The Chainlink

The proposed Bus Rapid Transit strikes me as wrong, but maybe I don't understand. What I don't get is how buses can be faster if they run at surface level with all the intersections.

Also, I don't see drivers smacking their foreheads and exclaiming, "Gee, I could be riding that bus, I'm leaving the car home tomorrow!"

Views: 987

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I've lived in several other U.S. cities of various sizes (smaller than Chicago) and found that, although we have our frustrations with transit here, it works better and covers more hours of the day/week than most other transit systems out.  Duppie's point is well taken.

However, the quality of the experience varies quite a bit depending on where you live in the city.  Service on many parts of the south and west sides does not compare to what one experiences in/near the Loop or north side lakefront neighborhoods.

From this discussion I'm feeling more positive about BRT.

If it runs almost like the L without the expense of tracks and with more flexibility in routing, I can see it succeeding.

Good point. Transit is definitely better if you are east of approx. Western and north of Roosevelt-ish.

Anne Alt said:

I've lived in several other U.S. cities of various sizes (smaller than Chicago) and found that, although we have our frustrations with transit here, it works better and covers more hours of the day/week than most other transit systems out.  Duppie's point is well taken.

However, the quality of the experience varies quite a bit depending on where you live in the city.  Service on many parts of the south and west sides does not compare to what one experiences in/near the Loop or north side lakefront neighborhoods.

I'd tweak those boundaries a bit... I'm more than a mile south of Roosevelt and a hair west of Western and I've got two 24-hour buses and two "late evening" buses within two blocks of my house and an el stop 1/2 mile away.



Duppie 13.5185km said:

Good point. Transit is definitely better if you are east of approx. Western and north of Roosevelt-ish.

Anne Alt said:

I've lived in several other U.S. cities of various sizes (smaller than Chicago) and found that, although we have our frustrations with transit here, it works better and covers more hours of the day/week than most other transit systems out.  Duppie's point is well taken.

However, the quality of the experience varies quite a bit depending on where you live in the city.  Service on many parts of the south and west sides does not compare to what one experiences in/near the Loop or north side lakefront neighborhoods.

There is a public comment period for the BRT open until December 20. details on how to comment - and the two public meetings - are here

in general, i love that the idea is getting a chance, but I have two bike-related concerns - 

1. car traffic will get displaced from Ashland (which is not very bike friendly, so a good place for cars to stay) to the more bike-friendly arterials (I'm thinking Loomis, on the southside), thereby making our bike commutes less pleasant. and

2. I wonder if there are missed opportunities to engineer the BRT lanes so they can be shared by bikes - or if the redesign could incorporate bikes elsewhere (in the lanes currently allocated for planters?)

Maybe i'm asking too much? just seems like the City could do more with id'ing "bike+bus" lanes (eb washington at the metra oglive station, i'm looking at you...)

I've given up on making Ashland more bike friendly. I feel like BRT is already asking for a lot and adding bike lanes will just give opponents more to complain about. I'd rather see nearby protected lanes on already bike-friendlyish streets, like Damen or Racine.

Kara B said:

There is a public comment period for the BRT open until December 20. details on how to comment - and the two public meetings - are here

in general, i love that the idea is getting a chance, but I have two bike-related concerns - 

1. car traffic will get displaced from Ashland (which is not very bike friendly, so a good place for cars to stay) to the more bike-friendly arterials (I'm thinking Loomis, on the southside), thereby making our bike commutes less pleasant. and

2. I wonder if there are missed opportunities to engineer the BRT lanes so they can be shared by bikes - or if the redesign could incorporate bikes elsewhere (in the lanes currently allocated for planters?)

Maybe i'm asking too much? just seems like the City could do more with id'ing "bike+bus" lanes (eb washington at the metra oglive station, i'm looking at you...)

interesting point, thanks. 

Adam Herstein (5.5 mi) said:

I've given up on making Ashland more bike friendly. I feel like BRT is already asking for a lot and adding bike lanes will just give opponents more to complain about. I'd rather see nearby protected lanes on already bike-friendlyish streets, like Damen or Racine.

I am 100% for BRT for multiple reasons, some simple - others complex.

 

Mainly- a BRT system in place along the most heavily-used bus line that connect both "sides" of town within relatively close proximity of downtown, while crossing over 5 different train lines (Pink, Brown, Orange once each, while the Green and Blue lines cross Ashland twice each) essentially works as an express bus with local service.

 

Many of the climate reports I've read show that the average speed of travel on this bus, including all of the various stops it will make along the way, make this an incredibly viable and speedy option for people using this line.

 

To add to the "speed" factor, this BRT line would act as a great option for those trying to commute to/from the north from/to the south while bipassing all of downtown.  For anyone that is familiar with various bus routes and train lines, many times it is actually faster, under the current local systems, to take a bus depending on the area.  This type of system allows faster movement of people over longer distances WITHOUT having to further congest downtown.

 

In terms of amount invested compared ot what is returned on said investment, BRT is much more efficient and effective than light rail or other forms that effect infrastructure and street design (with the exception of bike lanes which are highly effective and super cheap).

 

While a lot is being made out of "hurting" businesses along Ashland Avenue for limiting or eliminating parking spaces for the development of the BRT, the ease of use of the bus along with the speed involved should offset the occasional person who doesn't want to travel down or shop along Ashland because parking is more difficult.  Besides that, the same climate studies show that these types of moves towards BRT - or buffered bike lanes for that matter (which also take away parking spaces sometimes) - have not historically hurt the business community, with some stating there is actually more consumer traffic within closer proximity to many businesses due to these BRT and bike lanes than there would be for cars passing by.

 

Here are a few articles about Chicago and other cities that show the same things, over and over again.  We'd like to think Chicago is so unique for so many different reasons, but the reality is- we aren't all that different from a modern city planning point of view that would make BRT (as well as sustained buffered bike lanes as another example) unsuccessful.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/09/15/bus-rapid-transi...

http://www.suntimes.com/news/transportation/23868274-418/study-pred...

http://www.transitchicago.com/ashlandbrt/

http://la.streetsblog.org/2012/09/25/economic-review-of-6th-street-...

http://walkeaglerock.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/addressing-concerns-w...

http://takingthelane.com/2013/05/07/breaking-bike-infrastructure-de...

http://wearemodeshift.org/buffered-bike-lanes-two-way-conversion-co...

RSS

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service