Bus Rapid Transit in Chicago
An interesting article about Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) being studied in Chicago; benefits, requirements (streets being considered must have (or create) a bike lane).
Views: 1592
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on
-
The non-express bus served people not getting on or off at major intersections or transit connections.
Not sure why you think it was for short trips.
Most of my experience with express buses was with the X49, which I rarely found to cut through traffic any better than the non-express. People who relied on express buses that ran on less congested corridors seemed to benefit from them much more.
Mike Zumwalt said:
I was just remembering the X-press ones they had. while they made fewer stops sitting in traffic is hardly express. Then they have to have a local bus to accommodate people who only go a few blocks.
Duppie said:
The CTA used to run the X80 express bus on Irving Park from the lake to the blue line (and maybe further west), until it got cut because of funding.I think it stopped every 4 blocks instead of every block
James BlackHeron said:
I think express buses would be a great way to link some of the "spokes" of the L-trains rather than spending big money on new L-routes. It could also be implemented immediately and not take years to build.
For example, an express bus that went directly from the Logan Square Blue-line (or maybe Belmont) L/bus station to the Belmont Brown/Red station would be very handy and really link the north neighborhoods East/West. They could do similar routes in other areas to connect the spokes so that people wouldn't need to go all the way downtown.
-
Permalink Reply by John Wirtz on
-
I'd say just get rid of the local, and you'll get where you need to go faster. I think a compromise would be reasonable though. Stop every 1/4 mile instead of the current 1/8 mile.
Mike Zumwalt said:
No they don't HAVE to but I'm sure the thinking was why have an express bus and then a local bus? just get rid of the express and you'll still get where you need to go.
John Wirtz said:
Do they really have to?
Mike Zumwalt said:
Then they have to have a local bus to accommodate people who only go a few blocks.
-
Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on
-
I think reducing the number of stops (as well as putting the stops at the far end of all intersections rather than before them) would help the general bus routes move faster and make them more of a choice rather than being so slow that you can walk faster than taking the bus.
But the idea to make BRT links between the L stops to fill in the gaps where the L doesn't go quickly is something totally different. It's not a "bus" but an L-train on wheels. Having it be ANYTHING but express from L-station to L-station is inside the box old-paradigm thinking, because it is not local "bus" transportation but long-haul people-moving to link the L-stations quickly.
Last year there were quite a few shut-downs on the Blue Line while they did track improvements. They often used express buses to link the stations that were cut off from each other by the closed tracks. The CTA used express-only buses to leap-frog the closed track and it worked very well IMHO. It wasn't as fast as the train would have been if the track wasn't closed but it was able to move everyone and not cause a huge clog-up of the system.
These buses would NOT stop anywhere in between and i remember a few occasions where people were annoyed by this. "Why can't you just let me off here?" -well the answer is because if the bus stops it slows down the whole shuttle system. The bus stops and loads/unloads only at the stations and this saves time. The biggest time waster is people waddling on and off the bus taking their sweet time. Eliminate THAT and the bus trip from point A to point B is much quicker -even with traffic and waiting for lights.
If the city could set up the traffic lights so that it would recognize when the express bus came and change to green for it then it would make the trip even quicker. This is already half-way there to BRT. Give the bus a dedicated bus lane down that road and we are most of the way there. Then all they would need to be full-blown BRT would be to give the bus its own separate "protected" road/lane (like a rail corridor) where very little got in its way to slow it down or make it repeatedly stop on the trip.
At that point it would be nearly the same thing as a train on wheels -at only a fraction of the cost of the train on rails -and it could be started right away and slowly upgraded with the features I outlined above.
But having it stop at regular bus stops between the stations pretty much defeats the whole purpose we already HAVE that and it takes FOREVER so very few people use it. If they set up BRT as an alternative to the connecting rail L-links, long-wished-for on the CTA, we'd have something almost as good, right away, and at a tiny fraction of the cost.
-or we can keep thinking inside the box and repeating the same CTAFAIL planning that got us where we are today.
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
Reducing the number of stops aside from in one of two neighborhoods (lakeview/lincoln park) would not be a good thing. In many areas, especially the far west and the south side bus stops can be 1/2 a miles or more from where people live. Reducing the number of stops makes it much more difficult for the elderly/those with disability/those with small children to take the bus.
Express buses help solve the problem with buses making a lot of stops without reducing accessibility to those who need it.
-
-
It's certainly a trade-off. If you want a faster more cost-effective system, some people will indeed have to walk farther. I think you'd be surprised though at how few people use the minor stops on the edges of the city (like 5 to 20 people per day at most stops).
The overlapping express route is a great way to solve this, but it costs more to provide two overlapping services. These are tight budget times.
Liz said:Reducing the number of stops aside from in one of two neighborhoods (lakeview/lincoln park) would not be a good thing. In many areas, especially the far west and the south side bus stops can be 1/2 a miles or more from where people live. Reducing the number of stops makes it much more difficult for the elderly/those with disability/those with small children to take the bus.
Express buses help solve the problem with buses making a lot of stops without reducing accessibility to those who need it.
-
Permalink Reply by Joel on
-
If they are already walking half a mile to those minor stops, how many people are going to use the bus at all if the stops move even farther away? There are some serious accessibility issues, especially when you add in one or more transfers -- each being a significant distance to walk.
John Wirtz said:
It's certainly a trade-off. If you want a faster more cost-effective system, some people will indeed have to walk farther. I think you'd be surprised though at how few people use the minor stops on the edges of the city (like 5 to 20 people per day at most stops).
The overlapping express route is a great way to solve this, but it costs more to provide two overlapping services. These are tight budget times.
Liz said:Reducing the number of stops aside from in one of two neighborhoods (lakeview/lincoln park) would not be a good thing. In many areas, especially the far west and the south side bus stops can be 1/2 a miles or more from where people live. Reducing the number of stops makes it much more difficult for the elderly/those with disability/those with small children to take the bus.
Express buses help solve the problem with buses making a lot of stops without reducing accessibility to those who need it.
-
-
John-
Not everyone is 22 years old and in perfect physical form.
Studies show the willingness to walk to a transit stop drops off dramatically if the walk takes more than 10 minutes.
Is the goal here to cut down on transit users?
John Wirtz said:I'd say just get rid of the local, and you'll get where you need to go faster. I think a compromise would be reasonable though. Stop every 1/4 mile instead of the current 1/8 mile.
Mike Zumwalt said:
No they don't HAVE to but I'm sure the thinking was why have an express bus and then a local bus? just get rid of the express and you'll still get where you need to go.
John Wirtz said:
Do they really have to?
Mike Zumwalt said:
Then they have to have a local bus to accommodate people who only go a few blocks.
-
-
This is exactly the problem I had when I was injured and on crutches. It took me 10-15 minutes to hobble over to the bus stop, followed by buses running at 15 minute intervals, leading me to a blue line stop without elevators or a very long Milwaukee bus ride downtown. When I was not injured the trip to work via public transit too 45-60 minutes, with the injury it was taking me 60-90 minutes to get downtown and I was physically exhausted by the time I got there. When I was healthy and riding my bike to work, the 5.5 mile trip took 35 minutes.
My dissatisfaction with transit in that neighborhood led to me moving back to the north side where transportation is much more reliable, a short walk from my apartment, and there is an accessible L station when I transfer. Transit time for the same distance is 30-40 minutes.
Cutting local routes limits the ability of those who are not able/interested in a long walk and I do not this it is an option that would be good for this city or good for public transit ridership.
Joel said:If they are already walking half a mile to those minor stops, how many people are going to use the bus at all if the stops move even farther away? There are some serious accessibility issues, especially when you add in one or more transfers -- each being a significant distance to walk.
John Wirtz said:
It's certainly a trade-off. If you want a faster more cost-effective system, some people will indeed have to walk farther. I think you'd be surprised though at how few people use the minor stops on the edges of the city (like 5 to 20 people per day at most stops).
The overlapping express route is a great way to solve this, but it costs more to provide two overlapping services. These are tight budget times.
Liz said:
-
Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on
-
I've experienced problems similar to what Liz is describing due to sprained ankles and knee surgery at various times. When I lived in Rogers Park and my non-injured commute was a 45-50 minute trip from Howard St. to the Loop on either the red or purple line, my trip on crutches took an extra 10-15 minutes (depending on weather, whether escalators were working, and how bad I was feeling), and that was a relatively easy single leg transit trip where home and work were each within 2 blocks of the train.
My travel time by bike was slightly longer than my regular CTA trip.
Since I moved to Beverly, my transit options are slightly different. It's a 1/2 mile walk to the nearest Metra station, a 25 minute ride to LaSalle St. station and a 1/2 mile walk to my old office (last permanent job). That trip typically took me 45-50 minutes in an uninjured condition (including a few extra minutes to ensure that I didn't miss the train and end up waiting another 20 minutes).
The walk to/from the train on both ends was long enough to be physically stressful on crutches, so I had to do it slowly, sometimes with assistance from a cab or bus. That added 20-30 minutes to my trip, depending on weather and how I was feeling - total injured trip time 65-80 minutes.
If there were problems with Metra and I took CTA instead, I'd walk 2 blocks to the bus, ride 20-25 minutes to the red line at 95th St., then ride 30-45 minutes into the Loop (depending on track condition/slow zones) and walk 2 blocks - total uninjured trip time 60-80 minutes. Because the walking distances were shorter, my injured CTA travel time was about 10-15 minutes longer than my uninjured trip, although it was likely to be just as painful, because my leg had to stay extended and often got kicked or stepped on even if I tried to get people's attention and sit in a position where I hoped to be disturbed less. (That aspect was just as bad on the north side. Too many people have no consideration at all for the injured or disabled.)
While 1/2 mile intervals between stops may be more efficient for bus operations, it can be disastrous for anyone who has a walking disability (temporary or permanent) or lacks the strength to transport their groceries, packages, or other stuff the extra distance. I can see both sides on this, and I don't think there's a good way to satisfy both with a single type of service.
Liz said:This is exactly the problem I had when I was injured and on crutches. It took me 10-15 minutes to hobble over to the bus stop, followed by buses running at 15 minute intervals, leading me to a blue line stop without elevators or a very long Milwaukee bus ride downtown. When I was not injured the trip to work via public transit too 45-60 minutes, with the injury it was taking me 60-90 minutes to get downtown and I was physically exhausted by the time I got there. When I was healthy and riding my bike to work, the 5.5 mile trip took 35 minutes.
My dissatisfaction with transit in that neighborhood led to me moving back to the north side where transportation is much more reliable, a short walk from my apartment, and there is an accessible L station when I transfer. Transit time for the same distance is 30-40 minutes.
Cutting local routes limits the ability of those who are not able/interested in a long walk and I do not this it is an option that would be good for this city or good for public transit ridership.
Joel said:If they are already walking half a mile to those minor stops, how many people are going to use the bus at all if the stops move even farther away? There are some serious accessibility issues, especially when you add in one or more transfers -- each being a significant distance to walk.
John Wirtz said:
It's certainly a trade-off. If you want a faster more cost-effective system, some people will indeed have to walk farther. I think you'd be surprised though at how few people use the minor stops on the edges of the city (like 5 to 20 people per day at most stops).
The overlapping express route is a great way to solve this, but it costs more to provide two overlapping services. These are tight budget times.
Liz said:
-
Permalink Reply by Dan Korn on
-
Joel said:
If they are already walking half a mile to those minor stops, how many people are going to use the bus at all if the stops move even farther away? There are some serious accessibility issues, especially when you add in one or more transfers -- each being a significant distance to walk.But doesn't this same logic apply to buses versus trains? Unless one or both ends of your trip are near a train stop, you're going to need to take a local bus and transfer. So why have trains at all? Well, because they're faster, that's why.
BRT is the same idea, a tradeoff for faster service. Obviously I'd rather see more light rail instead of more buses, but BRT is a compromise, to allow more "rapid" transit without the expense of building light rail. And I wouldn't support any cuts in local bus service either, except so far as people who would otherwise take express buses are crowding the local buses currently.
The only worry I have about BRT is that it will be seen as a replacement for light rail instead of a stopgap. But we need more rail anyway. To my mind, just about any increase in transit is a good thing, because the idea is to get people out of cars.
-
Permalink Reply by Jared on
-
The problem with rail is where to put it. It would be nice if the Brown Line hooked up with the Blue Line at Jefferson Park but to do so would either mean building a Subway under Lawrence or bulldozing block after block of homes. Either option is going to be pretty expensive.
-
-
I think you're overestimating the number of people that would be negatively impacted. The vast majority of bus users are already boarding and alighting at the stops every half-mile, and I'm proposing stops every quarter-mile. We're talking about improving travel times for probably 90% or more of riders and 10% or less of riders having to walk 600 feet farther. Here's some recommended reading:
http://www.humantransit.org/2010/11/san-francisco-a-rational-stop-s...
http://www.humantransit.org/2011/04/comments-of-the-week-ideal-stop...
Also, London recommends stops spacing of 400 m (0.25 miles).
h' said:John-
Not everyone is 22 years old and in perfect physical form.
Studies show the willingness to walk to a transit stop drops off dramatically if the walk takes more than 10 minutes.
Is the goal here to cut down on transit users?
John Wirtz said:I'd say just get rid of the local, and you'll get where you need to go faster. I think a compromise would be reasonable though. Stop every 1/4 mile instead of the current 1/8 mile.
Mike Zumwalt said:No they don't HAVE to but I'm sure the thinking was why have an express bus and then a local bus? just get rid of the express and you'll still get where you need to go.
John Wirtz said:Do they really have to?
Mike Zumwalt said:
Then they have to have a local bus to accommodate people who only go a few blocks.
Groups
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Critical Mass discussion
262 members
-
Chicago Randonneurs
269 members
-
Walk Bike Transit
63 members
-
British Bicycles of Chic…
172 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
