed or for the pilot expansion,
we have a little bit of it, but not a ton. I, at least on a weekly basis, I'm seeing what appears
to be a ride share driver firmly in the bike lane and sometimes partially bike lane and travel lane.
Um, so not great. And that's not always going to come up with the data, but we know that that's
happening. And so I think it, again, just underscores, let's play around with what the
possibilities are. I know it's going to create some tension and zero sum. It might mean removing
some parking spaces that people are accustomed to using at their convenience in exchange for this.
But I do think, um, that's going to be a big part of it. And especially to accommodate some of
the delivery truck sized vehicles, that will be an issue as well. But I appreciate the team's work
looking forward to the, through the chair responses and Saldeman Lawson said, um, a proposal for
expansion before the end of the year. Thank you. Thank you, chair. Further questions from committee
members? Before you go to round two, my friend, I have a, a few of my own. I believe we have, uh,
I will, I will allow, uh, order woman, I'm not hopping north, order woman.
Thank you, chair. I had a question about, well, firstly,
thank you for all your work. Uh, we've had conversations about the 48th Ward, particularly
Edgewater and Sheridan Road, how challenging it is. And I would like to have more conversation.
Of course, I would like to be included in the expansion of this program because Sheridan Road,
we haven't really looked at how to rebuild that road in a very long time. Um, whole buildings are
redoing their mail rooms because of so much delivery that's happening. Um, and we are the,
the lakefront trailhead. So we have a lot of traffic, Ardmore, Sheridan particularly. So, um,
I have a, I have a lot of challenges on Sheridan Road. We do not want to create a road where we have
so many, um, cut, you know, curb cuts, um, that, that's not going to create a good pedestrian experience
for anybody. Um, and also we have a problem with enforcement. You know, we're, we're talking with
our commanders and they really want to help. They just don't know how. So towards the end of being
data driven, you know, I, I talked to you, Chuck, about how is it that we can look at our data, um,
to figure out where those intersections might be that we can focus on while we, we are not in this
pilot. I would like to continue that conversation. Um, but, but for this pilot in particular,
is that data available? Um, the, the violations and is, is that something that you can share with
the wards so we can compare, um, how, how it's trending over time? Is that available?
And it's, it's prepared for your ward already. We're just scheduling the meeting. So we are
ready to share with that. Terrific. That's going to be so helpful. Um, the, the other thing is that
it's, this is just for, um, high, high, uh, arterial streets, right? Not residential.
Smart streets. Yeah. So smart streets does go into residential for street cleaning.
Oh, it does. Yes. We're currently testing that with street cleaning. Terrific. Much more efficient.
Yeah. Um, but not for crosswalks in residential. We are testing crosswalks also, especially in, uh,
currently in the Alderman Lawson's ward with the fixed option. Um, it's someone parks in a crosswalk,
but we are annotating around certain areas. So we'll, we'll be able to do that too. We think
with the new, with some of the newer technology we're testing. Terrific. Yeah. Wait,
the 48th ward is very small compared to the ward that I was born in the 10th ward. And we have many
schools. And so basically all of it is a school zone. So we would like to be able to say that it's
safe for you to walk your kids to school, no matter where you live in the ward. And, um, we have,
so we are, we have introduced today, lowering the residential speed limits in Edgewater, but that's,
you know, it's going to take some time for people to, to adapt. Um, and we need to use all the tools
in the toolbox to keep our, our residents safe, no matter how they get around. Uh, I just want to
appreciate you for that. Um, and then again, with.
It's really an issue. I am concerned about the Amazon drivers that are using their own cars right now for deliveries, and they're tasked to deliver within a two-minute time window for each package.
And on Sheridan Road, they're not necessarily finding a place to park safely, so they're just going to stop on Sheridan Road in the bus lane where the 147 goes.
So I would like to see this expanded in a way that is really targeting those that should be paying or helping us figure out how to use our roadways safely and not block our buses.
So thank you. Thank you for your work.
Thank you.
So I'll speak into this briefly with a statement and then just a couple of questions.
Statement being, according to the public testimony op-ed letter that Mr. Jim Merrill described earlier, I think you've already got 20 and probably more orders saying skip the Pinto, go to the Cadillac.
And my expectation and hope is that the budget put in front of us in a month or so is that Cadillac-level investment in smart streets.
We'll work on the map side.
Y'all work on the investment in hardware and individuals to make that work better.
We're here for it, and I think that's what the room is saying as well.
I had a couple of questions.
I noted as we – if we can go back to the slide that showed year-by-year collection rate and, like, ticket issuances.
The computer is locked, Iris.
Well, while it's locked, I will say what I remember of the slides is we saw a decreasing collection rate from 2024 to 2025 and then a particular drop-off in 2026, so I think about 45 or 40 percent.
What do we think we attribute that decreasing collection rate to?
We think it has a lot to do with – so first of all, this is based on issue date.
So the collection rate will go up for last year based on tickets issued – or paid today.
The other issue we think is with the expansion and all the warnings that were built into 2026.
As we expanded, the first violation was a warning.
So for everybody in the expanded area that was parking illegally got a warning the first time.
So that's why we think a lot of the efforts went towards warnings this first year as we expanded.
And, yeah, I was going to say, as you could see on screen, the total number of violations was almost 88,000, but of those, 65,000 were zero fine warnings.
That's helpful to understand.
I remember hearing – we do, in fact, have a representative from the CTA.
Is that accurate?
Mm-hmm.
If you wouldn't mind.
Thank you so much.
So I recall as described in the slides and at the outset that there were six CTA buses with cameras fixed.
My understanding is that that number has increased substantially or is planned to increase substantially.
I was wondering if you could describe that to the committee.
Yeah.
Hi, Molly Poppy, Chief Planning and Innovation Officer at CTA.
So we have six cameras right now.
We are expanding up to 52.
We are doing that install right now.
We anticipate those 52 buses will start issuing warning violations by the end of this month.
So we will be all the way up to 52.
We anticipate continuing to enforce on Madison, the 36 Broadway, and the 66 Chicago.
And then we will look to expand to Halstead later this year or early next year.
The program is expanded.
It's fantastic.
It's great to hear.
I was curious, from a revenue perspective, it's safety first, it's dollars and cents second, but from a dollars and cents perspective, is that revenue, if you all are collecting the data that leads to the citation, is there a revenue sharing situation with the CTA?
How does that work?
There is not currently a revenue share with the CTA.
Our budget funded the install of these cameras, including we asked for additional funding through the new NIDA legislation.
So with the recent budget amendment that NIDA or RTA passed in June of 26, that allowed us to expand up to the 52 cameras.
So it's about a $2 million investment for install.
And then each camera is about $1,800 per bus per month for what we call O&M.
Another reason to say thank you, NIDA.
And then I'll just note, and then we'll go look for member questions one more time and then go to Alderman Vasquez.
I know in my ward, when we look at 911 calls, actually the second and I think fifth most common 911 calls are actually parking violations.
And I know that 95% of those are routine dispatch.
From either a safety, a law enforcement, a quality of life perspective, the program that we're describing, I mean, really solves myriad issues that we're dealing with in our neighborhoods.
And it's fascinating to hear both about the success and potential that we're talking about.
Do we have any other member questions on the floor?
If not, we will return to Alderman Vasquez.
Thank you very much, Chairman.
I'll apologize for all the car references as well.
This is more related to Amazon.
And like we have other legislation where we're thinking about the delivery service providers, right?
Because Amazon is effectively hiring a different company to absolve itself of liability.
So in understanding the challenges in collecting – are there challenges in collecting fees from them when they're blocking the bike lanes?
And like what are the challenges you are seeing to see if we can better address it from different angles?
I'm not sure.
We can get that information.
We get through the chair.
So meaning – from my understanding, if a truck that happens to be a delivery truck that gets ticketed, who is that directed to?
It's a license plate and it goes to that specific company?
The vehicle owner.
Yeah, so if they're hiring a third party, the third party driver is responsible for those violations.
Got it.
So much appreciated because I think that's what we're looking to do.
Like if you're a third party one, do we then say, well, actually, the person should be responsible, the person that just hired you to do it, and that way we cut out the middle person and get directly to it?
And then – and you may know.
I know that – I think when we expanded last term the bike lane violation fee, I think that was the highest it could go to per municipal code.
Is that correct?
Yeah, that's correct.
So if we wanted to increase it, we'd have – we'd need state law or NIDA.
It's actually state law.
That's right.
And it's $250 for bike lanes.
Okay.
Just want to double check.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, sir.
Going once, going twice.
Thank you all so much to the public for coming to be a part of this dialogue with us, to our representatives of various city departments and agencies.
Fascinating conversation.
All this said, with there being no further business before the committee, can I have a motion to adjourn?
Audman Martin, so moves.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
We are adjourned.
Thank you.