Yeah, there's plenty.

EDIT: I take this back. Even with a steepish grade of 3%, you'd need 600' to descend the 18' to ground level. You could jack up the mainline for more vertical clearance beneath, but it would have to go up an extra 10'. A flyover is the better solution. Hopefully it can have parapet walls along it to block some of the sound.

It would be a subway under Sheffield.

Nah...not because of Divvy. I'm sure the Ventra rollout has messed with their calculations, especially with all the free rides given out with the messy roll-out. I'm sure once it's up and running well in the next month or two they'll be back to normal.

Really good point, that's likely the reason.

Reddit: AMA with Alderman Scott Waguespack (Right Now!)
 

This is happening right now until around 3pm. I'm hoping he answers some questions as to why he's not very supportive of BRT. Anyone have an account on Reddit that wants to give it a go?

http://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/comm...bout_being_an/

Big article (and lots of reader comments) in Sun Times today about significant concerns with Ashland BRT plan, as identified by Tom Kaeser, longtime but now-retired city traffic consultant.

The article also links to a PDF of the 10-page letter he wrote to CTA describing his analysis.


http://www.suntimes.com/25000242-761...wont-work.html
Engineer: Ashland Avenue transit project won’t work
January 18, 2014

^. My question is this: if they allow regular CTA buses run on the BRT lane, won't that slow down the entire system and just make it essentially useless?

and what about overnight hours? does the traffic revert back to those lanes?

chicago must always recall the "state street mall" when considering such. plain foolishness.

^. I think the State St mall was bus only for the entire street, though. Ashland will still have traffic lanes

The problem with design compromises is that each one will lower the overall speed of the buses.

Of the various compromise ideas I've heard, I think opening the lanes to general traffic outside of peak periods is one of the better ones. It won't prevent a big traffic jam during rush hours but it might make everything flow better at off-peak times. Many people use transit for peak-hour commutes anyway, but it's off-peak shopping and leisure trips that are done by car.

On the other hand, I think we need to accept that, yes, drivers will be screwed by this, and that's acceptable. People like this engineer always seem to ignore that people aren't joined at the hip with their cars, and many motorists can become transit users if the speed and convenience are right.

I know it would cost A TON to pay the parking meter company for this, BUT, get rid of parking on Ashland and then you have your extra lane back. Also, keep the buses in the curb lane and then you could still allow lefthand turns in some places.

Buses in the curb lane would frequently be blocked by delivery trucks, right-turners, and even local buses on Ashland. It would be no different from the old X9.

mention of the state street mall is not a direct comparison to "brt" but rather to point out where we have wasted money on a failed project. this "ashland brt" shall also waste money and fail.

we need rail, especially where major connections are concerned like more than 16 miles of ashland ave.

The State Street mall wasn't the failure you seem to think it was.

State Street itself was a failure, mostly because it was built on a customer base of middle-class shoppers that abandoned the city in the mid-20th century. A new design for the street couldn't save the businesses that were dying, just as new facades won't revive a dying shopping center in a declining neighborhood. In cities that didn't see abandonment like Chicago, the pedestrian mall concept worked pretty well (Denver, Charlottesville, etc). That's not to mention the scores of European cities that successfully pedestrianized.

If you're scared that Ashland BRT will lead to blight and failing businesses, don't be. The neighborhoods along Ashland north of Archer are thriving, growing areas that people want to live in. Better transit access will only enhance this desirability, and the business community will adapt to the new traffic situation by adjusting to welcome transit riders, cyclists, and pedestrians.

actually, the city deemed it a failure, not me, therefore they dug it up. state street itself is not a failure, in fact it began to thrive again with the demise of the mall concept and it will yet again rebound given time. your points about the successful downtown pedestrian malls are noted, although some of those markets are quite smaller. ashland avenue is a major n/s thruway. my worry is that if this goes through, the traffic nightmares will cause a re-take, and we'll end up doing the same as with state street, dig it up.

my point is this: ashland was considered major enough to be part of a circle line rail concept not that long ago, and ashland should be considered for something connecting with rail today. i'm not an advocate for "brt" you may guess, especially on a major north-south corridor. why not consider western avenue, if it must be. this would serve to be a more viable option for the experiment.

This feels like Jarta's cousin who lives in a condo on Ashland.

Whenever somebody argues against BRT because it should have been on Western, you can tell they are really just stretching. The two streets share a lot of similarities. If it would work on one it would work on the other. Aside from the fact that you are personally invested in Ashland and not Western, what makes Western a better choice? The cost differences are immaterial. Please recognize that at some point, a choice simply had to be made. We obviously can't build them both right now.

where i live is not a factor, but i assure you it is not where you imply. i'm against "brt" as a concept in any case outside of the loop. but, matter of fact is that western ave. is wider at most, if not all points.

and actually, did you read this article? for the record, i did: Engineer: Ashland Avenue transit project won’t work
http://www.suntimes.com/25000242-761...wont-work.html

This was an aesthetic choice more than a functional one. Daley the Younger was in love with the Gilded Age look and installed fancy lampposts and black wrought iron all over the city. Shopping malls around the country installed historic-looking elements at that time. Aesthetics are important in shopping areas, as mall owners know very well. Daley could have kept the street bus-only while installing the fancy lampposts, and we'd have the same success today.

No, it began to thrive after Broadway shows and Millennium Park lured suburbanites back to the Loop. It has continued to grow as people moved into the downtown area and needed places to shop.

There were more problems than that though. The ultra-wide sidewalks and lack of movement sucked up all the energy from the street, for one. And was there really much advantage transit-wise to having it dedicated to buses there?

I think the lack of left turns will snarl up traffic on the side streets near ashland. That is a big mistake. I mostly drive on Ashland off peak for shopping trips. It might force me to Western or Damen, which would slow those streets more.