Complete Streets in Constrained Corridors: Chicago s Central Loop BRT

Similar documents
Designing Streets for Transit. Presentation to NACTO Designing Cities Kevin O Malley Managing Deputy Commissioner 10/24/2014

Joseph Iacobucci. James Czarnecky, AICP

95 th Street Corridor Transportation Plan. Steering Committee Meeting #2

Clybourn Ave. Protected Bike Lane Study Halsted St. to Division St.

Roadways. Roadways III.

Appendix A-2: Screen 1 Alternatives Report

Downtown BRT Corridor Alternatives Review: 1 st, 2 nd, 3 rd and 4 th Avenue. Bus Rapid and Conventional Transit Planning and Design Services

In station areas, new pedestrian links can increase network connectivity and provide direct access to stations.

Community Task Force November 15, 2017

WELCOME! Please complete a comment sheet as we value your feedback. 4 pm to 8 pm. September 15, Hosted by: AECOM on behalf of City of Calgary

Complete Streets Chicago: Data Driven Design. Luann Hamilton Deputy Commissioner

Chapter 3 BUS IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS

Bus Rapid Transit Plans

Appendix A-K Public Information Centre 2 Materials

Providence Downtown Transit Connector STAKEHOLDER MEETING #2. Stakeholder Meeting #1 October 24, 2016

Technical Working Group November 15, 2017

STONY PLAIN ROAD STREETSCAPE

Item Description: Presentation and Discussion: Berkeley Rapid Transit Locally Preferred Alternative

Eliminate on-street parking where it will allow for a dedicated bus only lane %

Arterial Transitway Corridors Study. Ave

95 th Street Corridor Transportation Plan. Steering Committee Meeting

Van Ness Avenue BRT Overview and Scoping Process. Geary BRT CAC January 8, 2009

Southside Pilot Proposal

PURPOSE AND NEED SUMMARY 54% Corridor Need 1. Corridor Need 2. Corridor Need 3. Corridor Need 4. Corridor Need 5

Lawrence Avenue Streetscape Concepts August 30, 2011

Southwest Bus Rapid Transit (SW BRT) Functional Planning Study - Executive Summary January 19 LPT ATTACHMENT 2.

RapidRide Roosevelt Seat Sea t t le t le Depa De r pa t r men men t of Sept T an r sp an or sp t or a t t a ion

David Jickling, Public Transportation Director Regional Transportation Commission, Washoe County

S T A T I O N A R E A P L A N

Service Development 1600 Franklin Street, Oakland CA 94612

the Chicago Streetcar

Station Plan: Penn & 43rd Avenue

Sacramento Grid 2.0. The Downtown Transportation Study

Scope of the Transit Priority Project

Kennedy Plaza and Providence Downtown Transit Connector PUBLIC MEETING. Stakeholder Meeting #1 October 24, 2016

CURBSIDE ACTIVITY DESIGN

Presentation of Staff Draft March 18, 2013 COUNTYWIDE TRANSIT CORRIDORS FUNCTIONAL MASTER PLAN

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

Chicago Safe Routes to School Safe Routes to High School (SRTS/SRTHS)

GRTC Bus Rapid Transit: Semi-Final Design Phase Public Meetings: October 26 & 27, 2015

APPENDIX 2 LAKESHORE ROAD TRANSPORTATION REVIEW STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Active Transportation Facility Glossary

Main-McVay Transit Study: Phase 2 Options Definition and High Level Constraints Evaluation

From Disarray to Complete Street:

Arterial Transitway Corridors Study

4 DISRUPTION MANAGEMENT PLAN HIGHWAY 7 RAPIDWAY CONSTRUCTION BETWEEN BAYVIEW AVENUE AND WARDEN AVENUE TOWNS OF MARKHAM AND RICHMOND HILL

M14A/D Select Bus Service

Telegraph Avenue Complete Streets DRAFT Recommendations. Oakland Public Works Department September 11 and 13, 2014 Open Houses

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS. Department of Public Works. Baronne Street Bike Lane

2.0 LANE WIDTHS GUIDELINE

Typical Cross Section: DOWNTOWN (Observer Highway - 8th Street)

SPEED MANAGEMENT FOR VISION ZERO

Welcome. If you have any questions or comments on the project, please contact:

5. RUNNINGWAY GUIDELINES

Washington DC Section of ITE Project Briefing

Columbia Pike Implementation Team (CPIT) Meeting

TABLE OF CONTENTS FIGURES TABLES. Executive Summary Report: BLUE LINE

Bluffdale/ UDOT South High-T Intersection Project Type Operations

City of Hyattsville. Citywide Traffic Study and Transportation Plan. Sabra, Wang & Associates. February, 2010

Wood and Cortland Neighborhood Greenways

Overview. Illinois Bike Summit IDOT Complete Streets Policy Presentation. What is a Complete Street? And why build them? And why build them?

Community Task Force March 14, 2018

Broadway Complete Streets Project

Item to be Addressed Checklist Consideration YES NO N/A Required Description Complete Streets Guidelines

Study Update. October 11, 2017 FDOT District 5

EUCLID AVENUE PARKING STUDY CITY OF SYRACUSE, ONONDAGA COUNTY, NEW YORK

CITY OF OTTAWA ROADWAY MODIFICATION APPROVAL UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY

C C C

Speaker: Brian Dranzik, Fiscal & Policy Administrator Milwaukee County

ALTERNATIVES SCREENING REPORT

Afeasibility study to evaluate bus rapid transit service in the East-West Corridor connecting major employment and activity centers between downtown

Swift Bus Rapid Transit. June DeVoll, Community Transit & Tom Hingson, Everett Transit

Governance and Priorities Committee Report For the July 2, 2015 Meeting

9. TRANSIT ACCOMMODATIONS

Downtown Naples Mobility and Connectivity Study. Naples City Council Presentation January 2017

Canarsie Tunnel Repairs: Planning Ahead for the Crisis

Classification Criteria

Transportation Assessment

Mission-Geneva Transportation Study Community Workshop 2 July 8, 2006

1 st and 2 nd Street Couplet FAQ s

Better Market Street. Engineering, Maintenance & Safety Committee (EMSC) February 28, 2018

About the study. North Milwaukee Ave. Key goals of this study are to: Achieve Vision Zero* by. Harmonize the space and improve walkability

State Road 54/56 Tampa Bay s Northern Loop. The Managed Lane Solution Linking I-75 to the Suncoast Parkway

Community Task Force October 5, 2017

Southview Blvd & 3 rd Avenue Improvement Project. Public Open House December 4, to 7pm

Balancing Operation & Safety for Motorized and Non-Motorized Traffic

City of Davis East Covell Corridor Plan

Omaha s Complete Streets Policy

Blair/Williamson Intersection Expressed Needs

CONNECTING PEOPLE TO PLACES

What Happens Next? COMMUNITY PARTNERS

II. Identification of Opportunities and Solutions. A. Short-term action plan (Summary of Recommendations)

Contents. Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District Stop Placement Guidelines

Copenhagen Cycling Map. Red Lines Cycling facilities

WHAT IS BRT? Jack M. Gonsalves, PE, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. February 22, 2012

Report. Typical Sections. City of Middleton, WI

Bus Rapid Transit on Silicon Valley s El Camino Real: Working Together to Create a Grand Boulevard Steven Fisher

MEMORANDUM. Charlotte Fleetwood, Transportation Planner

9. TRANSIT ACCOMMODATIONS

Road Diets FDOT Process

Transcription:

Complete Streets in Constrained Corridors: Chicago s Central Loop BRT NACTO Designing Cities Conference October 24, 2012 Luann Hamilton, Deputy Commissioner

What is BRT? Bus-based system that improves speed, reliability and passenger comfort Combines stations, vehicles, services, running ways and ITS into an integrated system Reliability of rail transit with flexibility of bus transit 2

Potential BRT Elements Exclusive Traffic Lanes Traffic Signal Priority Limited Stops Boarding Area Canopies Real Time Bus Arrival Signs Prepaid Boarding Streetscaping Wide Doors Bus Floor Level Boarding High Capacity Metrobus, Mexico City SBS New York City 3

First exclusive bus lane on Washington in 1939 BRT in Chicago Jeffery Blvd. peak hour dedicated lanes later in 2012 Central Loop BRT in 2014 Western/Ashland BRT alternatives study underway A role between rail and bus levels of service 4

Central Area Plan Transit Recommendations Increase CTA and Metra Rail and Bus Capacity into Downtown Provide improved transit distribution around downtown Improve intermodal connections including rail-torail and rail-to-bus Provide express rail service to the airports 5

Project Purpose Improve mobility in Central Area for residents, employees and businesses Provide faster, more reliable bus service Accommodate projected growth in trips Manage congestion Transit that is easy to use and understand Allow incremental improvements to service Build off of existing infrastructure Intermodal connections including rail-to-rail and rail-to-bus 6

FTA-Funded Work Plan Bus Priority Lanes Tinted lanes on Madison, Washington, Canal, Clinton for six bus routes BRT Stations for level boarding Enhanced Enforceability and signal timing Union Station Transit Center Sheltered boarding platforms for at least 6 CTA routes Connects to existing pedwayunder Jackson (by Track 2) Branded, Enhanced Urban Circulator Bus Service Ogilvie & Union Stations to Navy Pier Video screens with Bus Tracker and other travel info Improvements for Pedestrians & Cyclists 7

Metra-Navy Pier Circulator Route 8

Buses, Bikes, Parking, Cars? Four elements compete for street space Separation of modes key to safety and efficiency Dedicated bus lanes Dedicated bike lanes, cycle tracks Buffer zones for parking Turn Lanes Loop is a 400 x 450 grid of one-way & two-way streets Shoehorn all competing elements on every street? Balance elements across the Loop as a whole?

Six Routes to Share Busway Combined service Michigan Ave to Ogilvie every 2-3 minutes during rush hour Currently stuck at 3-5mph 24-hour service on #20 & #60 Better service reliability en route to destinations citywide Also used by United Center Exp. and parts of other routes 10

E-W Loop Streets (existing) Randolph Washington Madison Monroe Adams Jackson Direction WB EB WB EB WB EB Width 48 48 43 38 38 38 Travel& (Turn) Lanes 3(1) 3(1) 2(1) 2 2 2 Bus Lanes 0 2.5/8 blocks 4.5/8 blocks 0 5/8 blocks 2.5/8 blocks Bike Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 11

E-W Loop Streets (existing) Monroe (east of Franklin) Adams (west of Michigan) Jackson (west of Franklin) Monroe (east of Dearborn) LEFT Pay-to-Park (1 block): Franklin to Wells LEFT Off-Peak Loading: LaSalle to Clark RIGHT Valet (1 car): Italian Village (btw Clark & Dearborn) LEFT Loading (4 cars): Bank of America Theater (btw State & Dearborn) LEFT 15-Min. Standing (2 cars): 6 E. Monroe (btw State & Wabash) RIGHT Valet (1/2 block): Palmer House (btw State & Wabash) LEFT Valet (1/2 block): University Club (btw Wabash and Michigan Adams (west of Dearborn) LEFT Pay-to-Park(1 block): Michigan to Wabash LEFT turn bay (1 block): Dearborn to Clark LEFT Valet (4 cars): Club Quarters w/o Clark RIGHT Valet (4 cars): W Hotel btw LaSalle & Wells (INSIDE BUS LANE) LEFT Free Off-Peak Parking: LaSalle to Wells (old) Jackson (east of Wells) LEFT Handicapped (3 cars): 216 W Jackson (btw Franklin & Wells) LEFT Free Off-Peak Parking (1/3 block): e/o State (old) 12

Existing Bus & Bike Lanes 13

E-W Loop Streets BUS BIKE CAR Primary EB BRT Route = Washington Primary WB BRT Route = Madison Existing bus lanes on Adams & Jackson remain Bike lane on Madison? Dedicated lanes or Cycle Track on Monroe? Dedicated lanes or Cycle Track on Adams & Jackson? (avoid ex. turn bays and parking/loading) No dedicated striping for bikes on Washington? What about Randolph? Minimum of 2 travel lanes for each roadway Consider turn restrictions case-by-case PARKING Consider Pay-to-Park relocations case by case 14

Design Concepts Developed 3 design concepts with varying degrees of separation between buses, bikes and regular traffic lanes: Option 1 -Basic Option 2 - Balanced Option 3 -Focused Final design may combine elements of different options 15

Option 1 -Basic On Washington & Madison: Bus Lane on right curb Left turns cross Bike Lane Right turns enter Bus Lane Queue Jump signals at selected intersections Protected Bike Lane on Washington, regular Bike Lane on Madison Example - Washington Example - Madison 16

Option 2 Balanced On Washington: Bus Lane adjacent to Bike Island Boarding Platforms Buffered from Auto Lanes 2-Thru Auto Lanes with Turn Lane Pockets Curbside Protected Bike Lane On Madison: Bus and Auto Lanes similar to existing Curb Extension Boarding Platforms 2-Thru Auto Lanes with Turn Lane Pockets Bike facilities relocated to Protected Bike Lane on Randolph Example - Washington Example - Madison 17

Option 3 -Focused Bi-directional Busway on Madison No Thru Vehicular Traffic (moves to Randolph & Adams) Single, Intermittent Access Lane to Alleys and Garages Block-long Curb extensions for Boarding Platforms and public open space Protected bike lanes on Washington and Randolph NOTE: Requires outside funding beyond current grant. Example - Madison Example Washington/Randolph 18

Evaluation of Options: Factors to consider Travel time savings of bus service Traffic Impacts Parking and Curb Use Impacts Benefits or Impacts for Pedestrians Capital Cost Ridership Stakeholder and civic acceptance 19

Traffic Stats 20

Total round-trip travel time benefit (slower) Travel Minutes Saved (faster) Net average user benefit (47% Bus; 51% Car/Taxi) Option 1: +1.41 min Option 2: +2.76 min Option 3: +3.11 min 21

Benefits and Drawbacks Option 1 -Basic Benefits: Simplest to install, fewest impacts, within grant. Drawbacks: Fewest benefits to transit users Option 2 Balanced Benefits : Most cost-effective, looks like a real improvement without dramatic change to traffic; closest scope to current grant amount. Drawbacks : Greatest amount of curb use impacts to be resolved Option 3 Focused Benefits : Most like rail transit, best separation of bus from auto, creates new pedestrian and public space at corners Drawbacks : More expensive, disruptive to westbound motorists, requires additional outside funds beyond current grant 22

Selected: Option 2 Balanced 23

Stay In Touch Website www.chicagodot.org Twitter @CDOTNews Facebook facebook.com/cdotnews 24

NOTES 25

CTA BRT Preferences 1. Lane width requirements Preferred: 12 ; Minimum: 11 12 Berthing, 13 Passing 2. Do not remove existing bus lane on Madison 3. Need to keep #20 Madison and #56 Milwaukee on Madison. May consider moving circulator and other routes to Randolph. 4. Washington must be the EB BRT Route 5. Either relocate existing bike lane on Madison to leftside of the street or remove it completely from the corridor. Providing better bike facility on parallel corridor could lessen the need to accommodate bikes specifically on Madison 6. No shared bus/bike lanes downtown (keep to separate, dedicated facilities) 7. Curbside/bumpoutboarding platforms preferred over median boarding 8. Must allow accommodations for buses to pass 9. Need enforcement of bus lanes. 9/27/2011 26 CDOT/CTA Coordination Meeting

Bike Preferences (CDOT) 1. Protected Bike Lanes (Cycle Track) Mayor s initiative for 100 miles of Cycle track in 4 years 11 preferred width (7 bike lane, 4 separation) 8 minimum width (5 bike lane, 3 separation) If parking is necessary, put cycle track between curb and parking If lane is to be on the left, it must be protected 2. Dedicated Striped Lane 6 preferred width 5 minimum width (assuming gutter does not interfere) Standard bike lane placement on right side of travel lanes No part-time bike lanes 3. Shared Bus & Bike Lane 21 preferred (12 bus, 6 bike, 3 separation) 4. General Bikes will go all the way to their final destination regardless of accommodations. Concentrating amenities on a specific corridor may have some effectiveness but will not pull all bikers away from parallel corridors Cycle tracks currently being considered on Randolph (WB), Des Plaines (SB), and Jefferson (NB) 9/27/2011 27 CDOT/CTA Coordination Meeting

Car Preferences (CDOT) 1. CDOT requirements are already a compromise AASHTO/IDOT preferred lane width 12 Typical minimum lane width 11 Minimum through lane width 10 (only allowed case-by case) Minimum turn lane width 9 (only when no other alternative!) Turn lanes need 10:1 tapers 2. Must provide access to alleys, driveways, and loading zones 3. Two travel lanes must be provided so blockages do not cripple the system 4. With current traffic volumes, 2 or 3 travel lanes are typically needed 9/27/2011 28 CDOT/CTA Coordination Meeting

Car Preferences (continued) 5. Left and Right turn bays Provide an area for cars to queue as pedestrians cross Allow through movements to pass - Length of turn bay designed to queues, with absolute min. length = 60 - Backups from turns spilling back into through lanes are a primary source of congestion Elimination of turns may: - Inconvenience businesses - Put additional burden on other turn movements 9/27/2011 29 CDOT/CTA Coordination Meeting

Curbside Preferences 1. General Dimensions 8 preferred width 7 minimum width 2. Pay-to-Park Spaces Leased by LAZ Contract requires removals or relocations to be compensated with revenue-neutral alternatives or cash reimbursement 3. Handicapped Spaces Residential Spaces paid for by applicant (set up plus annual fee) Requires Aldermanic approval to remove or relocate ADA compliance is a top priority 4. Loading Zones Set up and annual maintenance fee paid for by applicant. Requires Aldermanic approval to remove or relocate Loading zones can be critical to business operations (hotels) 9/27/2011 30 CDOT/CTA Coordination Meeting

Union Station Transit Center Recent DRAFT Layout Union Station Great Hall W. Jackson Blvd --> Elevator/stairs & pedway S. Clinton St. Amtrak Parking Garage (to remain) Alternative site Existing Amtrak pedway S. Canal St. --> 31

Union Station Transit Center Original concept design 32