Not in our lifetime (I hope), unless all the other, more worthy projects, get magically funded.

Seriously, though, I think even with mayoral interest it's pretty low priority. B37 got the tunnel dug mainly because it was now or never for it.

Nope. Once the Blue Line is operating at 70mph, there are two key benefits gained in re: airport access:
1. Reduced travel time
2. Reduced vehicle requirement to meet current scheduled headway, ergo opportunity to increase service frequency and reduce over-crowding

Both contribute to making the "existing" service viable as an Airport service; ditto for improving Loop signaling and increasing fleet size to increase frequency on the Orange Line for that line's rush hour overcrowding.

Then there's the whole downtown supertation, which unlike the last failed attempt at a downtown Airport superstation (now known colloquial as "the 203 N. LaSalle entrance to the Clark/Lake station"***), can't be easily used for regular service. Hmm.

re: service to Midway, I've timed the trip from Adams/Wabash to Midway at 20 minutes flat. That needs no improvement. There are two primary concerns:
1) peak period crowding, particularly departing in the PM rush, 2) integration of the Midway rail station with the airport terminal. 1) can be solved with moderately increased frequency, 2) is trickier...probably entails more moving walkways.

***Some may remember the "Loop Transportation Center" building as basically what B37 promised to be, but even a little more pumped up towards transportation given the large parking garage and rental car facility. Baggage check-in, ticketing, one seat ride to the airport.... perhaps that project could have been finished for ~$200 million rather than a new subway tunnel that doesn't have the benefit of being usable for normal service in the meantime? All a hypothetical now, of course...

I am very excited about this news regarding BRT in Chicago. That and increased congestion pricing are signs that the city is finally moving in the right direction in regards to transit.

One thing I'm curious about is whether these BRT routes will only exist during rush hour. It would be nice to see BRT routes running all day long 7 days a week.

BRT routes?
 

.....

Quit making ridiculous strawman arguments. Your routing example is absurd and not what the Circle LIne is about. A more apt example would be going from 18th Street on the Pink Line to Roosevelt Rd. Currently it takes nine stops and both the Pink and the Green Lines to make that trip. With the Circle LIne, assuming no infill stations, it would take three stops on one line. Or, better yet, imagine you live at Chicago and Paulina (an already dense, vibrant area), 3/4 of a mile from the nearest "L" stop. With the most likely routing of the Circle Line, now you're only 1/4 mile from a stop that gets you to the Blue, Green or Pink Lines in 1 stop, or the Red, Brown or Purple Express in 2-3, depending on the station pattern.

^ Thanks, but we've already been discussing this.

The local media seems to be confusing the facts to the point that I don't know what to believe any more. One source is saying that parking meter rates will go up only, whereas another source say that parking meter and parking garage (city and private) rates will go up.

One source says that LSD will be one of the routes, but another source says that LSD will not be.

For some reason, Hilkevitch is throwing possible streets out there despite him really not having a clue which streets were picked. "Possibly" include Lake Shore, Ogden?

For reference, and since it is now published, I'll point out that Dick Durbin (who clearly was involved in obtaining this federal grant) mentioned that the pilot routes are likely to include Jeffrey, Halsted, Chicago, and 79th. I'd be more inclined to believe him than Hilkevitch's postulations...

Those seem like a decent route sampling, though I have alot of trouble seeing the connection between 79th street and downtown congestion. The others are more plausible and appropriate.

But of course, who knows what the Aldermen will have to say about all this...and who knows if Daley would be willing to ram it down their throats if they and their constituents disapprove of the plan? Not only removing parking spaces in the neighborhoods, but also the added loading/parking fees downtown. I'm not a city lawyer, but I think Daley and CDOT generally have the power to implement -most- of this without City Council approval, though I suspect the City Council would need to approve increases in parking rates, which is one of the cruxes of the whole thing.

How nice of you to bring up a 2-year old debate, without taking the time to understand my perspective, while taking the argument out of context to fit you, and not taking into account the changes in the system subsequently. I understand you're new to the forum, but no need to demonstrate that so apparently.

^ Viva, is there any particular reason why this can't be used as a great opportunity to kickstart the Carroll Avenue BRT? Why not make that one of the four pilot routes?

Also, what's the point of Jeffrey when Metra Electic already serves Hyde Park-to-downtown?

Jeffery runs down the spine of the dense Hyde Park and South Shore communities, with service every couple of minutes, and transfers to other CTA buses for those not working in the East Loop.

Metra Electric runs along the perimeter once or twice an hour and provides access to two stations in the East Loop.

^I'd add that the south lakeshore has a relatively high auto mode share for downtown commute trips, almost as high as Lincoln Park (don't have this exact data handy, sorry). It's a good target for trying to actually shift people out of their cars and onto transit, and the 14 already runs at rapid transit frequencies with near rapid transit loads so it's a natural for street improvements. Though I'd still love to hear what 79th Street has to do with downtown congestion, if that is indeed one of the pilot routes....Chicago Avenue and Halsted are at least plausible, particularly for targetting Ukrainian Village and Lincoln Park respectively. I suppose the strongest justification for improvements is that it's about the highest ridership route on the bus system, but then it's a bit odd to tie that to a downtown congestion initiative.

re: why the Carroll Ave. busway isn't part of this, I can't give an exact answer but I believe that's a seperate project with separate funding, and it's a much more substantial project ($153 million wouldn't nearly cover the required infrastructure, like the Clinton underpass, renovated bridge over the river, new handicap accessible stations, etc.)

^ Viva, do you think that the Kinzie bridge will be reconfigured somehow so that it is regularly in the down position? As much as I love it up all the time, it seems like an impediment to traffic flow on the Carroll route.

Viva, I think, though it might be tricky to implement, the 66 Chicago Ave. bus is in the most need of a BRT lane. Its god-awful slow and crowded at all times during weekdays and serves as an important link to the Blue Line for the Mag-Mile area.

Hope this won't get lost in the BRT conversation: Viva, you've talked about how the O'Hare branch is being repaired to a 70 mph standard. Do you know whether they will run at that speed (or any speed over 55) with current trains, or will we have to wait for delivery of the new stock? I understand the existing cars can feasibly travel at that speed, but wasn't sure if CTA would allow it given their age and condition.

I would guess 79th is being considered for political reasons, and because being the highest-ridership line gives it a good chance of being successful enough to justify expanding the BRT system. Hope we'll hear something more concrete about the routes they're upgrading soon, and that the timetable for improvements isn't ridiculously drawn out.

I'm not 100% clear why routes such as Ashland or Western are being discussed.

If we're going to charge more to drivers parking downtown, then shouldn't we be creating BRT routes that end in the central area?

How does reducing congestion on a north-south running street about a mile from the loop really impact that, unless we're talking about linking people to L lines more quickly in a fashion that had not been as convenient before. Thereby, Chicago gets to create a BRT version of the Circle Line 10 years ahead of time!

If one BRT route is used as I had described above, that makes a lot of sense. But the rest of the routes should somehow end downtown for this project to live up to its purpose (getting more people to use transit on their daily commute to the Loop). What's REALLY needed is a good east-west BRT route that gets people into N. Mich/Streeterville. Carroll Ave and Chicago seem to make the most sense in this regard

Not to be overly dramatic, but this is a huge windfall for Chicago. I hope this opportunity isn't blown.

The city can make a lot of good come out of this.

The more I think about it, Chicago Ave all the way to the lakefront is a MUST. I also think Roosevelt Avenue would make a lot of sense. You're connecting the museums & Central Station/Red Line to shopping/Greektown/UIC/Taylor and the Illinois Medical District/residential communities further west. This of course in light of enormous traffic gridlock, thus making a bus-only lane VERY beneficial and attractive to riders

I will go on to say that since we're stuck with only 10.1 miles, how long will these routes be? Is each one going to be 2.5 miles long, or do you guys think that some will be much longer than others?

Here's my preliminary wishlist:
1) Chicago Ave
2) Roosevelt Ave
3) Jeffery (my only concern being that this route will be too long & cannabilize the other ones)
4) Ashland/Damen (whichever route ties together the most L & Metra lines)

I say forget 79th street--as Viva mentioned, we need routes that justify increased downtown pricing. Plus, Roosevelt headed west should improve access for minority communities.

Okay, I've posted enough. Sorry, guys

The only "linkage" of speedier bus lines to downtown parking meter fees is that Daley's doing a little fancy dancing, putting the two together so people won't notice that he's privatizing the parking meters. Downtown commuters don't use parking meters.

By the way, Roosevelt Road already has a bus-only lane east of Canal. I don't know that congestion is a problem on that line. But it's less than a half-mile from the Blue Line.

I would LOVE for BRT on Michigan Ave. I HATE taking buses down Sheridan/Stockton/Inner Lake Shore Dr (151) to get to the loop because they go *SOOOOOO* excruciatingly slowly down Michigan Ave. You might as well just get off the damn bus at Oak Street and walk down to the loop. Both the traffic on Michigan Ave and the fact that those buses can sit at each stop for several minutes loading & unloading passengers through the tiny little doors make for a very frustratingly time consuming commute to the loop.

I'm confused, as Crains also discusses an increase in parking garage rates. There is too much misinformation out there.

I just think this would be a good opportunity to speed up transit connections to parts of downtown less well served by transit, such as Streeterville. The Loop is already well served by transit that has its own ROW

^ Is it enforced?

I think the pilot routes Durbin mentioned are (mostly) a good start. Chicago Avenue is definitely a great candidate.

Halsted has some excellent potential as well, as alot of downtown auto commuters are people going to the West Loop for whom most bus and rail lines aren't convenient, and the 8 in its current state is VERY unreliable (true for commuters from both north and south). Further, a reliable and quick Halsted route also hooks Bridgeport into the rapid transit network, with quick connections to the Orange and Blue Lines.

As already mentioned, 79th doesn't make sense to me in the context of congestion mitigation.

North Michigan (from the river to Oak) is a good candidate for a bus-only lane (eliminate right turns at all but a few streets, viciously target cabbies doing pickups/dropoffs). I would argue that Western or Ashland could actually make great candidates: alot of congestion is caused by people making cross-town trips, which plugs up arterials (Ashland is an absolutely nightmare in rush hour) and the expressways. Diverting some of these to cross-town rapid transit could have a notable impact on congestion.

The 2200s can only safely go about 60 or 65mph. 70mph won't happen until the new railcars are delivered and the 2200s fully retired. I do recall hearing they plan to upgrade to at least 60mph once the track project is done, though.

Thanks for the information, Viva.

Halsted would be a pretty good candidate, but big chunks of it are two-lane without much opportunity to speed up buses through there. I suppose the bus would just have to have local-type service from Cermak to Roosevelt, for example. I guess it depends on which stretches of Halsted would be targeted. Also, there's no Halsted express bus right now, whereas if they were to do Ashland or Western they could just upgrade the existing bus routes.

Halsted and Chicago make definite sense since they are dense routes that serve many rail stops along the way. From personal experience with the #66, I remember having to get from John Hancock to Pearl at Orleans/Chicago and thought maybe I'll hop on the bus, when I saw all the crowded conditions on that route, I'd figured, I'd do better walking, sure enough I almost beat the bus.

Jeffrey, I'm thinking because of all the 60' Express buses running like elephant trains during the rush hour periods.

Personally I'm surprised bus-only lane segments weren't proposed down North Michigan Avenue due to all of the express buses clogged together there. Maybe that's in a later phase.

If I remember it's because the 79 bus runs on 2 minute headways and a dedicated lane and larger buses for that corridor would be a good stopgap to better serve patrons and better use their bus resources that would be used to expand or extend other routes.

That's a great point. If you could evenly space larger high-capacity buses with more efficient boarding/alighting, you could reduce the huge vehicle requirement of the route and use those buses saved for extra capacity headed downtown.

Aren't you a pain.

a) I'm not new to the forum - but thanks for demonstrating that if you're not even going to do basic research before you talk, you'll keep making dumb, false assertions.

b) I'm not sure how (probably user error, but still unsure exactly how), but I'd ended up on an old page thinking it was the last page, and responded accordingly. My mistake.

c) I'm not sure there's any possible context to make your original statement make sense. Unless it was the context of "lets each make a silly comparison that has no basis in reason"

Anyway, since this has nothing to do with present topics, I'm not going to discuss it further.

The fed bus tranist iniative blows, why, cause..... most cars that reside within 14 miles already take transit..... the issue is cars from outer cook and the collar counties.... where do they drop off ? hopefully out in will , dupage and McCook, but no facilites exist for rapid transport from the outer areas....... another reason why NW cook will depart and leave .

^^^ That's not even close to true, if you look at the statistics, under half of the people who live on north LSD, yes LSD, take transit to work. Even more people who live in the western neighborhoods (my aunt is one of them) drive to work.

Does the bus transit way run by everyone, so as those who decline get higher parking rates...probably not... thats why Nw subs are leaviing .....

Please re-read what you wrote and edit it. I'm pretty forgiving of poor spelling and typos, etc, but your sentence seems to be making a point other than NW suburbs trying to leave, but it's not fully understandable in its present form.

^ I'll fill in for LaSalle. I Think what he is saying is most people within 14 miles of the loop already take transit whenever possible. The real cause of congestion downtown is people commuting from places like the NW suburbs or Will Co. that will not be able to benefit from the program in any way and will continue to drive. So the end result for at least the near term will be people that already take transit will have more options and people that drive will have to continue driving except will now have less lanes to do it in actually resulting in more congestion. I think LaSalle proposes creating some sort facilities farther out (skokie el?) where people can park and ride or otherwise switch to the BRT if driving in from farther out than 14 miles although I'm pretty sure Metra already serves this function.

Personally, I think dedicated bus lanes are a brilliant idea. They serve the same function as trains but for pennies on the dollar. As I said before, the key will be proper implementation.

I see where you guys are coming from, but I think you might underestimate the number of drivers coming from affluent neighborhoods in Chicago outside of the loop. I know a heck of a lot of people who drive to work from Lakeview, Lincoln Park and Wicker Park.

Coaxing these folks out of their cars will likely take more than BRT, though every little bit helps, I suppose.

Taft

^ To add to what Taft's saying, I think transit actually does -better- with the far-out suburban commuters, for whom Metra is substantially faster than sitting in expressway traffic. The high income folk from Lincoln Park, Bucktown, etc. can make it downtown faster than a bus/train most of the time, and thus a substantial portion of them do drive (being high-income, the high parking cost isn't a deterrent when time is money).

Crains not thrilled about BRT plan
 

Many of you can't read the whole thing, but their basic issue can be summed up as such: you're getting a stick without a very good carrot

Daley's efforts to ease traffic woes fall short
May 05, 2008
Mayor Daley's plan to reduce traffic congestion is well-intentioned, but we all know where good intentions can lead.

We're all for faster commutes, fewer traffic jams and less pollution. But we're skeptical that the mayor's plan, as described last week, can achieve those goals.

..

I want the Addison buses (152) to have the tracker. :(

^If I had to guess, I would expect Forest Glen garage (the 152's home) is -probably- next in line. The phasing is generally just based on fleet considerations. North Park, 103rd, and Chicago have the oldest buses, so I would expect these to be the last garages to get Bus Tracker, since they don't want to install the equipment on buses that are about to be retired. That leaves Forest Glen, 77th, and Kedzie as the likely next garages.

The Kinzie bridge IS normally in the down position. You're thinking of the railroad bridge that serves the rails on Carroll Street, which is normally in an upright position. It would probably have to be rebuilt to be put back into regular service, and it would certainly have to be reconfigured, since I don't think it currently takes non-rail traffic.

I really wish they'd at least get ONE good northside route other than Western and Ashland. Strange how so many people who use the bus live between the lake and Ashland, and downtown and the north city limits, and yet they aren't including any of those routes.

Belmont...Fullerton....Clark....151....Iriving Park...Any of the 130's and 140's? They're all heavily used routes. Some of them they're choosing I've never even heard of as far as having high ridership.

I like that bridge in the up position, but I can't remember the story behind why it's always up.

I'm almost thinking they rose the bridge, and the insides basically blew to hell while it was up, and they literally couldn't get it back down without doing repairs - for which there was no immediate demand.

:previous: I'm rather fond of it too. I wouldn't want anyone to touch it, it's a landmark of sorts now. It adds charm to the river. I'd be curious too if anyone knows the story behind it.

In the down position there is not adequate clearance to allow river traffic up the north branch.

They probably want to implement it on the less frequent routes first since it will be most useful on those. I don't need to know when the next 151 will be here because you can usually see one in each direction down the street it runs so frequently.

^ makes sense. That's what I was thinking as well after I wrote that response.

What story do you mean? When built, by whom, dimensions, etc.?

.....when do you think #81 Lawrence will get bus tracker ? .....also, what about the trains ?

It was an active rail spur until 2001 when the Sun-Times moved printing operations to the Southwest Side near Ashland and the south branch. The bridge only has 6-8 feet of clearance between the river and the bridge deck, necessitating the upright position.

.......can anyone provide a quick update (or a website that I can refer to) on the status of the Blue (O'hare) track re-hab / the Red Loop re-hab (I think there are two projects going on ?) / and the Red Dan Ryan re-hab work ?

........I need to know because I volunteer on the weekends (as a "Greeter") for the City of Chicago and take people from around the world on tours of the city, and I frequently get asked by the tourists about transit "status" questions.

....thank you......

As far as I know, the Dan Ryan Red Line rehab work is done. There might be a few random checklist items remaining, but all major construction and delays are over. Same goes for the reconstruction of the Dan Ryan itself.

Currently, the Red Line has a track rehab going on in the subway, and between Diversey and Wellington on the North Side, that should also be done by the end of 2008. After that, track rehab will work on portions further north.

The Blue Line has two projects going on - a signal system replacement and a track rehab. The track rehab is expected to be completed by the end of 2008. The signal project might extend into 2009, since the track work is getting priority, but I don't think it will cause significant delays.

If major construction on the city's two busiest lines wasn't enough, there is also a rehab project that's set to start work on the Lake/Wabash half of the Loop, so all trains will be shifted to the other half (Van Buren/Wells). Service patterns will change while construction is ongoing. The interesting thing about this is that, when the Lake/Wabash side is closed, Brown and Orange Lines will essentially be combined, with trains operating from Kimball to Midway. The Pink Line will not go to the Loop, and will terminate at Ashland/Lake. This project is also planned to complete by the end of 2008.

In short, 2008 will be absolute transit hell, between North Side 3-tracking, city-wide slow zone work, and a few other projects, with every line affected except Yellow. But come January, the system should improve by a tremendous amount. In the meantime, improvements will come in the form of increased Bus Tracker, new Brown Line stations opening, and maybe the installation of station improvements like the ad/info screens. The Loop closures will also make it a bit easier for the Wabash repainting/streetscaping to continue.

Complete information can be found here, along with links to the latest closure/delay updates. http://www.transitchicago.com/news/motion/szep.html

I'd make the argument that the cta should/will in effect combine the orange/brown/pink lines. with the ability to run 8 car trains throughout the brown the cta can combine the brown and the pink lines (running at pink freq) while through-routing the orange line. in essence it would retain the exact same train frequency (orange line and pink line being approx half the brown) and allow for greater connectivity in the system.