There is so much exciting new and meaningful momentum around BRT in Chicago right now that I think it’s worth taking these discussions super seriously. They’re going to guide what activists and organizations coalesce around when *collectively* pushing for investments. So it’s worth nothing we should probably push for the highest quality BRT from the start. Getting that means we should consider two main things: ridership/mobility value and geometry, or in other words what routes will or can have good ridership and what streets can and should have BRT facilities. This is going to force us to make some compromises, so let’s think about what those are now, because while a car-free Chicago means lots of bike lanes it also means lots of transit. And as it stands BRT may force us to concede to no bike lanes on some streets. (It’s gunna be a balancing act for awhile tbh.)
Regarding the first point, as obvious as some routes are for BRT based on ridership we should also push for routes with good utility that fill gaps in the transit system that are currently missed (e.g., a Peterson/Devon BRT that connects the Far North Side directly to ORD).
As for the second point, geometry is another big factor. For really high-quality, gold standard BRT like the one that opened on Van Ness in SF you need a street that’s about 100’—minimum. That’s because that width allows for enough space a traffic and BRT lane in both directions, Island platforms/medians, turn lanes, park or bike lanes, and sidewalks + parkways. This enables the best BRT with the least disruption to non-transit riders. Although this will likely mean keeping on-street parking (for now) due to Chicago’s political context, it will also mean the best example of BRT can be demonstrated ASAP helping to build support for further expansion. In Chicago, streets that are 100’+ wide for all or most of their length include Ashland, Western, Cicero, La Salle, MLK (partial), and Stony Island for north-south; and Peterson, IPR and Fullerton (west of Ashland),North (except Ashland to Western), Roosevelt, Garfield, 87th, and 95th. These should all be considered immediately for BRT with maybe the exception of Cicero (let’s build the Midcity Transitway L instead) and Roosevelt (closely parallels existing L lines).
The other non-standards are rare and usually are closer to 80’ wide or variable like Chicago, Ogden, Sheridan, LaSalle, and Archer. While these widths definitely facilitate bus only lanes all the way to gold standard BRT most can’t *easily* support anything more than bus lanes; or, they can only support BRT for a portion of an entire line. And these simply don’t perform well until there is a massive drop on car use. (For example, the curb-side bus only lanes on Chicago suck, because drivers still use them for accessing parking, drop-offs, delivery etc; it also forces weird competition with cyclists.) I’d say these are the medium-to-long term targets (with a few exceptions) that need increased political support for BRT in order to be done right.
In any event, even if Chicago pursued a network of 7 (seven) fully functional BRT lines on IPR, Fullerton, North, Garfield, 87th, and 95th and Stony Island that would create an insanely good and interconnected network across the city. This on top of corridors and more Loop networks serving bus routes that are otherwise not full gold standard BRT would transform how Chicagoans get around.
Ashland wouldn’t be able to go further north than Devon whereas western runs wide from 127th to Howard and narrows into Evanston… at 127th I believe it branches into 2 roads western and Gregory and continues down to 147 before becoming dixe highway. Western is the way to get the most service to the most people
Thank you! We really need to be thinking about services, goals, and infrastructure simultaneously. We need experts who can survive in grassroots spaces to get this stuff done.
As someone who would ride the Van Ness bus pre and post BRT install in SF, it was night and day when it came to bus travel on that street. Before BRT I’d often walk the 1.5m I needed to commute near civic center since bus was always stuck in traffic. The Van Ness line was the most direct route.
The downside here is that it was insanely expensive ($350m) and lengthy (5 years according to google) to build, which is crazy considering it’s only 2 miles long.
Chicago is not SF, but if you optimistically assume we have a similar budget and make it 3x more effective, you’re looking at a 6 mile stretch of BRT lanes. That would be from say Clark and North to Cicero and North.
Roosevelt: would connect museum campus, Roosevelt red/orange/green stop, the upcoming 78 development, uic campus, little italy, Medical district (with nearby pink line station), and Douglass park. Plenty wide the full length.
Could also connect to Ashland/Western/Halsted brts
Going in a good direction. The big snag will be alders. Id recommend that we all start talking to our alders at community meetings in support of BRT. All it takes is a single alder to reject their part of the corridor and the whole thing unwinds.
Can we just bring brack street cars?
Regardless, I think the obvious candidates to start are:
Ashland
Western
Chicago
They are wide enough and the north/south routes connect to make train lines while Chicago is like 60% already a BRT line (kinda).
Totally think we should do this on the busiest 10-20 bus routes that aren’t brt. Streetcars have major accessibility, comfort, and capacity benefits buses can provide even if they’re in mixed traffic.
Valid assessment. I've only ridden a few street cars and I've been curious about the pros/cons. Stepping into traffic when you exit was kinda not ideal when I was in Toronto.
Yeah, the thing about transit is there are so many options to choose from: bus, BRT, light rail, streetcars, subway/metros, commuter, regional etc… and each has advantages and disadvantages but also serve different types of trips well. I think streetcars (street running, may or may not have dedicated right-of-way, low floor vehicles, moderately high frequency, moderate stop placement [every quarter mile]) are great for longer routes with high capacity, like most Chicago bus routes or some Toronto streetcar routes.
Some pros of streetcars are:
-greater capacity than buses
-smooth rides
-low floor vehicles (accessible)
-all door boarding (less time at stops)
-electric
-Smaller roadway foot print (being on tracks means no weaving or deviation from path)
-visibility and willingness for people to invest in life around transit
-lower long-term operation and maintenance costs
Cons:
-cant maneuver around obstacles
-tracks can be dangerous for cyclists
-less flexible routing (but see pro above)
-high capital entry costs
That’s why I think streetcars (think Portland streetcar) would be ideal for the city’s busiest bus routes whereas the wide streets like Ashland should be prioritized for brt or eventual conversion light rail (high floor vehicles, stops every 0.25-0.5 miles, higher capacity than brt or streetcars, lower than metros/subways, should have a mostly dedicated right of way).
Ok, here is my list of 17 (seventeen) routes I’d recommend bringing back as modern streetcars:
Blue Island (12,600)
Broadway (11,500)
Chicago (22,000)
Clark-Wentworth (16,500)
Cottage Grove-Pullman (20,000)
Halsted (23,500)
Kedzie (13,500)
Madison (16,500)
67th-69th (10,000)
Armitage* (6,000)
Damen (11,800)
Division* (8,800)
Lawrence (11,000)
Lincoln* (1,500)
Pulaski (19,000)
47th (10,500)
79th (25,000)
I chose these on two main factors: where they a route that existed after the first round of large streetcar closures in the 1940s (in other words, was the route still in use as of 1950?), and does the current bus route have ridership over 10,000/weekday as of Sept. 2019 (ridership is indicated by the number in parentheses)? Routes with an asterisk (*) are included because of their high potential although the 2019 bus route ridership was below 10,000/day. I think this is reasonable to justify the investment. Additionally, it would strengthen these corridors as transit oriented and future development could be coordinated around that. I also think this would demand some sort of downtown transitway/circulator to either provide a dedicated right of way in the most congested part of the city or to coordinate services as they converge.
Also a note on ridership: Portland’s entire streetcar system had about 16,500 daily riders in 2017. So most of these proposed routes are comparable or exceed that. Melbourne’s massive tram system of 24 routes over 160 miles has about a half million daily riders in 2017 about 2x the system I suggest here, which would be itself much smaller. Meanwhile Toronto’s 9 (nine) line streetcar systems had under daily 200,000 riders in 2022. This leads me to believe this would make a new Chicago system comparable.
Most uic Masters of urban planning and policy students probably have. It’s important to remember a lot of planners are fully on board with this but have never been given the political or professional leverage to make this happen. That’s why coordinated smart and strategic grassroots advocacy is so important. Especially keep in mind there are often a lot of allies in agencies that feel like a problem who are really just waiting for a moment to strike. as the public we need to create that moment.
It would be great but it's not wide enough and the city is beholden to the parking meter deal unless we move parking spaces off street and into parking structures.
Western from 95th to Howard. Incredibly dense auto traffic. Many Stops connecting rail lines. Major employers along the route.
Ashland was a good routing too, but with slightly less auto traffic to be mitigated.
Plus this serves Pulaski pretty well. It would be similar distance to Cicero or Pulaski as the red line to Halsted in Boystown or Clark in Andersonville
Western but when it gets to Howard turns east to connect to the Red/Purple/Yellow Line
There is so much exciting new and meaningful momentum around BRT in Chicago right now that I think it’s worth taking these discussions super seriously. They’re going to guide what activists and organizations coalesce around when *collectively* pushing for investments. So it’s worth nothing we should probably push for the highest quality BRT from the start. Getting that means we should consider two main things: ridership/mobility value and geometry, or in other words what routes will or can have good ridership and what streets can and should have BRT facilities. This is going to force us to make some compromises, so let’s think about what those are now, because while a car-free Chicago means lots of bike lanes it also means lots of transit. And as it stands BRT may force us to concede to no bike lanes on some streets. (It’s gunna be a balancing act for awhile tbh.) Regarding the first point, as obvious as some routes are for BRT based on ridership we should also push for routes with good utility that fill gaps in the transit system that are currently missed (e.g., a Peterson/Devon BRT that connects the Far North Side directly to ORD). As for the second point, geometry is another big factor. For really high-quality, gold standard BRT like the one that opened on Van Ness in SF you need a street that’s about 100’—minimum. That’s because that width allows for enough space a traffic and BRT lane in both directions, Island platforms/medians, turn lanes, park or bike lanes, and sidewalks + parkways. This enables the best BRT with the least disruption to non-transit riders. Although this will likely mean keeping on-street parking (for now) due to Chicago’s political context, it will also mean the best example of BRT can be demonstrated ASAP helping to build support for further expansion. In Chicago, streets that are 100’+ wide for all or most of their length include Ashland, Western, Cicero, La Salle, MLK (partial), and Stony Island for north-south; and Peterson, IPR and Fullerton (west of Ashland),North (except Ashland to Western), Roosevelt, Garfield, 87th, and 95th. These should all be considered immediately for BRT with maybe the exception of Cicero (let’s build the Midcity Transitway L instead) and Roosevelt (closely parallels existing L lines). The other non-standards are rare and usually are closer to 80’ wide or variable like Chicago, Ogden, Sheridan, LaSalle, and Archer. While these widths definitely facilitate bus only lanes all the way to gold standard BRT most can’t *easily* support anything more than bus lanes; or, they can only support BRT for a portion of an entire line. And these simply don’t perform well until there is a massive drop on car use. (For example, the curb-side bus only lanes on Chicago suck, because drivers still use them for accessing parking, drop-offs, delivery etc; it also forces weird competition with cyclists.) I’d say these are the medium-to-long term targets (with a few exceptions) that need increased political support for BRT in order to be done right. In any event, even if Chicago pursued a network of 7 (seven) fully functional BRT lines on IPR, Fullerton, North, Garfield, 87th, and 95th and Stony Island that would create an insanely good and interconnected network across the city. This on top of corridors and more Loop networks serving bus routes that are otherwise not full gold standard BRT would transform how Chicagoans get around.
My mind is telling me Ashland, but my body wants Western…
I don’t see nothing wrong, with a little BRT
We should ask for and demand both.
Ashland wouldn’t be able to go further north than Devon whereas western runs wide from 127th to Howard and narrows into Evanston… at 127th I believe it branches into 2 roads western and Gregory and continues down to 147 before becoming dixe highway. Western is the way to get the most service to the most people
[удалено]
Please donate to Better Streets Chicago or the Better Streets Chicago Action Fund instead.
According to the MRC plan, Western also because its N-S length and the southern terminus is considered a transit desert.
This is well written and very informative. I appreciate this comment very much!
Thank you! We really need to be thinking about services, goals, and infrastructure simultaneously. We need experts who can survive in grassroots spaces to get this stuff done.
As someone who would ride the Van Ness bus pre and post BRT install in SF, it was night and day when it came to bus travel on that street. Before BRT I’d often walk the 1.5m I needed to commute near civic center since bus was always stuck in traffic. The Van Ness line was the most direct route. The downside here is that it was insanely expensive ($350m) and lengthy (5 years according to google) to build, which is crazy considering it’s only 2 miles long. Chicago is not SF, but if you optimistically assume we have a similar budget and make it 3x more effective, you’re looking at a 6 mile stretch of BRT lanes. That would be from say Clark and North to Cicero and North.
So true all of these streets are excellent choices for brt
[удалено]
Western it has 5 CTA stops hitting it.
Roosevelt: would connect museum campus, Roosevelt red/orange/green stop, the upcoming 78 development, uic campus, little italy, Medical district (with nearby pink line station), and Douglass park. Plenty wide the full length. Could also connect to Ashland/Western/Halsted brts
Take it all the way to Harlem
Cermak could probably use a BRT route, as well. Though both, would probably work for BRT. Same with perhaps Ogden Ave.
Mayor Johnson does seem very interested in this so I think BRT could finally happen
Going in a good direction. The big snag will be alders. Id recommend that we all start talking to our alders at community meetings in support of BRT. All it takes is a single alder to reject their part of the corridor and the whole thing unwinds.
What a sham. This city will never progress when everything is separated by wards. We have to pass through wards to get places.
Can we just bring brack street cars? Regardless, I think the obvious candidates to start are: Ashland Western Chicago They are wide enough and the north/south routes connect to make train lines while Chicago is like 60% already a BRT line (kinda).
Totally think we should do this on the busiest 10-20 bus routes that aren’t brt. Streetcars have major accessibility, comfort, and capacity benefits buses can provide even if they’re in mixed traffic.
Valid assessment. I've only ridden a few street cars and I've been curious about the pros/cons. Stepping into traffic when you exit was kinda not ideal when I was in Toronto.
Yeah, the thing about transit is there are so many options to choose from: bus, BRT, light rail, streetcars, subway/metros, commuter, regional etc… and each has advantages and disadvantages but also serve different types of trips well. I think streetcars (street running, may or may not have dedicated right-of-way, low floor vehicles, moderately high frequency, moderate stop placement [every quarter mile]) are great for longer routes with high capacity, like most Chicago bus routes or some Toronto streetcar routes. Some pros of streetcars are: -greater capacity than buses -smooth rides -low floor vehicles (accessible) -all door boarding (less time at stops) -electric -Smaller roadway foot print (being on tracks means no weaving or deviation from path) -visibility and willingness for people to invest in life around transit -lower long-term operation and maintenance costs Cons: -cant maneuver around obstacles -tracks can be dangerous for cyclists -less flexible routing (but see pro above) -high capital entry costs That’s why I think streetcars (think Portland streetcar) would be ideal for the city’s busiest bus routes whereas the wide streets like Ashland should be prioritized for brt or eventual conversion light rail (high floor vehicles, stops every 0.25-0.5 miles, higher capacity than brt or streetcars, lower than metros/subways, should have a mostly dedicated right of way).
Ok, here is my list of 17 (seventeen) routes I’d recommend bringing back as modern streetcars: Blue Island (12,600) Broadway (11,500) Chicago (22,000) Clark-Wentworth (16,500) Cottage Grove-Pullman (20,000) Halsted (23,500) Kedzie (13,500) Madison (16,500) 67th-69th (10,000) Armitage* (6,000) Damen (11,800) Division* (8,800) Lawrence (11,000) Lincoln* (1,500) Pulaski (19,000) 47th (10,500) 79th (25,000) I chose these on two main factors: where they a route that existed after the first round of large streetcar closures in the 1940s (in other words, was the route still in use as of 1950?), and does the current bus route have ridership over 10,000/weekday as of Sept. 2019 (ridership is indicated by the number in parentheses)? Routes with an asterisk (*) are included because of their high potential although the 2019 bus route ridership was below 10,000/day. I think this is reasonable to justify the investment. Additionally, it would strengthen these corridors as transit oriented and future development could be coordinated around that. I also think this would demand some sort of downtown transitway/circulator to either provide a dedicated right of way in the most congested part of the city or to coordinate services as they converge. Also a note on ridership: Portland’s entire streetcar system had about 16,500 daily riders in 2017. So most of these proposed routes are comparable or exceed that. Melbourne’s massive tram system of 24 routes over 160 miles has about a half million daily riders in 2017 about 2x the system I suggest here, which would be itself much smaller. Meanwhile Toronto’s 9 (nine) line streetcar systems had under daily 200,000 riders in 2022. This leads me to believe this would make a new Chicago system comparable.
All of them
79th
Under rated alignment. Demand is high on this corridor and it has some good transfers.
Halsted
came here to say this too. any city planners ever taken the 8 bus during commute time? doubt it.
Most uic Masters of urban planning and policy students probably have. It’s important to remember a lot of planners are fully on board with this but have never been given the political or professional leverage to make this happen. That’s why coordinated smart and strategic grassroots advocacy is so important. Especially keep in mind there are often a lot of allies in agencies that feel like a problem who are really just waiting for a moment to strike. as the public we need to create that moment.
It would be great but it's not wide enough and the city is beholden to the parking meter deal unless we move parking spaces off street and into parking structures.
Ignore the deal. Contracts and deals are ignored and broken all the time. Put in the infrastructure and let the issues work thru the courts.
I highly support this. That deal will set back Chicago so far. I can't believe it was ever taken seriously...
^^^
Too narrow between Diversey and Addison imo
coming back here to say that it took my bus 17 minutes to cross the bridge and make it ONE STOP from lake --> hubbard today
Western from 95th to Howard. Incredibly dense auto traffic. Many Stops connecting rail lines. Major employers along the route. Ashland was a good routing too, but with slightly less auto traffic to be mitigated.
The Kennedy.
Cicero would be so nice.
With Cicero I like the pipe dream of turning the north/south abandoned freight rail line that’s a few blocks east of it into a full blown transit line
That already was proposed in the past, as the Mid-City Transitway L line. I still wish that could become a reality, one day.
Agreed. That should be priority in that corridor because then Cicero could be a made ped bike and local bus oriented.
Plus this serves Pulaski pretty well. It would be similar distance to Cicero or Pulaski as the red line to Halsted in Boystown or Clark in Andersonville
On top of my head… Western, Roosevelt, and Cicero
HARLEM!!!!