Bus Rapid Transit: Chicago’s New
Route to Opportunity
Josh Ellis, BRT Project Manager
Metropolitan Planning Council
Who is MPC?
•
Since 1934, the Metropolitan Planning
Council (MPC) has been dedicated to
shaping a more sustainable and
prosperous greater Chicago region. As
an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan
organization, MPC serves communities
and residents by developing, promoting
and implementing solutions for sound
regional growth.
Livability Principles
•
•
•
•
•
•
Provide more transportation choices
Promote equitable, affordable housing
Enhance economic competitiveness
Support existing communities
Coordinate policies and leverage investment
Value communities and neighborhoods
– http://www.dot.gov/livability/101.html
Key Features of BRT
Pay-before-you-board stations
Mexico City, Mexico
At-grade boarding
Rouen, France
Dedicated bus lanes
Bogotá, Colombia
Signal prioritization
Los Angeles, California
Values of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
• Congestion relief:
• Chicago’s Cost of Congestion = $7.3 billion/yr
• 95% is cost of wasted travel time
• Connectivity:
• To existing rapid transit network, recreational centers,
education, food, medical, jobs, entertainment…
• Community:
• Creates framework for future complementary
development
• Cost:
• BRT delivers excellent service, costs less, and utilizes
existing infrastructure
Our methodology
Phase I:
• Eliminate “special” routes
Phase II:
• Assess segments by right-of-way for BRT feasibility
• Assess segments for livability
Phase III:
• Fill in gaps to integrate with existing rail and provide connectivity
Phase IV:
• Assess ridership demand and traffic impacts along routes
Phase I – Initial screening and segments
Phase II - Right of way 86 ft. segments
Flow lanes without stations
Travel lanes of 86 ft.
Phase II – Right of way 97 ft. segments
2 stations: westbound and eastbound
1 station in the median
Phase II - Right of Way 97 ft. segments
Travel lanes of 97 ft.
that are consistent for
at least 3 miles
BRT station in median with pre-paid boarding, at grade
entrance, and designated bus lanes
Phase II – Livability
Criterion
Rationale for Selection
Study Measure
Main Corresponding
Livability Principles
2) Connectivity to
Educational Institutions
BRT has the potential to help facilitate the Number of educational
movement of residents, students, tourist, institutions within a halfand employees to educational institutions. mile of street segments.
3) Enhance
Economic
Competiveness
9) Existing Transit
Ridership
Current bus ridership demonstrates
existing demand for transit along the
study routes.
Average passenger flow
by street segment
(controlling for direction)
during the a.m. peak
period.
6) Value
Communities and
Neighborhoods
1) Provide more
transportation
choices
13) Population Not Served
by Rail
Residents not currently well served by
rail transit have a particular and pressing
need for rapid transit service within
walking distance of their homes.
Residential population
within a half-mile of
street segments that also
live beyond a half-mile
radius of fixed guideway
transit (CTA and/or
Metra).
1)Provide more
transportation
choices
2) Promote
Equitable,
Affordable
Housing
Phase II - Livability
Education
Ridership
Population > .5mi from Rail
• Scoring results from three of the 14 livability criteria – access to
education (left), ridership by stop (middle), and population not
within walking distance of rail (right).
Phase II - Livability
Weighted Criteria
Criterion
Weight (%)
1) Connectivity to
Community Services
2) Connectivity to
Educational Institutions
3) Connectivity to
Entertainment
4) Connectivity to Food
Stores
5) Connectivity to Major
Medical Care
6) Connectivity to Major
Open Space
7) Connectivity to Retail
3.59
8) Employment/Job Access
3.59
9) Population
3.59
10) Existing Transit Travel
Time
11) Existing Transit
Ridership
12) Transportation Costs
16.17
13) Population not Served
by Rail
14) Infill Development
Potential
16.17
3.59
3.59
3.59
3.59
3.59
3.59
16.17
16.17
3.00
Phase III – Transit
integration and
connectivity
•21 CTA rail station
connections
•15 Metra station
connections
•12 BRT on BRT
connections
Phase IV – Demand modeling
Service Factor
Assumptions
Headway
5 – 10 minutes (peak)
12 – 15 minutes (offpeak)
Station Spacing
2 stations per mile
Speeds
20 mph for 20-second
stop time
15 mph for 30-second
stop time
Dwell Time
20 seconds
30 seconds
Phase IV – Demand modeling
• Impact on transit person trips:
– Transit trips with both ends in the BRT network increase by
41,000 daily (14% bump)
– Transit trips with either a beginning or end in BRT network
increase 6.5%
– Total regional transit trips increase 3%
– Transit mode share increases:
• 12.0% to 13.5% within BRT network
• 14.7% to 15.8% for trips with one end in BRT network
• 9.7% to 10% regionally
Western Corridor
• Alternatives Analysis
• Community
engagement in station
areas
• Plan for complementary
public and private
investment
• Evaluate sources for
funding capital and
operations
Thank You
Josh Ellis
Metropolitan Planning Council
312.863.6045
jellis@metroplanning.org
See the full report, technical study, and appendices at
www.metroplanning.org/brt