When Did CTA Change #12 Roosevelt's West Terminal

[cta_44499_FG]

Sounds like a similar situation to at 115th. In this case, one would have thought that CTA owned the turnaround, since it goes back to the start of trolley bus service, but apparently not.

You had the guy on Ask Carole beefing that CTA was giving away the land under unused turnarounds (such as on Lincoln south of Peterson), but, on the other hand, it appears that CTA doesn't have the ones it needs locked up.

I recall that terminal.....Whipple to be exact. Interesting that even in the months before it went....crews were still there maintaining the unused washroom. Sure bet it was clean. The only other well maintained ones are Touhy/Overhill and Belmont/Octavia.

If only all the restrooms could be nice and clean. Of course the only answer to this is deterring "pig" operators.

[Busjack]

If you're talking terminals, the business about the 55-St. Louis one is interesting. On one hand, you have various agencies under da Mare having to go through legalisms. On the other, you have a school surrounded by a bus driveway.

[Busjack]

An item at the Nov. 2023 Subcommittee on Finance, Audit and Budget was a contract to acquire property at Roosevelt and Central. At the meeting, it was explained that the owner of a vacant lot next to a CTA-owned vacant lot was willing to sell it for $1 for future use as a bus turnaround. However, like the Burnside acquisition, it looks now like CTA is just banking the land.

[jajuan]

On 11/15/2023 at 4:50 PM, Busjack said:

An item at the Nov. 2023 Subcommittee on Finance, Audit and Budget was a contract to acquire property at Roosevelt and Central. At the meeting, it was explained that the owner of a vacant lot next to a CTA-owned vacant lot was willing to sell it for $1 for future use as a bus turnaround. However, like the Burnside acquisition, it looks now like CTA is just banking the land.

Even though they appear to be banking the land for now, it still kind of makes you wonder why they're suddenly interested in a possible Roosevelt/Central bus turnaround after 15 years. For example, are they seeing a possibility of determining the Central/Harrison terminal is getting to be too crowded with the 7, 12 and 85 all sharing the terminal? After all the way the terminal is designed, it was only meant for two bus routes. And with the increased weekday use of artics on the 12 these last few years, I can see where it could be argued that it's gotten a bit crowded. Matter of fact, a few past members who were operators at the time made that argument the first week of the 12 getting routed there. And at that time it was still mainly 40 footers on the route during the weekdays.

[Sam92]

1 hour ago, jajuan said:

Even though they appear to be banking the land for now, it still kind of makes you wonder why they're suddenly interested in a possible Roosevelt/Central bus turnaround after 15 years. For example, are they seeing a possibility of determining the Central/Harrison terminal is getting to be too crowded with the 7, 12 and 85 all sharing the terminal? After all the way the terminal is designed, it was only meant for two bus routes. And with the increased weekday use of artics on the 12 these last few years, I can see where it could be argued that it's gotten a bit crowded. Matter of fact, a few past members who were operators at the time made that argument the first week of the 12 getting routed there. And at that time it was still mainly 40 footers on the route during the weekdays.

Also didn't you say that long ago 85 was supposed to be sent to Roosevelt? Even though the 12 at central made that connection happen, the space at the new terminal on top of connections to whatever Roosevelt pace buses may be an added bonus.

[jajuan]

23 hours ago, Sam92 said:

Also didn't you say that long ago 85 was supposed to be sent to Roosevelt? Even though the 12 at central made that connection happen, the space at the new terminal on top of connections to whatever Roosevelt pace buses may be an added bonus.

Yeah I recall discussions among the neighborhood of how residents of the area at that time had long been asking for a more direct connection between the 12 and the 85 with running 85 down to Roosevelt being one of the possibilities of making that happen. But CTA's original plan after losing the Roosevelt/Monitor terminal was to run the 12 all the way to Austin and loop via Austin, Fillmore and Mason, the same streets used by the 91to turn around back north. That would explain WB buses leading up to the change in terminal displaying '12 TO AUSTIN' instead of '12 TO MONITOR'. However I could see how South Austin residents in that area would have put up a big stink to that plan of putting even more buses along those side streets, not to mention CTA had started tweaking routes to minimize instances of buses having to turn from one narrow side street to another. CTA went with the off street terminal close by that already existed and basically cut the difference on coincidentally giving residents what they had been asking for given the main reason for the change was because they lost access to the terminal at Monitor.

Putting all that aside though, there's no indication yet that CTA is actually going to build a bus turnaround on the land. Even if they did build a terminal, there's no way of knowing how big it would be and no guarantee that they would build it for use by more than just the 12. They weren't looking to change the west terminal of the route 15 years ago with any intent of creating any new connections in mind. Their primary motivation was simply finding an alternative spot to turn buses around after losing the route's original west terminal. Using the terminus for the 91 would have been too disruptive because of the increased bus traffic along narrow side streets, not to mention the 12 operating two and a half hours longer than the 91. (Imagine what that would look like today with all the artics that run in the 12 today compared to then). The only other alternative was the Central/Harrison terminal which already existed and was a quicker, easier choice than securing land that wasn't necessarily available at the time and building a new off street terminal from scratch. Turning out to connect with the 85 (and 7) back then was just a coincidental bonus to the real reason they changed the 12 to the Central/Harrison terminal.

[Shannoncvpi]

2 hours ago, jajuan said:

Yeah I recall discussions among the neighborhood of how residents of the area at that time had long been asking for a more direct connection between the 12 and the 85 with running 85 down to Roosevelt being one of the possibilities of making that happen. But CTA's original plan after losing the Roosevelt/Monitor terminal was to run the 12 all the way to Austin and loop via Austin, Fillmore and Mason, the same streets used by the 91to turn around back north. That would explain WB buses leading up to the change in terminal displaying '12 TO AUSTIN' instead of '12 TO MONITOR'. However I could see how South Austin residents in that area would have put up a big stink to that plan of putting even more buses along those side streets, not to mention CTA had started tweaking routes to minimize instances of buses having to turn from one narrow side street to another. CTA went with the off street terminal close by that already existed and basically cut the difference on coincidentally giving residents what they had been asking for given the main reason for the change was because they lost access to the terminal at Monitor.

Putting all that aside though, there's no indication yet that CTA is actually going to build a bus turnaround on the land. Even if they did build a terminal, there's no way of knowing how big it would be and no guarantee that they would build it for use by more than just the 12. They weren't looking to change the west terminal of the route 15 years ago with any intent of creating any new connections in mind. Their primary motivation was simply finding an alternative spot to turn buses around after losing the route's original west terminal. Using the terminus for the 91 would have been too disruptive because of the increased bus traffic along narrow side streets, not to mention the 12 operating two and a half hours longer than the 91. (Imagine what that would look like today with all the artics that run in the 12 today compared to then). The only other alternative was the Central/Harrison terminal which already existed and was a quicker, easier choice than securing land that wasn't necessarily available at the time and building a new off street terminal from scratch. Turning out to connect with the 85 (and 7) back then was just a coincidental bonus to the real reason they changed the 12 to the Central/Harrison terminal.

Hoe did they lose the end of the line at monitor what they wasn't paying rent of some or was people crying about buses coming down the side street once again

[artthouwill]

On 11/24/2023 at 10:08 AM, Sam92 said:

Also didn't you say that long ago 85 was supposed to be sent to Roosevelt? Even though the 12 at central made that connection happen, the space at the new terminal on top of connections to whatever Roosevelt pace buses may be an added bonus.

What would be a great bonus is if the 91 could use the new Roosevelt/ Central  terminal.   That would eliminate the residential turnaround for the 91

  It would reinstate the connection the 91 used to have with the 12 when it also had a residential turnaround  at Roosevelt and Monitor/ Austin.   I don't know if the 7 needs to use it because it has a natural turnaround at Central, but the 12, 85, and 91 could work well. 

[jajuan]

On 11/25/2023 at 1:03 PM, Shannoncvpi said:

Hoe did they lose the end of the line at monitor what they wasn't paying rent of some or was people crying about buses coming down the side street once again

From what was explained years ago, rent didn't come up as an issue. The holders of the lease on the land that held the terminal simply wanted the buses out. It's no different from them moving the south terminal of the 94 from 71st/Sacramento to 74th/Damen, with the layover point being just outside of 74th Garage, because the Park District got tired of CTA's buses tearing up the roadway within the park that the 94 used to end.

[Shannoncvpi]

20 hours ago, jajuan said:

From what was explained years ago, rent didn't come up as an issue. The holders of the lease on the land that held the terminal simply wanted the buses out. It's no different from them moving the south terminal of the 94 from 71st/Sacramento to 74th/Damen, with the layover point being just outside of 74th Garage, because the Park District got tired of CTA's buses tearing up the roadway within the park that the 94 used to end.

Smfh