Tag: Chicago

360° spherical photos of Chicago from 300 feet in the air

June 28, 2017 / / 0 Comments

This rad app called Hangar 360 captures a spherical photo from 300 feet in the air. If you look at them on your phone the picture takes advantage of your phone’s sensors and the image moves as your phone moves.

Click on the linked location to view the spherical photo.

Plazas at 150 N Riverside and River Point (444 W Lake St)

Wolf Point – this launch site can no longer be used because it became an active construction site for the second of three skyscrapers a couple of days ago.

Providence St. Mel and downtown Chicago

Garfield Park – one of the city’s grand parks and part of the boulevard system, or “Emerald Necklace” that connects the Northwest Side boulevards to the West Side parks of Humboldt Park and Garfield Park to the South Side parks of Douglas Park, Washington Park, and Jackson Park.

Former Ickes housing site and its relation to downtown

Ickes redevelopment site and National Teachers Academy – this site used to have over 1,000 residences owned by the Chicago Housing Authority and is going to be redeveloped into just under 1,000 units for a mixed-income community.

Smokestacks at a former incinerator in Humboldt Park

West Side incinerator – these two smokestacks remain from one of the city’s four trash incinerators, and are the subject of an upcoming story from City Bureau.

Anti-traffic safety is now a political platform

January 13, 2015 / / 5 Comments

Three of the five men running for Mayor of Chicago have pledged to eliminate enforcing red light running with cameras. Many aldermen have done the same. The Chicago Tribune has factually pointed out that Mayors Daley and Emanuel have mismanaged the red light camera program, with the bulk of it falling upon staff in the Daley administration. (The only part of the program under Emanuel that could be considered mismanagement was changing the business rules to issue tickets when the yellow light was recorded as 2.90 to 2.99 seconds long; Emanuel’s administration changed the rule back and has implemented many other changes following the inspector general’s report.)

Red light cameras lead to an increase in rear-end crashes but decrease the more severe angle (T-bone) crashes, which the Chicago Tribune “sorta” pointed out when it looked at frequencies but not injury costs.

Current 2nd ward Alderman Bob Fioretti, Cook County commissioner Jesus “Chuy’ Garcia, William “Dock” Walls, and Willie Wilson all have decided that neither the facts nor safety for people inside and outside of multi-ton machines are important. They are supporting the right to endanger others by respecting the inconvenience of not always being prepared to stop at a traffic signal.

Fioretti has said he will introduce soon an ordinance to remove red light cameras by April, but I haven’t found it in the legislation database.

Even though Streetsblog Chicago is no longer publishing, John Greenfield is hustling to get us both working again. In the meantime I intend to cover parts of the election, which takes place February 24, with assistance.

Developing a method to score Divvy station connectivity

January 4, 2014 / / 2 Comments

A Divvy station at Halsted/Roscoe in Boystown, covered in snow after the system was shutdown for the first time to protect workers and members. Photo by Adam Herstein.

In researching for a new Streetsblog Chicago article I’m writing about Divvy, Chicago’s bike-share system, I wanted to know which stations (really, neighborhoods) had the best connectivity. They are nodes in a network and the bike-share network’s quality is based on how well (a measure of time) and how many ways one can move from node to node.

I read Institute for Transportation Development Policy’s (ITDP) report “The Bike-Share Planning Guide” [PDF] says that one station every 300 meters (984 feet) “should be the basis to ensure mostly uniform coverage”. They also say there should be 10 to 16 stations per square kilometer of the coverage area, which has a more qualitative definition. It’s really up to the system designer, but the report says “the coverage area must be large enough to contain a significant set of users’ origins and destinations”. If you make it too small it won’t meaningfully connect places and “the system will have a lower chance of success because its convenience will be compromised”. (I was inspired to research this after reading coverage of the report in Next City by Nancy Scola.)

Since I don’t yet know the coverage area – I lack the city’s planning guide and geodata – I’ll use two datasets to see if Chicago meets the 300 meters/984 feet standard.

Dataset 1

The first dataset I created was a distance matrix in QGIS that measured the straight-line distance between each station and its eight nearest stations. This means I would cover a station in all directions, N, S, E, W, and NW, NE, SE, and SW. Download first dataset, distance matrix.

Each dataset offers multiple ways to gauge connectivity. The first dataset, using a straight-line distance method, gives me mean, standard deviation, maximum value, and minimum value. I sorted the dataset by mean. A station with the lowest mean has the greatest number of nearby stations; in other words, most of its nearby stations are closer to it than the next station in the list.

Sorting the first dataset by lowest mean gives these top five best-connected stations:

  1. Canal St & Monroe St, a block north of Union Station (191), mean of 903.96 feet among nearest 8 stations
  2. Clinton St & Madison St, outside Presidential Towers and across from Northwestern Train Station (77), 964.19 feet
  3. Canal St & Madison St, outside Northwestern Train Station (174), 972.40
  4. Canal St & Adams St, north side of Union Station’s Great Hall (192), 982.02
  5. State St & Randolph St, outside Walgreens and across from Block 37 (44), 1,04.19

The least-connected stations are:

  1. Prairie Ave & Garfield Blvd (204), where the nearest station is 4,521 feet away (straight-line distance), or 8.8x greater than the best-connected station, and the mean of the nearest 8 stations is 6,366.82 feet (straight-line distance)
  2. California Ave & 21st St (348), 6,255.32
  3. Kedzie Ave & Milwaukee Ave (260), 5,575.30
  4. Ellis Ave & 58th St (328), 5,198.72
  5. Shore Drive & 55th St (247), 5,168.26

Dataset 2

The second dataset I manipulated is based on Alex Soble’s DivvyBrags Chrome extension that uses a distance matrix created by Nick Bennett (here’s the file) that estimates the bicycle route distance between each station and every other station. This means 88,341 rows! Download second dataset, distance by bike – I loaded it into MySQL to use its maths function, but you could probably use python or R.

The two datasets had some overlap (in bold), but only when finding the stations with the lowest connectivity. In the second dataset, using the estimated bicycle route distance, ranking by the number of stations within 2.5 miles, or the distance one can bike in 30 minutes (the fee-free period) at 12 MPH average, the following are the top five best-connected stations:

  1. Ogden Ave & Chicago Ave, 133 stations within 2.5 miles
  2. Green St & Milwaukee Ave, 131
  3. Desplaines St & Kinzie St, 129
  4. (tied) Larrabee St & Kingsbury St and Carpenter St & Huron St, 128
  5. (tied) Clinton St & Lake St and Green St & Randolph St, 125

Notice that none of these stations overlap with the best-connected stations and none are downtown. And the least-connected stations (these stations have the fewest nearby stations) are:

  1. Shore Drive & 55th St, 11 stations within 2.5 miles
  2. (tied) Ellis Ave & 58th St and Lake Park Ave & 56th St, 12
  3. (tied) Kimbark Ave & 53rd St and Blackstone Ave & Hyde Park Blvd and Woodlawn Ave & 55th St, 13
  4. Prairie Ave & Garfield Blvd, 14
  5. Cottage Grove Ave & 51st St, 15

This, the second dataset, gives you a lot more options on devising a complex or weighted scoring system. For example, you could weight certain factors slightly higher than the number of stations accessible within 2.5 miles. Or you could multiply or divide some factors to obtain a different score.

I tried another method on the second dataset – ranking by average instead of nearby station quantity – and came up with a completely different “highest connectivity” list. Stations that appeared in the least-connected stations list showed up as having the lowest average distance from that station to every other station that was 2.5 miles or closer. Here’s that list:

  1. Kimbark Ave & 53rd St – 13 stations within 2.5 miles, 1,961.46 meters average distance to those 13 stations
    Blackstone Ave & Hyde Park Blvd – 13 stations, 2,009.31 meters average
    Woodlawn Ave & 55th St – 13 stations, 2,027.54 meters average
  2. Cottage Grove Ave & 51st St – 15 stations, 2,087.73 meters average
  3. State St & Kinzie St – 101 stations, 2,181.64 meters average
  4. Clark St & Randolph St – 111 stations, 2,195.10 meters average
  5. State St & Wacker Dr – 97 stations, 2,207.10 meters average

Back to 300 meters

The original question was to see if there’s a Divvy station every 300 meters (or 500 meters in outlying areas and areas of lower demand). Nope. Only 34 of 300 stations, 11.3%, have a nearby station no more than 300 meters away. 183 stations have a nearby station no further than 500 meters – 61.0%. (You can duplicate these findings by looking at the second dataset.)

Concluding thoughts

ITDP’s bike-share planning guide says that “residential population density is often used as a proxy to identify those places where there will be greater demand”. Job density and the cluster of amenities should also be used, but for the purposes of my analysis, residential density is an easy datum to grab.

It appears that stations in Woodlawn, Washington Park, and Hyde Park west of the Metra Electric line fare the worst in station connectivity. The 60637 ZIP code (representing those neighborhoods) contains half of the least-connected stations and has a residential density of 10,468.9 people per square mile while 60642, containing 3 of the 7 best-connected stations, has a residential density of 11,025.3 people per square mile. There’s a small difference in density but an enormous difference in station connectivity.

However, I haven’t looked at the number of stations per square mile (again, I don’t know the originally planned coverage area), nor the rise or drop in residential density in adjacent ZIP codes.

There are myriad other factors to consider, as well, including – according to ITDP’s report – current bike mode share, transit and bikeway networks, and major attractions. It recommends using these to create a “demand profile”.

Station density is important for user convenience, “to ensure users can bike and park anywhere” in the coverage area, and to increase market penetration (the number of people who will use the bike-share system). When Divvy and the Chicago Department of Transportation add 175 stations this year – some for infill and others to expand the coverage area – they should explore the areas around and between the stations that were ranked with the lowest connectivity to decrease the average distance to its nearby stations and to increase the number of stations within 2.5 miles (the 12 MPH average, 30-minute riding distance).

N.B. I was going to make a map, but I didn’t feel like spending more time combining the datasets (I needed to get the geographic data from one dataset to the other in order to create a symbolized map). 

Why do speeding crashes in Chicago lead to worse injuries?

November 21, 2013 / / 6 Comments

Don’t git behind me. Photo by Richard Masoner. 

A discussion about Chicagoans’ proclivity for tailgating (on a post about speed cameras) prompted me to look at the prevalence of this in causing crashes. I looked at the three-year period of 2010-2012 first, mainly so the numbers wouldn’t be so large, and left this information in a comment. But considering the prerequisites* for a crash to be reported in this dataset, and my desire to compare two multi-year periods, I switched my analysis to the single four-year period 2009-2012.

2009-2012

Total crashes: 318,193. Total fatalities: 554 people.

Tailgating crashes

62,080 crashes, 19.53% of all crash types

Tailgating crashes, injuries breakdown:

  • Killed: .0012 (this represents the number of deaths per crash). 75 people died in these crashes, representing 13.54% of all deaths.
  • Incapacitating injuries: 8.53% (the average distribution of people’s injuries in all tailgating crashes)
  • Non-Incapacitating: 46.32%
  • Possible injury: 45.15%

The share of all crash types that are tailgating has increased steadily from 18.11% in 2009 to 20.79% in 2012.

Speeding crashes

10,339 crashes, 3.24% of all crash types

Speeding injuries:

  • Killed: .0118 (this represents the number of deaths per crash). 122 people died in these crashes, representing 22.02% of all deaths.
  • Incapacitating injuries: 15.55% (the average distribution of people’s injuries in all speeding crashes)
  • Non-Incapacitating: 51.95%
  • Possible injury: 32.50%

The share of all crash types that are tailgating has decreased slightly from 3.72% in 2009 to 3.02% in 2012. While speeding leads to fewer crashes, it leads to a greater incidence of death and serious injury. The probability of a speeding crash leading to at least one death seems to stay steady through the period while the probability of seeing a person with an incapacitating injury versus a different kind of injury varies more, but not so much in a range that overlaps the rates for tailgating crashes.

A future comparison at injuries should look at the top crash causes for death and serious injury.

N/A and Unable to determine crashes

237,729 crashes, 74.71% of all crash types

N/A and unable to determine injuries:

  • Killed: .0013 (this represents the number of deaths per crash). 305 people died in these crashes, representing 55.05% of all deaths.
  • Incapacitating injuries: 9.38% (the average distribution of people’s injuries in all N/A crashes)
  • Non-Incapacitating: 48.26%
  • Possible injury: 42.35%

Notes

Updated December 4, 2013

I updated the wording on how to interpret these numbers. For example, previously for “killed” there was a percentage saying this number represented the amount of crashes that had at least one death. This wasn’t accurate: the same number represents a rate of deaths per crash of that type. Injury percentages represent the distribution of injury types experienced by all the people injured in crashes of that type.

Reliability

Analyzing crash causes is not very reliable as 45.60% of the reported crashes in 2012 had “N/A” or “unable to determine” listed as the primary cause! The third and fourth most frequently ascribed causes were the two tailgating codes (described below). There are some crashes that had the one of these two causes in the secondary cause field but I haven’t calculated that.

Cause code descriptions

Each crash has two cause codes. For tailgating crashes I searched for reports where “failing to reduce speed to avoid crash” or “following too closely” in either the primary or secondary cause field (it’s possible that a report had both of these causes ascribed). For speeding crashes I searched for “speed excessive for conditions” or “exceeding speed limit” in either the primary or secondary cause fields.

Prerequisites

This data excludes crashes where there was no injury or no property damage greater than $500 (2005 to 2008) and $1,500 (2009 to 2012). You cannot compare the two datasets when you want to see a share of all crashes because the number of “all crashes” will be underreported in the second dataset.

Queries

These are some of the MySQL queries I used to get the data out of my own crash database (I’m figuring out ways to make it public, using a shared login). “Cause 1 code” indicates the primary cause of the crash according to the police officer’s judgement. “Cause 2 code” indicates the secondary cause of the crash according to the police officer’s judgement.

1. Crash cause reliability: SELECt count(casenumber), sum(`Total killed`), `Cause2`, `Cause 2 code` FROM `CrashExtract_Chicago` WHERE year = 12 GROUP BY `Cause 2 code`  ORDER BY cast(`Cause 2 code` as signed)

2. Speeding crashes: SELECT count(casenumber), sum(`Total killed`), sum(`totalInjuries`), sum(`A injuries`), sum(`B injuries`), sum(`C injuries`) FROM `CrashExtract_Chicago` WHERE (`Cause 1 code` = 1 OR `Cause 1 code` = 27 OR `Cause 2 code` = 1 or `Cause 2 code` = 27) AND year > 8

3. Tailgating crashes: SELECT count(casenumber), sum(`Total killed`), sum(`totalInjuries`), sum(`A injuries`), sum(`B injuries`), sum(`C injuries`) FROM `CrashExtract_Chicago` WHERE (`Cause 1 code` = 3 OR `Cause 1 code` = 28 OR `Cause 2 code` = 3 or `Cause 2 code` = 28) AND year > 8

4. N/A and Unable to determine crashes: SELECT count(casenumber), sum(`Total killed`), sum(`totalInjuries`), sum(`A injuries`), sum(`B injuries`), sum(`C injuries`) FROM `CrashExtract_Chicago` WHERE (`Cause 1 code` = 18 OR `Cause 1 code` = 99) AND year > 8