More express bus frequency

[Busjack]

I noted this Press Release, saying that CTA was increasing the express bus frequency on X49, X55, and X80, while cutting down the frequency on the underlying local routes, at least on an experimental basis.

While they probably could do that on 49 and 80, it seems to be (having formerly lived in that area) that cutting back 55 local service would leave it too sparse, unless the idea is to get people to walk a couple of blocks more to the express stop (even more west of St. Louis).

Any comments?

[BusHunter]

I noted this Press Release, saying that CTA was increasing the express bus frequency on X49, X55, and X80, while cutting down the frequency on the underlying local routes, at least on an experimental basis.

While they probably could do that on 49 and 80, it seems to be (having formerly lived in that area) that cutting back 55 local service would leave it too sparse, unless the idea is to get people to walk a couple of blocks more to the express stop (even more west of St. Louis).

Any comments?

Sounds like an overall reduction in buses on the streets. On the irving Pk corridor usually a one way trip end to end is about an hour locally. Express is about 40 - 45 minutes. Increasing service on express eliminates roughly 40 -45 minutes of time round trip if you were going to tweak the locals. Taking buses off the local slower service frees up more buses that wouldn't all be needed for the expresses. The result less buses. Probably what would really get the riders in is expanding the X service to more routes, especially if the BRT project tanks. I know 79th could use some express buses. 32 buses on one route at a time is quite a lot to keep it local. Maybe that's the long term goal. If that was done to all routes that have expresses it would free up more buses to put on new x routes to come.

[Busjack]

Sounds like an overall reduction in buses on the streets.

I guess that depends on speculation on how much the locals would be cut back. From your saying that an express bus can finish a round trip faster than a local, it doesn't necessarily mean a 1 for 1.

I guess you are interpreting "not increase cost" as "probably reducing costs," which is possible.

At least, unlike what I previously told BusExpert, one can no longer assume that express routes will simply be added to the locals, without reallocating the resource.

[BusExpert32]

Sounds like an overall reduction in buses on the streets. On the irving Pk corridor usually a one way trip end to end is about an hour locally. Express is about 40 - 45 minutes. Increasing service on express eliminates roughly 40 -45 minutes of time round trip if you were going to tweak the locals. Taking buses off the local slower service frees up more buses that wouldn't all be needed for the expresses. The result less buses. Probably what would really get the riders in is expanding the X service to more routes, especially if the BRT project tanks. I know 79th could use some express buses. 32 buses on one route at a time is quite a lot to keep it local. Maybe that's the long term goal. If that was done to all routes that have expresses it would free up more buses to put on new x routes to come.

Yes. It would be a good idea to still create a new X66, X8, and X79 if the BRT project tanks.

[Guest]

You know I never liked the X designation in front of the number. I wish they would just name the route number then the X for express buses like the rest of routes with letters. For example, 80X, 9X, 3X, 49X, etc..... I never liked X21, X55, or X80. I never call it by its letter. I always just call it f.e.(80 Express).

[geneking7320]

:)

You know I never liked the X designation in front of the number. I wish they would just name the route number then the X for express buses like the rest of routes with letters. For example, 80X, 9X, 3X, 49X, etc..... I never liked X21, X55, or X80. I never call it by its letter. I always just call it f.e.(80 Express).

Great minds think alike.

I would go further and say that many CTA routes should renumed nL (n = route number) because

they really have limited stops (ie, every 4 blocks,etc) as opposed to a long express zone [like #147 for example].

Gene King

[Busjack]

Great minds think alike.

I would go further and say that many CTA routes should renumed nL (n = route number) because

they really have limited stops (ie, every 4 blocks,etc) as opposed to a long express zone [like #147 for example].

Gene King

Definitely old school folks, like me.

At least in the old days, the X was after the route number on the map.

There was also a distinction between a limited and express, indicated by Gene, although foggy on Addison.

Basically the two inconsistencies that bother me:

1. Some route numbers have X, others like 2, 6, 14, the 130s and 140s just have route numbers. Unless there is a distinction based on whether there is a local and express on the same street, that doesn't make much sense.
   
   For consistency sake, there should just be 14 and X14 on Jeffery. One could argue that the routes are different because 14 goes downtown and 15 doesn't, but X28 goes downtown and 28 doesn't.
   
   I suppose some of that goes back to the 1976 signs and renumbering. As indicated on 5750's sign, 147 could have been 151X.
   
   
2. There still is the 53AL.
   

[busfan4022]

You know I never liked the X designation in front of the number. I wish they would just name the route number then the X for express buses like the rest of routes with letters. For example, 80X, 9X, 3X, 49X, etc..... I never liked X21, X55, or X80. I never call it by its letter. I always just call it f.e.(80 Express).

If the rename happens, will the 54B become the B54?

[cta_44499_FG]

Definitely old school folks, like me.

At least in the old days, the X was after the route number on the map.

There was also a distinction between a limited and express, indicated by Gene, although foggy on Addison.

Basically the two inconsistencies that bother me:

1. Some route numbers have X, others like 2, 6, 14, the 130s and 140s just have route numbers. Unless there is a distinction based on whether there is a local and express on the same street, that doesn't make much sense.
   
   For consistency sake, there should just be 14 and X14 on Jeffery. One could argue that the routes are different because 14 goes downtown and 15 doesn't, but X28 goes downtown and 28 doesn't.
   
   I suppose some of that goes back to the 1976 signs and renumbering. As indicated on 5750's sign, 147 could have been 151X.
   
   
2. There still is the 53AL.
   

But remember this:

1- The routes that have an "X" in front of them operate on the same street as their locals, like X80 for example. The X80 doesn't go downtown and doesn't have a large express zone,however, it skips stops on the street of its local vs continuous miles of stops skipped (i.e 147).

2- The express "routes", namely the ones you speak of...serve a continuous stretch of the line "local" and then run express for several miles before making its next stop (i.e 14 at 11th and Columbus).

However, I do agree with inconsistency in the fact that the 53AL could be labeled under #1, yet it retains such a route number.

I suppose the X53A sounds too funny.

Also in reference to the X80, just like the comment was made regarding cutting 55 local service down not such a good endeavor, I wonder if CTA is considering the X80's operating variations. By this, I mean the fact that the X80 only operates to the Harlem/Irving Park terminus during AM/PM rush periods, while it terminates at the Irving Park/Keystone/Blue Line terminus during other times and weekends. If they are going to increase it's frequency at all times then it would also be logical to run the line to Harlem at all times. Cumberland would be a waste as there's not very much going on down there anyhow, and I can't see a bus breezing about 12-14 blocks worth of street and any passenger that may be down there. Otherwise, there is going to be a greater headway west of the midday terminus, and the local buses will be serving a greater load (mind you, most of the trips to Irving/Keystone are basically empty anyhow), and the Harlem-Irving Plaza is a major traffic generator for the line. Why this has not be thought of already is beyond me, but I suppose we shall see with this experiment? Time will tell.

Let's just hope they don't run into the same trouble as was, resulting in all the daytime 80s being sent all the way to Cumberland, vs alternating service turning back at Harlem, and that was the Norridge police complaining that too many buses were sitting in the street...when the bus enclave there only holds two. Go figure. Now only the very early and late night trips turn back east at Harlem, with a few in the rush but not as many.

With all that said, I'm still asking myself how this line was never extended west at all times...but a route like the 49, which has a superior amount of ridership compared to the latter, hasn't found itself an 'X' on weekends still 10 years later. <_<

[Busjack]

If the rename happens, will the 54B become the B54?

Points out another inconsistency, however.

Apparently the Ns and Xs got put on the front, to distinguish other things after the number. 55N is the Naragansett bus, not the Garfield night bus, which presumably is N55.

However, at one point, the idea was to put directional indicators on the routes, such as 81W and 90N. However, that was not consistently implemented, as, since you noted, there are still all sorts of A and B routes.

Fortunately, however, Mayor Daley quashed Kruesi's plan to renumber all routes.

BTW, I agreed with most of FG's observations regarding numbering, but noted inconsistencies, such as X28. However, Gene and I would argue that most of the Xs under that rationale should be Limiteds.

I also agree with his observation on X route variations, also noting that X55 is rush hour only. We'll have to see from the schedules to be posted what the actual effects on 55 and 80 will be.

[BusHunter]

Definitely old school folks, like me.

At least in the old days, the X was after the route number on the map.

There was also a distinction between a limited and express, indicated by Gene, although foggy on Addison.

Basically the two inconsistencies that bother me:

1. Some route numbers have X, others like 2, 6, 14, the 130s and 140s just have route numbers. Unless there is a distinction based on whether there is a local and express on the same street, that doesn't make much sense.
   
   For consistency sake, there should just be 14 and X14 on Jeffery. One could argue that the routes are different because 14 goes downtown and 15 doesn't, but X28 goes downtown and 28 doesn't.
   
   I suppose some of that goes back to the 1976 signs and renumbering. As indicated on 5750's sign, 147 could have been 151X.
   
   
2. There still is the 53AL.
   

That's where the old roll signs beat the newer type digital signs. They had red signs with white lettering for the express routes and upon glancing at the front of the bus you immediately knew it was an express bus. Just the other day I saw a NaBI signed for the #X3 but strangely enough the front sign just said #3 (something was wrong with the sign it just showed dots where the X should've been) although it did say King Drive Exp, the first thing a rider looks at is the number in the downtown area. Perhaps red digital signs would help but I don't know if they'd be that noticeable like the amber signs. That's also one area when the #5000 railcars come in that will be difficult. The colors of the line will somewhat lose their identity with amber signs. Everything would seem to blend in with no distinction. It should be fun on the loop "L". Digital colors would bring the new age in sync with the classic rail line colors all Chicagoians are familier with.

[cta_44499_FG]

Points out another inconsistency, however.

Apparently the Ns and Xs got put on the front, to distinguish other things after the number. 55N is the Naragansett bus, not the Garfield night bus, which presumably is N55.

However, at one point, the idea was to put directional indicators on the routes, such as 81W and 90N. However, that was not consistently implemented, as, since you noted, there are still all sorts of A and B routes.

Fortunately, however, Mayor Daley quashed Kruesi's plan to renumber all routes.

BTW, I agreed with most of FG's observations regarding numbering, but noted inconsistencies, such as X28. However, Gene and I would argue that most of the Xs under that rationale should be Limiteds.

I also agree with his observation on X route variations, also noting that X55 is rush hour only. We'll have to see from the schedules to be posted what the actual effects on 55 and 80 will be.

As I stated...I still question that the Irving Park corridor has an express on the weekend which doesn't go or service very much, yet Western which has far more superior ridership hasn't found such in the 10 years the express has been present...much like the latter.

I could still see an X80 (or 80X to please many ) being of use if it were used to the effectiveness of servicing the Harlem-Irving Plaza at ALL times. Not only would this ease loads on the local (and perhaps even make this plan work)....but it would certainly assist in the masses of cattle headed for that mall on the weekends (ala the late X21).

Which brings me to another question. Correct me if I was wrong, the X21 only ran weekends correct? Why was it cut?

[Busjack]

Which brings me to another question. Correct me if I was wrong, the X21 only ran weekends correct? Why was it cut?

It existed only because the Douglas L was closed for reconstruction over the weekend, and ended when that construction did, or, officially, when weekend service on the L was reinstated.

[jajuan]

It existed only because the Douglas L was closed for reconstruction over the weekend, and ended when that construction did, or, officially, when weekend service on the L was reinstated.

True in a way, but it was moreso the part that there was no official weekend service on the Douglas L since weekend service was nixed three or four years before the start of the reconstruction. X21 came about in Dec of 1998 as I recall.

[jacksone44]

Definitely old school folks, like me.

At least in the old days, the X was after the route number on the map.

There was also a distinction between a limited and express, indicated by Gene, although foggy on Addison.

Basically the two inconsistencies that bother me:

1. Some route numbers have X, others like 2, 6, 14, the 130s and 140s just have route numbers. Unless there is a distinction based on whether there is a local and express on the same street, that doesn't make much sense.
   
   For consistency sake, there should just be 14 and X14 on Jeffery. One could argue that the routes are different because 14 goes downtown and 15 doesn't, but X28 goes downtown and 28 doesn't.
   
   I suppose some of that goes back to the 1976 signs and renumbering. As indicated on 5750's sign, 147 could have been 151X.
   
   
2. There still is the 53AL.
   

I agree with you.

[CircleSeven]

So in this case, while you stand at a stop and see the next few buses in a few minutes, instead of seeing 2 Express buses & 2 Locals, you would probably see 3 Exps & 1 local. Garfield is really going to hit hard because besides the eastern portion of the route (from Cottage to MSI), most riders between Western (if not Kedzie) and King Drive get board & alight on the local stops. This would have the local buses get too congested, which would force people to walk a couple of blocks to catch the X55. If that's mostly the case, they could at least add some selective stops on Wood, Loomis Blvd., Morgan & Michigan (EB)/Indiana (WB).

And even though Western could work with some more express buses, I hope the headway would be at least 12 minutes (instead of 15) because there might be at least a half of folks are getting on at the non-express stops. There has to be some sort of balance so once this spring pick goes into effect, I'm hoping they can think hard of which more runs will be express, while not having passengers on the non-express stops wait for a long period of time.

I do have to agree with a few of you that I'm not thrilled about the prefixed "X", especially back when they changed the 3L (and even remembered when it was just the "3") King Drive Limited (remember those smaller bus stop signs and the letters & the map graph were Evergreen?) and became the X3 Express over five years ago.