Chicago roads may undergo bumpy transition to bus-only lanes

Let's see, transit riders benefit from faster and more reliable service, drivers benefit from fewer cars on the road and no more competition with buses, we all benefit from less pollution, fewer road accidents, less wear and tear on the roads, and less global warming.

What's the downside?

the role of the federal government is to protect the nation and foster the economy, not subsidize the CTA.

DanS wrote:

the role of the federal government is to protect the nation and foster the economy, not subsidize the CTA.

Dan, actually, "protecting the nation & fostering the economy" are exactly what this plan accomplish, by acknowledging (as you apparently cannot) that the era of cheap gas & unlimited auto expansion is already over, will become ever more costly to maintain, and is ultimately unsustainable. I am impressed by this plan -- it's about time we caught up with the rest of the world and begin to organize our cities and transportation in more efficient, rational ways.

there should be no parking on these streets and
there should be no bike lanes on any major streets
like Clybourn or North.

This plan really looks great. Of course, this being Daley's Chicago, the plan can always be fouled up in implementation.

And just how are we to stop the self-indulgent, "me-first" commuters from occupyibg bus lanes? Cops at every corner? What happens when a bus breaks down in a bus-only lane? Bus only gridlock? Raising the parking rates (as it is mentioned) only applies to PRIVATELY OWNED garages, thus opening up another avenue of a cash cow for Daley to exploit with cars being directed to the city-owned garages where it will be easier to examine for city stickers and boot - thus causing more headaches for commuters. Metra trains can only hold x number of commuters, based upon the fixed length of train off/on loading platforms. What is meeded is a comprehensive plan (not involving self-interested city hacks).

John,

Who are these nameless critics who you are not quoting?

The comments on your previous piece showed that negative opinions came from people who didn't live anywhere near the affected areas. Chicagoans were very supportive.

Can you do a follow-up? "Suburban criticisms of bus rapid transit plan irrelevant". Sheesh

At least they are trying something. Perhaps eliminating all vehicles that are not bus, taxi, delivery from the loop would be better.

I drove through the west side for a couple of years commuting west and I noticed that it is hard to enforce reserved/clear lanes on the west side. People tend to double park without regard to rush hour restrictions and the city usually fails to enforce the laws. Lake Shore Drive experiences traffic congestion along exits -- so it would not be effective to put a bus only lane there -- unless the exits were closed to all traffic.

I suggested a few years ago to put cameras on buses so they can photograph vehicles blocking bus stops and have those vehicles ticketed and towed. I've also suggested transit only lanes along Michigan avenue between Oak Street and McCormick. Unsurprisingly, these suggestions die within the CTA.

"leasing the management of city parking meters to a private company"

Can you explain how this leasing fits in the "declaration of war on automobiles"?

It's just another Daley money grab.

I used to be alarmed by the high number of people who opposed projects like these.

I'm not as worried anymore, though, because we are very close to a tipping point. When gas hits $10 in a couple years, everyone will be demanding rapid bus transit near their homes. Chicago can't get started soon enough.

Also, John - any more detail on the bike sharing and car sharing program near these stops? I'm very curious to hear CTA's vision for these programs. Thanks!

jake wrote:

Let's see, transit riders benefit from faster and more reliable service, drivers benefit from fewer cars on the road and no more competition with buses, we all benefit from less pollution, fewer road accidents, less wear and tear on the roads, and less global warming.
What's the downside?

Something doesn't add up. If the lanes only run in one direction, where are the buses going to come from to feed the "express" direction? You are still constrained by the number of buses running on the opposite route.

There should be no railroad GRADE crossings for active rail lines within a 50 mile radius of State and Madison Streets.

Another Kevin wrote:

Raising the parking rates (as it is mentioned) only applies to PRIVATELY OWNED garages,

I'm not sure why you think this. The tax currently applies to private and city lots. I see no mention of this changing.

Another Kevin wrote:

thus opening up another avenue of a cash cow for Daley to exploit with cars being directed to the city-owned garages where it will be easier to examine for city stickers and boot - thus causing more headaches for commuters.

Actually, the city is allowed to check cars in garages that are open to the public. They cannot go into, say, your condo lot. But they certainly can check regular parking garages. I've been ticketed in one.

I have seen these bus only lanes (even high occupancy vehicle only lanes) implemented elsewhere in the country and work to varying success. However, this is Chicago and surrounding suburbs, where most everyone driving is in the "me first" mode and the traffic patrols are nowhere near what they would need to be to fully enforce lanes like these. THis will fail miserably but not by fault of the CTA, Daley, police, or the Govt, it will fail because of the majority of everyone else. This is, if implementable, a very good step, but most people will not follow the law and allow it to succeed. Too bad for everyone, it would be nice to see.
I liken this to the idea of rebuilding the Eisenhower and "experts" suggestions of adding a HOV lane, people will not follow it. They will see it as an extra open lane.

DanS wrote:

the role of the federal government is to protect the nation and foster the economy, not subsidize the CTA.

What if having an actual market price as opposed to a ridiculously low one for parking meters, and having buses that actually operate at a decent rate of speed during rush hour -- what if those things actually helped the economy?

John wrote:

I have seen these bus only lanes (even high occupancy vehicle only lanes) implemented elsewhere in the country and work to varying success. However, this is Chicago and surrounding suburbs, where most everyone driving is in the "me first" mode and the traffic patrols are nowhere near what they would need to be to fully enforce lanes like these. THis will fail miserably but not by fault of the CTA, Daley, police, or the Govt, it will fail because of the majority of everyone else. This is, if implementable, a very good step, but most people will not follow the law and allow it to succeed. Too bad for everyone, it would be nice to see.
I liken this to the idea of rebuilding the Eisenhower and "experts" suggestions of adding a HOV lane, people will not follow it. They will see it as an extra open lane.

One thing to consider is that Chicago has a relatively small expressway system for the size of city (compare with Minneapolis, for example) and additionally expressways here tend to be on narrow rights-of-way, and so HOV lanes get a little politically sticky because most of them would have to come out of existing lanes rather than be added.

On the biggest bottleneck of all, the Eisenhower through Oak Park, the state is fearful of the cost and disruption of widening. I personally think they should close the dangerous Harlem interchange and reconfigure the Austin one, get rid of the shoulders, and operate four lanes in that stretch with no shoulders at a 40 to 45 mph speed limit without having to actually physically widen the right of way. It would be far better than the delays now, and probably more effective in that case than HOV.

Dave wrote:

I suggested a few years ago to put cameras on buses so they can photograph vehicles blocking bus stops and have those vehicles ticketed and towed.

Great idea!

Parking metetes are already $0.25 for five minutes. How is that a "bargain"?
Also- I don't understand how it takes money to do this? Shouldn't the money from the government go to fixing roads?

DanS wrote:

the role of the federal government is to protect the nation and foster the economy, not subsidize the CTA.

How would improving transit not satisfy both of your concerns?

jake wrote:

Let's see, transit riders benefit from faster and more reliable service, drivers benefit from fewer cars on the road and no more competition with buses, we all benefit from less pollution, fewer road accidents, less wear and tear on the roads, and less global warming.
What's the downside?

Jake writes from Boston which has such a fine traffic management record.

One loud and clear message is that suburbanites should just forget the loop and spend their money in the suburbs.

Why give Daley and Stroger a dime more to waste?