the sections on both sides of the Avenue have been built up, a considerable cross traffic will have developed and pedestrian traffic become more difficult, and the through traffic will evidently suffer. It seems to me, however, that this Avenue ought to become a business street par preference and that even now through traffic should be diverted from it.
For South Michigan Avenue the widened Roosevelt Road will serve as a traffic outlet; but otherwise the same reservations hold good for this part of the Avenue as for that on the North side.
The proposed outlets Northward and Southward along the shore of the lake I do not believe will be efficient and will only cause increased crossing difficulties at Michigan Avenue.
Another problem hard to solve in connection with the automobile traffic is that of parking the cars in the loop. The parking is now mainly done in garages, some of them fairly high buildings, so that elevators, etc., are necessary in order to place the cars. With the growth of the loop and the rise in ground values, this sort of parking will surely become utterly impossible both to car owners and to traffic.
Parking of cars along the sidewalks is most obstructive of street traffic. It cannot be avoided ; such cars are parked only for a short time while the passenger transacts some business nearby. Parking for any length of time is, of course, theoretically prohibited, but in the interest of traffic it should be so also in practice.
Then, we also have parking in Grant Park. This is practicable so long as the park remains in its present state. However, when it becomes a park worthy of its situation—and this ought to happen very soon—no parking space can be counted on there.
The questions of relief from traffic congestion in the streets, and of suitably arranged parking space for present needs and future expansion, have been much discussed by the various commissions that handle traffic problems. I do not know what plans may have been proposed to this end. One project that I have heard mentioned contemplates raising pedestrian traffic one story by the building of elevated sidewalks along the building walls and joining these walks across the street. By this means foot passengers could move more freely as they would be independent of automobile traffic, and the latter would have a wider and unencumbered road; besides, parking could be allowed under the sidewalks. Rationally executed, such a plan would undoubtedly aid traffic in general in the loop. In such parts of the loop and its future extension, that are not as yet closely built up and where new buildings will be erected, the realization of this idea is more easy, if the design and construction of the elevated walks, etc., are taken care of in advance.
More difficult is the change in the crowded dis
trict, with all the alterations in ground floors this project would demand. Furthermore, it would undoubtedly be very costly to the city, for in such matters one dare not count on much assistance on the part of the property owners.
It is possible, however, that the execution of this plan, even in such districts, will eventually force itself upon the public, and this principally in the interest of foot traffic. The enormous yearly increasing toll of lives and injuries exacted by automobile traffic speaks plainly in favor of such a solution.
Automobile traffic would be benefited by the wider road at its disposal, but the street crossing jams cannot be avoided by this means; and upon closer investigation it will be found that the parking problem is not solved thereby.
If we assume the present loop to contain forty blocks we have 60,000 linear feet of facade. Reserving fifty per cent of this for access from street to shops and building entrances, we can count on parking space in the loop for only three thousand cars, allotting ten feet to each. But all this space should really be allowed only for automobiles that have short errands in the immediate neighborhood.
I have also heard it mentioned that parking space should be provided under Grant Park. This seems a happy thought. But if Michigan Avenue is still to serve as the main thoroughfare and the largest part of the loop parking be done under Grant Park, the traffic on the Avenue will evidently be still more hindered by new traverses.
But if we could locate a new traffic channel which properly arranged ivould serve to carry the traffic between a sufficiently large parking space under Grant Park and the city’s peripheral sections, and then, so arrange it that Michigan Avenue became a street that simply carried the traffic between the new thoroughfare and the parking spaces on one hand, and the loop on the other, we would be on the right road. Then we could make the parking space a sort of automobile terminal, where by far the largest number of automobiles coming into the loop from the outskirts would stop. That would mean a considerable reduction in motor traffic within the loop, and the problem of parking space ivoidd be solved.
It is along these lines we must act: Not aim to seek the remedy for the traffic conditions and parking difficulties within the loop itself, bid rather take steps to provide for the greatest possible diversion of the traffic from the loop. And this must be done in such a manner that the improvement is not only theoretical, but is effective in practice and for a long time to come.
First, all through traffic should be diverted from the loop and Michigan Avenue, and then the greatest possible part of the traffic pertaining to the loop itself should be so regulated that it would
For South Michigan Avenue the widened Roosevelt Road will serve as a traffic outlet; but otherwise the same reservations hold good for this part of the Avenue as for that on the North side.
The proposed outlets Northward and Southward along the shore of the lake I do not believe will be efficient and will only cause increased crossing difficulties at Michigan Avenue.
Another problem hard to solve in connection with the automobile traffic is that of parking the cars in the loop. The parking is now mainly done in garages, some of them fairly high buildings, so that elevators, etc., are necessary in order to place the cars. With the growth of the loop and the rise in ground values, this sort of parking will surely become utterly impossible both to car owners and to traffic.
Parking of cars along the sidewalks is most obstructive of street traffic. It cannot be avoided ; such cars are parked only for a short time while the passenger transacts some business nearby. Parking for any length of time is, of course, theoretically prohibited, but in the interest of traffic it should be so also in practice.
Then, we also have parking in Grant Park. This is practicable so long as the park remains in its present state. However, when it becomes a park worthy of its situation—and this ought to happen very soon—no parking space can be counted on there.
The questions of relief from traffic congestion in the streets, and of suitably arranged parking space for present needs and future expansion, have been much discussed by the various commissions that handle traffic problems. I do not know what plans may have been proposed to this end. One project that I have heard mentioned contemplates raising pedestrian traffic one story by the building of elevated sidewalks along the building walls and joining these walks across the street. By this means foot passengers could move more freely as they would be independent of automobile traffic, and the latter would have a wider and unencumbered road; besides, parking could be allowed under the sidewalks. Rationally executed, such a plan would undoubtedly aid traffic in general in the loop. In such parts of the loop and its future extension, that are not as yet closely built up and where new buildings will be erected, the realization of this idea is more easy, if the design and construction of the elevated walks, etc., are taken care of in advance.
More difficult is the change in the crowded dis
trict, with all the alterations in ground floors this project would demand. Furthermore, it would undoubtedly be very costly to the city, for in such matters one dare not count on much assistance on the part of the property owners.
It is possible, however, that the execution of this plan, even in such districts, will eventually force itself upon the public, and this principally in the interest of foot traffic. The enormous yearly increasing toll of lives and injuries exacted by automobile traffic speaks plainly in favor of such a solution.
Automobile traffic would be benefited by the wider road at its disposal, but the street crossing jams cannot be avoided by this means; and upon closer investigation it will be found that the parking problem is not solved thereby.
If we assume the present loop to contain forty blocks we have 60,000 linear feet of facade. Reserving fifty per cent of this for access from street to shops and building entrances, we can count on parking space in the loop for only three thousand cars, allotting ten feet to each. But all this space should really be allowed only for automobiles that have short errands in the immediate neighborhood.
I have also heard it mentioned that parking space should be provided under Grant Park. This seems a happy thought. But if Michigan Avenue is still to serve as the main thoroughfare and the largest part of the loop parking be done under Grant Park, the traffic on the Avenue will evidently be still more hindered by new traverses.
But if we could locate a new traffic channel which properly arranged ivould serve to carry the traffic between a sufficiently large parking space under Grant Park and the city’s peripheral sections, and then, so arrange it that Michigan Avenue became a street that simply carried the traffic between the new thoroughfare and the parking spaces on one hand, and the loop on the other, we would be on the right road. Then we could make the parking space a sort of automobile terminal, where by far the largest number of automobiles coming into the loop from the outskirts would stop. That would mean a considerable reduction in motor traffic within the loop, and the problem of parking space ivoidd be solved.
It is along these lines we must act: Not aim to seek the remedy for the traffic conditions and parking difficulties within the loop itself, bid rather take steps to provide for the greatest possible diversion of the traffic from the loop. And this must be done in such a manner that the improvement is not only theoretical, but is effective in practice and for a long time to come.
First, all through traffic should be diverted from the loop and Michigan Avenue, and then the greatest possible part of the traffic pertaining to the loop itself should be so regulated that it would