Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by spencewine on April 19, 2013 at 10:09am

I see where this thread is going (where it always goes)...I think I'll get out while I still can.  
 
h' 1.0 said:

Huh? Who said anything about ridership?  I have no doubt it would increase ridership.

Can you go back and make sure you didn't miss a post?  Why do you think I haven't seen those graphics?

spencewine said:

So what exactly is your abstract point? That this is a slightly faster bus that requires longer walking times and it will decrease ridership? Because that's the only thing I see being argued and it's not abstract. Look at Active Trans handy-dandy info graphic. This bus has the potential to rival the orange-line in ridership...it's a little more than just a "slightly faster bus". Oddly, ridership greatly increased on this slightly faster bus in places like Cleveland and Eugene. Maybe you just know something that we don't?
 
h' 1.0 said:

Thank you, but I understand these things and I can quote you exact projections from memory on how much it was supposed to speed up bus travel on Western Ave if you're interested.

There may be discussions in which it's possible to get a somewhat abstract point across, but it doesn't look like this is going to be one of them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Thunder Snow on April 19, 2013 at 10:12am

Yes, that's where the red light cameras are, which could record cars sitting in bus only lanes.

h' 1.0 said:

I'm not sure but I think he's referring to gridlock at intersections.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by spencewine on April 19, 2013 at 10:19am

I really don't have the time for this crap as it will surely only spiral from here as it always does with you, but I am truly curious as to how I have made anyone look ridiculous for disagreeing with me?

I provide the information about why Ashland makes a good corridor that rebutted some of your claims and then you make a jab about not being able to comprehend your slightly abstract point. I rebutted that jab...if I still haven't comprehended your point, then lay it out.
 
h' 1.0 said:

As if your tactic of trying to make anyone who disagrees with you look ridiculous is not a contributing factor.

spencewine said:

I see where there thread is going (where it always goes)...I think I'll get out while I still can.  
 
h' 1.0 said:

Huh? Who said anything about ridership?  I have no doubt it would increase ridership.

Can you go back and make sure you didn't miss a post?  Why do you think I haven't seen those graphics?

spencewine said:

So what exactly is your abstract point? That this is a slightly faster bus that requires longer walking times and it will decrease ridership? Because that's the only thing I see being argued and it's not abstract. Look at Active Trans handy-dandy info graphic. This bus has the potential to rival the orange-line in ridership...it's a little more than just a "slightly faster bus". Oddly, ridership greatly increased on this slightly faster bus in places like Cleveland and Eugene. Maybe you just know something that we don't?
 
h' 1.0 said:

Thank you, but I understand these things and I can quote you exact projections from memory on how much it was supposed to speed up bus travel on Western Ave if you're interested.

There may be discussions in which it's possible to get a somewhat abstract point across, but it doesn't look like this is going to be one of them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Thunder Snow on April 19, 2013 at 10:26am

+1

Cameron 7.5 mi said:

As far as I can remember, it was always billed as a way to get light rail like speeds and schedule predictability at less cost.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Thunder Snow on April 19, 2013 at 10:59am

BRT sucks because it isn't as fast as a train.

BRT is brilliant because it's much faster than current bus service.

Same thing, just different-tinted eyeglasses.  I tend toward the rosy, myself.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by spencewine on April 19, 2013 at 11:08am

Your spoke argument was buried somewhere between one of the " slightly faster bus/less flexible" statements and "I know more about the BRT than you" statements.

h' 1.0 said:

When I tuned in the discussion was about its benefit as a connector between existing rail spokes, which seemed overstated to me. Somehow expressing  that opinion resulted in a giant effort to educate me to  basic propaganda that I'm probably more familiar with than most.

I agree with everything after your first sentence.

Cameron 7.5 mi said:

I don't think anyone has tried to call it anything other than a faster bus. As far as I can remember, it was always billed as a way to get light rail like speeds and schedule predictability at less cost. Since speed is one of the main criteria I use to evaluate my travel options, simply being faster is enough to make a bus more desirable.

 

Do I think it that it's the greatest thing ever? No, I'd much rather see a light rail system with the quieter more comfortable ride an electric tram provides. However I understand that a light rail system costs a lot more and is therefore less feasible. Do I think BRT is a huge step in the right direction? Yes it gets a system up and running quickly at a fraction of the cost, provides the most important be benefit of a light rail system (speed), and creates a corridor that could be upgraded later if ridership is strong and support grows.

h' 1.0 said:

Don't get me wrong, I think this is a good development, but I don't quite understand the desire to dress it up as anything other than a faster bus ride with a potentially longer walk to the access point.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich S on April 19, 2013 at 11:16am

I'm actually quite interested to see if these "experimental" bus routes cause any changes to regular local routes. 

Personally, I'm in favor of removing some bus stops and increasing distance between stops to say 1/4 mile. One of the things I hate about taking the bus is that during rush hour it stops on every single block. Trips take a long time and that only encourages people to drive. Some will ride a bike but most will drive. Also, the frequent stops cause buses to bunch up together. I'm sure everyone here has waited 15-20 minutes for a bus only to have 3 of the same route show up together. Infuriating!  

I spent a few weeks the past 2 summers in Krakow and Warsaw and their bus routes have stops that are typically 1/4 mile to 3/4 mile apart. It makes trips run so much faster. Yes it means you have to walk a bit further to get to a stop but it didn't bother me one bit. If weather was bad or if someone was elderly or disabled then it would be an issue yes.  Express CTA routes were common a few years ago and I definitely ride the bus a lot less since they were removed. 

A neat thing is that buses over there run on the honor system regarding fares. The driver does not accept fares so buses board much more quickly. People can also board on the rear doors. You have to purchase your ticket before you board and they can be bought at most shops or sidewalk convenient stores. Occasionally someone will board the bus checking that everyone has a valid ticket and my cousins tell me fines are huge if you get caught without one. Imagine trying to implement that in Chicago! 

As for my personal ridership nowadays. During the winter I'll ride a bus 4-5 times a week. During the summer I'll sometimes go a month without riding the bus. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by WalkThroughWater on April 20, 2013 at 7:20am

h' 1.0 said:

Lots of words

 

Maybe you should read the website: http://www.transitchicago.com/ashlandbrt/#howitworks

Highlights from the things you posted so far:

The CTA Website said:

Local bus service will remain.

Limited stops: every 1/2 mile and at CTA stations

http://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/brt/map_routemap_ashlandbrt.png

Looking at that map, the stops mostly match the X9 stops when it ran.  The ridership of the X9 was pretty decent and showed that people were willing to walk a few extra blocks for better service.  The issue with the X9 is that it still got stuck in traffic jams and bunched up despite their 12 minute headways.  The dedicated lane, signal priority and pre-pay boarding should help elevate that.  I want to know how they expect people to pay and not just walk around and step onto the platform.  I love the honor system boarding but sadly The CTA's government subsidy is dependent on the farebox recovery so they want you to pay.  

Jeffery Jump is half-assed BRT so don't look at it too closely.  Cleveland's Healthline, New York's Select Bus Service and Las Vegas's Metropolitan Area Express are better examples of successful systems they are trying to copy.

 

I wish they did a better job of saying "Hey! The Bus won't suck as much!" Throwing numbers at people might work with some but doesn't really get people excited.  The Danish are trying to challenge the poor perceptions of bus travel with this hipsterific ad campaign:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snKbU5r0pBo

I don’t think people will get excited until the CTA starts doing doughnuts with buses.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Zumwalt on April 20, 2013 at 7:56am

Yes. Where they are, but it won't do anything about the traffic sitting in the lane during rush hour. The Bus only lanes in the loop are just like the bike lanes and any other paved area, any driver assumes it for them to use. And left or right cars will need to turn at locations and with a center drop off point how would pedestrians get across at a proposed half mile interval stops?

Lastly they have shown the double length bus in a pic which was also supposed to be phased out.

Thunder Snow said:

That's disappointing news, Mike.  Perhaps the red light cameras can pick up the license plate numbers of motorists trespassing in BRT lanes?

Mike Zumwalt said:

(edit time ran out) but according to the CTA site several designs are proposed and even though it says BUS only, traffic will still use it so cars will block buses at lights or for turns and not a mention of a bike lane.

Much like the "protected" bike lanes unless there is a permanent solid barrier between the lane and traffic all it is, is a bunch of paint and symbols.

http://www.transitchicago.com/westernashlandbrt/

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Zumwalt on April 20, 2013 at 8:04am

I've looked at the various proposals and the center drop off means crossing when traffic clears or will they have a light every half mile at stops? The bus may end up running faster but it won't do any good if you can't get to it or get across the street after you get off.

Removal of center islands with existing "green space" would leave bikes in the only lane left. A right lane bus only lane means what? riding in the lane to avoid cars or "taking the lane" as a bike where the car lane remains? and will there be a dedicated bike space on the bus or just the 2 rack spots.
h' 1.0 said:

I'm not sure you've taken the time to have a complete understanding of what's being proposed, Mike, but I'm with you on the lack of info in regard to bikes-- will BRT streets have no bicycle related improvements? Is it promised that you can take a bike on the BRT? Will local service be (guaranteed to be) preserved on streets that have BRT? Will local service continue to run at a frequency that's of use to most of us?


Mike Zumwalt said:

(edit time ran out) but according to the CTA site several designs are proposed and even though it says BUS only, traffic will still use it so cars will block buses at lights or for turns and not a mention of a bike lane.

Much like the "protected" bike lanes unless there is a permanent solid barrier between the lane and traffic all it is, is a bunch of paint and symbols.

http://www.transitchicago.com/westernashlandbrt/

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by WalkThroughWater on April 20, 2013 at 11:14am

h' 1.0 said:

Would be nice if you could converse without being insulting, but I guess we all have our days.

Do you think headways on local bus service on BRT routes would still be workable? I can't imagine they wouldn't be reduced on a route that has BRT. You can wait 15-20 minutes for an Ashland bus as it is (and that's in the daytime.) Increase the headways any more than that and you might as well not have the local service.

Apologies for my rudeness, but anyway, I don’t know about the local buses.  I was told the local service will be retained so the elderly and disabled don’t have to walk as far.  New York has both local and Select Bus Service on First and Second ave. but Cleveland discontinued the local Euclid ave. bus because the ridership shifted to the HealthLine.  My assumption is they will keep the local as is and we will find out what gets cut come the next budget crisis.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alex Z on April 20, 2013 at 11:18am

At this point, I don't think adding bike lanes on Western or Ashland should be a priority. Damen and California, with some limitations, serve very well as north-south biking thoroughfares, in my experience.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page