The Chainlink

Ashland selected for BRT

The Tribune is reporting that the center running configuration of Ashland has been selected over Western.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-cta-ashland-bus-rapid-transi...

Views: 1442

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Thunder Snow on April 19, 2013 at 3:39pm

Several times a week, if not more.  No, I'm not a daily commuter.

h' 1.0 said:

Spence, Cameron, Thunder-- how often do you guys ride buses?

Permalink Reply by spencewine on April 19, 2013 at 3:44pm

I'm not sure why your question is even remotely relevant, but for the majority of the last 10 years I would ride daily, now maybe 8-10X a month.
 
h' 1.0 said:

Spence, Cameron, Thunder-- how often do you guys ride buses?

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on April 19, 2013 at 3:47pm

Looking at my own frequent bus use, having BRT on major corridors would be a net minus for me.

Why is it relevant? Transit discussions tend to be dominated by people who wouldn't ride a bus if their lives depended on it, so I'm  wondering if I'm talking to folks who also have the benefit of being able to see the exact effect on their own travel and have a grasp of what bus travel is currently like.

Permalink Reply by Thunder Snow on April 19, 2013 at 3:50pm

I don't use the Ashland bus all that much, because on the North Side, it's often walking distance from Ashland to the Red, Brown or Purple.  If I was standing at Ashland & Belmont, intending to head to Rogers Park or Evanston, I'd walk down to the L rather than poke along on the Ashland bus and then have to change at Clark & Grace where it stops.  With BRT, I may be inclined to head up Ashland.  I'd be even more inclined if the Ashland BRT eventually connected to the Yellow Line at Western/Asbury, a block north of Howard. We'll see.

Permalink Reply by spencewine on April 19, 2013 at 3:53pm

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.

spencewine said:

Why BRT on Ashland?

There are many reasons why Ashland Avenue is a good corridor for implementing Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)—it has high transit demand, it connects many parts of the city, and its physical layout is compatible with BRT improvements.

Ashland Avenue has the highest bus ridership of all CTA routes, with 10 million boardings in 2012—more than 31,000 per weekday. Currently, 1 in 4 households located within walking distance of Ashland Avenue do not have a car. Ashland BRT would provide a transit option about as fast as driving for neighborhood residents, with an up to 83% increase in bus speeds during peak periods, and a 50% improvement in reliability.

Ashland BRT would connect with seven CTA ‘L’ stations, two Metra stations, and 37 bus routes, and provide a much-needed north-south transit connection outside of the downtown area. The Ashland corridor provides access to nearly 133,800 jobs, including large employment centers such as the Illinois Medical District, and serves popular destinations like UIC, Malcolm X College, and the United Center. There are also 99 schools within walking distance of the proposed Ashland BRT.

At 70-feet curb-to-curb, Ashland Avenue is wide enough to construct BRT. The proposal to construct BRT includes streetscape improvements that would increase safety and pedestrian comfort, including improved lighting, ADA ramps, platforms that provide pedestrian refuge when crossing the street, and fewer left-hand turns, which are a major cause of vehicle accidents.

Why Ashland?


h' 1.0 said:

Seems like people are discussing this as if it's a new train line.  It's still just a bus that will maybe be 50% faster than riding the bus is now, but leave you with less flexibility for where to get on and off.  So not sure how much real world advantage there will be for connecting the spokes of the current train system.  It'll be nice for some people who already use the Ashland bus, assuming their start and end locations are near the access points.

Permalink Reply by Mike Zumwalt on April 19, 2013 at 3:53pm

(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/

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on April 19, 2013 at 4:00pm

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.

Permalink Reply by Thunder Snow on April 19, 2013 at 4:05pm

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/

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on April 19, 2013 at 4:08pm

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/

Permalink Reply by spencewine on April 19, 2013 at 4:09pm

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.

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on April 19, 2013 at 4:09pm

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

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/

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on April 19, 2013 at 4:11pm

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.

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service