Bus Rapid Transit System

[nextstopchicago]

If so, will routes such as Chicago, Halsted and 79th still provide local service?

That's an interesting question. In Mexico City, they banned 'peseros' on Insurgentes over the course of the BRT route. But their BRT stops about every half a kilometer (or a little more than every two blocks). Whatever people think about walking an extra block, an extra two is clearly a bigger deal.

If the locals continue (and I'm assuming they will), where will they run? In the BRT lane, forcing the fast buses to leave the lane to pass them??? Will the BRT lane be a center lane, with buses running in the normal traffic lane???

[BusHunter]

I am a bit surprised by the BRT choices. Jeffery? Don't they have the 14 that does basically what the Jeffery BRT will do. So I guess Jeffery riders will have double service. What was interesting to me is the lack of a BRT lane on LSD. According to the trib the route will head downtown with no BRT lane on LSD. On LSD there will still be a bottleneck at Cermak that the BRT's can't cross. On Chicago Avenue, areas like Ashland, Damen and up to Western will be hit hard by a parking restriction. There's the place to avoid. Don't plan on parking over there. Halsted is somewhat smart because there isn't really a park lane there, but the route is so short what would riders get out of using it? It should've been extended to UIC, but I can just hear the greektown restaurants complaining already about that. Plus there is one more problem. There is a construction project one block south of clybourn over there blocking the street. What do you do with them?

[Busjack]

I am a bit surprised by the BRT choices. Jeffery? Don't they have the 14 that does basically what the Jeffery BRT will do. So I guess Jeffery riders will have double service.

No, more than likely, they just get the bus only lane and the prepaid areas.

The more interesting question raised by others (jajuan and nextstopchicago) is whether routes like Halsted and Chicago will have both local and BRT buses, as well as yours whether much is accomplished by doing the designated portion of Halsted.

[Busjack]

Since the Sun-Times article referred to a DOT memorandum, I found the agreement, and suggest, again, that the rest of you read it, instead of relying on second-hand sources.

Interesting things are:

• "deploying manned portable fare-collection units" as well as "automated pre-paid boarding areas into transport hubs." Apparently the streetside fare collector or customer service agent will be back.
  
• "Implementing BRT Service Branding (including establishing unique system livery and
  identity by the end of Phase II)" ... "Implementing Dedicated Hybrid BRT Vehicles (including deploying newly acquired 60-foot hybrid vehicles as dedicated and uniquely branded BRT fleet vehicles by the end of Phase II)." So, apparently, the hybrids allocated to this project will not look like the sample in the President's Reports.
  

The designation of the bus lanes, with diamonds and such, as well as queue jumping lanes is also described.

[MetroShadow]

I am a bit surprised by the BRT choices. Jeffery? Don't they have the 14 that does basically what the Jeffery BRT will do. So I guess Jeffery riders will have double service. What was interesting to me is the lack of a BRT lane on LSD....There is a construction project one block south of clybourn over there blocking the street. What do you do with them?

In regards to LSD: I say why not use the McCormick Place busway to get through the clutter to 31st? After that, its anyone's guess. South of 67th is anybody's guess

Chicago: Chicago is wide enough to handle the traffic, and luckly noone uses the parking on the street as noted; that's a good use of space to implement.

Halsted: I couldn't make out the map, but is the south end at Grand? If so, it should've been extended to UIC to make do. As for that construction, I assume it should be taken care of by the time BRT is implemented.

79th: We'll see if the use of Artics will benefit, but I think the BRT should've been extended on both ends.

This is something worth watching, although I would argue that I don't think these streets can be retrofitted with new Bus-Only technology. I want to see how this is actually implemented because its something entirely new for our region.

[nextstopchicago]

Thanks for the link to the agreement.

A couple things I thought were interesting:

1) as you mention, there will be some permanent "automated" fare-collection areas "at transit hubs." Presumably, that means that 79th St. and the Chicago Ave. stations of the Red Line, and maybe at Grand/Halsted on the Blue Line. Is there any other place that could be called a 'transit hub' on these routes? I guess you could do something for the Jeffrey downtown (does it go to Union Station?), though that's not within the highlighted area on the Trib map.

2) the manned boarding areas will be "portable." This could mean that a fare-collector is setting up those strap-things that they use to corral lines in various settings.

3) The agreement states that while these routes will start out operating only during rush periods, they should be all day by the end of Phase II.

4) Initially, signal priority will be granted by "traffic control aides". While the term is somewhat vague, from a google search, it looks to me like these are actual humans who would be stationed at key intersections.

5) While the Trib quotes CTA saying they haven't talked to CDOT about eliminating parking, there's also a line in the agreement saying they will eliminate on-street parking "during all effective hours" (and here, see my point 3 - effective hours is supposed to be all-day in the end); since CDOT Commissioner Byrne is a signatory to the agreement, they are apparently doing this regardless of whether CTA has talked to him about it.

6) the unique branding is only required by the end of Phase II.

7) They say average speeds should have increased by 25% by the end of Phase I and 50% by the end of Phase II. While this might sound like a goal, if you take seriously the way the agreement is written, it would be a legal threshold for not returning the funds. I have a hard time seeing USDOT saying, your buses are only going 40% faster, so give us our $153 million back, but it looks to me like they could do so.

[Busjack]

Halsted: I couldn't make out the map, but is the south end at Grand? If so, it should've been extended to UIC to make do. As for that construction, I assume it should be taken care of by the time BRT is implemented.

Hilkevitch says Lake, although I doubt that makes much difference (especially since there is not a Green-Pink Line station there).

As far as UIC, that isn't part of the first 10.2 miles. (I added up the segments and came up with 10.25, so the map is the limit of this project.) Whether it becomes part of the remaining, unfunded 89.8 miles (and the Greektown question is resolved) remain to be seen.

[Busjack]

7) They say average speeds should have increased by 25% by the end of Phase I and 50% by the end of Phase II. While this might sound like a goal, if you take seriously the way the agreement is written, it would be a legal threshold for not returning the funds. I have a hard time seeing USDOT saying, your buses are only going 40% faster, so give us our $153 million back, but it looks to me like they could do so.

You are getting into the legal territory of conditions vs. provisions. However, since the funding source provision says

In implementing Phases I and II, the Partner Agencies will give priority to the actions set forth on Appendix A.

they are certainly goals, not conditions. On the other hand, first providing proof of legal authority and leasing the parking meters are definitely conditions.

Probably to be legally precise, there isn't an agreement yet, but a "memorandum of understanding," known in the law as an "agreement to agree," which technically means nothing, since "no party shall be legally bound hereby" until "a grant agreement (or a series of grant agreements) (the “Grant Agreementsâ€) to be negotiated and executed." Hence, I previously misused the term "agreement." However, it definitely shows what the parties' intent is, and the scope of the project, once the technicalities are worked out.

[jajuan]

1) as you mention, there will be some permanent "automated" fare-collection areas "at transit hubs." Presumably, that means that 79th St. and the Chicago Ave. stations of the Red Line, and maybe at Grand/Halsted on the Blue Line. Is there any other place that could be called a 'transit hub' on these routes? I guess you could do something for the Jeffrey downtown (does it go to Union Station?), though that's not within the highlighted area on the Trib map.

Maybe the transit hub fare collection area for the 14 will be Ogilvie (formerly NW) Station since the 14 passes there at its northern terminus.

[Busjack]

Maybe the transit hub fare collection area for the 14 will be Ogilvie (formerly NW) Station since the 14 passes there at its northern terminus.

For those who want to sate or multiply their speculative urges, a slide show about the BRT is now posted on the CTA site.

Page 12 has a picture of the fenced bus shelter under the legend "transit hub," and page 13 defines the concept. Apparently not the same as a transfer terminal implied by the preceding posts.

Free flow and prepaid boarding are also illustrated in the pdf.

[jajuan]

For those who want to sate or multiply their speculative urges, a slide show about the BRT is now posted on the CTA site.

Page 12 has a picture of the fenced bus shelter under the legend "transit hub," and page 13 defines the concept. Apparently not the same as a transfer terminal implied by the preceding posts.

Free flow and prepaid boarding are also illustrated in the pdf.

Thanks for the link. From what I could understand from pages 7 and 8 of the pdf, the bus lanes will operate in one direction in the morning rush with the opposite direction bus lane open to car traffic, and then in the afternoon rush the bus lane in the opposite direction will be open to buses only.

[nflyer22]

Thanks for the link. From what I could understand from pages 7 and 8 of the pdf, the bus lanes will operate in one direction in the morning rush with the opposite direction bus lane open to car traffic, and then in the afternoon rush the bus lane in the opposite direction will be open to buses only.

THAT I would love to see happen, seeing many motorists just jump into any lane that happens to have space, and it's really hard for me to imagine the bus lane to really be free and only be used by buses, whichever one is being used in the morning/evening.

I'm not saying that all motorists/drivers out there are ignorant and stubborn, but there's always the guy on the phone trying to get home as soon as possible and we see him just jump into a lane without any turn signals. But, seeing all the unpredictable stuff that CTA has been notoriously known for, we'll all just have to see how it all really works out come Summer of 2009.

[Busjack]

What the press has barely mentioned about the parking meter deal, is that it fulfills the major contingency to the BRT grant.

On the other hand, what wasn't directly mentioned in the BRT documents is that the parking meter deal results in increased meter rates. One news source at least picked up the point that higher rates would discourage driving and get people onto transit.

The linkage between the parking meter lease and the BRT grant at least now becomes a bit clearer.

[nextstopchicago]

A slightly different topic, but I think technically it's about BRT -- what's up with the Western Avenue signal preemption experiment?

This Trib piece says that it should start in January:

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/ju...lights-29-jul29

Has anyone heard any more?

[sw4400]

A slightly different topic, but I think technically it's about BRT -- what's up with the Western Avenue signal preemption experiment?

Has anyone heard any more?

I haven't, but I know there was some talk about painting the BRT's a different scheme so passengers know which is which. Personally, I think that is a very costly idea(buses will have to be repainted to old scheme just to use on non-BRT routes). This idea works a little bit better.... we have options of up to 900 more DE60LFs, correct? Well, one or two of the next options will probably be used exclusively for BRT. They should be given a new series number(probably 5000, since the Flxible 5300's and New Flyer 5800's will be retired fully in early 2009, if not before then). And since we are leasing these buses, I think we can get a few hundred of these....

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...5US296%26sa%3DX

It'll be easier to have these in the standard CTA scheme, only thing is that the routes that are BRT will have some definative signage in their displays, as well as probably special run numbers.... like for example:

49: Western

49: BRT

49: to 79th or 95th(depending how far south the CTA will make this route go)

or

R49: Western

R49: to 79 or 95th

[Busjack]

I haven't, but I know there was some talk about painting the BRT's a different scheme so passengers know which is which. Personally, I think that is a very costly idea(buses will have to be repainted to old scheme just to use on non-BRT routes). This idea works a little bit better.... we have options of up to 900 more DE60LFs, correct? Well, one or two of the next options will probably be used exclusively for BRT. They should be given a new series number(probably 5000, since the Flxible 5300's and New Flyer 5800's will be retired fully in early 2009, if not before then). And since we are leasing these buses, I think we can get a few hundred of these....

• A condition of the BRT grant is

  (D) Implementing BRT Service Branding (including establishing unique system livery and identity by the end of Phase II)

  
  
• The home page includes the story about NF announcing that CTA exercised 58 additional options. Others have said that this appears to be in accordance with the BRT and Durbin grants, not part of the lease of 150.
  
• Another series is probable for the BRT buses. However, it won't be 5000, because it has repeatedly been stated that the L cars will be 5000s (most recently illustrated here).
  
• The drawings in the RFP don't indicate any advance design, but sure look like the 4000s, including the seating arrangement.
  

So my latest take is that any BRT buses will be out of either the mystery exercise of 58 options, or after that the RFP for 900 more (of which we have not heard after the due date). CTA certainly isn't going to be repainting 6400s for that purpose.

[Busjack]

The Bus Rapid Transit Pilot Program page on the new CTA website and links on that page seem to provide additional information, including the corridors and the dedicated lane portions of those streets, and stops in both the dedicated and other areas.

[jajuan]

The Bus Rapid Transit Pilot Program page on the new CTA website and links on that page seem to provide additional information, including the corridors and the dedicated lane portions of those streets, and stops in both the dedicated and other areas.

It's interesting that 66 and 79 will have the longest stretch of dedicated bus lanes, a little over 6 miles for 66 and 5.5 miles for 79.

[Busjack]

It's interesting that 66 and 79 will have the longest stretch of dedicated bus lanes, a little over 6 miles for 66 and 5.5 miles for 79.

Also, that it appears that Jeffery was cut back to north of 83rd.

[BusHunter]

Also, that it appears that Jeffery was cut back to north of 83rd.

I couldn't help but notice under the FAQ's, CTA plans to charge extra to ride BRT. (not in the pilot phase, but after that) I wonder how much will be the surcharge? If it's more than 50 cents I don't know how many people will use it once it's there. You know just having a BRT going your direction will speed you up by changing all your lights. I don't know how much faster it would be than regular service especially #14 which already has limited stops. This reminds me of the O'Hare express (that never happened) wanting to charge 10 dollars extra to ride it. While you may get airport travelers to pay that, the average joe commuter may not be so inclined. BTW, if we plan to use BRT with the way the streets are being plowed now they must have to change the name to BST Bus Slow Transit. :lol:

[Busjack]

I couldn't help but notice under the FAQ's, CTA plans to charge extra to ride BRT. (not in the pilot phase, but after that) I wonder how much will be the surcharge? If it's more than 50 cents I don't know how many people will use it once it's there.

Maybe you are reading a little more into that, but surcharges are not unknown. In fact, the Jeffery Express (whatever the number was then) and 147 were subject to surcharges leaving downtown until CTA basically went from cash fares to Transit Cards. The Evanston Express was subject to a surcharge until conductors were eliminated (you had to buy an express pass, similar to a transfer, from the ticket agent or pay the conductor an extra 25 cents riding south between Howard and Belmont). In effect, there is a 25 cent surcharge now for starting your trip on the L, although that may be justified by the fact that a rider can transfer free to other L lines.

Given such things as CTA wanting to go to the credit card with a chip model, I wonder if say the card reader on a particular bus can be programmed to take more than the standard fare. Also, since it hasn't been indicated yet that a route will be entirely on dedicated lanes, whether different fares would be collected at the kiosks or on the bus. The immediately preceding question also implicates whether the locals will stop at the prepaid areas, or you take a crap shoot on whether a local or BRT will come first (although CTA does promise arrival time displays). Of course, one doesn't know the effect of the surcharge on those with monthly passes.

As George Krambles would say, lots to plan/speculate about....

[BusHunter]

Maybe you are reading a little more into that, but surcharges are not unknown. In fact, the Jeffery Express (whatever the number was then) and 147 were subject to surcharges leaving downtown until CTA basically went from cash fares to Transit Cards. The Evanston Express was subject to a surcharge until conductors were eliminated (you had to buy an express pass, similar to a transfer, from the ticket agent or pay the conductor an extra 25 cents riding south between Howard and Belmont). In effect, there is a 25 cent surcharge now for starting your trip on the L, although that may be justified by the fact that a rider can transfer free to other L lines.

Given such things as CTA wanting to go to the credit card with a chip model, I wonder if say the card reader on a particular bus can be programmed to take more than the standard fare. Also, since it hasn't been indicated yet that a route will be entirely on dedicated lanes, whether different fares would be collected at the kiosks or on the bus. The immediately preceding question also implicates whether the locals will stop at the prepaid areas, or you take a crap shoot on whether a local or BRT will come first (although CTA does promise arrival time displays). Of course, one doesn't know the effect of the surcharge on those with monthly passes.

As George Krambles would say, lots to plan/speculate about....

I understand there were previous surcharges before this. I remember paying surcharges on the #162 and possibly the #6, but take this in account. In these instances, there were no other ways around paying the surcharges. I mean you could ride a #62 and transfer to the #53A if you wanted to increase your commute time by 45 minutes to an hour. ( no orange line then I'm speaking in terms of pre 1993) but on a daily basis this would waste alot of your time. With the BRT scenario, you would simply just wait for the local and take it. Both buses go to the same place with no unwanted transfering involved. I wonder in other BRT cities. Is there a surcharge and what is it?

[Tcmetro]

To make it simple it would be best for CTA to charge $2.25 for the BRT, same as the 'L' (starting on 1/1/09).

[cta4006]

i love the brt design

[jajuan]

Also, that it appears that Jeffery was cut back to north of 83rd.

Actually as I understand the map, the proposed dedicated bus lanes only go to 83rd but the route will still end at Stony Island/103rd.