Drive, walk or bike around Oak Park today and you can see the changes: new markings, barriers, signs, crosswalk treatments and traffic-calming measures. Some seem to work well. Others leave residents asking a simple question: What problem were we trying to solve?
More than a year ago, village trustees approved a $30 million Bike Plan despite significant community opposition and repeated requests like mine to revise portions of it. The village promised greater safety, better connectivity and a stronger biking culture. Those are reasonable goals. But after committing millions of taxpayer dollars, we should be able to ask: Is it working?
Have bicycle trips increased? If so, where? Have crashes declined? Do pedestrians, cyclists and drivers feel safer? How much has been spent so far? And what measurable improvements have resulted? These seem to be reasonable questions.
There is also the question of how we are paying for it. Trustees chose long-term borrowing to finance a plan that includes pavement markings, flexible barriers, signage and other components that may need replacement long before the debt is retired. Residents could still be paying for some improvements after they have worn out or been replaced. Why?
Harvard Avenue illustrates the larger problem. Many residents who opposed the proposed changes are not anti-bike; some are regular cyclists. Harvard already functions as a bike boulevard, and village data presented during the planning process showed vehicle speeds along much of the street generally between 15 and 24 mph. Residents reasonably asked: What additional problem are we solving, and is the proposed solution proportional to it? Change simply for the sake of ideology or to make a point does not serve the public interest.
Perhaps the best answer is also the simplest: measure first, then adjust.
In fairness, some improvements appear promising. Pedestrian-activated warning lights can make crossing busy streets easier and safer. Traffic calming can reduce vehicle speeds. But it can also create backups, shift traffic onto neighboring streets or eliminate parking. We should measure all of it — the successes as well as the unintended consequences.
And if the evidence shows that a particular treatment isn’t working, change it. If Harvard works better as a bike boulevard without additional infrastructure, correct it and leave it that way. Changing course isn’t an admission of failure. It’s responsible government.
Innovative ideas shouldn’t be embraced simply because they’re new or rejected because they’re different. Leaders should ask: Is this a priority? Is it the right solution? Is there a less expensive alternative? And, most importantly, what does the evidence tell us?
A $30 million public investment deserves more than promotional messaging or emotional testimonies. Oak Park residents deserve a public scorecard showing what has been spent, what has changed, what has worked and what hasn’t. Only then can we answer the question: Is Oak Park’s Bike Plan a success or a failure?
Therefore, I encourage Oak Park residents to take action. Contact the trustees and claim your right for an accounting.
Kurtis Todd is an Oak Park resident.
