Jump to content

Transit Future Plan


Kevin
 Share

Recommended Posts

My take is on this is they'd actually get somewhere if, as Busjack pointed out, they stopped rehashing old ideas that already got proposed over the past few decades and died for whatever reason. In addition on the CTA side, folks need to come out of this fantasy that the L can and is supposed to run any and everywhere and stop trying to ignore thinking of credible ways to actually enhance bus service. So long as the focus is virtually all placed on the L with none placed on the bus side of service any future CTA plans are doomed to failure. And any bus service proposals need to face the reality that buses still have to share the roadways with other vehicles to gain any credibility to progress to the needed discussions of what would be the incentives to draw adequate transit flow. This is one huge reason why Ashland BRT isn't gaining any traction where it counts. They're living in this fantasy that they can just eliminate left turns on Ashland between Irving Park and 95th to the degree that I don't they made actual credible attempts at examining the other configuration options. The other huge fantasy is that they thought they could implement it without the local Ashland buses sharing the bus lane with the BRT buses. As I've said before, even though the J14 is BRT light, it still has the benefit that the 15 Jeffery Local buses can and do share the bus lanes with the J14 buses and move past the remaining traffic quicker as the Jump buses get to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure at what you are getting here, but supposedly the 35th St. stop on the RI was to connect with the Red and Green Lines, as well as serve Sox Park and IIT.


That was my response to you saying that there may be no right of way is that they could go along side the RI. Where the Green line crosses it there are four tracks, the two middle tracks are used but the outer two are abandoned tracks removed so i'm just saying that's an alternative but personally I think that defeats the idea of expanding from west of ashland. Look at it like this they already did the first block!! :lol:

@jajuan You have to wonder where this loop BRT lane plan is headed. I heard they need to relocate sewer lines and such to build kiosks and platforms in the street that will need electricity and such. Maybe the thinking is that they can't dig up a sewer under a platform. I still don't see that happening (yet) and that project was supposed to be in place this year. So they need to work on this step B before they work on step C, Ashland BRT. Delays, Delays, Delays!! :rolleyes:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was my response to you saying that there may be no right of way is that they could go along side the RI. ....

That wasn't what I said (or certainly what I meant). The reference was to no right of way on 63rd Place between the Ashland and Midway terminals. That's why I said that 74th was an alternative, but the Crosstown Line had been killed by the consultants.

With currently having 2 south side main lines within a couple of blocks of each other, I certainly was not advocating a third.

...

@jajuan You have to wonder where this loop BRT lane plan is headed. I heard they need to relocate sewer lines and such to build kiosks and platforms in the street that will need electricity and such. Maybe the thinking is that they can't dig up a sewer under a platform. I still don't see that happening (yet) and that project was supposed to be in place this year. So they need to work on this step B before they work on step C, Ashland BRT. Delays, Delays, Delays!! :rolleyes:

If you are referring to the Washington-Madison-Canal-Clinton circulator project, CDOT already has the $30 million federal grant for that, so that digging will proceed.

On the other hand, the Ashland project has the problems of neighborhood opposition and whether it will get an independent funding source under the Core Capacity program, as it doesn't appear to be qualified or competitive under the 5309 New Starts program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was my response to you saying that there may be no right of way is that they could go along side the RI. Where the Green line crosses it there are four tracks, the two middle tracks are used but the outer two are abandoned tracks removed so i'm just saying that's an alternative but personally I think that defeats the idea of expanding from west of ashland. Look at it like this they already did the first block!! :lol:

@jajuan You have to wonder where this loop BRT lane plan is headed. I heard they need to relocate sewer lines and such to build kiosks and platforms in the street that will need electricity and such. Maybe the thinking is that they can't dig up a sewer under a platform. I still don't see that happening (yet) and that project was supposed to be in place this year. So they need to work on this step B before they work on step C, Ashland BRT. Delays, Delays, Delays!! :rolleyes:

Yeah there might be a bit of a delay if one is needed to work out the sewer relocation issue, but as Busjack pointed out they have a clear source of funding that's been identified and allocated. So that one is going to get implemented. I was thinking on how a lot of this transit plan is indeed advocates once again trying to resurrect old ideas that got killed on way or another. Another thought I had on this is if they were going to do that, they could have at least given new outlooks that may not have been considered over the decades. Be smart about it, use whatever demographic changes may have occurred in the 10 to 20 years time since the initial proposal made of their respective projects to their advantage. Don't just use the same talking points that failed to get their projects off the ground. I'm sure there was more at play than the southwest side being the only general segment of the city not having a rapid transit line at the time when the Orange Line finally got completed 20 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, imagine extending the Brown Line. I can't think of how the existing tracks could be extended the way they are now.

Either someone comes up with a couple of billion to build a subway under Lawrence Ave., and then modify the Jefferson Park station (restricted to the confines of the expressway median), or no, it can't be done. It sure appears that the age of building Ls over the streets ended in the late 1890s. One would now have to condemn (and pay for) adjoining landowners' easements of light and access.

If the concern really is access between Lakeview and O'Hare, bring back the X80 bus, which had that justification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the concern really is access between Lakeview and O'Hare, bring back the X80 bus, which had that justification.

Makes much more sense. If this plan wasn't fictional and this was a big concern, I'd prefer the rebirth of the X80 bus. If it fails, well, at least you don't have a bunch of unused subway tunnels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this is one example of what I meant about transit "advocates" being stuck in this fantasy that the L and subways can and is supposed to go any and everywhere and ignoring bus enhancements that are cheaper and less intrusive to the surrounding community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Maybe related to this topic is a Pioneer Press article that the Cook County Transportation and Highway Dept. is trying to formulate a plan.

Maybe showing what a morass planning has become, it cites a proposal to raise the parking at the Rosemont station so that Pace can have a larger bus terminal. It said “RTA says, ‘We don’t have the money, and our station is fine, by the way,’ and PACE says ‘We need a bigger station but we don’t have the money,’” What it didn't say is that CTA owns the station, including the bus terminal and parking lot..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...