For 10 consecutive weeks, both the supporters and opponents of concrete protected bike lanes on Archer Avenue have gathered at a busy intersection in Brighton Park to express their opinions, but you wouldn’t know that by reading Yunus Emre Tozal’s recent op-ed (“Why concrete barriers alone cannot fix Chicago’s Archer Avenue,” Feb. 9).
Tozal characterizes the neighborhood response to the redesign of Archer as universally negative, but there have been many weeks when supporters have outnumbered opponents during the protests. Not only that, but also, we’ve heard messages of support from neighbors walking home, residents getting off the No. 62 Archer bus and even drivers who’ve shared words of encouragement.
Of course, there are opponents of the project, but they do not represent the entirety of the neighborhood. Talk to our neighbors (in person or on social media), and you’ll find a range of opinion — including outright opposition, enthusiastic support, skepticism that the project will achieve its goal of reducing crashes and a wait-and-see attitude that reserves judgment until construction wraps up later this spring.
For the supporters who have braved the cold since early December, safety on Archer is not an abstract issue. Most of us have shared stories of being hit by cars, and too many of us know people who have been seriously injured or even killed. We’re hopeful that this project will make it safer to get around the neighborhoods we call home: Brighton Park and the surrounding communities of Gage Park, McKinley Park, Archer Heights and Little Village.
Many local supporters have adopted the slogan “Archer is for everybody,” because we believe this major thoroughfare needs to accommodate residents no matter how they get around: drivers, yes, but also pedestrians, cyclists, young people on scooters, parents pushing strollers, and neighbors who are elderly and have disabilities.
A safer and more inviting Archer would encourage more trips by bike or on foot — especially short trips within the neighborhood. This would ease traffic congestion, increase foot traffic for local businesses and provide more opportunities for neighbors to see each other face to face and not just from behind a windshield.
Tozal understands the benefits of this project and states, “For years, Archer Avenue has been a game of Russian roulette. The physical separators are simple geometric solutions that will save lives.”
Many Southwest Siders agree.
— Dixon Galvez-Searle, transit advocacy steward, Southwest Collective
Our automobile dependence
Yunus Emre Tozal made a fine contribution to the discussion of how city development must balance the needs of its residents. There are more than safety concerns at stake, we are reminded.
Chicago was once truly a city of neighborhoods, where residents typically worked, shopped, worshipped and played where they lived. This was not entirely by choice: Strict racial segregation, for instance, locked Black residents into the Black Belt. Yet that experience shaped the map of the city that we know today.
As streetcars gave way to private automobiles, the government built interstates and white flight swelled the suburbs, our city infrastructure was refashioned to favor cars. One consequence was to drain neighborhoods of their amenities and vitality. Major shopping districts (Commercial Avenue, Madison-Pulaski, 63d and Halsted) went into decline. Neighborhood theaters and clubs disappeared.
Today, those advocating for more protected lanes are incrementally pushing us back from our automobile dependence and may presage a rekindling of neighborhoods. This requires adjustment and thoughtful planning, but in the long run, this may benefit local businesses much more than the immediate loss of street parking will hurt.
— Paul W. Mollica, Chicago
Neighborhoods and safety
With respect to Yunus Emre Tozal, I agree that we must engage with communities sincerely as we design infrastructure projects. However, I also ask the same of the community residents who attend those meetings.
As a safe streets activist, I have attended many, and rarely do I find residents eager to engage in sincere conversation. What I see instead are grandstanding and bad-faith arguments presenting an individual’s preference as a community good. It is without question that safer streets bring gentrification — but this is a demonstration of the unmet need that safe, walkable neighborhoods deliver.
We must bring so much beauty and safety to our neighborhoods that we swamp demand and the presence of bike lanes isn’t enough to raise property values.
— Carl Beien, Chicago
Empowering true leaders
President Abraham Lincoln’s birthday was last week, and it got me thinking about what Illinois has looked like at its best: a place and a people that meet moral crisis with courage.
As a state legislator, Lincoln stood against slave catchers backed by the federal government who defiled our state’s laws and terrorized our most vulnerable. As president, he broke the back of Southern slave power forever and inaugurated a “new birth of freedom” in America.
We should remind ourselves of that tradition in these trying times, as our communities are stalked by masked federal agents at the behest of an administration unconcerned with the niceties of civil liberties, even those of American citizens. These spiritual successors of the slave catchers must be confronted, and we should look to Lincoln’s example about how to do it.
As Illinois heads to the polls next month in what is shaping up to be a historically important election, I pray we empower leaders who will use every lawful tool at their disposal to protect our neighbors, demand transparency and hold officials accountable for their abuses of power.
— John Engle, Chicago
A principled stand wins
In endorsing state Sen. Laura Fine for Illinois’ 9th Congressional District (“Laura Fine for Democratic nomination in 9th Congressional District,” Feb. 3), the Tribune Editorial Board says in closing, “she was made to feel uncomfortable for her belief in Israel’s right to defend itself or even to exist. A principled position for a principled Democrat, to our minds.”
Then, in its endorsement for Melissa Bean for the 8th Congressional District (“In 8th Congressional District, Melissa Bean is endorsed for Democrats and Jennifer Davis for the GOP,” Feb. 9), the board says that her main opponent, Junaid Ahmed, “supports banning all U.S. military support to Israel, a position that we believe wouldn’t serve U.S. national security interests.”
I wonder who will be endorsed for my home district of the 7th Congressional District. Can’t wait to find out!
Why is unconditional support of Israel, or any foreign country for that matter, part of the editorial board’s criteria for endorsement? Particularly when that country’s government and military commit war crimes that kill tens of thousands.
As is being seen across the country, most recently with Zohran Mamdani in New York and Analilia Mejia in New Jersey, taking a principled stand on foreign policy while remaining focused on the needs of your constituents is the true path to victory.
Regardless of who the editorial board endorses.
— Mohiuddin Ahmed, River Forest
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
