Author: staff

Lifestyle

Deadly stretch of Milwaukee Avenue raises concern among cyclists as the season gets underway

When cyclists cruise along Milwaukee Avenue in Old Irving Park on the Northwest Side, they whiz by the never-ending construction and bike memorials as familiar, yet unsettling, backdrops.This half-mile stretch, from Kilbourn Avenue to Addison Street, has become one of the deadliest for bikers to ride in all of Chicago, some cycling advocates say, with its heavy car traffic, a major Metra reconstruction project, and little protection for bikers and pedestrians. With summer looming and gas prices continuing to surge, advocates fear that a busier than usual bike season could be a lethal one without better safeguards for bikers.Advertisement“This stretch of Milwaukee (Avenue) has a lot of major traffic arteries and there’s just a lot of traffic and speeding cars, and no safe signs,” said Amanda Marien, a safety advocate who lives in the neighborhood. “But the ones that suffer this the most are pedestrians, bikers and the people that live in this area.”Earlier this month, Nick Parlingayan, 22, of Chicago, became at least the third bicyclist fatality in the city this year when he was killed near Milwaukee and Kilbourn avenues in a hit-and-run car crash. The driver later turned himself in to police at the urging of his mother. Meanwhile, Carla Aiello, a 37-year-old high school counselor, was killed near the same intersection when the driver of a dump truck made a right turn from Milwaukee onto Kilbourn.AdvertisementA ghost bike memorial remains for Carla Aiello, a bicyclist who was struck and killed by a truck driver in 2019, in the 3800 block of North Milwaukee Avenue on May 17, 2022, in the Old Irving Park neighborhood of Chicago. A hit-and-run driver killed bicyclist Nick Parlingayan on May 4 across Milwaukee from Carla Aiello’s memorial. (Erin Hooley / Chicago Tribune)A photo of Nick Parlingayan who died May 4, 2022, along Milwaukee Avenue near Kilbourn Avenue in Chicago is seen on May 16, 2022. (Antonio Perez / Chicago Tribune)Two memorials for the cyclists now sit across the street from each other: a ghost bike for Aiello, and flowers, candles and photos of Parlingayan. They are among the latest victims in an area with a long history of bike and car collisions, records show.“Every bike plan the city has ever put out has identified Milwaukee Avenue as a key route,” said Kyle Whitehead, managing director of public affairs for Active Transportation Alliance. “And the most recent bike plan that the city had, which was developed in 2012, called for protected bike lanes all along Milwaukee Avenue.”However, only 13% of Milwaukee Avenue has protected bike lanes, he said.Chicago Department of Transportation officials maintain that there has been a nearly 30% decrease in bike crashes with major injuries in the past 10 years, even with a “great increase of bikers in the city since the pandemic.” But cycling advocates paint a different picture.Ken McLeod, policy director of the American League of Bicyclists, based in Washington, D.C., said the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows that Chicago has had an average of about six bicyclist deaths per year since 2016.“(Chicago) had an average of nearly 47 pedestrians killed each year,” said McLeod. “In 2020, according to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Chicago had eight bicyclist deaths, which is the most that it’s had from 2016 to 2020. … And if you ask me, that is a big number for a city.”For the Chicago biking community, the statistics feel overwhelming.Cyclist Lena Guerrero Reynolds stands along Milwaukee Avenue in the Jefferson Park neighborhood on May 18, 2022. Guerrero Reynolds regularly uses Milwaukee to commute downtown on a bike from her Jefferson Park home. (Chris Sweda / Chicago Tribune)Avid cyclist Lena Reynolds Guerrero, 34, of Jefferson Park said she was “absolutely horrified” to see history repeat itself when Parlingayan was killed in the same spot on Milwaukee Avenue as Aiello.Advertisement“It feels really personal because I take that route so often, living in Jefferson Park, and so that could have been me, right?” she said.Marien, 33, moved into Old Irving Park in 2017. Her house is one of 48 single-family homes that were completed that year in a complex along Milwaukee Avenue.In the past six years, she said she’s been awakened to a series of nearby traffic crashes in her neighborhood, from broken fences to fatal collisions. She and her neighbors have witnessed cars jumping the curb, drivers veering into bike lanes during rush hour, cars slipping on snow and late night drag racing.As president of the housing association for the complex, she said she’s seen and heard it all.“I don’t ride a bike because I’m too afraid of that,” she said. “That’s why I prefer driving, but I’d probably like cycling better if I felt safer here.”In her neighborhood, there was the October 2019 fatal hit-and-run of Vincent Tran, who had been biking on Irving Park Road, when a black vehicle struck him and knocked him off his bike. Then a couple of months later, in February 2020, an SUV driving down Milwaukee struck a pothole and lost control of the vehicle that veered straight into the Concordia day care, crashing the whole window storefront lobby, police said. Since it happened before opening hours, no children or staff were present when the crash occurred.AdvertisementMarien said over the years her community has tried to persuade the various aldermen that have represented their neighborhood to make it safer for bikers and pedestrians. While they’ve been mildly successful with some requests — a new crosswalk was installed in 2019 near Schurz High School, between Milwaukee and Waveland avenues — Marien said it’s not nearly enough.Amanda Marien stands in the dangerous stretch of the 3600 block of North Milwaukee Avenue on May 17, 2022, in the Old Irving Park neighborhood of Chicago. (Erin Hooley / Chicago Tribune)She said cars rarely stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk because it’s not an “actual stop sign.”“They don’t think (cars) have to stop for pedestrians to cross legally,” she said. “(This area) needs protected bike lanes as well or something more to get people from Wicker Park to Six Corners. Even so, some stretches with plastic bollards remain dangerous because they get taken out during the winter time or, even when they are on, cars hit and bend them frequently.”In 2020, then newly-elected Ald. Jim Gardiner, 45th, ordered a traffic study after a crowded meeting with concerned residents at the high school. But after months of waiting, Marien said the embattled alderman refused to release the results of the study, which was completed Oct. 1 of that year.“I kept asking the alderman basically if the traffic study was done yet and he would just ignore me or say they were waiting,” Marien said. “Then I finally was like, oh well I can (file a Freedom of Information request) and then I won’t need him, so I finally did it. And the study had been completed.”Marien received the study on June 22, 2021 — over eight months after it was completed. It showed recommendations for another crosswalk, a stop sign, and possibly a flashing radar or speed signs. Marien said she told Gardiner she’d received the results of the study.AdvertisementA bicyclist navigates traffic and construction along Milwaukee Avenue near Kilbourn Avenue in Chicago on May 16, 2022. (Antonio Perez / Chicago Tribune)“And the only thing he could do at that point was sign it, you know, like I had all the evidence in front of them,” she said.Gardiner, who did not return multiple calls from the Tribune for comment, signed the plans for the crosswalk and stop sign on April 15, 2021. In July of that year, he also made a request for a speed camera to be installed on Milwaukee between Kilbourn and Addison. Although Gardiner had announced on his Facebook page that the camera would be installed by Aug. 31, a camera has not yet been installed, and a CDOT spokesperson told the Tribune there are no current plans to do so.The neighborhood was recently taken out of Gardiner’s ward in the latest remap by City Council.Meanwhile, the stop sign and crosswalk were installed earlier this month — days after Parlingayan was killed.“It’s kind of a patchwork and that’s really the problem,” said Whitehead of Active Transportation Alliance. “The same problem (as in Milwaukee Avenue) exists on key corridors all across the city. There are segments of three- to four-block stretches with a protected bike lane and it’s safe and comfortable, but then you’ll hit a stretch where there is no bike lane or the bike lane has faded and disappeared. Most bike rides are longer than three to four blocks, so what we need is protection.”Whitehead said that this “patchwork” approach leaves the city with dangerous locations where people on bikes are vulnerable: “Even if they might have felt comfortable earlier in their ride, you know, a few blocks later, they’re put in a dangerous situation.”AdvertisementWhitehead points to protection on Milwaukee, closer to downtown and the Near North Side, where there are concrete curb bike lanes, which are what “quality infrastructure” looks like, he said.“It’s concrete. It’s impenetrable. You can’t drive over or park on top of it,” he said.Meanwhile, the plastic bollards the city puts elsewhere are second rate, he said.“These plastic (bollards) are better than just paint but, as you may have seen, often times people drive over them, people pick them up and pull them out of the ground,” he said. “They’re just not durable, especially given the weather that we have here in the various conditions throughout the year.”Michael Keating, an attorney who specializes in bicycle law and rides Milwaukee Avenue every day on his way to work, said the city’s bike lane safety features aren’t really safe at all.“We have noticed a pattern of what the Chicago Department of Transportation refers to as ‘infrastructure’ in many places is just paint on the roadway,” he said. “Obviously, if a motorist does not respect the bike lane and drives on that paint, it’s not going to protect the bicyclist.”AdvertisementIn the stretch of Milwaukee near where Parlingayan was killed, a $36.1 million Metra construction project is ongoing to replace a 122-year-old railroad bridge that goes over the avenue for the adjacent Grayland Station.A cyclist passes a memorial on May 16, 2022, for a bicyclist Nick Parlingayan, who died May 4, 2022, along Milwaukee Avenue near Kilbourn Avenue in Chicago. (Antonio Perez / Chicago Tribune)The new Metra plan will include a protected bike lane with a physical curb separation on the southbound channel. However, the bike lane on the northbound side of the street — the side of the avenue where Parlingayan’s fatal crash happened — will only have a paint divided bike lane.“There is not enough room on the north side to add a protected lane and maintain the current configuration of the sidewalks,” a Metra spokesperson said when asked about the lack of a protected bike lane on the northbound side under the bridge. “We are looking into whether that configuration can be altered, but we do not yet know if that is possible.”Again, for residents, it’s not enough, said Marien.“Something needs to be done,” Marien said. “This is not a coincidence that two bicyclists were killed in the same exact spot. We can’t treat it like it’s an accident.”tmijares@chicagotribune.com

Sports

The Supreme Court ruled against a Baltimore baseball team 100 years ago, leading to MLB’s current antitrust exemption

More than a dozen men gathered for a banquet at Baltimore’s Belvedere Hotel in March 1914, and though they were set to embark into challenging, uncharted territory, they were brash and confident. The men were the stakeholders of the new Federal League — a rival to the established American and National Leagues — and every speech and statement was soaked in conviction.“You can’t lose,” one said, and many invoked war: This new baseball league, already purloining star players, would triumph.Advertisement“If there is not room enough for three big leagues in this country,” another said, “you may paste it in your hat that the Feds will not be the ones to go to the wall.”By the next year, 1915, however, the eight-team Federal League had dissolved. The league boasted future Hall of Famers — and Chicago’s Wrigley Field was built for a Federal League team — but it ultimately couldn’t compete with the American and National League, which fought to rid themselves of the upstart league. After two seasons, “the Feds” were gone.AdvertisementAnd yet, an intangible consequence from that league, specifically, from Baltimore’s club, the Terrapins, remains significant even today.The Baltimore Terrapins existed for just two years, 1914 and 1915, but a lawsuit they filed led to a Supreme Court decision that continues to have a significant impact on Major League Baseball. Copy of The Sun newspaper from April 12, 1914. Baltimore — eager for a major league team since one iteration of the Baltimore Orioles left after the 1902 season and later became the New York Yankees — welcomed the Terrapins, who wore orange and black, in 1914. They’d been dubbed “Baltimore’s big league club,” and so, while in 1915 two of the Federal League’s owners were permitted to buy into existing major league teams and five others accepted buyouts, the Terrapins declined a settlement of $75,000. They instead kept the fight alive in the courts, battling the two entrenched leagues by arguing that organized baseball had conspired to monopolize the sport.The fight lasted years, until May 29, 1922, when the U.S. Supreme Court, headed by William Howard Taft, ruled against Baltimore and for the organized baseball leagues. The court said baseball was not interstate commerce, and thus, the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 did not apply.That decision, made 100 years ago this week, has allowed MLB to enjoy an incredibly rare antitrust exemption today — giving it latitude and freedom that other industries and other pro sports leagues don’t have — even as most experts agree the exemption is flawed and illogical.“Does the exemption make sense? No, it doesn’t,” said Ed Edmonds, a professor at Notre Dame Law School with a focus on antitrust law and baseball. “It hasn’t for a long, long time.”Though he had a celebrated career, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes has received a barrage of criticism for the decision he wrote in the 1922 case, Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs. And while a 2020 academic paper said he “blundered badly” in the decision, a paper published this year sought to “repurpose the ire” and the “blame” against Holmes and direct it toward two other decisions by the Supreme Court. Twice, the court, in 1953 and 1972, largely upheld baseball’s antitrust exemption.The three cases have allowed baseball to operate without the scrutiny of antitrust law — rules set up to promote competition in business — and regardless of which court is to “blame,” the 1922 suit, brought by the Baltimore Terrapins, laid the foundation.[ Antitrust ball started rolling in Baltimore ]In the years since, other pro sports leagues have sought similar exemptions, without luck, and so MLB, bizarrely, remains in a class of its own. Patricia Campbell, a University of Maryland Carey School of Law professor who teaches antitrust law, said courts rarely create an antitrust exemption.Advertisement“So baseball’s exemption is pretty unique,” she said.The Curt Flood Act, passed in 1998, removed baseball’s antitrust exemption as it relates to MLB players — but it kept the rest of MLB’s antitrust exemption intact.“There’s a lot of other stuff there that it applies to,” said Nellie Drew, a University of Buffalo professor of sports law. “So things like minor league baseball, ownership transfers, the amateur draft, franchise relocation, licensing matters, all [those] sort of things.”It allows MLB more control and gives it the power to make decisions without having to worry about antitrust law. And though it’s long imprinted into the fabric of baseball’s very business, it’s been opposed by many, including in the past year by both Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and progressive Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.“I think it’s based on flawed law,” Drew said.In its third ruling regarding baseball’s antitrust status, in 1972, the Supreme Court passed the buck to Congress, saying that by “positive inaction,” the legislative branch had, in a way, endorsed the exemption.Advertisement“If there is any inconsistency or illogic in all this, it is an inconsistency and illogic of long standing that is to be remedied by the Congress and not by this Court,” it wrote.[ Orioles’ run-ins with law historic ]Congress, over the years, has considered removing the exemption for various reasons. A year ago, Republican senators threatened to remove the exemption after MLB moved the All-Star Game from Atlanta to Denver following the passage of changes to voting laws in Georgia. Cruz said at the time that MLB “shouldn’t expect to continue to receive special benefits from Congress.”Then, this year, Sanders announced a bill that would remove MLB’s exemption.“The anticompetitive grip of Major League Baseball on the sport, its players, its workers, and its communities must end,” the bill reads.Edmonds, the Notre Dame professor, said that over the past several decades there have been more than 100 bills concerning antitrust exemptions in baseball and other sports, but — in part due to the lobbying power of MLB — it’s highly unlikely legislation would overturn the exemption. The best chance, in his estimation, came two years ago, when MLB cut ties with 42 minor league teams.“I don’t think Congress has much interest in overturning the exemption because that would’ve been probably the best opportunity in recent years for them to band together and say we’re going to get rid of this exemption,” he said.AdvertisementFour teams that lost their affiliation with MLB sued last year in the Southern District of New York, arguing that MLB would not have been able to make such a move without its antitrust exemption.“Virtually no other business in the United States would have even considered such a brazen horizontal agreement among competing businesses,” the lawsuit said. “MLB and its Clubs, however, had no such qualms because for almost a century they have laid claim to an anomalous, judicially created ‘get-out-of-jail-free card’ from antitrust scrutiny.”In plain terms, the suit opposes the Supreme Court’s previous decisions.“The time is at hand to cast the baseball exemption into the dust bin of antitrust history,” it stated.Because the court has already affirmed the exemption twice and because it previously handed the issue to Congress, it may seem unlikely that it would overturn precedent. But last year, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that “this Court has refused to extend Federal Baseball’s reasoning to other sports leagues — and has even acknowledged criticisms of the decision as ‘unrealistic’ and ‘inconsistent’ and ‘aberration[al].’”The suit goes on to say that, perhaps if the Supreme Court was given another chance, it would reconsider MLB’s exemption.AdvertisementSaid Campbell: “If you want a sports analogy, they’re throwing the court a lob.”Armed with a century of precedent, MLB has labeled the lawsuit from the four former minor league teams as “patently frivolous,” but there remains a chance it could reach the Supreme Court.“Here’s the court’s opportunity if it really wants to do away with the antitrust exemption,” Campbell said. “Who knows what’s going to happen? The court could very well say, it’s up to Congress. We just don’t know how it’s going to turn out.”Back at Belvedere Hotel in 1914, the emerging Federal League began with such confidence, eager to war with the establishment.“If one may predicate the future of the Federal League baseball clubs from the spirit that was manifest last night,” read an article in The Sun, “the outlook of the new organization seems to be a rosy one indeed.”But the Brooklyn Tip-Tops, Buffalo Blues, Chicago Whales, Kansas City Packers and Newark Peppers, among other Federal League teams, did not last. Baltimore’s star pitcher, Chief Bender, whom baseball historians credit with bringing the slider to prominence and is enshrined in the Hall of Fame, had the worst season of his career in Baltimore in 1915, when the Terrapins went 47-107.AdvertisementFor all the assertive optimism that the Federal League began with, it quickly shriveled. It wouldn’t be until decades later, in 1954, when Baltimore would finally get another major league team. The Orioles are now Baltimore’s big league club, and the Terrapins became the University of Maryland’s nickname. The Baltimore Terrapins were short-lived and forgettable — and yet, in a way, they live on in a century-old case and the puzzling precedent it created.

Lifestyle

Ask Amy: A child’s question yields vague answers

Dear Amy: My partner “Michael’s” father, “Ned” walked out on their family when Michael was a teenager.It was a nasty divorce, leaving behind many emotional and financial scars.AdvertisementIn the years following the divorce, Ned made little and then no effort to keep in touch with his children.The family is understandably angry and hurt by his betrayal. Michael is especially hurt. He never speaks of his father and becomes visibly closed off if he ever comes up in conversation.AdvertisementMichael and I now have a wonderful son together, and while we know Ned is aware of this through mutual friends and family, Ned has never reached out.Our son is three. We have accepted that this man will likely never be a part of our son’s life, but how do we tell our son that?The dreaded question has already come up (“Nana is mom’s mom, Grandma is dad’s mom. … Who is Grandpa? Where is he?”), and I explained that Grandpa went far away a long time ago and we don’t really know where he is, as Michael looked on, stone-faced and silent.Our son accepted this vague explanation and moved on, but I can feel follow-up questions brewing.I plan to address them openly and honestly as they arise, but am at a loss as to how to frame it in a way that is age-appropriate and will not be hurtful to him. How do you tell a child that some parents just leave their families?How can we reassure him we would never do that to him? As the most objective adult in this situation, I feel it would be best for me to be the one who discusses this with him.I’d appreciate any guidance.– Estranged in-lawAdvertisementDear Estranged: You should talk to your partner about this and ask him if the two of you can come up with simple and truthful explanations for your precocious son: “Daddy’s father’s name is ‘Ned.’ Daddy hasn’t seen him in a long time because Steven chose to move away and hasn’t been in touch.”If your son asks why, you can truthfully say, “I’m not sure why, but I’m sorry he made that choice.”Some people don’t want to be parents and grandparents. And some people never learn how.Don’t overload your son with a sense of loss and sadness over this. Follow his curiosity where it leads, and offer lots of affirmations and reassurance.Dear Amy: I have been to therapy off and on throughout the course of my 40-plus year marriage.The advice I’ve been given is to pray about it, to find a hobby, or to get a divorce.AdvertisementMy wife is my best friend and I love her dearly, but when it comes to love and affection, she is not interested.We have slept in separate bedrooms for most of our marriage. There is never any hand holding, cuddling or intimacy.When I tell her how lonely I am, she basically ignores me. She is not willing to attend couples’ therapy and is perfectly content with our platonic relationship.I have hobbies and grandchildren to occupy my days, but I’m extremely lonely. I’m in great shape for my age and hope to live another 30 years.I can’t bear to think that I will live out the rest of my life being lonesome and wanting a woman’s affection.I’ve been faithful through all of this, but worry about giving in to temptation someday.AdvertisementAny advice?– Suffering from Touch DeprivationDear Suffering: I don’t know about praying this loneliness away, but I’d add an idea to your basket of solicited advice: If you are unwilling to leave your marriage in order to pursue the possibility of other relationships, you could approach your wife to see if she is willing to “open” your marriage so that you could both step out, possibly for a trial period of a few months.If you two are best friends and great roommates, she may be willing to participate in this experiment.There is a substantial downside to this sort of trial: Harsh judgment from children, family members and friends, as well as the loneliness and disappointment that so often accompanies dating.Ask AmyDailyNo-nonsense advice for better living delivered to your inbox every morning. For a limited time, sign up for the Ask Amy newsletter and get the book “Ask Amy: Essential Wisdom from America’s Favorite Advice Columnist” for $5.Dear Amy: I was surprised at your response to “Wondering,” suggesting explaining artificial insemination to very young children who are conceived this way.AdvertisementWhat does a 6-year-old know about eggs and sperm?!– UpsetDear Upset: Young children understand that babies come from parents. Their folks will explain the rest.Got a question for Amy? Enter it here and we’ll send it to her.Sign up here to receive the Ask Amy newsletter to get advice e-mailed to your inbox every morning, and for a limited time — get the book “Ask Amy: Essential Wisdom from America’s Favorite Advice Columnist” for $5.©2021 Amy Dickinson.

Sports

Dylan Cease and Kendall Graveman won’t travel with the Chicago White Sox to Toronto, which requires visitors to be vaccinated

Chicago White Sox general manager Rick Hahn indicated the team would have to make a couple of roster moves before its trip to Toronto.“Our current active roster is not 100% vaxxed,” Hahn said Saturday. “As a result, two players will likely need to be replaced when we get there.Advertisement“Other teams have had to deal with it on their way in and respect the fact that’s the law of the land up there, and we’ll be compliant.”The Sox announced the moves Monday, placing starting pitcher Dylan Cease and reliever Kendall Graveman on the restricted list. The Sox also recalled pitcher Kyle Crick from Triple-A Charlotte and placed pitcher Dallas Keuchel on waivers for the purpose of granting his unconditional release.AdvertisementThe Sox begin a three-game series against the Blue Jays on Tuesday in Toronto.“The baseball rule, or administrative rule, that applies is that those (unvaccinated) players wind up on the restricted list and are eligible for replacement according to the rules,” Hahn said.According to an April 25 ESPN article, “The Canadian government isn’t allowing unvaccinated travelers to cross borders — except under special circumstances, such as funerals for family members. As a result, any Major League Baseball player not vaccinated won’t be allowed to travel to Canada.”“Everybody has got their reasons for what they do or don’t do,” Sox manager Tony La Russa said Saturday. “I don’t begrudge anybody’s decision.”Cease started Sunday against the Cubs, allowing one unearned run on two hits in seven innings. Graveman is 1-1 with a 2.78 ERA, 19 strikeouts, two saves and 10 holds.“We obviously want our full roster at any point, whether a guy is unavailable because of these restrictions or because of health issues or injury or whatever,” Hahn said. “It’s certainly nothing you look forward to.“Overall as an organization from top to bottom, we have done a tremendous job in terms of doing everything in our power to get people vaxxed and get people protected, take care of themselves, take care of their teammates, families and communities. And as an organization as a whole, we can be very proud of that and it set a really good example for others. “The fact that a couple individuals have exercised their right to make an individual choice, I respect that. And look forward to them rejoining us (Friday) in Tampa.”AdvertisementCrick is 1-0 with a 5.14 ERA in eight relief appearances. The Sox designated Keuchel for assignment Saturday.