Bus Rapid Transit Approved for Ashland Ave (Chicago, Lincoln: school, park)

[via chicago]

Originally Posted by Drover

I wish they could find a way to do it without getting rid of lane capacity. Taking out those infernal sightline-blocking bush-filled medians would be a good start.

You seem to be missing the point that virtually all of the most vibrant and successful commercial corridors in the city (Clark/Lincoln/Milwaukee/Armitage/Belmont/18th/ etc etc) are all 1 lane. People treat Ashland like its the Daytona 500; Im all in favor of creating more of a boulevard and mixed use design.

The way this project will fail is if the CTA dosent commit themselves 100% to it. Doing a half-assed BRT is a recipe for disaster since all of the components will be crucial to making this an alternative people will want to take. For example the fact theyre already waivering on pre-paid boarding is worrying.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by via chicago

You seem to be missing the point that virtually all of the most vibrant and successful commercial corridors in the city (Clark/Lincoln/Milwaukee/Armitage/Belmont/18th/ etc etc) are all 1 lane. People treat Ashland like its the Daytona 500; Im all in favor of creating more of a boulevard and mixed use design.

No I'm not missing that at all. In fact it's a point I've made myself before so it's not lost on me. But not every corridor in the city needs to be a vibrant successful commercial (by which I'm guessing you mean storefront/retail/dining/etc.) corridor. We already have plenty of those and plenty of other stretches that can be converted to same as needed. Some corridors just need to move traffic along, and some corridors need to accommodate other uses besides the ones that look pleasing to the eye such as tire shops, car washes, auto repair, storage buildings, major shopping complexes, light/medium industrial, whatever. And if cars are moving along like it's the Daytona 500, great -- that means traffic is actually moving efficiently for a change. If they can keep traffic moving and add BRT, all the better.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by JBVirtuoso

That second link just made my day. I love the driving experiments section.

That is amazing the guy actually went from thinking about it to documenting it, and in such hilarious detail.

[MannheimMadman]

My only wish is that they would have extended the north terminus to Foster. I'm sure a lot of Andersonville folks would love this.

[chet everett]

Originally Posted by Drover

No I'm not missing that at all. In fact it's a point I've made myself before so it's not lost on me. But not every corridor in the city needs to be a vibrant successful commercial (by which I'm guessing you mean storefront/retail/dining/etc.) corridor. We already have plenty of those and plenty of other stretches that can be converted to same as needed. Some corridors just need to move traffic along, and some corridors need to accommodate other uses besides the ones that look pleasing to the eye such as tire shops, car washes, auto repair, storage buildings, major shopping complexes, light/medium industrial, whatever. And if cars are moving along like it's the Daytona 500, great -- that means traffic is actually moving efficiently for a change. If they can keep traffic moving and add BRT, all the better.

Once upon a time I could get off the Ike at Ashland or even Damen, turn on to Ogden and PUT THE HAMMER DOWN until I got to Halsted / Cylbourn but the "empty pockets" of the city forced them to close (and then miraculously find the dough to remove...) the bridges that made it a super time saving / little known / back door way to bypass the Kennedy, the Loop. LSD and every other choked artery into Lincoln Park... I would zip in, get my errands done, grab some grub and zip out.

I completely agree that folks who falsely believe every street should be dotted with sidewalk cafes or elotes carts or food trucks or whatever trendy fad would do well to realize that transportation is what made Chicago great and stepping backwards in speed / efficiency is a very foolish thing to do...

[Gino1203]

Pardon my ignorance, but why not build a tram/railway instead of a bus lane? Is it more expensive? I don't know why, but I always thought of rail as being more efficient.

[jdiddy]

Originally Posted by Gino1203

Pardon my ignorance, but why not build a tram/railway instead of a bus lane? Is it more expensive? I don't know why, but I always thought of rail as being more efficient.

Vastly more expensive. Fully implemented, BRT gives the same benefits of rail at a fraction of the cost.

[ChiNaan]

Originally Posted by Gino1203

Pardon my ignorance, but why not build a tram/railway instead of a bus lane? Is it more expensive? I don't know why, but I always thought of rail as being more efficient.

Are you asking if it's more expensive to lay several miles of rail and build the structure to elevate it and/or the tunnel to run it underground vs. using an already existing road? Yes, it is.

[chet everett]

Originally Posted by jdiddy

Vastly more expensive. Fully implemented, BRT gives the same benefits of rail at a fraction of the cost.

Street level trams / lightrail take a huge beating in our climate. One of the best things about BRT is the roadway is typically just set off from regular traffic lanes with some inexpensive stripping / low impact markers. Street sweeping and snow plowing is largely routine. If the buses need service a "regular" CTA bus or two can be swapped out...

In many ways the better BRT implementations really solve most of the objections that critics raise about the massive cost overuns that rail transit are known for while still providing travel times and passenger efficiencies that compare very favorable with personal vehicles.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by MannheimMadman

My only wish is that they would have extended the north terminus to Foster. I'm sure a lot of Andersonville folks would love this.

Maybe, but the Ashland bus line doesn't go past Irving Park as it is.