Why the Left-Turn Ban for Bus Rapid Transit Won’t Cause Carmaggedon

CTA rendering of Ashland BRT.

One of the most controversial aspects of the CTA’s plan to create bus rapid transit on Ashland Avenue is the prohibition of most left turns from Ashland. Since the buses will operate in dedicated lanes next to the median, any left turns by vehicles from the mixed-traffic lanes will require that the buses get a red light while the turning vehicles get a green arrow. Watering down the BRT route with too many left turns would significantly slow down the buses.

Fortunately, the left-turn ban will be a relatively simple adjustment for nearby residents, people patronizing businesses on Ashland, and delivery drivers. Since Chicago is blessed with a nearly uninterrupted street grid, with a little prior route planning it will be easy for motorists to choose routes that don’t require making a left off of Ashland. Delivery companies like UPS already plan their routes to avoid lefts in order to save on time and gas.

The “roll plot” map of Ashland at Tuesday’s South Side hearing. Photo: John Greenfield

Furthermore, as Active Transportation Alliance director Ron Burke recently told the Sun-Times, barring most left turns will help reduce traffic injuries and fatalities. Ashland has several times the number of pedestrian, bike, and car crashes per mile as the average Chicago surface street. And while collisions involving left turns account for 11.7 percent of all reported Chicago crashes, they make up 15 percent of the collisions on Ashland, with left-turn crashes taking place every three or four days on the street, Burke said.

Still, residents’ legitimate concerns about the planned changes to Ashland need to be addressed. At the CTA’s open houses about BRT on the South Side and the North Side this week, many attendees stuck Post-it notes on a giant “roll plot” map of Ashland to provide input, and many of the notes from residents involved concerns about how the left-turn ban would affect commuting and deliveries. Let’s take a look at a few of these comments to see how proper routing can resolve these issues.

A note from the South Side hearing.

View Illinois Medical District in a larger map

Current route is in red, post-BRT route is in green.
It’s worth noting that the Illinois Medical District, where these hospitals are located, is an official supporter of the BRT plan, because they understand that buses that are 50 percent more reliable and nearly twice as fast as the current service will make it easier for staff, students and patients to access the facilities. New developments are planned for many parcels of land, including existing parking lots, within the district, so it will be even more important to provide an efficient, attractive alternative to driving there. Once BRT is implemented, northbound drivers should simply approach the district from Damen, four blocks west of Ashland, instead of Ashland, and then head east on Roosevelt or Taylor to access the hospitals.

A Post-it from the North Side hearing.

View Elston and Clybourn in a larger map
Current routes are in red and orange; post-BRT routes are in green and blue.

In this case, northbound motorists should take Halsted, a mile east of Ashland, as an alternative. Clybourn can be accessed directly from Halsted. To get to Elston from Halsted, drivers can head west on North and then go northwest on Elston. Either way, they’ll be able to take more advantage of the shortcuts provided by these diagonal streets by getting on them earlier.

A note from the North Side hearing.

View Diversey in a larger map

Current route in red; post-BRT route on Post-It in orange; proper post-BRT routes in green, blue and purple.

Rather than doing the jug-handle maneuver on side streets the commenter describes, he or she could head north on Halsted and then travel west on Diversey, or approach from Damen or Clybourn and then turn east on Diversey. As you can see from these three examples, there are plenty of ways that destinations on or near Ashland can be accessed without making left turns from the street. Fears that the left-turn ban will kill businesses by making it difficult for customers to access them, play havoc with deliveries, or send excessive traffic barreling down residential streets, while understandable, are not realistic.

  • Jeff Wegerson

    Since it happens now, of course, it would happen with this setup. Cars will be cars, as the saying goes.

    My assumption is that the major point of BRT is that cars will now have to suffer more to pay for their sins of the past so we can begin to relieve some of the unfair share of the suffering that transit users have had to endure during all these years of car abuse.

    This is an urban environment. I believe that cars have been unfairly advantaged for many years. The city cannot carter to them without becoming sub-urban.

  • BlueFairlane

    … when the left turn arrow is active pedestrians are halted in all
    direction. In winter, pedestrians must wait so drivers in their heated
    cars can drive more quickly. …

    Of all the arguments made for or against BRT, I find this one the silliest. We live in a densely populated city of nearly 3 million people. Sometimes, when you live in a populated city among other people, seniors, pedestrians, children, and the handicapped have to wait a few seconds for other people to move around them.

  • Rob Rion

    When I do drive on Ashland I don’t pay much attention to the businesses because the traffic is too bad to. Ashland is a very dangerous street and this will help a lot. Left turns in Chicago are almost impossible I limit the left turns I make because of this. They also slow down the street because no one follows the traffic lights. People are always turning after the end of the green signal and backing up traffic for the other direction. Also, it is time finally to return the street to some other purpose than to move the maximum amount of cars.

  • BlueFairlane

    Of course some people would still oppose BRT. The goal shouldn’t be to bring the masses into line so that they think exactly what we think, but to take into account reasonable concerns to make a system that remains strong while integrating as seamlessly as possible into the city around it. It doesn’t help the debate to dismiss a reasonable concern simply by saying, “Well, you wouldn’t like BRT regardless.”

    Some of the reservations to BRT are just dumb, but the concern for the left turn isn’t one of those. I’ve seen a number of comments here and heard comment from people in the real world to the effect, “I could get behind BRT, but I don’t know about those left turns.” This is the stumbling block for a lot of people on the fence. And on the off chance the change doesn’t go as swimmingly as Mr. Greenfield predicts, this is the thing that will push those fence-sitters into the “Change it back now” column.

  • Peter

    Thanks you for posting this Blue. Agree 100%. Sometimes common sense gets thrown out the window…

  • rohmen

    In relation to the last example, is a person really going to detour all the way to Halsted (which as others have already noted has its own serious traffic problems) rather than do the jug-handle maneuver to head left on Diversey?

    People are only going to use the suggested re-routes if it saves them time overall as compared to doing a jug-handle maneuver, and I cannot see how many of the suggested re-routes in this type of situation are going to save time unless the BRT plan incorporates from the get-go traffic calming and other initiatives on the side streets that will otherwise be impacted by this plan.

  • Jamin

    What you really have here is a economic / political problem. Unfortunately, bus riders are still looked upon as a lower socio-economic “class” than car drivers. You’re taking a street that is currently a car driver’s dream, and turning it into a transit-lover’s dream. Passing lanes, left turn lanes, you’re taking away an artery and suggesting car-drivers to use capillaries instead, and for a great cause, but it’s a political nightmare.

    A majority of the businesses on the street are currently set up to accommodate car-centric Western Ave style retail, rather than pedestrian friendly Clark Street style retail, so no wonder lots of businesses on Ashland don’t like the plan. And then you’re going to tell them, “hey, it’s ok, lots of bus riders will replace the car-drivers that will be lost.” Business owners on Ashland, as it is now, don’t want a bunch of new bus riders, for one Ashland is currently car-centric and change is hard, and two because bus-riders aren’t as great of customers as someone who can zip around in there car, never worry about weather, etc, etc.

    BRT is a great cause, and I want to be able to get across the city (and not just downtown) easily without a car, but to win over the anti-BRT crowd (or at least the agnosto-BRT crowd) I think you’re going to have to re-frame the debate.

  • The person wouldn’t be detouring to Halsted from Ashland, they would be choosing Haslted as their NB route instead of Ashland. Alternately, they could take Ashland and then, instead of doing the jug handle on quiet residential streets, take a right on Wrightwood, left on Southport, and then a left on Diversey. But you raise a good point, which is that we have to deal with what drivers will do, not what we would like them to do. If it turns out that an excessive number of drivers are using a side street as a detour, that can be addressed with traffic calming like speed humps and traffic circles, changing the direction of the street or perhaps making it local-access only.

  • You make some interesting points, but people in cars aren’t necessarily better customers than folks who get to store by other means. A study last year found that patrons who arrive by automobile do not necessarily spend more than transit users, pedestrians, or bicyclists: http://bikeportland.org/2012/07/06/study-shows-biking-customers-spend-more-74357 In fact, cyclists spend more.

  • Fred

    I wonder if it would be helpful for the CTA to release a contingency plan for IF carmageddon should occur. It seems like many opponents on this site think that carmageddon will occur and when that happens, BRT will be declared a complete failure, it will be ripped out, and the millions of dollars spent will be flushed down the toilet. I would like to see the CTA release a plan saying IF carmageddon occurs, this is what we would do to try to relieve it without getting rid of BRT. It would show that BRT money would not be wasted no matter what and help to minimize potential future conversion costs.

  • I look at it more as trying to keep a minority of drivers (the ones who currently make Ashland in rush hour a de-facto one-lane road with occasional left-side parking lots behind people making lefts) from stopping up everyone else.

    Ashland is not now a two-lane road except far from rush conditions, not really.

  • Yes, but businesses strongly believe it, and it will take bucketloads of data to convince them otherwise. See especially the “Nobody shops at Target/Costco/WalMart/big boxes on foot!!!” outrage relating to Ashland BRT. I buy a lot of small-trips, wouldn’t-need-a-car stuff at Target, personally …

  • Fred

    I think a lot of people fixate on a single left rather than considering their entire door-to-door route. Thinking in terms of entire routes makes detours far easier and less catacarmageddonstrophic.

    Unless your starting and ending points are both ON Ashland, you came from an E/W street and eventually turn onto another E/W street. EG given a start point east of Ashland, going north, and an ending point west of Ashland (left turn) how much easier is it to just avoid Ashland in the first place? That is the real alternative; not the jug handle maneuver.

  • Alex_H

    For an even more extreme example, consider Arandas Tires & Rims, on Ashland a bit north of Blackhawk. I don’t see a lot of BRT foot traffic heading their way. :)

  • Jamin

    This is my point. And it’s a losing fight to try to do so. Businesses on Ashland have adapted to the street as it currently exists, and will fight hard against changing that.

    I’m confident that small businesses could adapt to Ashland as a BRT & pedestrian street, but it will mean bowling over those that are resisting change, rather than trying to convice them. If BRT on Ashland is going to prevail, smart businessmen will make the changes necessary to adapt to the new streetscape.

  • Alex_H

    Getting rid of parking would be the obvious alternative, though I’m not sure how welcome that prospect is to motorists. (Or maybe the people who want to use Ashland as a highway couldn’t care less about parking.)

  • Guest

    I think it’s more nuanced than that. In some respects (and particularly in some neighborhoods), people in their car may be perceived as lower class. They’re the ones that can’t afford to live and shop exclusively next to transit. I imagine for some folks they see the BRT as an invasion of rich man’s transit into the working man’s driving territory.

    Ultimately, the howling from the anti-BRT camp is less about class and more a reminder of how pervasive and entitled car culture is in US cities across all races/classes. And i don’t mean that necessarily in a derogatory way. We’ve spent a century encouraging people to structure their lives around automobility. It makes sense that people are miffed now that the winds are changing.

    Change is always hard and that is especially true when it comes to how people get around. It is supremely difficult to claw back public space once it has been appropriated to cars.

    Personally (and I know this sentiment will rankle more than a few anti-BRT types), I think this is an instance where we simply can’t know the full effect of the project until after it has been operational for a few months and I hope they move ahead regardless. Honestly, I wonder if it would have been more effective to cheaply implement most of this for a short trial period and then move ahead with full station construction, purchasing buses, etc. once the data corroborates (hopefully) the model predictions for traffic impacts.

  • Jamin

    You’re right, it is more nuanced than that. For example, I’m an upwardly mobile guy in a neighborhood with only okay transit. I can’t afford to live in the ultra transit friendly neighborhoods, but i can afford to drive, some in my neighborhood can’t afford either. You’re right though, it definitely depends on the neighborhood.

  • Some good points here, but it’s safe to say that the full effect of the project will not be a traffic nightmare, but rather that Ashland will become a more efficient, pleasant street. I’ve posted a challenge to BRT naysayers on this site to provide one example where converting mixed traffic lanes to bus-only lanes for BRT has created carmageddon, and I’ve heard only crickets.

    You couldn’t effectively test the system on a temporary basis, because a big part of the BRT speed advantage will come from operating center-running buses, which require building median platforms and purchasing buses with doors doors on both sides. A temporary test could only be done with curbside bus service, which would be slowed down by people parking cars, taxis picking up passengers, etc., so it would be significantly slower than the center-running service. In that case, opponents would argue that the increase in bus speed isn’t enough to justify the lane conversions, so it wouldn’t be a fair test.

  • bedhead1

    This is one of the more honest and thoughtful comments by someone who is for the BRT and it’s seriously refreshing to read. The “science experiment” angle has its merits and when it’s framed like that I become more sympathetic, even if the BRT is in my backyard and I get to suffer the consequences if things dont work out.

    I think this is one of the reasons I have shifted from being moderately opposed to the BRT to being full-on against it, because I’m constantly inundated with what amounts to propaganda, while the steadfast refusal to admit that some things MIGHT get worse for the majority of commuters (see John’s response below for one of many, many examples) is immensely frustrating to me and ratchets up my distaste.

  • BlueFairlane

    Here’s a question that would be easier for somebody working as a transit advocate to answer than it would be for me to do it: How many places has some version of BRT been tried? Could you guys maybe assemble something approaching a semi-comprehensive list?

    Edit to Add: Wait! There’s a wikipedia page! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bus_rapid_transit_systems

  • Fbfree

    Here a link sorted by quality of the system.

  • BlueFairlane

    Oh, that’s very useful. Thanks!

  • Guest

    I see some groupthink going on by proponents, but to be fair it happens in the anti crowd as well.

    Some proponents focus exclusively on travel time benefits to transit users and paint over “expected” “modest” increases in car travel times, My interaction with the anti crowd, however, hasn’t been much more illuminating. I tend to hear how disastrous this will be for businesses and how dire the traffic situation will be, without much acknowledgment that a sizeable portion of road users along Ashland using buses stand to gain a lot from the service improvements. I suppose it’s natural for either side to play up their strengths and downplay their weaknesses…

  • Why not? you need some way to get there/back from it WITHOUT a car, unless you have someone with a car come with you and YOUR car when you drop it off?

  • Karen Kaz

    Except that someone dropping their car off to be worked on then might need to get around and use BRT to do so. I know I would like an option other than walking all the way to the brown or red lines when I drop my car off at Ashland Tire and Auto to get it fixed.

  • Alex_H

    Update in response to Karen and Elliott: fair enough!

  • See also: why does the Traffic Court building have such a huge parking lot and no transit access to speak of? A large proportion of the people going into it have had their licenses revoked! In another city (not Chicago), some cops once did a sting stopping cars going into and out of the parking garage for the traffic court and found some insane percentage of the drivers were operating the car without legal access to a license — because they had to get to/from the court!

  • Wewilliewinkleman

    Please support your claim of 15,000 passengers per day. I think the Environment Assessment said 30% ridership increase. At most 10,000/day.

    But even if your number is correct, you would have to have all 15,000 riders ride from the beginning to the end of the line to make up for the lost auto traffic that is consistently 30,000 cars per day on Ashland.

    Further, CTA has boarding figures per stop. Why don’t you provide figures of the expected boarding increases per stop.

    Here’s why your figures are faulty. Ashland Avenue has over 30,000 cars per day, system wide no matter if your north side, south side.

    I had someone I know from CTA look up the number of boardings between North Avenue and Irving Park Road. I was told 4,000 boardings.

    Even if you generously consider adding 50% to that number 6,000 riders can’t compare with 30,000 cars in terms of potential traffic that could be generated towards a business. So if you cut traffic by 50% and make it near impossible for cars to make left turns into parking lots, in effect you have the potential of losing 75% of traffic.

    1st rule of business is: Location, location, location. Businesses pay good rent on Ashland Avenue because of the high traffic count. No landlord is going to just generously go to their tenants and cut their rent.

    I think of my good friends that run El Presidente at Wrightwood and Ashland. They depend on car traffic for a high percentage of their business. When push comes to shove, will there be enough Bus Traffic on Ashland to support their business or will people just find another mid-priced Mexican Restaurant and not stop at their business. There are hundreds of small family owned businesses on Ashland Avenue. Mine included.

    I’m so sick and tired of people believing that Ashland Avenue is going to become like Clark Street or Southport. The zoning is different, the retail/business mix is different. It isn’t some cutey pie neighborhood retail district and it will never be. However, it has the potential to become a blighted mess.

  • jeff wegerson

    I’m pro BRT 100%. To me right now it looks to be a done deal as long as Rahm doesn’t get cold feet and as long as the funding from non-city sources holds. At this point Rahm is not facing serious electoral challenges and this project is not being opposed by any serious money donors of his. So what is the downside? He might lose some car drivers and he might lose small business owners. He stands to gain bus users and even some ex-car drivers. The CTA is finessing the public comment stuff with the long-table and tri-pod display format, so that means that so-far big media is going along. As long as the fix is in then this thing is happening.

    So what are the complaints? Left turns is the biggie in this post. But as Mr. Greenfield points out the city is a classic grid and there are always ways around. Again it is more important to Rahm that this works for transit users than that some Ashland car drivers be mollified. That’s where he’ll get the offsets for any votes (that he doesn’t need anyway) that he might lose. And banning left turns helps make this work.

    Business complaints are another. Businesses vote with their cash registers. What I don’t get are all the folks saying businesses won’t make out like bandits with the BRT. Hey, last I looked they weren’t closing the entire street to cars. Cars only need a lane in each direction to work. Shoppers mostly don’t arrive during the morning rush hour so Ashland becomes just like Damen or Clybourn or Diversy for businesses. And look what business is smack dab in the middle of that particular two-laneville, Costco! So businesses still get the cars and they get added BRT users too.

    Landlords make out great too. Their rents will go up around the stations. So whoever said that the politics and the economics of BRT makes it a hard sell, sorry I’m not seeing it that way. Indeed the case can be made for just the opposite.

    Rahm does this and he gets another feather in his cap besides Divvy and CTA Red improvements north and south. If Ventra starts working he’ll get that feather back. I suspect that Rahm buys into current urbanist ideology.

    I certainly believe in current urbanist ideology that cities work best that organize density of business and density of residence with density of transit. For me the only thing that could make this Ashland plan better is to ban all parking and put in protected bike lanes. Get the parking off-street and into little side lots and small alley accessed back lots. Think Edgewater library and Thybony Paints.

  • Cameron Puetz

    Most of the business complaints aren’t from retail businesses that could gain drop in business from bus passengers or who really even care about car access for that matter. The complaints are coming from distribution and light industrial businesses that care deeply about freight logistics. Ashland is a major freight artery through the city. The detours proposed by this article are not workable for large trucks and the business owners who depend on Ashland for shipping are justifiably worried.

  • I agree with this too. While I like the idea of just putting it in and seeing how it goes, I wonder if a “trial” period would work too. I don’t really know how it would work completely, since the bus does need to board in the center, the pre-pay is a benefit, etc… but I do know with some other projects the city has temporarily cordoned off an area first before doing anything permanent. This is what they’re kind of doing with Dearborn right? They first tested to see if a bike lane would work, and now they’re talking concrete (permanent) separation.

    I cited research a post or so ago, and some of the cases there were just temporary closures (bridges or freeways for example). I wonder how they could do that here. Think about the temporary Los Angeles freeway closures where the term “carmaggedon” originated. It caused such widespread fear of congestion that many people stayed home. Is that realistic with Ashland? What’s the elasticity of demand for driving on Ashland? Would people just switch to another street in the face of congestion? It’s not a bad idea, but the test would have to be done carefully.

  • jeff wegerson

    Not to be glib but I expect that they will adjust. At least their businesses are being torn down for a new expressway. Not that any are planned in the city. The company I work for has a great building next to an expressway entrance for sale when they are ready to move.

  • kastigar

    Go stand in any intersection with a left-turn arrow. You’ll see 3-4 cars with ONE driver making the left turn, while sometimes as many as 10-20 people are waiting to cross.

    When you live in a populated city among other people you need to make it easier, not harder, for children, handicapped, pedestrians, and senior to move – and not do everything in favor of automobiles.

    Wait a few seconds? Stay inside your heated car in the winter and wait a few seconds to make the left turn.

  • BlueFairlane

    I will follow the Streetsblog tradition of harping about silly semantic issues by pointing out that I’ve never seen a car with more than one driver.

    I’ll do this because your statement in no way makes your stand any less silly. “Some large percentage of the 3 million people who live in this city have made different lifestyle choices, so they should have to wait for me.” I guess I would feel sorry for the legions of old handicapped children standing on the cold, Siberian sidewalk if they were doomed to suffer this indignity for years of their sad little lives, but a left turn signal lasts about 10 seconds. If 10 seconds is the difference between life and death for somebody, then that person’s probably not walking anywhere anyway. Meanwhile, that 10 seconds allows the entire network of moving people to function more efficiently.

  • I completely endorse everything you just said, but will also point out pragmatically that at any intersection withOUT a left-turn arrow, when there are sufficient people needing to turn and sufficient straight-going traffic that (a) only a car or two can get through each light cycle and (b) most cars have to wait more than two whole light cycles for their chance to turn left … you get increasing (and eventually, overwhelming) incidence of incredibly unsafe, assholeish driving, because those drivers sitting in the left-turn lane waiting start to fume and fume and fume about the horribleness of HAVING TO WAIT.

    Which isn’t to say they’re not immature tantrum-throwers, but two light cycles is about as much as any Chicago city driver is willing to put up with following rules before they throw them out the window swearing and just do whatever they want on the pavement. Dedicated left lights are one way around this … though on intersections with short ones you get the same two-cars-per-cycle timing, and then people start stealing the other direction’s left by ‘advancing’ into the intersection and tossing an extra 2-4 cars through on the left illegally on red.

  • P. Hertz

    Halsted is already a disaster and now you want to route MORE traffic there? Insane.

  • OK, let’s take a look at the numbers. Per CTA spokeswoman Lambrini Lukidis, it turn out that we’re both wrong on some of these figures, but it’s my job to get them right, so I apologize for the error.

    There are more than 31K bus boardings per weekday. I got the 15K passenger increase figure from a speech at last week’s BRT rally, but it appears the speaker was thinking of the 46% increase in bus mode share, not ridership. Per Lukidis, there would be an approximately 29% increase in ridership. So that’s more than 8,990 additional bus trips per day, but less than the 15K the speaker mentioned.

    However, Ashland does not get 30K Average Daily Trips (which are measured at individual intersections) for its entire length. Per Lukidis, In 2010 according to IDOT data, the ADT along Ashland Avenue varied from 20,600 to 34,100 vehicles with the highest volumes near the Kennedy Expressway.

  • Jajuan Marsh

    If you want to ignore that Western already has heavy traffic of its own, including some heavy truck traffic because Western passes through a number of industrial/factory areas.

  • Peter

    You should go stand at an intersection ON ASHLAND. I’d love to know one where there are regularly 10-20 people waiting to cross. Maybe on michigan avenue, but not Ashland…. Lol. Nice try :-)

    Cycling through a progression for autos, pedestrians, etc does not make anything harder. In fact it provides order and a safer environment for everyone to SHARE the public way.

  • Wewilliewinkleman

    Ask your pals at CDOT and CTA to give you a boardings per stop figure. Since we’re not privy to the super secret bikers only meetings you get to go to. Have them provide the traffic counts currently at the proposed 35 BRT stations and the current CTA boardings. You can’t tell me that the number of new riders will even come close to the to the number of displaced autos and how you figure increased bus ridership will spur the growth of new business.

    And show us where at present a lack of un-rented retail space at these 35 stops. Then make a case of why the bus riders will suddenly make up the difference in spending at these locations.

    Because that’s totally missing from the Environmental Assessment.

    And I’m so glad as a taxpayer high mugs at the CTA get to rally the pro-BRT supporters.

  • Fred

    The new businesses will not all go into currently un-rented retail space. They will also go into places currently occupied by industrial and auto-centric business that will move or fail. Those sites will then be redeveloped into bus/walk friendly businesses. Ashland will change and adapt into what people are saying at the expense of the way it is. The bus won’t fail because of the current streetscape and business mix, the business mix will change and adapt to the new street.

  • Wewilliewinkleman

    Here is my holiday wishes for you. May your life always be so simple. May you never face any gut wrenching decisions involving your life and the lives of others (like employees). If you make an investment in a business, may your business be successful. And may you grow into wisdom that has a sympathic view towards others and not be so dismissive of real people and the lives they live.

    Here’s what you need to consider. Many of the lot depths on Ashland Ave are greater than the standard 125′ city lot. I wouldn’t be surprised if some are not twice as large. No one will just sell you the front half of the lot, you have to buy it all. If you are going to develop that lot, you have to find a tenant who is willing to rent into a deep property. Often times, its hard for small businesses to use all that space so even if the rent by sq ft is a reasonable price, the tenant cannot afford to take all the space. New construction is more costly to rent than renovated construction. Taxes are greater too. (Hence all those condo buildings with no commercial tenant on the 1st floor).

    And for the people who own or work in the industrial and auto-centric business they’re real people who took the risk and made an investment in Chicago and their employees count on that paycheck.

    Who do you have lined up to make similar investments?

  • Fred

    Yes, BRT is going to have negative consequences for some people. You and bedhead1 are the voices of that group on this site. Should progress for the greater good be held back because of it? Holding city projects to the standard of “will any single person in the city be harmed by this project?” would stop the city in its tracks. It is unrealistic to expect that. The standard is and should be “will the benefits outweigh the consequences?” So if your business goes under, I’m sorry and that sucks, but in the “greater good” standard, it seems to be like it would be worth it.

  • Neil

    Yep! I’ve actually dropped my car there a few times when I lived on Fullerton/clybourn. How’d I get home? The #9 bus! I’m still not understanding the win here


Sun-Times Editorial Writer Gets BRT, Even If Its Transpo Reporter Doesn’t

After running a not-as-terrible-as-expected piece on Ashland BRT earlier this week, Sun-Times transportation reporter Rosalind Rossi regressed with her write-up of Tuesday night’s info session hosted by the Chicago Grand Neighbors Association, titled “Backers of Ashland bus rapid transit plan object to left-turn ban.” First of all, Streetsblog contributor Lindsay Bayley tells me that she […]

Ashland Bus Rapid Transit NIMBYs Try to Win Over Aldermen

The BRT NIMBYs are at it again. In January, the Ashland-Western Coalition, a consortium of chambers of commerce and community development groups on the Near West Side, hosted a public meeting where business owners panicked that the CTA’s plan to build bus rapid transit on Ashland would ruin them. Earlier this month the coalition announced […]

Why the Anti-Bus Rapid Transit Arguments Don’t Make Sense

I gotta hand it to the folks from the anti-bus rapid transit group the Ashland-Western Coalition, they’re nothing if not tenacious. On Wednesday they held another public meeting at Orlando Glass and Trim, 641 North Ashland Avenue, to discuss their strategy to derail the CTA’s plan to create fast, reliable bus rapid transit service on […]