My ideal CTA routes/changes

[Tamir4317]

The old thread had some great suggestions, but it turned into a flame war. So I decided to start anew. I have some revised ideas too. Here it goes

The return of the 6 Jeffery. Maybe I'm just too nostalgic, but I want this back. I miss sightseeing through Hyde Park while on the way downtown. To bring it back, I propose the 14 Jeffery/Hyde Park Express. It would run from 103rd/Stony Island to Wacker/Wabash via limited stops on 67th, Stony Island, and all through the Hyde Park neighborhood. During rush periods, it’s downtown terminal could be extended to Navy Pier or Chestnut & Lake Shore. This could also act as a replacement for the 2 Hyde Park Express.

Eliminate the 2 Hyde Park Express. Serivce would be picked up by the X28 Stony Island or my proposed 14 Jeffery/Hyde Park Express.

Eliminate the 1 Indiana/Hyde Park. Just like what was said on the old thread, the 3, 29, and 15 already provides service nearby. Since this route ends at Union Station, perhaps the X3 could short turn there.

Extend the 6 Jackson Park Express to 91st & Commercial. this would be helpful for the #26 riders who after peak hours, have to take #71 to 79th & South Shore & transfer to the #6. And instead of entering LSD at 47th/Lake Park, maybe it could enter/exit LSD at 57th/Museum & run express to 11th/Columbus. It's downtown terminus would be Chestnut/Mies intead of Wacker/Columbus.

The current 14 Jeffery Express would be renamed The X14. It's stops would be 95th, 91st etc... This would operate every 20 minutes on weekdays, and no weekend service. *sigh* I just miss the old 6 Jeffery.

Extend the 8 Halsted to ether 87th/Racine or 95th/Red Line. This way, far south siders like me won't have to take two buses just to get to 79th.

Eliminate the 49A. The 349 should up it's service during peak hours.

Since the X80 Irving Park Express has weekend service, they should create weekend service for the X9, X49, and X54.

Extend the 53 Pulaski to ether 81st, or the strip mall at 95th. This would take pressure off the 53A.

Extend the X54 to Ford City. This would replace the 54B.

Eliminate the 54B. The X54 would replace it.

Idea for a new route: The X63 63rd Express. It would run from 63rd & Stony Island to 63rd & Archer, but stopping at major east-west cross streets only. This would have weekend service, and replace the 63W.

Eliminate the 63W. The X63 would replace it.

Extend the 67th/69th/71st bus to Ford City Mall. Just like someone else said, this would serve the solo cup factory, and take pressure off 79th. This should've been done long ago.

Terminate the 91 Austin at Roosvelt/Monitor. If it's timed perfectly, both buses can fit into the terminal.

Eliminate the 95W West 95th. Combine with the 95E to create the 95-93rd-95th. It would run from 92nd & Buffalo to 95th Red Line to drop off/pick up passengers, then continue to the terminal at 97th & Western (The Plaza). This eliminates the need for 95E riders to transfer to the 95W.

Idea for new route: The 104 Michigan/Torrence Express. This would operate from 95th/Red Line to River Oaks shopping centers via limited stops along Michigan, Torrence, then local stops from 139th/Torrence to River Oaks. Of course, this would have weekend serivce. I would love to go to RO without having to drive all the time. Plus the 358 only runs every hour, which sucks.

I've revised my Clybourn Ave bus route idea: The 150 Clybourn/Elston. it's just like the old 41, but with service along Michigan. It would start at Union Station, and end at ether Belmont/Kimball Blue Line, the strip mall at Logan/Elston, or the Blue Line terminal at Irving Park/Keystone. At Union Station, it would operate via Jackson, State, Washington, Michigan, Chicago, Orleans, Clybourn, Fullerton, Elston, Belmont, and Belmont to the turnaround at Belmont/Kimball. Or, it'll stay on Elston & run to Irving Park & terminate at Keystone. And then there's the strip mall at Logan. If this route is done, it'll serve the people who live & shop on Clybourn. And I've heard that the alderman wants it.

Well, those are my ideas. Feel free to share ideas over here. I would love to send them to CTA or bring it up at a public hearing, but I don't know how to do that.

[jajuan]

The old thread had some great suggestions, but it turned into a flame war. So I decided to start anew. I have some revised ideas too. Here it goes

<snip>

You have some really interesting ideas. One thing though, I think it's time to move on when it comes to the old 6 Jeffery Express. I don't see it coming back anytime soon. The current 6 Jackson Park Express and 14 Jeffery Express as they are now work, and with the aversion of the doomsday scenario, the CTA isn't going to move to change what works anytime soon. They are currently in a mode of trying to regain the public's trust and changing the 14's express zone to satisfy one's desire to sightsee through one particular neighborhood doesn't really help to do that. Neither does eliminating the 2 when there are no ridership shortages on this route. As a matter of fact, they better have a really good reason to eliminate the 1 or 2 as in your proposal other than there is service nearby that can take up the slack. They better be able to say that those routes aren't performing well in terms of ridership numbers to make that move. And those numbers better be pretty low. In the case of the 2, not likely since I see a modest number of riders using it by the time it gets close to Balbo, Columbus or the Drive.

127 is different because those buses have few riders on board for most of the rush hour. For every one with a decent number of riders, there are another three or four that have at best 5 or 6 passengers. A lot of times it's 3 or 4.

[CircleSeven]

Yeah, I second to what jajaun stated about the Classic 6. Yeah and even though I miss the old 6 Jeffery as well, I don't think the classic 6 would come back as it is. The main reason was many Hyde Park passengers would never get a seat when the buses leave the Jeffery Corridor (even though they also had the 14 South Lake Shore Express). Even in the mornings, the 6 start their supplemented trips at 63rd and Stony Island to accomodate the heavy load at the South & East Hyde Park Blvd. corridor.

Also, for some of the routes that parallel with express routes or your "proposed" express routes, I don't see that working either. The 63W already runs 30 minutes during off peak & late evening service. It wouldn't really fly if you would even merge it with the 63 because many of those buses be late as it is. It would hell if they end the route at midway and start the 63W 15 to 20 minutes later. But I wouldn't mind seeing an X63 in the future though.

Also, there's almost always bottleneck traffic on Roosevelt within two blocks before you get to Austin from Menard. So I don't think that would be a good idea to have the 91 terminate at Roosevelt & Monitor, even though they terminate almost a block from each other.

Many other suggestions were very thought off. I might think of some suggestions @ a later time.

[cta5658]

Here are My Ideas:

#107 107th: The EB Route can start at 104th, Pulaski, 107th, Kedzie, 103rd, Western, Back To 107th, Cottage and it'll lay over at 105th. The WB will left turn fron 105th on Rhodes then right turn at 107th, Western, 103rd, Kedzie, 107th, pulaski and terminate at 104th/Pulaski.

#X119 Michigan/119th Express: the route will be the same like the local #119 making limited stops on michigan until 119th (eg. 100th, 103rd) and limited stops on 119th (eg. Halsted, Racine)

[busfan4022]

I think the 87th route should go down to Ford City once it reaches Cicero. ):

[jajuan]

I think the 87th route should go down to Ford City once it reaches Cicero. ):

Interesting. Sounds like another good way to relieve some pressure off the 79 heading to Ford City.

[qwantae]

Interesting. Sounds like another good way to relieve some pressure off the 79 heading to Ford City.

I agree with all Bus fans Ideas but My Ideas are:

They need X79 Badly.

Extention of 90 Harlem to N.Riverside Mall to relieve some pressure off the 307.

Eliminate 56A N. Milwaukee, 270 would take care of that along with eliminate #17 Westchester, 317 should take care of it. Plus create X56 Milwaukee from Downtown to Golf Mill/ Niles during Peak hours.

Extention 12 Roosevelt west to Forest Park Blue Line via Forest Park Mall.

[trainman8119]

I agree with all Bus fans Ideas but My Ideas are:

They need X79 Badly.

Extention of 90 Harlem to N.Riverside Mall to relieve some pressure off the 307.

Eliminate 56A N. Milwaukee, 270 would take care of that along with eliminate #17 Westchester, 317 should take care of it. Plus create X56 Milwaukee from Downtown to Golf Mill/ Niles during Peak hours.

Extention 12 Roosevelt west to Forest Park Blue Line via Forest Park Mall.

x79 wouldn't work with the traffic bottlenecks on 79th street...there wouldn't be much express to it.

As discussed in previous threads, the 90 is overextended already. The CTA overlapping the 307 is just plain wrong, and that part of the route should be handled exclusively by the Pace 307 and 90 should go back to Grand.

You talk about eliminating the 56A because of the 270, but yet propose an x56 to an area out of the city. Again, as talked about in other threads and posts, CTA should not be creating routes in Pace territory. Also, 56 would have the same express problems as 79th street would. There would not be too much actual express given the traffic bottlenecks on Milwaukee ave from Division Street all the way to Jefferson Park. As for the 270/56A combo, 270's do not pick up in the city when 56A is in operation. If you were to eliminate the 56A totally, people in the city would never have a seat...although in today's transit society, that is considered a good thing and totally acceptable.

Again, you have CTA operating in Pace territory with Route 12. Leave the city to CTA and suburbs to Pace.

[jajuan]

x79 wouldn't work with the traffic bottlenecks on 79th street...there wouldn't be much express to it.

As discussed in previous threads, the 90 is overextended already. The CTA overlapping the 307 is just plain wrong, and that part of the route should be handled exclusively by the Pace 307 and 90 should go back to Grand.

You talk about eliminating the 56A because of the 270, but yet propose an x56 to an area out of the city. Again, as talked about in other threads and posts, CTA should not be creating routes in Pace territory. Also, 56 would have the same express problems as 79th street would. There would not be too much actual express given the traffic bottlenecks on Milwaukee ave from Division Street all the way to Jefferson Park. As for the 270/56A combo, 270's do not pick up in the city when 56A is in operation. If you were to eliminate the 56A totally, people in the city would never have a seat...although in today's transit society, that is considered a good thing and totally acceptable.

Again, you have CTA operating in Pace territory with Route 12. Leave the city to CTA and suburbs to Pace.

While I still don't think there's much wrong with some overlap of the transit services among those suburban areas that share borders with the city, I will agree with trainman about making further proposals of service extensions by CTA into the suburbs. I don't find much problem with the 90 starting at the Green Line because the extension south of Grand operates along only a mile and a half of suburban only territory with the rest of the extension running along the border of the city. Trying to extend it further to North Riverside defeats the purpose of having the 307 and would give Pace an excuse to scale back significantly on 307 service in any future Pace transit studies as they are now with the proposed cutback of 349 back to 95th street. I'll vote no on the X56 proposal to Golf Mill. That's what the 270 is for. The 21 Cermak service to North Riverside combines prior CTA service (former 25 W Cermak) into existing 21 service to make a more efficient one ride service so I see no problem there. The CTA was already operating along that corridor.

Let's not go any further beyond the overlap we already have now at the suburbs that border the city. If there is a need for improvement along a suburban corridor, let's look into Pace providing that improvement, not the CTA. Let the CTA concentrate on improvements along corridors that are within city limits.

[BusHunter]

Here's a few ideas. I always wondered why the #57 Laramie terminated at Grand. Why not run that to Jeff Pk via laramie to montrose to central following the #85 into Jeff Pk. The Harlem proposal doesn't sound too bad, but I would make an X90 that would be an express bus to N. riverside. The #307 would take care of the local service. With the 2 express buses #145 and #148 I'd make the #148 go LSD to wilson then down wilson to it's normal terminal. The #145 would remain unchanged. The #67 and #87 needs to go to Ford City. With that being such a hot draw on the south side, it's a win - win situation. You know the #94 S.California needs to be extended north to the blue line to link the Nw side with the south california riders. it could be ran up Kedzie once it got to grand to end at the Logan Square terminal if there was a need it could be extended from there to mimic the old #89. North avenue could use an x route or Fullerton. These streets run so slow something needs to be done to speed them up.

[jajuan]

Here's a few ideas. I always wondered why the #57 Laramie terminated at Grand. Why not run that to Jeff Pk via laramie to montrose to central following the #85 into Jeff Pk. The Harlem proposal doesn't sound too bad, but I would make an X90 that would be an express bus to N. riverside. The #307 would take care of the local service. With the 2 express buses #145 and #148 I'd make the #148 go LSD to wilson then down wilson to it's normal terminal. The #145 would remain unchanged. The #67 and #87 needs to go to Ford City. With that being such a hot draw on the south side, it's a win - win situation. You know the #94 S.California needs to be extended north to the blue line to link the Nw side with the south california riders. it could be ran up Kedzie once it got to grand to end at the Logan Square terminal if there was a need it could be extended from there to mimic the old #89. North avenue could use an x route or Fullerton. These streets run so slow something needs to be done to speed them up.

I'm interested in knowing why you think the 94 S. California needs to terminate at the Logan Square Blue line station. I personally don't see the need. It is called the 94 South California for a reason. Most of its service area is the Near South and South Sides along South California Avenue. There already is a Kedzie/California route, the 52. Even by routing the 94 via North Kedzie north of Grand, you're still cutting into the 52 and defeating the purpose of having the north leg of that route. Not to mention there's service only two blocks away on the 82 Kimball/Homan.

As for your proposal of extending the 148's express zone to Wilson, because the 145's weekday peak direction service only operates south of Irving Park when the 148 operates, you'd be cutting off those people along Irving Park and Clarendon who go to points along Michigan Avenue downtown instead of LaSalle. The 135 wouldn't be much good to those riders.

[BusHunter]

I'm interested in knowing why you think the 94 S. California needs to terminate at the Logan Square Blue line station. I personally don't see the need. It is called the 94 South California for a reason. Most of its service area is the Near South and South Sides along South California Avenue. There already is a Kedzie/California route, the 52. Even by routing the 94 via North Kedzie north of Grand, you're still cutting into the 52 and defeating the purpose of having the north leg of that route. Not to mention there's service only two blocks away on the 82 Kimball/Homan.

As for your proposal of extending the 148's express zone to Wilson, because the 145's weekday peak direction service only operates south of Irving Park when the 148 operates, you'd be cutting off those people along Irving Park and Clarendon who go to points along Michigan Avenue downtown instead of LaSalle. The 135 wouldn't be much good to those riders.

So you think that if i'm at Madison/Calif and want to go to O'hare i should walk to western or walk to the #82 or ride the 20 and go downtown. When the 52 reaches Lake it's 4 blocks away from the #94. Also on the north end the #82 is isolated, it could use help. Do you realize that the #82 is the only north -south route between pulaski and California? Alot of the North parts of the #82 are isolated. This to me is a weak point in the system. Talk to people who live on Albany, i'm sure they wouldn't want to walk 3 blocks to go north- south all the time.

[jajuan]

So you think that if i'm at Madison/Calif and want to go to O'hare i should walk to western or walk to the #82 or ride the 20 and go downtown. When the 52 reaches Lake it's 4 blocks away from the #94. Also on the north end the #82 is isolated, it could use help. Do you realize that the #82 is the only north -south route between pulaski and California? Alot of the North parts of the #82 are isolated. This to me is a weak point in the system. Talk to people who live on Albany, i'm sure they wouldn't want to walk 3 blocks to go north- south all the time.

Well if you're at Madison and California and want to go to O'Hare, you can make the quick walk to California and Lake and take the Green Line downtown and make the Clark/Lake free connection. Yes the 82 is the only north-south route between Western and Pulaski but between Roscoe and Lawrence which is north of where you're proposing to extend the 94 at Logan Square station. Within the area that you make your proposal, there is also the 52, which is why I say the 94 shouldn't be extended that far north. As for making a three block walk to a bus, given the grid syatem that the CTA bus system is based on with most the system's routes at least a half mile apart, there is no getting around that some people will have to walk to get to their bus stop. So the walk may be undesirable in some cases, but it's unavoidable if you want to get to your bus to get to work or school or whatever destination people use the bus for. The bus can't be everywhere just because we may want it to be. The biggest thing that has me hesistant about your proposal is that the North Kedzie corridor has a history of being a poor performer when it comes to bus service. More people would use the 82 over the old 89 which is why the 89 was eliminated and hasn't been revived in almost two decades since.

[nextstopchicago]

Well if you're at Madison and California and want to go to O'Hare, you can make the quick walk to California and Lake ...

You said most of what I was about to write.

I'd only add that the north end of the 82 isn't all that strong as it is. Not much need for an additional bus running along California past me.

I agree that you can't optimize service from everywhere to everywhere. Someone living at California/Madison already has a wealth of transit options -- 3 E/W routes including an express, 1 N/S route and an el within a couple blocks, and a N/S express bus within 4 blocks.

If I were there, I'd check the bus tracker to see if the 20 was coming, then head for the el if not. But that's me, and the tracker is of no use at all to most people.

[Tamir4317]

I've added a revision to my proposed 150 Clybourn/Elston. Here it goes:

The 150 would start at Union Station & head north to Jefferson Park Blue Line or Pulaski Blue Line. At US, it would operate via Jackson, State, Lake, Michigan, Chicago, Orleans, Clybourn, limited stops on Belmont, Elston, limited stops on Lawrence, and Lawrence to Milwaukee (Jeff Park). Of course, it could short-turn via exiting Elston at Irving Park Rd, and IP to the turnaround at Keystone (Pulaski Blue Line). This could take the pressure off riders who take the Milwaukee congestion bus.

What do you guys think? Last time I was down there, I spoke to a few people near Webster Place (Webster & Clybourn), and they've said that a bus route down Clybourn would reduce on the number of cars that goes down that street. I've also rumblings that the alderman wants it. In fact, should I write to 32nd ward alderman Scott Waugespack?

[artthouwill]

I've added a revision to my proposed 150 Clybourn/Elston. Here it goes:

The 150 would start at Union Station & head north to Jefferson Park Blue Line or Pulaski Blue Line. At US, it would operate via Jackson, State, Lake, Michigan, Chicago, Orleans, Clybourn, limited stops on Belmont, Elston, limited stops on Lawrence, and Lawrence to Milwaukee (Jeff Park). Of course, it could short-turn via exiting Elston at Irving Park Rd, and IP to the turnaround at Keystone (Pulaski Blue Line). This could take the pressure off riders who take the Milwaukee congestion bus.

What do you guys think? Last time I was down there, I spoke to a few people near Webster Place (Webster & Clybourn), and they've said that a bus route down Clybourn would reduce on the number of cars that goes down that street. I've also rumblings that the alderman wants it. In fact, should I write to 32nd ward alderman Scott Waugespack?

I agree this corridor is ready for service, but why not just bring back the original route #41. I just talked with a ladylast night who lamented that there was no bus service along Elston, but there are always buses running along Elston (deadheading from FG I'm sure).

I also would like to see Route 83 8rd which would operate between 87th/Racine turnaround and 87th/Anthony, EB via 87th, Vincennes, 83rd (serving Simeon H.S) State, 79th (serving Red Line station), Lafayette, 83rd, Anthony to 87th. Westbound via 87th (serving Chicago Vocational H.S.) Jeffery, Anthony, 83rd, State, 79th, Lafayette, 83rd, Vincennes, and 87th to Racine. Perhaps during morning rush, the EB trips would operate via Jeffery and 87th to serve the H.S.

I would also like to see the 26 routed via South Shore, Baker, 85th, Burley, 87th, Buffalo to 92nd then resume its current routing. A new 27 S Deering express would run during rush hours from downtown then via Jeffery, 83rd, and Exchange (over current 26 routing) but continuing south along current 71 routing to 104th or 112th/Torrence.

How about a 67 67/69/71 extension to Ford City via Pulaksi and 76th. It could serve Daley College and Sweetheart cup factory.

[Buslover88]

I've added a revision to my proposed 150 Clybourn/Elston. Here it goes:

The 150 would start at Union Station & head north to Jefferson Park Blue Line or Pulaski Blue Line. At US, it would operate via Jackson, State, Lake, Michigan, Chicago, Orleans, Clybourn, limited stops on Belmont, Elston, limited stops on Lawrence, and Lawrence to Milwaukee (Jeff Park). Of course, it could short-turn via exiting Elston at Irving Park Rd, and IP to the turnaround at Keystone (Pulaski Blue Line). This could take the pressure off riders who take the Milwaukee congestion bus.

What do you guys think? Last time I was down there, I spoke to a few people near Webster Place (Webster & Clybourn), and they've said that a bus route down Clybourn would reduce on the number of cars that goes down that street. I've also rumblings that the alderman wants it. In fact, should I write to 32nd ward alderman Scott Waugespack?

I like the idea. In fact, I think you, these people and the alderman should recommend this to the CTA (if they actually listened to people, of course).

I agree this corridor is ready for service, but why not just bring back the original route #41. I just talked with a ladylast night who lamented that there was no bus service along Elston, but there are always buses running along Elston (deadheading from FG I'm sure).

I second that.

I also would like to see Route 83 8rd which would operate between 87th/Racine turnaround and 87th/Anthony, EB via 87th, Vincennes, 83rd (serving Simeon H.S) State, 79th (serving Red Line station), Lafayette, 83rd, Anthony to 87th. Westbound via 87th (serving Chicago Vocational H.S.) Jeffery, Anthony, 83rd, State, 79th, Lafayette, 83rd, Vincennes, and 87th to Racine. Perhaps during morning rush, the EB trips would operate via Jeffery and 87th to serve the H.S.

I like this idea as well, but some people here say 83rd doesn't need a route when it in fact does.

How about a 67 67/69/71 extension to Ford City via Pulaksi and 76th. It could serve Daley College and Sweetheart cup factory.

Sounds good to me.

I would also like to see the 26 routed via South Shore, Baker, 85th, Burley, 87th, Buffalo to 92nd then resume its current routing. A new 27 S Deering express would run during rush hours from downtown then via Jeffery, 83rd, and Exchange (over current 26 routing) but continuing south along current 71 routing to 104th or 112th/Torrence.

This is the only idea I disagree with. I disagree because #27 wouldn't be brought back even if people wanted it to be because of low ridership, i'm thinking. And also, #26's routing is fine the way it is now.

[jajuan]

I like the idea. In fact, I think you, these people and the alderman should recommend this to the CTA (if they actually listened to people, of course).

I second that.

I like this idea as well, but some people here say 83rd doesn't need a route when it in fact does.

Sounds good to me.

This is the only idea I disagree with. I disagree because #27 wouldn't be brought back even if people wanted it to be because of low ridership, i'm thinking. And also, #26's routing is fine the way it is now.

I'll agree here that you do have some good proposals. In fact, your 67 proposal was actually made by another member a few months ago, and the discussions involved were all mostly in favor of this extension. That member made the proposal with the reasoning that it would be a good way to relieve pressure off the 79. See some of the prior posts in this thread from April.

[dre_cta6221]

ooooh. do0 amyone remember the #110 marquette. they should continue that since they got unneccecery routes like the 8A and the 108 colliding together.

[jajuan]

ooooh. do0 amyone remember the #110 marquette. they should continue that since they got unneccecery routes like the 8A and the 108 colliding together.

Well if you look at the route ridership reports on the CTA website and do a comparison of their passengers per platform hours to those of other routes in their service areas, especially near 95th, you'll see that these routes perform well despite overlapping on Halsted. They performed better than some of the other routes in those areas based on the platform hours numbers. For the 108 had more passengers per platform hour than the 103, 111, and 112 despite the fact that the other three operate early morning thru late evenings daily and the 108 operates only AM rush and PM rush into early evening hours Mon-Fri. The 8A had slightly higher numbers than the combined 49/X49 operations despite 49's 24 hour service. So you can't call these routes unnecessary based solely on the overlap on Halsted. As a matter of fact you can't deem any route unnecessary because of an overlap with another route. The CTA learned that the hard way in its Doomsday scenarios during the funding debate when there was a huge ruckus (justifiably so) from the people living on the far south side in part from the proposed elimination of these two routes. They also got an earful from north side riders who would have been impacted by the elimination of the North Lake Shore express routes which overlap each other and other routes in the downtown, Lakeview, Edgewater and Rogers Park areas. Both of these routes together, provide a vital transportation source to the people living along the south Halsted corridor. The 110 just did not perform well. By the time of its elimination, the buses were always close to empty along the entire route. That's why you won't see it resurrected anytime soon. The 67 performs well enough without it.

[MVTArider]

How about a route from Jefferson Park Station to Mall Of America?

Sorry , just had to suggest that even though it would be the most preposterous city bus route in the world I would ride it though B)

[dre_cta6221]

you're right. i didn't think of it that way...thanks

[geneking7320]

This is really renaming instead of restructuring.

Many of CTA's "X" routes seem to have limited stops (ie, every two to four blocks, etc) versus a long express zone (much longer than a mile between stops) so I would rename them Limiteds like in the "old" days. An example would be 3L King Dr Limited vs X3 King Dr Express.

Gene King

[jajuan]

This is really renaming instead of restructuring.

Many of CTA's "X" routes seem to have limited stops (ie, every two to four blocks, etc) versus a long express zone (much longer than a mile between stops) so I would rename them Limiteds like in the "old" days. An example would be 3L King Dr Limited vs X3 King Dr Express.

Gene King

Well the use of, for example, X3 King Dr. Express is to make it stand out more that the route doesn't stop at every block, in CTA's management's eyes anyway since there are still folks who don't pay attention and get on an express when they want to go to a local stop. Also in the X3's case it was to make it less confusing because even though they had started calling it the 3L, the destination signs displayed 3 King Dr Limited. They hadn't really reprogrammed the destination signs from this route's first days when 3 was used for both the local and limiteds.

[artthouwill]

Seeing as the 8 Halsted still gets bogged down with delays, I would split Halsted into three corridors. The 8 Halsted would operate between Broadway and the Orange Line. This portion of the route seems to have the most auto traffic. This route would operate out of Kedzie.

The new 42 South Halsted would operate between the Orange Line and 99th. This route would operate out of 77th, and the 49A would operate out of 74th.

The 108 Halsted/95th would operate all day. This route would operate out of 103rd.