755/855 Expansion Coming Forthwith.

[MetroShadow]

3 hours ago, Busjack said:

Considering how the Kennedy backs up "but that never works," again per Rocket J. Squirrel. And how are the combo runs supposed to get on and off the expressway if the lane is walled off? It isn't like the I-90 proposal, which calls for some dedicated bus ramps to the Park and Rides.

As I said, I'm not into traffic engineering, but I suppose Metro Shadow could explain how the toll restrictions are enforced (as opposed to his prior comment that congestion pricing can be implemented).

CHP here and ISP there (re: no toll HOV lanes).

Which only implicates the need for appropriate enforcement because they can barely enforce it as it is. However, if you have a fasttrak (or a license plate), then the readers can identify the account or plate attached. The CHP also monitors use on the express lanes.

2 hours ago, jajuan said:

About the only thing I can picture that wouldn't restrict or mess up the buses is a setup similar to how California configured combination dedicated bus/HOV lanes on the expressways for LA Metro's Silver Line BRT route and its express bus routes that use local expressways through the city and rest of LA county.The access points could be as Pace831 suggests above me. As for how to handle toll enforcement, that one like you I don't know how they'd do it without some extra construction involved.

Grade separation doesn't look feasible (in the eyes of IDOT, who knows).

[Busjack]

6 hours ago, Pace831 said:

My concern is whether traffic coming from 355 trying to move all the way to the left will slow down all traffic in that area. Currently only buses make that move.

Thanks for clarifying your position on this.

6 hours ago, Pace831 said:

This public hearing presentation shows some concepts for how the express lanes will function

The best I can figure between this and the Daily Herald article, is that the alternative at this point is ETL  Page 21 shows either continuous or controlled access to the toll lane, but doesn't indicate a preference, nor how tolls would be enforced, but has a bullet point on page 19 about how this alternative has "Ease of Enforcement."

[Busjack]

3 hours ago, MetroShadow said:

CHP here and ISP there (re: no toll HOV lanes).

If you are suggesting more state police to collect tolls, that isn't going to happen, and it isn't gong to promote traffic flow for the state police to stop scofflaws.

What I meant was in the sense that the Illinois Tollway has gantries that either accept an I Pass signal, or takes a picture of the license plate, and then you have 7 days to pay or a violation. However, there are discrete gantries, usually at existing toll plazas or a whole mess of new ones on Ill. 390, but the continuous access method would seem to negate that working. If one sees an I-Pass collection device ahead,  one could conceivably merge back into the left slow lane.

[Pace831]

4 minutes ago, Busjack said:

Thanks for clarifying your position on this.

The best I can figure between this and the Daily Herald article, is that the alternative at this point is ETL  Page 21 shows either continuous or controlled access to the toll lane, but doesn't indicate a preference, nor how tolls would be enforced, but has a bullet point on page 19 about how this alternative has "Ease of Enforcement."

Since ETL is likely the chosen alternative, then logically controlled access must be implemented. Continuous access would really only work if they had chosen it to be an HOV lane, one of the other options mentioned in the presentation. Controlled access is the only way to prevent toll evasion by moving over one lane. Since there won't be a physical barrier stopping someone from doing so, that is where the police come in. There's really no question that crossing the double white line is against the law. Apparently in places where this has been implemented, the threat of a fine is enough to keep most people in their proper lane.

[Busjack]

39 minutes ago, Pace831 said:

Continuous access would really only work if they had chosen it to be an HOV lane, one of the other options mentioned in the presentation.

It seems like the HOV lane idea was rejected because it was harder to enforce that there were 3 people in the car without human surveillance. I noted above how I Pass is enforced.

I agree with most of what you say, but as indicated in my reply to Metro Shadow, I don't see resources being put into police, even if you will have the traffic infraction of crossing a double line.

[Pace831]

Just now, Busjack said:

I don't see resources being put into police, even if you will have the traffic infraction of crossing a double line.

I don't think they'll invest in more police either. They'll just have to rely on however many cops are already on the highway and hope that is enough. Elsewhere, people seem to mostly obey the rules in HOV or ETL lanes, but I don't know how much police enforcement they have compared to here, or whether that even makes a difference.

[BusHunter]

4 hours ago, Pace831 said:

Since ETL is likely the chosen alternative, then logically controlled access must be implemented. Continuous access would really only work if they had chosen it to be an HOV lane, one of the other options mentioned in the presentation. Controlled access is the only way to prevent toll evasion by moving over one lane. Since there won't be a physical barrier stopping someone from doing so, that is where the police come in. There's really no question that crossing the double white line is against the law. Apparently in places where this has been implemented, the threat of a fine is enough to keep most people in their proper lane.

Probably they'll go with camera enforcement. Technology is taking over, I don't even see as many cop cars as I used to. I think the municipalities have learned cameras are cheaper than police, but where there is higher crime then they are needed.

[Pace831]

1 hour ago, BusHunter said:

Probably they'll go with camera enforcement. Technology is taking over, I don't even see as many cop cars as I used to. I think the municipalities have learned cameras are cheaper than police, but where there is higher crime then they are needed.

They certainly will have license plate cameras at the toll collection points, as the current I-pass gantries do. But there would need to be a camera every 10 feet to enforce illegal lane changes, even if they are capable of reading license plates. There really isn't a substitute for police in that case. The question becomes whether there are enough State Police already on I-55 to enforce toll evasion in addition to anything else they may need to do.

[Busjack]

46 minutes ago, Pace831 said:

The question becomes whether there are enough State Police already on I-55 to enforce toll evasion in addition to anything else they may need to do.

Have the shootings migrated to there, yet?

[BusHunter]

8 hours ago, Pace831 said:

They certainly will have license plate cameras at the toll collection points, as the current I-pass gantries do. But there would need to be a camera every 10 feet to enforce illegal lane changes, even if they are capable of reading license plates. There really isn't a substitute for police in that case. The question becomes whether there are enough State Police already on I-55 to enforce toll evasion in addition to anything else they may need to do.

The state police probably don't handle toll evasion now. The cameras identify the offenders and there is no need for a traffic stop. Police in general are doing alot less traffic stops. They are mostly used in accidents and criminal offenses on the roadway. I think if there is no barrier which I find hard to believe, then they won't police it too hard because like you say they just don't have the resources for it, but there has to be something like additional cameras on bridges and destination signs over the roadway. Also they could line it with construction cones or some deterrent. Nobody wants to run a cone over at 50 mph unless they want to have an accident.

[Busjack]

24 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

The state police probably don't handle toll evasion now. The cameras identify the offenders and there is no need for a traffic stop. Police in general are doing alot less traffic stops. They are mostly used in accidents and criminal offenses on the roadway. I think if there is no barrier which I find hard to believe, then they won't police it too hard because like you say they just don't have the resources for it, but there has to be something like additional cameras on bridges and destination signs over the roadway. Also they could line it with construction cones or some deterrent. Nobody wants to run a cone over at 50 mph unless they want to have an accident.

I generally agree with what you say. On the "construction cone" point, that would be inconsistent with the continuous access method. The controlled access method seems to take that in account, but the diagrams indicate that would require a bump out. The pdf indicates that there is enough room on the current shoulder for a lane, a bump out and an emergency shoulder, but I wonder how it helps traffic flow in the express lane to have a chicane every couple of miles.

[BusHunter]

3 minutes ago, Busjack said:

I generally agree with what you say. On the "construction cone" point, that would be inconsistent with the continuous access method. The controlled access method seems to take that in account, but the diagrams indicate that would require a bump out. The pdf indicates that there is enough room on the current shoulder for a lane, a bump out and an emergency shoulder, but I wonder how it helps traffic flow in the express lane to have a chicane every couple of miles.

Maybe they will police this by putting cameras at all the entrances to the express lanes, this way you will be checked upon entrance. I can't see how they would have a continuous access point. That part of this seems to make no sense.

[Pace831]

2 hours ago, BusHunter said:

Maybe they will police this by putting cameras at all the entrances to the express lanes, this way you will be checked upon entrance. I can't see how they would have a continuous access point. That part of this seems to make no sense.

But even with controlled access, there is still no indication that there will be a physical barrier between the lanes at non-access points. Driving over the double white line, whether for toll evasion or otherwise, is a traffic offense that the police could pull someone over for. The only place cameras are useful for enforcement purposes are the license plate cameras that will surely be installed at the toll gate.

Cameras at the entrance to the express lane that compare plate numbers to the toll gate cameras might theoretically work, but I see a few problems with that. First, if someone is really determined to cheat they could just drive around that camera too. Second, if an accident blocks the express lane before the toll gate and drivers have to merge back into traffic, do the automated cameras consider that toll evasion? Third, could enough fines be collected to actually make the camera system worth installing and maintaining? It seems like a lot of effort to stop something a only handful of people will do, and could prove as controversial as red light or speed cameras.

However, driving around the toll gate would be a difficult move if the express lane is moving at the intended 45 MPH, and the adjacent lane that someone wants to merge into illegally is much slower or stopped. That might be the biggest deterrent to toll evasion.

[Busjack]

10 minutes ago, Pace831 said:

But even with controlled access, there is still no indication that there will be a physical barrier between the lanes at non-access points.

I took the illustration in the materials as indicating there would be one, although probably not jersey barriers.  There is certainly some yellow thing indicated between the local and express lane, again I assume like the crash absorbing barrier before concrete splits in highways.There has to be some sort of physical barrier or the access is not controlled. For instance, the definition of an Interstate highway is that all driveways, intersections, etc. are blocked.

[Pace831]

3 minutes ago, Busjack said:

I took the illustration in the materials as indicating there would be one, although probably not jersey barriers.

Looking at pictures of examples from around the country, some simply have a double white line, others have plastic bollards as well. They better replace those bollards often or half of them would be missing or damaged within a week. The roads with bollards that I looked at were in warmer climates (Florida, Texas, SoCal) whereas a road in Washington state only had white lines. There is probably an issue of bollards getting in the way of snow plowing. I'm going to predict a double white line with a rumble strip. Definitely not jersey barriers, since miles of walled lane would be too restrictive in an emergency.

14 minutes ago, Busjack said:

There has to be some sort of physical barrier or the access is not controlled. For instance, the definition of an Interstate highway is that all driveways, intersections, etc. are blocked.

Not sure what you're getting at here. Controlled access, in that sense of the term, is referring to only being able to access the highway on designated ramps. Referring to the ETL, it means that drivers are only allowed to access the lane at certain points, even if they are not physically prevented from doing so elsewhere (crossing the double white line).

[Busjack]

4 minutes ago, Pace831 said:

if they are not physically prevented from doing so elsewhere (crossing the double white line).

I don't accept the last point. Since there is some kind of yellow line in the illustration of continuous access, that can't be the distinction.

[Pace831]

9 minutes ago, Busjack said:

I don't accept the last point. Since there is some kind of yellow line in the illustration of continuous access, that can't be the distinction.

The yellow "line" shown in the diagrams for both continuous and controlled access is an illustration that basically indicates the yellow-shaded area is not a traffic lane. Two pages above that (on page 19) there is a photo showing an example from another road. There is only a double white solid line shown in that photo, indicating controlled access, though we don't see what the access points look like. Continuous access would be expressed by a double white dashed line. The continuous access illustration is inaccurate on that point, as it shows dotted rather than dashed lines separating the ETL.

[MetroShadow]

13 hours ago, Pace831 said:

They certainly will have license plate cameras at the toll collection points, as the current I-pass gantries do. But there would need to be a camera every 10 feet to enforce illegal lane changes, even if they are capable of reading license plates. There really isn't a substitute for police in that case. The question becomes whether there are enough State Police already on I-55 to enforce toll evasion in addition to anything else they may need to do.

 

 

14 hours ago, BusHunter said:

Probably they'll go with camera enforcement. Technology is taking over, I don't even see as many cop cars as I used to. I think the municipalities have learned cameras are cheaper than police, but where there is higher crime then they are needed.

 

 

19 hours ago, Busjack said:

If you are suggesting more state police to collect tolls, that isn't going to happen, and it isn't gong to promote traffic flow for the state police to stop scofflaws.

What I meant was in the sense that the Illinois Tollway has gantries that either accept an I Pass signal, or takes a picture of the license plate, and then you have 7 days to pay or a violation. However, there are discrete gantries, usually at existing toll plazas or a whole mess of new ones on Ill. 390, but the continuous access method would seem to negate that working. If one sees an I-Pass collection device ahead,  one could conceivably merge back into the left slow lane.

 

Just to wrap back at the question of enforcement, Page 141 (Just FYI):

Violation Enforcement System

A Violation Enforcement System (VES) allows for automated enforcement of toll violations whereby a vehicle without a toll tag could have its license plate photographed for the purposes of ascertaining whether a violation notice is in order. If a violation is determined, the notice would be sent to the owner of the vehicle through a look-up of the Department of Motor Vehicles database. Implementation of a VES would allow California Highway Patrol (CHP) officers to focus their enforcement activities on solo drivers with toll tags claiming to be a carpooler. Attachments D and E provide an illustration of the two types of enforcement. The I-580 Express Lanes by ACTC and other Express Lanes under development by BAIFA include the use of VES for enforcement. The VES could be a deterrent to toll violations and also result in reduced revenue leakage. Implementation of a VES system however would require additional back office processing to process video images. The additional cost to process video images is typically offset by the violation fee collected. A toll ordinance along with new business rules for customers would have to be established in order to collect the fines related to toll violations.

While it could be done with the use of police, technology would then serve as a "low-cost" alternative, similar to what the Tollway already does.

[Pace831]

9 minutes ago, MetroShadow said:

 

 

Just to wrap back at the question of enforcement, Page 141 (Just FYI):

Violation Enforcement System

A Violation Enforcement System (VES) allows for automated enforcement of toll violations whereby a vehicle without a toll tag could have its license plate photographed for the purposes of ascertaining whether a violation notice is in order. If a violation is determined, the notice would be sent to the owner of the vehicle through a look-up of the Department of Motor Vehicles database. Implementation of a VES would allow California Highway Patrol (CHP) officers to focus their enforcement activities on solo drivers with toll tags claiming to be a carpooler. Attachments D and E provide an illustration of the two types of enforcement. The I-580 Express Lanes by ACTC and other Express Lanes under development by BAIFA include the use of VES for enforcement. The VES could be a deterrent to toll violations and also result in reduced revenue leakage. Implementation of a VES system however would require additional back office processing to process video images. The additional cost to process video images is typically offset by the violation fee collected. A toll ordinance along with new business rules for customers would have to be established in order to collect the fines related to toll violations.

While it could be done with the use of police, technology would then serve as a "low-cost" alternative, similar to what the Tollway already does.

So if I'm understanding this correctly as it would apply to the Stevenson, unpaid tolls would be enforced by cameras, and the police would be left to handle anything else, which is what I figured before. After looking at that document, I can understand why ETL is thought to have "ease of enforcement" versus an HOV lane.

[Pace831]

Passenger notice about crowded trips on I-55. Perhaps this is the "Bus on shoulder expansion" previously mentioned. And look what is on Webwatch:

 

[Busjack]

58 minutes ago, Pace831 said:

. And look what is on Webwatch:

I guess that since the Pulse buses aren't going to be used for that for about a year, may as well use them for that.

Andre's inventory had up to 6976, so that isn't a surprise. Only issue is whether that is for replacements for 6900s or expansion. The budget indicated expansion by 3 buses,

On the notice, if the buses are packed at a $4 fare, I don't see what the complaints are about that they can't fund expansion. That must be making money.

[rotjohns]

2 hours ago, Busjack said:

I guess that since the Pulse buses aren't going to be used for that for about a year, may as well use them for that.

Andre's inventory had up to 6976, so that isn't a surprise. Only issue is whether that is for replacements for 6900s or expansion. The budget indicated expansion by 3 buses,

On the notice, if the buses are packed at a $4 fare, I don't see what the complaints are about that they can't fund expansion. That must be making money.

Looks like most of the trouble is in Plainfield and there's no easy way around that.  Maybe 2 buses per timetable, but that'll bring more people and you need buses for them.  

Bolingbrook isn't easy either.  It's easier and cheaper to use the I-55 buses, but is it worth the headache?  Only other way around it is to get on the Bolingbrook feeders and take Metra from Lisle, but I've noticed those buses have been crowded lately too.  Or there's route 834, but they don't run enough to do that plus you'd be fighting with the folks getting off at the Downers Grove/Woodridge stops.

I'm not seeing any updates on the proposed Romeoville/Plainfield Metra station, but if this keeps up, they're going to have to accelerate that option really soon.  

[Busjack]

32 minutes ago, rotjohns said:

I'm not seeing any updates on the proposed Romeoville/Plainfield Metra station, but if this keeps up, they're going to have to accelerate that option really soon.  

Since the Heritage Corridor doesn't have much service and has freight interference,I don't see how that relieves anything. Considering that a motor coach has 45 seats, if that isn't enough someone is going to have to stand.

It looks like, for a change, Pace can't live with success.

[Pace831]

1 hour ago, rotjohns said:

Looks like most of the trouble is in Plainfield and there's no easy way around that.  Maybe 2 buses per timetable, but that'll bring more people and you need buses for them.  

Bolingbrook isn't easy either.  It's easier and cheaper to use the I-55 buses, but is it worth the headache?  Only other way around it is to get on the Bolingbrook feeders and take Metra from Lisle, but I've noticed those buses have been crowded lately too.  Or there's route 834, but they don't run enough to do that plus you'd be fighting with the folks getting off at the Downers Grove/Woodridge stops.

I'm not seeing any updates on the proposed Romeoville/Plainfield Metra station, but if this keeps up, they're going to have to accelerate that option really soon.  

Only thing to do is increase frequency to about every 10 minutes or so during the rush. Or if another Park n Ride is to be built, have a separate route for each stop. Since you correctly noted that the biggest problem is in Plainfield, those people don't have any transit options other than drive farther north to the BNSF.

A significant percentage of BOS riders are people who used to ride the BNSF, but realized the bus was better. One person I talked to at the bus stop said he switched because he didn't like dealing with the crowds at Union Station. Plus the bus gets closer to employment destinations downtown, and for many people it is a faster and more direct route to work. That gets to the issue in Bolingbrook, where people have other options, but have already made a choice not to use them.

I'm not sure how many riders from Plainfield and Bolingbrook would actually use the Romeoville Metra station, if it were built. I think the market area would be Romeoville (the biggest proponent of the project), and the fringes of Lockport and Joliet. While some of those people currently catch the bus in Bolingbrook, they'd have to be convinced that the HC is a better option. I don't think the station would help crowding much on route 855 (Plainfield).

[Busjack]

34 minutes ago, Pace831 said:

Only thing to do is increase frequency to about every 10 minutes or so during the rush. Or if another Park n Ride is to be built, have a separate route for each stop.

They said in the budget that they are constructing a new Plainfield park and ride (page 37), which would seem contrary to splitting the route at that point of congestion.  So, short of buying articulated OTRs (with all the problems that would entail) seems like the only answer is increasing frequency. They could have a direct bus from Burr Ridge, but that isn't going to do much if they are building a 400 space lot in Plainfield.That's a minimum of 9 bus loads right there, more if people double up riding to the lot.