Oh look, some more unserious Chicagoans are coming out against the LSD revamp, as currently proposed.

What's wrong with these people? How did they get so unserious?


Full article: https://chicago.suntimes.com/transpo...-leanne-redden

Regarding Bus Lanes, what is the REALISTIC end goal? I ask because, if the cars are all going 60 and the busses can't speed so are going 40, then there are no cars holding up the busses and... no need for bus lanes.

If the cars must be slowed down to 40 and the busses are going 40, again no need for bus lanes.

Bus lanes allow the busses to go faster than the cars right? So if the cars are already going slower than 40 such that bus lanes are needed, then why spend tax payer dollars to redesign LSD to slow down cars?

As a serious person who has fought against IDOT blasting a 5 lane road through my forest preserve, I assume there's math to back this up?


If the end goal is to entice rich empty nester seniors to buy all those 2nd home condos in awesome downtown skyscrapers, and they're one slip on the ice away from a broken hip, you won't be enticing any of them onto busses. However, just thinking out loud, if you tell them that the bus lanes are to get all those slow crawling busses out of their way so they can happily speed away, they might go for it. Know your target market.

^ you seem painfully out of touch with the tens of thousands of people who rely on the LSD express buses everyday, and how those express buses operate.


People > cars.

It's the foundational principle of all cities worth a damn.

:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:

It's fun going faster than traffic on DLSD via bike.

Bus lanes are meant to allow buses to bypass congestion, not to bypass vehicles traveling at normal road speeds. When congestion occurs, vehicles may be stopped or driving below walking pace. Yet if the bus lane remains clear, the bus can continue to drive at normal speeds. But congestion may only occur during the busier times of day so that's the only time the bus lane would really be needed. But while those times make up a quarter or less of the day, the lane would still benefit a disproportionately large number of people since so many people were traveling in that short time. So it's worthwhile to have, even if it isn't necessary all the time.

This isn't inequality. People invented cars for a reason. The ADA lawsuits are coming from old boomers who can't walk to bus stops, just wait. My parents are 73, can barely walk, can barely drive. Won't be taking the bus anywhere.
And those of us who do the work that make cities possible can't afford to live in the "cities worth a damn".

Traffic congestion happens at intersection and interchanges. Do the busses get their own off ramp too? Their own turn lanes? Do they get to turn the traffic lights green like ambulances?

What you want is a subway. Until you get that, going to have to deal with cars.

Let busses drive on the shoulder like emergency vehicles.

The whole point of creating this type of infrastructure is to allow transit to deal with cars. It makes no sense to say you have to deal with cars while simultaneously opposing strategies for doing it. .

Or just have a bus and emergency lane instead of a paved shoulder?

I fail to see how getting on a bus gives a person a fundamental right to faster travel than a person who bought a car, paid sales taxes, pays for license and gas taxes, and most likely is subsidizing the CTA.

Busses and cars should travel at the same speed.

The realistic end goal is a bus lane in each direction so that buses are not caught in rush hour congestion. The congestion will continue to exist on the new road.

The speed limit is a separate issue. Outside of rush hours when the road is not congested, higher speeds contribute to more noise pollution in lakefront communities (faster speeds = more road noise), more deadly accidents and more damage to the park.

Because each bus contains significantly more people than each car, particularly at rush-hour. A rush-hour bus can easily carry as many people as 50 or more cars. Yet clearly the 50 cars takes up significantly more road space and are what is causing the congestion to begin with. So there's nothing unreasonable about saying that if you choose a mode that doesn't cause congestion you shouldn't experience as much congestion as people causing it. And yes, people using transit pay less... because transit costs less. If you look at total costs, transit costs less in various ways such as land use, infrastructure, and energy, while causing fewer external problems like pollution. So any subsidies transit receives is more than paid back by the benefits.

You might be amazed to learn that there are people who own cars, but still prefer to take the bus when possible. I am one of them and will be taking the bus to the Cubs game today even though I already CHOSE to pay those other taxes.

In the future, if transit moves faster on DLSD, fewer people will have to purchase depreciating assets (cars) and fuel (pollution).

Those overhead crossings shown in the renderings are not very enticing. They may be easier to navigate than some of the current tunnels, but like the current bridge crossing north of LaSalle (or most crossings over expressways), they don't create a welcoming, park-like experience. The Oak crossing is wider but does not appear wide enough to avoid the sense of cars flying past

Are there really that many people out there concerned with this? There's no reason a dedicated bus lane should came at some ill defined expense of cars in a neighboring lane. Who are the people yelling "how dare that bus go faster than me!"?

Uhhhh, who said anything about "fundamental rights"???????

In a big dense crowded city like Chicago where physical space is at a premium, it simply makes logical sense to prioritize and incentivize highly efficient methods of transportation over highly inefficient ones.

And now that the very unserious people at the RTA have decided to throw their organization's weight behind the effort to get IDOT to remove their collective head from their ass, it seems as those also unserious grass roots transit proponents (who you like to laugh at for some reason) might now have a better chance of getting what they want (dedicated bus lanes on LSD).

If they had taken your poor advice and just shut up and "take what you can get", we wouldn't now be looking at a potentially smarter and better outcome here.

Viva la unserious protestors!!!



Why are you so hung up about old people?

Here are the census 2020 macro-age demos for the City of Chicago.

Ages 0-19: 22%
Ages 20-59: 58%
Ages 60+: 20%

And FWIW, my folks are 77, they both fortunately still walk, and because they live in a Sheridan Road highrise up in Edgewater, they actually use the 147 LSD express bus to get downtown from time time (on topic!).




I also "do the work that make cities possible" (architectural draftsman for MFH infill housing in Chicago) and I can afford to live in this city (that's worth a damn)

And looking at the age demos above, apparently 1.6M other working-age people are also capable of doing the same.

Kirk Dillard is to be commended for courageously standing up for transit riders, not just once but repeatedly.

First he leaned on CDOT to add bus lanes at Chicago/Halsted, where CTA's #1 and #2 busiest buses cross. That was successful, and CDOT agreed to add the bus lanes in the coming rebuild of that intersection.

Now he is leaning on IDOT to add bus lanes on North Lake Shore Drive, where 7 different crowded bus routes jostle for space with cars and routinely sit in traffic jams.

Important to note that RTA has the statutory power to declare bus lanes on any street or road in the region, unless there is a state or local law that expressly prohibits them. I don't think they've ever used this power, but it does give them leverage. Kirk Dillard only answers to the governor, and so far the guv is sitting out of this whole debate.

But he's not serious.

And now some dude from Palatine is gonna have to laugh at him, to boot.

I will say though that bus lanes on north Michigan Ave might be more important than bus lanes on DLSD.

One road vs one bus lane can't be taken in isolation when thinking about overall infrastructure cost. Ultimately the the network of road infrastructure needed to serve individual automobiles is many times more costly (in material road cost as well as pollution) than a network of PT would cost serving the same number of individuals via PT.

Thinking about it I'd argue it is even more important that Michigan Avenue needs shorter, more identifiable, and larger (n-s) ped-friendly crosswalks going E/W. The size of the sidewalks N/S on Michigan is not generally a problem except on the busiest of days. For out-of-towners and older folkers walking across the street would seem burdensome and hectic. The current setup makes many feel they have to stick to one side of the street or the other instead of easily traversing back and forth if they see a store or building that catches their eye on the other side of the street.

LSD is an urgent project, since the bridges and underpasses (and the shoreline protection) are crumbling. If we're gonna rebuild the whole road, now is the time to have the important discussions about how transit should factor in before we spend billions.

Michigan Ave is important for buses too, but there's less urgency. It's also unclear if the "community" will support bus lanes. A recent exhibition at CAC had two rival visions: the Mag Mile Association's vision designed by LJC included bus lanes, while a rival vision funded by a deep-pocketed landlord and designed by Gensler had no bus lanes at all (despite narrowing Michigan Ave overall to just four lanes wide). Now that's unserious!

Not surprisingly, the Gensler vision was heavily peddled to media outlets in Chicago as well as the architectural press - and a lot of the coverage gave the impression that it was an official, approved city project. Meanwhile, the Mag Mile Association vision with the bus lanes got almost zero press. So, any official planning for bus lanes on Michigan Ave will likely face some stiff, well-funded opposition from some very influential people.