Busjack Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 The only one I support is the 353 Riverdale short turn. I'm not going to repeat my reasoning either for that or against the others (except to note the recurrence of tax increase thought). And, as DSorrell points out, if a run didn't have enough ridership to meet Pace's service standards, how can CTA afford to run it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BusExpert32 Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 And, as DSorrell points out, if a run didn't have enough ridership to meet Pace's service standards, how can CTA afford to run it? I asked about it because I wasn't sure of the story about the #312. Another one, the #204 for Pace on Saturdays, was discontinued, but apparently the demand was still there for the CTA to take over with the #93 on Saturdays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BusExpert32 Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 I think that route was discontinued even before that in 2005 due to low ridership and the 302 fared far better service through Cicero and Berwyn (and Riverside). Service on Ogden between Cicero and Austin are non-existent (and the roads are bad enough that putting a NABI on it would literally break it in two). No, the #312 still appeared on maps from June 2006. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetroShadow Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 No, the #312 still appeared on maps from June 2006. I got that confused with the Clyde stop on the BNSF, which was discontinued after some point in 06, if not early 07. The route was discontinued March, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BusExpert32 Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 Any feasibility in this?: 127: Bring back the old rush hour route that operated between the Museum Campus and Oglivie Station, but also have it run a few blocks south of that to Union Station. It would operate to the Museums in the morning rush and to the Metra stations in the P.M. rush just like it used to do. And no, I'm not proposing this route just to bring back a historical route. I believe that (especially in the summer) the 146 cannot handle the heavy load of passengers from the Campus on weekday adternoons. And there is no direct service to the Metra stations on weekdays anymore also. 203: A new fixed route that would provide local service between Howard Red Line and the Lincolnwood Town Center along Touhy on weekdays. The #290 would run nonstop express service from the Lincolnwood Town Center to Howard on weekdays only. There would be no #203 on weekends and the #290 would run local then. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By the way, does anyone here have any inside info about route proposals for the CTA such as Clybourn, 31st St., and 83rd St.? What's the plan with this new service? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redlinerider Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 The 96 already provides service to Lincolnwood on Weekdays. Lunt isn't terribly far from Touhy so the serice seems redundant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwantae Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 What about the future plans for South Cook Pace Routes like: -A pace service from CTA Red Line/ 95 to River Oaks Mall, daily service. -379 to Orland Sq Mall to connect to 831 (831 Sould bring back to Midway, it was still getting plenty riderships) add weekend evenings til 11pm. -383 to Matteson (Lincoln Mall) -386 to Harvey TC via Country Club Hills, Tinley Park via 183rd, add Sunday service -385 - Saturday service My Suggestions: -530 Extention from Naperville to Yorktown -554 Extend weekday evenings, weekend service from Elgin to Woodfield Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BusExpert32 Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 The 96 already provides service to Lincolnwood on Weekdays. Lunt isn't terribly far from Touhy so the serice seems redundant. But the point was really about that "the agency (CTA) should be the one that serves the residents who live where they are picked up". This portion of the #290 is in Chicago city limits. A new local route like this along Touhy would also speed up service for those passengers that need to travel from the suburbs to the Howard Station. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jajuan Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 But the point was really about that "the agency (CTA) should be the one that serves the residents who live where they are picked up". This portion of the #290 is in Chicago city limits. A new local route like this along Touhy would also speed up service for those passengers that need to travel from the suburbs to the Howard Station. Either way, it would still be redundant to the 96. Given that CTA extends a bit into nearby suburbs such as Oak Park and Evanston, I'd suggest just leaving well enough alone with the 290. The current overlaps between the two agencies at the city limits cause no major problems despite the griping about it. Plus Pace partly solved the issue at the southern limits by making the portions of routes inside the city limited stop with CTA serving local stops. Proposals to extend CTA beyond where it already is in the suburbs is where trouble starts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BusExpert32 Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Either way, it would still be redundant to the 96. Given that CTA extends a bit into nearby suburbs such as Oak Park and Evanston, I'd suggest just leaving well enough alone with the 290. The current overlaps between the two agencies at the city limits cause no major problems despite the griping about it. Plus Pace partly solved the issue at the southern limits by making the portions of routes inside the city limited stop with CTA serving local stops. Proposals to extend CTA beyond where it already is in the suburbs is where trouble starts. The #96 isn't an appropriate arguement against my proposal. If my proposal is so redundant, then why does the #290 make local stops east of Kedzie? It wouldn't be redundant to give the local service within city limits to the CTA and have #290 run nonstop express service in city limits, since the passenger load during weekdays is there to support it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 The #96 isn't an appropriate arguement against my proposal. If my proposal is so redundant, then why does the #290 make local stops east of Kedzie? It wouldn't be redundant to give the local service within city limits to the CTA and have #290 run nonstop express service in city limits, since the passenger load during weekdays is there to support it.I would like to know what the deal was with Pace when the 96 Lunt Touhy was just made Lunt. At least this proposal is more in line with what metralink and I were recommending. If I were doing it, I would bring back the old 96 Lunt-Touhy and run 290 via McCormick and Howard (since Touhy is too congested for express service). In any event, except for the explanation of the deal mentioned in the preceding paragraph, I would certainly cut the 290 Touhy-Lincolnwood short turn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geneking7320 Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 I would like to know what the deal was with Pace when the 96 Lunt Touhy was just made Lunt. At least this proposal is more in line with what metralink and I were recommending. If I were doing it, I would bring back the old 96 Lunt-Touhy and run 290 via McCormick and Howard (since Touhy is too congested for express service). In any event, except for the explanation of the deal mentioned in the preceding paragraph, I would certainly cut the 290 Touhy-Lincolnwood short turn. Ouch! Busjack, I think you just stepped on my toes since the #290 goes past by condo building. Intuitively I think your suggestion would cause a decline in service. Gene King Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Ouch! Busjack, I think you just stepped on my toes since the #290 goes past by condo building. Intuitively I think your suggestion would cause a decline in service. Gene King Now you know what I feel about the 422 suggestions. Anyway, though, I still would want to know what agreement ceded that portion of Touhy to Pace. Maybe it is defensible, similar to the 270/56A or 108/352 deals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geneking7320 Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Now you know what I feel about the 422 suggestions. Anyway, though, I still would want to know what agreement ceded that portion of Touhy to Pace. Maybe it is defensible, similar to the 270/56A or 108/352 deals. How about this as a guess...maybe in these cases CTA was able to deploy their drivers in other areas (routes) so that no jobs were lost. Otherwise, I'd think there would be protests against that service being provided by lower paid Pace drivers. BTW, when I first moved to Rogers Park in 1979 Nortran operated routes 290 and 291 and route 96 Lunt/Touhy was still in operation. Gene King Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zol87 Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 I have an idea How bout connecting the #59 to the Cottage Grove Green Line via 61st , Drexel, 63rd Cottage Grove, 61st. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dann Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 I have a friend who lives near Berteau and Mozart (2830W, 4200N). She loves the neighborhood but hates the fact that she either has to bum a ride to a Brown line station or walk to the nearest station, close to a mile away, in order to get to her job downtown. I'm surprised there hasn't been talk of extending the #52 to either the Kimball or Western station on the Brown line. I know such suggestions cost money, but I also noticed that where my friend lives, the nearest north-south buses are at Kimball or Western. For those who think an extension would make #52 too long, why not have a new bus that runs on California only, between Chicago and, say, the Western Brown line station? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jajuan Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 I have a friend who lives near Berteau and Mozart (2830W, 4200N). She loves the neighborhood but hates the fact that she either has to bum a ride to a Brown line station or walk to the nearest station, close to a mile away, in order to get to her job downtown. I'm surprised there hasn't been talk of extending the #52 to either the Kimball or Western station on the Brown line. I know such suggestions cost money, but I also noticed that where my friend lives, the nearest north-south buses are at Kimball or Western. For those who think an extension would make #52 too long, why not have a new bus that runs on California only, between Chicago and, say, the Western Brown line station? There is also the walk two blocks either north to the 78 or south to the 80/X80, both corridors giving serivce to the Brown Line. That may be why 52 hasn't been extended. These two east-west corridors will get you to both north-south corridors you mentioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwantae Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 I have an idea How bout connecting the #59 to the Cottage Grove Green Line via 61st , Drexel, 63rd Cottage Grove, 61st. It would be a safer thing to do and add sunday service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dann Posted March 2, 2009 Report Share Posted March 2, 2009 There is also the walk two blocks either north to the 78 or south to the 80/X80, both corridors giving serivce to the Brown Line. That ma be why 52 hasn't been extended. These two east-west corridors will get you to the both north-south corridors you mentioned. Thanks for the info. She says that as long as the weather is nice she can walk, and every now and then she may ride a bike to the Brown line, if she can find a place to lock up the bike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted March 2, 2009 Report Share Posted March 2, 2009 These were specifically debunked a couple of weeks ago, except for duplicating 51 on 47th Street, to which there is no point. If you have to do that, transfer at Kedzie station. Here's a message: Since the RTA is shouting doomsday again, how about something that actually saves money or serves a new ridership generator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geneking7320 Posted March 2, 2009 Report Share Posted March 2, 2009 I have an idea How bout connecting the #59 to the Cottage Grove Green Line via 61st , Drexel, 63rd Cottage Grove, 61st. How about a counter-suggestion; Connect to the 63rd/King Dr station via Calumet, 63rd and King Dr. Remember, there used to be a station at 61st Street some time ago. Gene King Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.