CTA Bus Rapid Transit (take two)

[BusHunter]

When you do a real study on this .How is this going to be the cheapest?

1 Lane of traffic for cars in each direct will mean more time in traffic,more fuel being wasted,

This has the makeing of another Block 37 project.

Plus with all the doors on the buses there will hardly be any seats.

Not that the CTA has money for either project.

Well it's as cheap as a standard bus line. As far as more traffic, the general idea is to get the people out of their cars and onto the bus. Of course the study is not for automobiles. They are hoping when you see the bus pass you, that you will get the bright idea "why am I wasting all this gas" and jump onboard. Similar to the Pace express. As far as the lack of seats. the New Flyer model BRT has also the bike racks inside the bus. So a few more seats will be lost. What seems unclear is why the racks are inside the bus?

[mkohut]

The bus itself is a total failure.People are going to want a seat .

That being say How are you going to attract more riders when they don't have a seat?

[BusHunter]

The bus itself is a total failure.People are going to want a seat .

That being say How are you going to attract more riders when they don't have a seat?

According to wikipedia, the cleveland health line bus has 47 seats with room for 53 standees. They claim those buses are 63 feet long. In comparison the stimulus hybrids #4150 - #4207 have 58 seats.

[Busjack]

Again to condense the points:

• The article to which BusHunter linked was helpful. One could add to that that there isn't any land acquisition cost because this is proposed for an existing street. On the other hand, that probably precludes it from being defined as true BRT for section 5309 purposes, which gets us back to where Emanuel thinks he is going to get the money.
• Whether the J14 saves any time or runs, one would have to have saved the old schedule and compare it to the new. It was discussed earlier that they were claiming 5 minutes saved south of 67th on a 2 hour trip. However, the supporting brochure no longer seems up (supplanted by a link to the schedule page). But, I don't have to repeat that the only point of the J14 is that CTA got a $10 million demonstration grant.
• As to the study not being for automobiles, the $185 million or whatever BRT grant that CTA didn't get was explicitly anti-automobile. In NYC, it was conditioned on congestion pricing of some sort of tolls, and when that fell through, the Chicago one was conditioned on raising parking taxes (eventually happened, but too late), and the parking meter deal. While this planning grant may not be so conditioned, I bet that the consultants are working on similar assumptions. I'm only saying that the State St. transit mall didn't work, and once this becomes more serious, people are going to fight the restrictions on vehicular traffic.
• And, yes, they aren't going to get the $216 million in construction money.

[geneking7320]

Well it's as cheap as a standard bus line. As far as more traffic, the general idea is to get the people out of their cars and onto the bus. Of course the study is not for automobiles. They are hoping when you see the bus pass you, that you will get the bright idea "why am I wasting all this gas" and jump onboard. Similar to the Pace express. As far as the lack of seats. the New Flyer model BRT has also the bike racks inside the bus. So a few more seats will be lost. What seems unclear is why the racks are inside the bus?

Sometimes transit agencies try hard to make you think that BRT or enhanced bus is light rail . Maybe New Flyer feels their bus can compete with light rail vehicles which have bike racks inside [like Minneapolis for example] .

[Busjack]

Sometimes transit agencies try hard to make you think that BRT or enhanced bus is light rail .

Getting back to the definition of BRT in 49 USC 5302 and 5309, essentially it has to be, except for rubber and tracks.

[MetroShadow]

The bus itself is a total failure.People are going to want a seat .

That being say How are you going to attract more riders when they don't have a seat?

My question is how would you know it will be a failure if other communities/systems have had reasonably decent programs (see: LA, Boston, and Seattle)?

If you're on a bus that's travelling faster than a car, why does it matter if you have a seat? In the realm of transport, you want more efficient travel; a negative mindset before the project even begins (and keep in mind, I am not condoning anything yet) isn't useful to anyone.

If service has proved itself somewhere else, it has the potential to work here. Then again it's the CTA...

[See Tea Eh]

Lack of available seats doesn't seem to have hurt ridership on most other CTA services, especially during rush hour.

[mkohut]

If your adding alot of doors.Plus,bikes.I hate to be standing if the bus has to slam on the brakes.

[MetroShadow]

If your adding alot of doors.Plus,bikes.I hate to be standing if the bus has to slam on the brakes.

Doors are irrelevant. You'll find room on the bus or you wait X minutes for the next one.

And that's why you can use the bars to restrain yourself. Heaven help us if there's an idiot in a Prius in the Bus Lane.

/Honestly don't see the difference between this and what one deals with on the 9Local.

[Busjack]

....

/Honestly don't see the difference between this and what one deals with on the 9Local.

Probably on a practical level, not one. You aren't going to get a seat either way.

Now, if they put a 4300 type bus on 9...but that would take remodeling the 74 garage...which they would have to do anyway, including for this project.

[BusHunter]

Doors are irrelevant. You'll find room on the bus or you wait X minutes for the next one.

And that's why you can use the bars to restrain yourself. Heaven help us if there's an idiot in a Prius in the Bus Lane.

/Honestly don't see the difference between this and what one deals with on the 9Local.

A good point made in the Redeye, is now that the locals or driving lane is down to one lane the locals would probably be at least three times slower. The BRT on that route could be up to 5 times faster than the local. CTA or the city is going to have to figure out a way for cars to use the bus lane at least up to a certain point. (like when the bus is four blocks away. Maybe they could put flashing lights on the bus to make it appear like it's emergency equipment, a fire truck horn couldn't hurt) Without the park lane closing this simply is not going to work. They should at least restrict parking in the rush hour. If they don't do at least that, the project is doomed/laughable.

[mkohut]

The way Ashland would look is totally stupid.

Between no left turn and if a emergency vehicle had to go down Ashland,I just hope its not a matter of life or death.

[Busjack]

A good point made in the Redeye, is now that the locals or driving lane is down to one lane the locals would probably be at least three times slower. The BRT on that route could be up to 5 times faster than the local. CTA or the city is going to have to figure out a way for cars to use the bus lane at least up to a certain point. (like when the bus is four blocks away. Maybe they could put flashing lights on the bus to make it appear like it's emergency equipment, a fire truck horn couldn't hurt) Without the park lane closing this simply is not going to work. They should at least restrict parking in the rush hour. If they don't do at least that, the project is doomed/laughable.

But doing that would definitely negate the separate right of way requirement, so no 5309 money.

[MetroShadow]

The way Ashland would look is totally stupid.

Between no left turn and if a emergency vehicle had to go down Ashland,I just hope its not a matter of life or death.

I'm sure they're exempted.

[Busjack]

I'm sure they're exempted.

I don't think that's mk's point, although there may be an explanation in your comment.

What I believe is his point was explored somewhere in the CTA Tattler's comments.

Essentially, if someone stalls, they either block the one traffic lane, or, if the parking lane is occupied, pull over into the bus lane. In any event, nobody moves. Then consider a nice traffic accident that blocks both lanes.

Maybe the emergency vehicle gets around it by going into the bus lane, but certainly nobody has room to pull over for it. That can't help response time.

In the meantime, the travel time between Ashland and Randolph and Ashland and Jackson is 2 hours and 18 minutes, according to the radio reports.

[MetroShadow]

A good point made in the Redeye, is now that the locals or driving lane is down to one lane the locals would probably be at least three times slower. The BRT on that route could be up to 5 times faster than the local. CTA or the city is going to have to figure out a way for cars to use the bus lane at least up to a certain point. (like when the bus is four blocks away. Maybe they could put flashing lights on the bus to make it appear like it's emergency equipment, a fire truck horn couldn't hurt) Without the park lane closing this simply is not going to work. They should at least restrict parking in the rush hour. If they don't do at least that, the project is doomed/laughable.

Parking restrictions might have to be the way to go. It usually works on other arterial roads, but at the same time, you can't send it in the bus lane (especially if you're dedicating the right of way).

Flashing lights seemed to work for NYC, but if the City doesn't allow blue lights to flash, then either pick another color (or scrap that idea altogether).

[MetroShadow]

In the meantime, the travel time between Ashland and Randolph and Ashland and Jackson is 2 hours and 18 minutes, according to the radio reports.

So this afternoon, I won't expect to go home at all? Gotcha.

[Busjack]

Parking restrictions might have to be the way to go. It usually works on other arterial roads, but at the same time, you can't send it in the bus lane (especially if you're dedicating the right of way).

Flashing lights seemed to work for NYC, but if the City doesn't allow blue lights to flash, then either pick another color (or scrap that idea altogether).

On the first, then you are going against the consultants' representation that 94% (or whatever) of the parking is being preserved.

On the second,if people have to get out of the way of the local bus, then you really assure that no vehicular traffic gets through (see my prior post update: to which I see you have already responded).

[BusHunter]

Actually if you look at the picture on the home page of the proposed Ashland BRT, if they took out the landscaped median at intersections they could maybe squeeze in a bus lane there giving one side of the street two lanes of traffic. That would help to ease the crunch at intersections. Something that could also help is instead of making the right turn lane just turn, they could make it go straight as well. I think one of the problems of this project is just too much prioritizing at the intersections. (right lane can only turn right etc.)

[Busjack]

Actually if you look at the picture on the home page of the proposed Ashland BRT, if they took out the landscaped median at intersections they could maybe squeeze in a bus lane there giving one side of the street two lanes of traffic. That would help to ease the crunch at intersections. Something that could also help is instead of making the right turn lane just turn, they could make it go straight as well. I think one of the problems of this project is just too much prioritizing at the intersections. (right lane can only turn right etc.)

The impression I got from the image (especially if you compare the near and far sides of the intersection, with a planter on the far side) is that the platform takes up the room otherwise occupied by the planter.

And if one went straight in the right turn lane, it appears that they would hit a bumpout that, I assume, protects parking. Also the shelter for presumably the local bus stop is opposite the right turn lane, so the local bus would have to move into the through lane to get around the bumpout.

In short, there is only one lane that can be used to cross the intersecting street.

[BusHunter]

The impression I got from the image (especially if you compare the near and far sides of the intersection, with a planter on the far side) is that the platform takes up the room otherwise occupied by the planter.

And if one went straight in the right turn lane, it appears that they would hit a bumpout that, I assume, protects parking. Also the shelter for presumably the local bus stop is opposite the right turn lane, so the local bus would have to move into the through lane to get around the bumpout.

In short, there is only one lane that can be used to cross the intersecting street.

None of that matters if you redesign the intersection from what they have. Take out the bumpout, (I don't understand why we need a 16 foot across sidewalk anyway) put the bus stop where the bumpout was. Allow for a space to merge the lanes down to one, so they can have a park lane starting at say 100 feet from the intersection. The goal is to get as many cars through the intersection as possible. A far as needing only one lane to cross the street, if they are that worried a driver can't find the other side of the street, paint them a dotted crosswalk like they do at many intersections like at double left turn lanes etc. Sounds like a good idea to me.

[Busjack]

... The goal is to get as many cars through the intersection as possible. ...

You would think, but recent traffic engineering ideas are contrary. The bumpout is one of the techniques known as "traffic calming." Car and Driver even wrote about them,* even though its former management referred to the "Anti Destination League."

___________

*At the bottom of this article, under "Less-Mean Streets."

[Sam92]

On the first, then you are going against the consultants' representation that 94% (or whatever) of the parking is being preserved.

How much parking would it take away if they implemented rush hour parking restrictions to help with the peak flow of traffic. The currently planned set up seems a lttle extreme without that in at least the rush hour as would banning parking altogether. Somethings gotta give in either scenario (Preserving parking is probably damn near impossible in peak periods and an all out ban would raise hell but a rush only ban doesnt seem as bad as the others)

[Busjack]

How much parking would it take away if they implemented rush hour parking restrictions to help with the peak flow of traffic. The currently planned set up seems a lttle extreme without that in at least the rush hour as would banning parking altogether. Somethings gotta give in either scenario (Preserving parking is probably damn near impossible in peak periods and an all out ban would raise hell but a rush only ban doesnt seem as bad as the others)

What you say makes sense, but then we get back to the bumpout issue discussed above.

Not to mention winter parking restrictions, either.