CTA Bus Rapid Transit (take two)

[ChicagoNova]

True. The 15 is remaining the same. It's just going to be sharing the BRT stops with the 14 in addition to making its other regular stops similar to how it's now sharing the odd numbered stops in the current express pattern of the 14 in addition to serving the stops at the even numbered streets. So why confuse riders further with a 14 BRT along with a 14 express?

I was told that the span of hours along with the frequency will stay the same when #14 becomes a BRT route.

[jajuan]

I was told that the span of hours along with the frequency will stay the same when #14 becomes a BRT route.

That is the stated plan from the CTA. What is changing is the 14 goes from a odd street stopping pattern between 67th and 99th to every half mile except where crossing another route, designated bus lanes operated in the peak direction, that is NB bus lane open during AM rush and the SB one in the PM, which matches Jeffery's current parking restriction pattern, and new traffic signal priority along with some form of bus traffic hopping where a dedicated traffic signal allows only the bus to pass an intersection while the rest of the traffic on Jeffery would have a red light.

[Tcmetro]

Looking at the table of running time enhancements, cutting every other stop alone is not going to have much impact. From 67th to 83rd, with the bus lanes trips will improve by ~4'. During middays when the lanes are not available, times improve by only ~1'30''. The travel time improvements south of 83rd are similar to the northern portion during the middays, but the bus lanes save only 1'30''-2'30'' during the peaks.

Obviously we can see that the major factor in the time savings is the bus lanes and the signal priority. Of course, more people are expected to board during peaks than the midday times, so cutting stops could make a difference during the peaks. On the other hand, increasing the average walk to the bus stop to 1/4 mile (up from 1/8) should be more expected on an such a long route. Reliability and speed are expected and very necessary for express routes.

More time could be saved by having all-door boarding, but I think it is unlikely that the CTA will be implementing that anytime soon.

One more question: Are the bus stops on Jeffery on the near side or the far side? They should be on the far side to take advantage of the signal priority system.

EDIT: After a quick look on Google Street View, it appears most of the bus stops are on the far side.

[Busjack]

...

More time could be saved by having all-door boarding, but I think it is unlikely that the CTA will be implementing that anytime soon.

...

I was looking around at the New York Select Bus Service, including the city DOT page on the Bx12. While there are some similarities to the Chicago plan (i.e. that indicates that they at least started out by wrapping existing D60HFs, and the traffic signal priority), the 24% improvement in travel times over a prior limited route seems mostly attributable to using the Cubic fare medium outside the bus and getting a receipt, then using any of the three doors to board and having a roving fare inspector. That is what Buffalo did with its LRVs, and sounds sort of like one suggestion to get Metra on a common fare card with CTA and Pace.

One thing you definitely know is that CTA is not going to hire fare inspectors on buses. Also, that wouldn't be a consistent method of fare collection, since fares would still have to be collected downtown the old way.

One should also take into account that this doesn't affect the express portion on Lake Shore Drive. One can verify that by adding the time saved in the 67 to 83 and 83 to 103 portions of the table in the pdf to get the total in the Jefferson to 103 table.

[BusHunter]

Reading the latest post in the more bus moves thread, has me wondering about the Jeffery BRT. I wonder why if they got 11 million dollars for a BRT trial that they elected not to purchase new buses instead of choosing to retrofit the existing NF artics out of 103rd. I'm surprised they didn't go for maybe a 30 bus purchase and a partial retrofit of the 103rd artics. Then the south side could've benefited off the extra artics (especially 77th) The tribune does point out however new buses will be purchased for BRT in the future most likely around the time they move to the ashland or western corridors to expand this beyond the south shore. The retrofits do sound nice with there onboard bustracker capability. (that's something that needs to happen to the whole fleet) most likely riders on the #6 will benefit off this upgrade, using the 103rd equipment. I doubt 53 buses would exclusively be for the #14.

As noted in the CTA Tattler last week more funding has been approved towards the #14 BRT. It's also noted there pursueing the Western Corridor for a construction startup of 2015. (from Howard to 95th) Looking at what I previously said, (in the quote above) now that there going to get 30 more artics wouldn't it make more sense to just receive new buses in a BRT branding with all the appointed upgrades this project mentions. If they installed a real time bustracker sign in the #4000 buses I would think that they would have to remove seats to do that, unless they just want to put those signs over the wheel wells, but that wouldn't help people in the rear of the bus. I guess it depends on too if the signs are small like the shelters signs or big like the Titan signs. BTW, speaking of shelters I noticed Diversey/Kimball now has a working bustracker shelter sign.

[Busjack]

As noted in the CTA Tattler last week more funding has been approved towards the #14 BRT. It's also noted there pursueing the Western Corridor for a construction startup of 2015. (from Howard to 95th) Looking at what I previously said, (in the quote above) now that there going to get 30 more artics wouldn't it make more sense to just receive new buses in a BRT branding with all the appointed upgrades this project mentions. If they installed a real time bustracker sign in the #4000 buses I would think that they would have to remove seats to do that, unless they just want to put those signs over the wheel wells, but that wouldn't help people in the rear of the bus. I guess it depends on too if the signs are small like the shelters signs or big like the Titan signs. BTW, speaking of shelters I noticed Diversey/Kimball now has a working bustracker shelter sign.

Funds for the Western Corridor have been approved only for an Alternatives Analysis study, not any real construction.

As far as whether 30 new buses would work for Jeffery, the question is when is that project supposed to start operations, compared to how long it would take for the 30 buses to be delivered (probably at least a year). The minimal work that CDOT has to do (traffic signal prioritization, no parking signs, pavement markings, and some bus shelters) shouldn't take that long. Also, 30 buses are not 53.

I don't think they clearly said where the BusTracker sign would go, but I was sort of the impression of in the front over the headsign cover. They probably could also hang it from the ceiling (similar was proposed in a Pace rfp for interactive signs at the Harvey and Chicago Heights TCs) if there are not too many basketball players riding the bus. :lol:

[BusHunter]

Funds for the Western Corridor have been approved only for an Alternatives Analysis study, not any real construction.

As far as whether 30 new buses would work for Jeffery, the question is when is that project supposed to start operations, compared to how long it would take for the 30 buses to be delivered (probably at least a year). The minimal work that CDOT has to do (traffic signal prioritization, no parking signs, pavement markings, and some bus shelters) shouldn't take that long. Also, 30 buses are not 53.

I don't think they clearly said where the BusTracker sign would go, but I was sort of the impression of in the front over the headsign cover. They probably could also hang it from the ceiling (similar was proposed in a Pace rfp for interactive signs at the Harvey and Chicago Heights TCs) if there are not too many basketball players riding the bus.

As they say "the devil is in the details". Construction for Jeffery is supposed to start Spring 2012. I believe they want to be done by 2013, which would put it right there around the time of this delivery if you figure a year from when it was announced. (the buses) As you say 30 buses are not 53, but I wonder if they would need 53 BRT buses? I would think they would need less because of the speeds involved. Also they would be saying that the buses they have now( around 53)serve only Jeffery, which they do not. If they kept some #4000's for the #6, and had these too, together it could work. It just seems like a funny coincidence to me.

[Busjack]

As they say "the devil is in the details". Construction for Jeffery is supposed to start Spring 2012. I believe they want to be done by 2013, which would put it right there around the time of this delivery if you figure a year from when it was announced. (the buses) As you say 30 buses are not 53, but I wonder if they would need 53 BRT buses? I would think they would need less because of the speeds involved. Also they would be saying that the buses they have now( around 53)serve only Jeffery, which they do not. If they kept some #4000's for the #6, and had these too, together it could work. It just seems like a funny coincidence to me.

The grant for the BRT said that they were using 53 preexisting buses for it indicates the amount they consider necessary, and cutting 5 minutes off a rush hour round trip that now takes over 2 hours isn't going to free up 20 buses.

I suppose one would have to have the current roster to see how many are assigned to 103 and deduct those on route 6. I was thinking more of the time when there were about 50 NABIs at 103 just about all on Jeffery. I suppose that 30 could cover a 2 hour 10 minute round trip at every 5 minutes.

[Sam92]

The grant for the BRT said that they were using 53 preexisting buses for it indicates the amount they consider necessary, and cutting 5 minutes off a rush hour round trip that now takes over 2 hours isn't going to free up 20 buses.

I suppose one would have to have the current roster to see how many are assigned to 103 and deduct those on route 6. I was thinking more of the time when there were about 50 NABIs at 103 just about all on Jeffery. I suppose that 30 could cover a 2 hour 10 minute round trip at every 5 minutes.

Right now we have 48 (#'s 4059-4106). And only half of those would be round trip in the rush periods because of some going and coming from the Hospitals as 192. I still see some Kedzie and North Park artics that never had '03 stickers removed so I'm guessing those are going to be sent back to bring us up to 53 for the BRT?

[renardo870]

As far as equipment, would it be possible to convert the mothballed 7500's that are stored @103rd and 77th to a updated version of BRT buses or is that a "dumb idea?" U have at least 225 buses( if all are intact) just rusting away. That way can place them on Jeffery, Ashland and Western and possibly other long haul routes local and express routes 3/4/6/8/12/22/29/34/36/53/54/55/62/63/66/72/77/79/87/145/146/147/151/152 and the some interlining with the 120-129 and 134/135/136/143/144/148? Just a thought......

[Busjack]

As far as equipment, would it be possible to convert the mothballed 7500's that are stored @103rd and 77th to a updated version of BRT buses or is that a "dumb idea?"

In light of the previous discussion about the status of the litigation (starting about here, and especially BusHunter's previous response to essentially the same question), yes to the latter.

Since Rodriguez said that CTA didn't have the money to strip, inspect, and fix those buses, a $11 million grant to, essentially, place wraps and BusTracker signs on existing buses won't do that job nor upgrade them to BRT status.

[BusHunter]

In light of the previous discussion about the status of the litigation (starting about here, and especially BusHunter's previous response to essentially the same question), yes to the latter.

Since Rodriguez said that CTA didn't have the money to strip, inspect, and fix those buses, a $11 million grant to, essentially, place wraps and BusTracker signs on existing buses won't do that job nor upgrade them to BRT status.

If the #7500's became BRT's you would then have Breakable Rapid Transit. :lol:

[Sam92]

That way can place them on Jeffery, Ashland and Western and possibly other long haul routes local and express routes 3/4/6/8/12/22/29/34/36/53/54/55/62/63/66/72/77/79/87/145/146/147/151/152 and the some interlining with the 120-129 and 134/135/136/143/144/148? Just a thought......

8 uses a few in the rush but they only go to the Orange Line, then go downtown to become 125's and 148's. Relized it when I started working at Potbelly which would explain why Kedzie was in charge of the 8. 143 does pretty decent with Kedzies 40 footers along with the 144 although that may be a different story by the time they get around the Water Tower area. 3, 4, 79 and 87 are possibly on there way to getting some if they send artics to 77th when the next 37 hybrids come in. Also I think there could be a way to get some artics on the 77 Belmont route to handle the huge later evening crowds by putting Kedzie in charge since most of their equipment is for rush hour lakefront routes

[jajuan]

8 uses a few in the rush but they only go to the Orange Line, then go downtown to become 125's and 148's. Relized it when I started working at Potbelly which would explain why Kedzie was in charge of the 8. 143 does pretty decent with Kedzies 40 footers along with the 144 although that may be a different story by the time they get around the Water Tower area. 3, 4, 79 and 87 are possibly on there way to getting some if they send artics to 77th when the next 37 hybrids come in. Also I think there could be a way to get some artics on the 77 Belmont route to handle the huge later evening crowds by putting Kedzie in charge since most of their equipment is for rush hour lakefront routes

Even with making it up to Water Tower, North Park handles the 144 pretty well with Novas and 1000s although sometimes a trip or two in the 7AM hour in the morning rush and in the 5PM hour in the evening rush may operate using an artic. Looking at the 26 and X28 as far as the south side expresses go, they might benefit from an extra morning arctic or two for those morning inbound trips even though they look to do well in the evening rush working with primarily 40 footers.

[Sam92]

Even with making it up to Water Tower, North Park handles the 144 pretty well with Novas and 1000s although sometimes a trip or two in the 7AM hour in the morning rush and in the 5PM hour in the evening rush may operate using an artic. Looking at the 26 and X28 as far as the south side expresses go, they might benefit from an extra morning arctic or two for those morning inbound trips even though they look to do well in the evening rush working with primarily 40 footers.

26 had a few here and there in the peak that helped a lot. X28 does pretty good since its mostly a copy of the 6 until 67th. I heard someone saying that the 2 needs them over on the tattler. Back when 103rd was at 65 artics some were sent to Dan Ryan routes to help ease crowding which helped a lot with the 34, 119 and even the 95E and for some reason the 100 had a few too. 15 keeps one or two in the rush for Kenwood, CVCA and the other schools.

[See Tea Eh]

8 uses a few in the rush but they only go to the Orange Line, then go downtown to become 125's and 148's. Relized it when I started working at Potbelly which would explain why Kedzie was in charge of the 8.

The 8 doesn't use artics. What you're probably seeing (if it's what I'm thinking of) is a sign programming error that causes certain pullouts from Kedzie to various downtown locations use "8 Halsted to Orange Line" as the sign rather than something like a generic "Downtown" sign.

[Sam92]

The 8 doesn't use artics. What you're probably seeing (if it's what I'm thinking of) is a sign programming error that causes certain pullouts from Kedzie to various downtown locations use "8 Halsted to Orange Line" as the sign rather than something like a generic "Downtown" sign.

Maybe. I know K064 is one that always comes Downtown with that sign and passes my job as a 125. I've seen others starting on the 148/145.

[ChicagoNova]

http://gapersblock.com/merge/archives/2012/04/25/talking-about-bus-rapid-transit/

[ChicagoNova]

http://metroplanning.org/news-events/blog-post/6396

[BusHunter]

Looking at the photos posted at CDOT presentation here, for the loop circulator, I wonder why they don't propose using the old Washington alignment for the use of bus lanes. (bus lane in the middle of the street) It's seems to me a smartly conceived idea. By putting lanes in the center, they wouldn't need a TSP or queue jump if they restricted the outer lanes from crossing the bus lanes. The whole east west street could just run with a longer light. The way they have it, I can just see the cabs cutting off the buses. It looks like how Mexico City and Cleveland are set up. (in the center) I wonder how NY gets away with there setup however. (right side) They probably have the worst traffic outside of LA.

[Busjack]

Looking at the photos posted at CDOT presentation here, for the loop circulator, I wonder why they don't propose using the old Washington alignment for the use of bus lanes. (bus lane in the middle of the street) ...

That reminds me of how Washington and State were into the mid 70s, i.e. safety islands in the middle. Never used Washington, but I remember waiting in the middle of State for, I guess, a Jeffery Express, and getting slush thrown all over me. Not pleasant. Also, they would have to figure out a way to segregate (can I say that here) the middle lane so they can plow it when all the supposedly color (can I say that) lanes are buried by snow and indistinguishable to the cars trying to go somewhere but unable to do so.

In fact, I am shocked that they included Washington on page 8 of the presentation and called it BRT or at least a precursor (and again on page 39, under Questions). Looks a bit before my time (about 1954, I guess).

At least Option 2 indicates a real island (concrete raised over street level).

Anyway, as previously noted here, this is the usual misnamed project, as it isn't BRT or Circulator. If the bus gets a bus lane, it isn't queue jumping either.

I commented yesterday on the CTA Tattler about this (including about one person here), but what hits me as fishy is that:

• CDOT got this grant apparently without any plan, and is now just thinking alternatives. At least when the Tollway made the unsuccessful application for the I-57/Ulysses TriState interchange, there was a drawing of the proposed interchange, connections with Sibley Blvd. and location of toll booths in it.
• Given that there is no transportation bill, I can't see an Option 3 based on "Requires outside funding beyond current grant." Sort of like Options in the RPM greater than 2.
• Option 3 looks like the failed State St. Mall.

Since there is a deadline for environmental work, this probably could also end up like the original $193 million or whatever BRT plan, i.e. the funds aren't there if the city blows a deadline.

So, whatever the merits or demerits of the plan itself, it looks like the feds either bought or sold a bill of goods by announcing this grant before there really was a plan.

[BusHunter]

What surprises me about the proposals is the one which has a protected bike path and a BRT (lite)/bus only lane. While this may be alright in a less congested part of the city like Jackson on the near west side, there has never been a setup like this under heavy traffic conditions such as downtown. The closest thing is Kinzie, but it has no bus and traffic there looks a bit crowded out. It might be a good idea to relocate the bike path to Randolph, at least it would seem like it makes the most sense. (Bikers get a straight shot to Millennium Park and the bike friendly amenities there) I do like the idea of a Union Station terminal. It seems like an idea that should have been implemented years ago.

[Busjack]

What surprises me about the proposals is the one which has a protected bike path and a BRT (lite)/bus only lane.

That hits me as a Gabe Klein idea, since he was brought in as head of CDOT because he was a big bike advocate.

The illustration that hits me as funny (in the sense of peculiar) is the protected bike lane on Washington in Option 1, protected by cars parking away from the curb. The bikers are always crabbing about drivers opening their doors into the bicyclists' path, but that seems inevitable there.

But, for that matter, Option 3 on Madison implies that bus passengers would be discharged into traffic in the "alley access lane," unless it were assumed that the buses would stop at the curb and automotive traffic would, for the most part, be banned.

To throw another one out there, based on the queue jumping ambiguity, there doesn't seem to be a way for a bus to get around another stopped bus, especially in Option 3. I compare that to either the Minneapolis example, or even the State Street Mall, where the bus lane was more than one lane wide.

[Kevin]

What surprises me about the proposals is the one which has a protected bike path and a BRT (lite)/bus only lane. While this may be alright in a less congested part of the city like Jackson on the near west side, there has never been a setup like this under heavy traffic conditions such as downtown. The closest thing is Kinzie, but it has no bus and traffic there looks a bit crowded out. It might be a good idea to relocate the bike path to Randolph, at least it would seem like it makes the most sense. (Bikers get a straight shot to Millennium Park and the bike friendly amenities there) I do like the idea of a Union Station terminal. It seems like an idea that should have been implemented years ago.

A protected bike lane would be installed on Randolph under both options 2 and 3.

Page 29 of the presentation (PDF link) shows the impact each option would have on both bus and car travel times. Car travel times would actually remain about the same under Option 1. Option 2 is calculated to have a 1.5 minute increase in car travel time, with buses seeing a 7.5 minute improvement.

The illustration that hits me as funny (in the sense of peculiar) is the protected bike lane on Washington in Option 1, protected by cars parking away from the curb. The bikers are always crabbing about drivers opening their doors into the bicyclists' path, but that seems inevitable there.

Protected bike lanes include a three foot buffer between the bike lane and parking lane. This protects cyclists from "dooring" incidents.

[Busjack]

Protected bike lanes include a three foot buffer between the bike lane and parking lane. This protects cyclists from "dooring" incidents.

Undoubtedly the case, but I can't foresee the police effort needed to enforce that against either the bicyclists or the drivers. Maybe this is another reason a car gets towed away, but other than that...