Are there any Chainlinkers who live in West Town who support bus rapid transit?

The West Town Chamber of Commerce has unofficially come out against the CTA's plan to create fast, reliable bus rapid transit service on Ashland Avenue by converting two travel lanes to dedicated bus lanes, which would nearly double bus speeds and reduce car traffic. See an excerpt from the chamber's statement in its e-newsletter below.

Here are some details on the BRT plan:http://www.transitchicago.com/ashlandbrt/

For a Streetsblog Chicago post, I'm looking for input from residents of West Town (East Village, Eckhart Park, Humboldt Park, Noble Square, Smith Park, Ukrainian Village, Division Street and Wicker Park) who support BRT. Please respond to the following via email at jgreenfield[at]streetsblog.org or post here.

Your name, age, occupation, general location (close to Ashland is a plus), any partner or kids?

Why do you support the CTA's plan for BRT on Ashland?

Thanks,

John Greenfield

The Board of Directors of the West Town Chicago Chamber of Commerce is very concerned regarding the current plans for the CTA's Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on Ashland Avenue. The chamber has received input from many businesses and residents within the West Town area on or near Ashland, and the majority of feedback thus far is opposed to the current BRT plan. The reasons for that opposition is varied but mainly due to the traffic problems they foresee the reduction from two to one lane traveling in each direction will cause on Ashland, and the problems that limited left turns would create redirecting traffic into residential areas.  

 

The WTCCC Board of Directors have requested that the CTA forward official traffic impact studies regarding the actual projected effect the BRT will have on traffic on Ashland and on adjacent streets. In a presentation by CTA regarding the BRT it was mentioned that there are studies that show the impact of BRTs in other ci ties being positive to the commercial corridor and to economic development. The WTCCC wishes to review the economic impact reports from other cities where similar BRTs were implemented. The board is also interested in any research done for alternative plans to the BRT that would improve north south public transportation in Chicago. The Board has tabled creating an official stance on the BRT until they are able to review these expert studies and reports.  

 

However, it should be made clear that the WTCCC Board's current opinion, having not reviewed any official traffic impact studies, and simply upon reviewing the current BRT design plans and local input received, is not in support of the BRT. It is the opinion of the WTCCC at this time that reducing traffic to one lane traveling in each direction will create excessive traffic on Ashland and divert more traffic to other north south streets causing increased congestion all around. The fact that the regular bus will continue to run and need to navigate the one lane is also a concern, as is the fact that trucks will inevitably double-park as they already do to make deliveries and this will cause major traffic delays and jams.  The Board is also concerned that the limited left hand turns will cause traffic issues on adjacent residential streets with vehicles attempting to reach destinations by turning right and impeding upon neighborhood side streets. 

Views: 483

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tom Dworzanski on October 1, 2013 at 11:54am

I've been following this BRT thing on Streetsblog and in the papers for a while and even though it's well intentioned, the more I learn about it the more I think it's a hasty mistake. Beyond the typical businesses' complaints about not being able to receive deliveries and congestion issues, I've come to sympathize with the residents who do not want to see traffic spill over onto residential streets. There is also nothing in this plan that seems to benefit cyclists directly. And the cost of $10 million per mile for a bus route seem idiotic at best.


Ashland Ave needs a subway, plain and simple. Issues like those raised over and over are the reasons we have subways and elevated trains in this city. A failure of BRT (and the even greater absurdity of the "modern express bus" pushed by the business groups) might just give the city the motivation it needs to realize a subway is the only way to fix Ashland.

Permalink Reply by Eric R on October 1, 2013 at 12:07pm
Yes. As it is proposed. :) Will follow up with an email explaining why.
Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on October 1, 2013 at 1:32pm

If you don't like $10 million per mile, what are your thoughts on subway construction costs over the past 10 years (NY, DC, San Francisco) of between $850 million and $2.25 billion per mile?

Tom Dworzanski said:

I've been following this BRT thing on Streetsblog and in the papers for a while and even though it's well intentioned, the more I learn about it the more I think it's a hasty mistake. [snip] And the cost of $10 million per mile for a bus route seem idiotic at best.


Ashland Ave needs a subway, plain and simple. [snip]

Permalink Reply by Tom Dworzanski on October 1, 2013 at 2:57pm

I'll just keep this simple. Politicians make bad rules. Minority/Female front group quotas add huge costs. 10 layers of subcontractors each representing a special interest add huge costs. Union work, though quality is very expensive and highly unproductive relative to merit-based work. Maintenance contracts based on the same wasteful layers exponentially increase costs, though still are cheaper than gov run systems. Private sector solutions are cost effective and might be able to build it. The private sector co must be able to charge market rates and not be subject to the same layers of waste as mentioned above. This is how our subways were built in the first place. All this is not possible in our city. We cannot have nice things.



Kevin C said:

If you don't like $10 million per mile, what are your thoughts on subway construction costs over the past 10 years (NY, DC, San Francisco) of between $850 million and $2.25 billion per mile?

Tom Dworzanski said:

I've been following this BRT thing on Streetsblog and in the papers for a while and even though it's well intentioned, the more I learn about it the more I think it's a hasty mistake. [snip] And the cost of $10 million per mile for a bus route seem idiotic at best.


Ashland Ave needs a subway, plain and simple. [snip]

Permalink Reply by Tom Dworzanski on October 1, 2013 at 3:17pm

Feel free to post whatever stupidity you want. I grew up around the industry and have seen how dirty it is most of my life. I have also learned this system cannot be defeated and so I don't wish to argue. I was just replying to the question.



h' 1.0 said:



Tom Dworzanski said:

I'll just keep this simple. Politicians make bad rules. Minority/Female front group quotas add huge costs. 10 layers of subcontractors each representing a special interest add huge costs. Union work, though quality is very expensive and highly unproductive relative to merit-based work. Maintenance contracts based on the same wasteful layers exponentially increase costs, though still are cheaper than gov run systems. Private sector solutions are cost effective and might be able to build it. The private sector co must be able to charge market rates and not be subject to the same layers of waste as mentioned above. This is how our subways were built in the first place. All this is not possible in our city. We cannot have nice things.



Kevin C said:

If you don't like $10 million per mile, what are your thoughts on subway construction costs over the past 10 years (NY, DC, San Francisco) of between $850 million and $2.25 billion per mile?

Tom Dworzanski said:

I've been following this BRT thing on Streetsblog and in the papers for a while and even though it's well intentioned, the more I learn about it the more I think it's a hasty mistake. [snip] And the cost of $10 million per mile for a bus route seem idiotic at best.


Ashland Ave needs a subway, plain and simple. [snip]

Permalink Reply by Tom Dworzanski on October 1, 2013 at 4:01pm

I'm sorry you feel that way. I did say I didn't feel the project was good for cyclists but whatever.

h' 1.0 said:

No, you were sending another thread into the crapper.

This was the question:

For a Streetsblog Chicago post, I'm looking for input from residents of West Town (East Village, Eckhart Park, Humboldt Park, Noble Square, Smith Park, Ukrainian Village, Division Street and Wicker Park) who support BRT. Please respond to the following via email at jgreenfield[at]streetsblog.org or post here.

Your name, age, occupation, general location (close to Ashland is a plus), any partner or kids?

Why do you support the CTA's plan for BRT on Ashland?

Thanks,

John Greenfield



Tom Dworzanski said:

 I was just replying to the question.

Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on October 2, 2013 at 5:25am

Eric,

If you have a chance to write me today, it would be great to hear from you.

Thanks,

John Greenfield

jgreenfield[at]streetsblog.org


Eric Roach said:

Yes. As it is proposed. :) Will follow up with an email explaining why.
Permalink Reply by globalguy on October 2, 2013 at 7:42am

What is the position of the DSBDA - the Division Street Business Development Association - along the Paseo Boricua?

Permalink Reply by WillG on October 2, 2013 at 7:52am

Besides "it's expensive" and "not in my backyard," what are the arguments against it?

Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on October 2, 2013 at 7:56am

Good question. Since the Paseo's eastern border is Western, a mile west of Ashland, I assume they haven't taken a position on this.

globalguy said:

What is the position of the DSBDA - the Division Street Business Development Association - along the Paseo Boricua?

Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on October 2, 2013 at 7:58am

Basically concerns about the affect of the lane conversions and left-turn prohibitions on traffic and deliveries.

Read the excerpt from the West Town Chamber's statement at the bottom of my original post for their perspective.

Will G - 10mi said:

Besides "it's expensive" and "not in my backyard," what are the arguments against it?

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service