Destination Signs

[MCTSmke]

I was reading some of the posts about destination sign issues, which made me want to ask this question: what do you think are best practices for effective destination sign readings?

For example, in Milwaukee, we have only the final destination displayed on our signs, (using a Chicago route) ours would read:

151 DEVON

Do you like the Chicago version better, with the route name and the word "to":

151 SHERIDAN

151 to DEVON/CLARK

Are their any other ideas that people think would work better (besides spelling the streets correctly, lol, as I have seen this to be a problem from a number of other posts). For example, should the direction be shown:

151 SHERIDAN NB

151 to DEVON/CLARK

Should short trips say "short trip" on their signs like they do in Toronto?:

151 SHERIDAN

151 to FOSTER

151 SHORT TRIP

Just curious to know what people think is the most effective way to convey the destination sign information to customers.

[Busjack]

Rough opinions:

• The CTA method of displaying the route name is generally better than Pace's inconsistent policy in this regard, although I noted the 145 exception.
  
• The "to" should be lower case on the destination reading, not the route one.
  
• The destination should be the extremity of the route, instead of an arbitrary time point (i.e. 12 Roosevelt ends at Indiana and 18th, not 16th as on the sign).
  
• A short turn indicator would be helpful. I still like the pre-1976 red slash through the route number, if such could be generated electronically today. I suppose that a custom number font could be downloaded.
  
• I also favor the old policy that the street on which the bus is when it hits the extremity should be listed first, such as Peterson to Caldwell/Central, not to Central/Caldwell.
  
• The destination should be a complete intersection name if the first part is not implied by the route name, such as 36 Broadway to Wells/Harrison, not to Harrison. CTA seems to be getting better with regard to that, such as concerning trainman's complaint about the old Peterson sign.
  
• Flip the sign as many times as necessary to accomplish the preceding.
  
• One for Pace: Bring back the word "via" instead of flashing intermediate points or streets.
  

Now something completely off the wall: Use a graphic if the destination is a train or rapid transit system. If either CTA or Pace had purchased multicolor signs, the graphic should be in the color of the train line. Thus, Howard Red Line would be just Howard with a picture of a multicolored (Red, Yellow, and Purple) front of a L car.

[Guest]

I was reading some of the posts about destination sign issues, which made me want to ask this question: what do you think are best practices for effective destination sign readings?

For example, in Milwaukee, we have only the final destination displayed on our signs, (using a Chicago route) ours would read:

151 DEVON

Do you like the Chicago version better, with the route name and the word "to":

151 SHERIDAN

151 to DEVON/CLARK

Are their any other ideas that people think would work better (besides spelling the streets correctly, lol, as I have seen this to be a problem from a number of other posts). For example, should the direction be shown:

151 SHERIDAN NB

151 to DEVON/CLARK

Should short trips say "short trip" on their signs like they do in Toronto?:

151 SHERIDAN

151 to FOSTER

151 SHORT TRIP

Just curious to know what people think is the most effective way to convey the destination sign information to customers.

With Valentine's Day upon us how about a red wrapped CTA bus with the destination sign that reads "THIS BUS FOR LOVERS ONLY" :)

[jajuan]

I was reading some of the posts about destination sign issues, which made me want to ask this question: what do you think are best practices for effective destination sign readings?

For example, in Milwaukee, we have only the final destination displayed on our signs, (using a Chicago route) ours would read:

151 DEVON

Do you like the Chicago version better, with the route name and the word "to":

151 SHERIDAN

151 to DEVON/CLARK

Are their any other ideas that people think would work better (besides spelling the streets correctly, lol, as I have seen this to be a problem from a number of other posts). For example, should the direction be shown:

151 SHERIDAN NB

151 to DEVON/CLARK

Should short trips say "short trip" on their signs like they do in Toronto?:

151 SHERIDAN

151 to FOSTER

151 SHORT TRIP

Just curious to know what people think is the most effective way to convey the destination sign information to customers.

Putting just the destination as in your example wouldn't work here because people are so used to seeing the name of the route on the destination sign that without inserting the 'to', the destination would be mistaken for the name of the route. The short trip indication would be helpful for people who don't normally use a certain route, such as out of towners, people new to the city or people new to that particular area of the city. Putting the direction on the destination sign would be redundant because the direction is indicated on te bus stop signs.

[MCTSmke]

Putting the direction on the destination sign would be redundant because the direction is indicated on te bus stop signs.

That is one of the problem with the bus stops here in Milwaukee, they don't show anything more than the route name and number. I've seen a number of people get on a bus downtown in the wrong direction.

I've always liked the CTA signs that give much more information.

[Busjack]

That is one of the problem with the bus stops here in Milwaukee, they don't show anything more than the route name and number. I've seen a number of people get on a bus downtown in the wrong direction.

Sort of like Pace. As far as I know the only Pace bus that has EASTBOUND and WESTBOUND is 208. I thought people knew where Evanston and Schaumburg are, but maybe not. Also, further reflection indicates that there are a number of places where both directions use the same stop--Golf Mill, Oakton, and Old Orchard.

For that matter, both directions of CTA 54A and 205 use the same stop at Old Orchard, and hence the bus stop sign does not distinguish directions. However, I assume that people knew the difference between Skokie Courthouse and the other terminal (Irving Park Blue Line or Howard Red Line).

Which gets me back to another of my pet peeves. 422 uses the same loop in Glenview coming and going. However, if the sign doesn't change at Northbrook Court, you can't tell which is which, especially on Saturday when both buses are there at about :38 (actually about :44). Sometimes the distinction is noticeable if the bus to Linden is running the usual (but incorrect) Lake Ave.{flip}Linden CTA, but not as much if it is running the correct Glenview {flip}Old Orchard {flip} Linden CTA one (the reverse route is Old Orchard {flip} Glenview {flip} Northbrk Ct).

And, of course, direction wise, what would one do with routes such as 423, which is officially northbound on Harlem, but actually southbound on Sheridan, as well as all the circular routes being established? At least the one CTA circular route (127), where they couldn't figure out to change the sign, was discontinued.

To throw out another CTA peeve--unless things recently changed, 55, X55 and 63 go to Midway Station, while 59 goes to Orange Line, but both are the same place. Is there a distinction because Midway Station is essentially on 59th?

[pudgym29]

Rough opinions:

• The CTA method of displaying the route name is generally better than Pace's inconsistent policy in this regard, although I noted the 145 exception.
  
• The "to" should be lower case on the destination reading, not the route one.
  
• The destination should be the extremity of the route, instead of an arbitrary time point (i.e. 12 Roosevelt ends at Indiana and 18th, not 16th as on the sign).
  
• A short turn indicator would be helpful. I still like the pre-1976 red slash through the route number, if such could be generated electronically today. I suppose that a custom number font could be downloaded.
  
• I also favor the old policy that the street on which the bus is when it hits the extremity should be listed first, such as Peterson to Caldwell/Central, not to Central/Caldwell.
  
• The destination should be a complete intersection name if the first part is not implied by the route name, such as 36 Broadway to Wells/Harrison, not to Harrison. CTA seems to be getting better with regard to that, such as concerning trainman's complaint about the old Peterson sign.
  
• Flip the sign as many times as necessary to accomplish the preceding.
  
• One for Pace: Bring back the word "via" instead of flashing intermediate points or streets.
  

Now something completely off the wall: Use a graphic if the destination is a train or rapid transit system. If either CTA or Pace had purchased multicolor signs, the graphic should be in the color of the train line. Thus, Howard Red Line would be just Howard with a picture of a multicolored (Red, Yellow, and Purple) front of a L car.

Are CTA bus flip-dot signs multi-color? I interpret this as "no".

As for short-turn runs, is the route number part of the sign a separate frame from the route destination part?

If "yes", then for a short-turn run, use reverse video [i.e.: rather than light on dark, use dark on light] to distinguish that.

I have seen route #68 NW Hwy Nova buses from Forest Glen with destinations in mixed case. But that's the only route on which I have seen it, and not on every Nova bus on there.

Can short-turn runs be extensively indicated in mixed case?

[cta_44499_FG]

Are CTA bus flip-dot signs multi-color? I interpret this as "no".

As for short-turn runs, is the route number part of the sign a separate frame from the route destination part?

If "yes", then for a short-turn run, use reverse video [i.e.: rather than light on dark, use dark on light] to distinguish that.

I have seen route #68 NW Hwy Nova buses from Forest Glen with destinations in mixed case. But that's the only route on which I have seen it, and not on every Nova bus on there.

Can short-turn runs be extensively indicated in mixed case?

In the old flip dot signage (5300 Flxible, TMC RTS), the route number had its own frame, i.e it ran separately from the word text. It was just a simple matter of programming it to display on both route and destination texts...otherwise the result was a blank (NO NUMBER) with a "TO" destination. Otherwise, it would be constant re-aligning of the number and text to keep the sign text "centered" so to speak. On the newer series in service now, I'm not sure if this is the case or not.

I am positive that it was at least this way on the vehicles using the Vultron TRANS DDT equipment. I am not sure what the situation is with Vultron or any other of the recent and present equipment.

I will say that I agree with the concept of CTAs sign displays. I only have a problem with ones that aren't exactly correct such as the 22 CLARK // 22 HOWARD/RED LINE signage (as well as the other lines serving that station), due to the fact that Howard is served by three rail lines. Perhaps HOWARD STATION is the better approach? Might I note that the exterior audio now simply says "HOWARD" rather then "RED LINE" as well.

I do agree with busjack that the street the route takes to reach its terminal should be displayed first (ie 36 to DEVON/CLARK), NOT the other way around. I do NOT like the 56 MILWAUKEE // 56 to WASH/MICHIGAN display (or as the Flxibles put 56 to WASH/MICH). It bugs me, also considering that the bus loops at actually terminates on Madison. But while we are it, for the sake of consistency in that matter, then the 20 MADISON should also say TO WASH/MICHIGAN since it follows the same loop as the 56.

The route name as just the destination without a TO wouldn't work, like the 151 DEVON example, simply for the fact to name one that its too close to the actual Devon ave. route, 155 DEVON. People would confuse it in that matter. And with other lines that also terminate at or somewhere along Devon (36, 136, 151, and in some cases 147), it would be just to downright confusing.

[cta5300]

I was reading some of the posts about destination sign issues, which made me want to ask this question: what do you think are best practices for effective destination sign readings?

For example, in Milwaukee, we have only the final destination displayed on our signs, (using a Chicago route) ours would read:

151 DEVON

Do you like the Chicago version better, with the route name and the word "to":

151 SHERIDAN

151 to DEVON/CLARK

Are their any other ideas that people think would work better (besides spelling the streets correctly, lol, as I have seen this to be a problem from a number of other posts). For example, should the direction be shown:

151 SHERIDAN NB

151 to DEVON/CLARK

Should short trips say "short trip" on their signs like they do in Toronto?:

151 SHERIDAN

151 to FOSTER

151 SHORT TRIP

Just curious to know what people think is the most effective way to convey the destination sign information to customers.

i like the first one becasue you don't need the route name becasue the route is on the bus stop so y do they need it on the bus

[Busjack]

Are CTA bus flip-dot signs multi-color? I interpret this as "no".

No, just green. That's why it said it was off the wall. About 99% of all signs would need to be replaced. However, the ones in the Novas may be about time (using the 6000s as comparison).

As for short-turn runs, is the route number part of the sign a separate frame from the route destination part?

If "yes", then for a short-turn run, use reverse video [i.e.: rather than light on dark, use dark on light] to distinguish that.

With the retirement of 4400s and 5300s, and replacement signs in 5800s and 6000s, the answer is no (although Luminator indicates that its signs are modular). However, that doesn't seem to preclude using reverse characters. For instance, they used to be on the X21, X49 and X55 (X49 were Novas). If they can show Santa's sleigh...

[trainman8119]

I will say that I agree with the concept of CTAs sign displays. I only have a problem with ones that aren't exactly correct such as the 22 CLARK // 22 HOWARD/RED LINE signage (as well as the other lines serving that station), due to the fact that Howard is served by three rail lines. Perhaps HOWARD STATION is the better approach? Might I note that the exterior audio now simply says "HOWARD" rather then "RED LINE" as well.

I do agree with busjack that the street the route takes to reach its terminal should be displayed first (ie 36 to DEVON/CLARK), NOT the other way around. I do NOT like the 56 MILWAUKEE // 56 to WASH/MICHIGAN display (or as the Flxibles put 56 to WASH/MICH). It bugs me, also considering that the bus loops at actually terminates on Madison.

Some of the newer signage on the 147 displays 3 lines. 147 Outer Drive Exp...flip...147 to Howard...flip Red Line. I do agree with dropping the "Red Line" part to make it truely accurate.

As for the 56, saying Wash/Michigan is correct as that is as far as the bus actually goes. The bus stop between Wabash and Michigan for the 20 and 56 indicates that passengers should not board those routes at that location. I am still looking for "Wash" street !!!!

[Busjack]

Some of the newer signage on the 147 displays 3 lines. 147 Outer Drive Exp...flip...147 to Howard...flip Red Line. I do agree with dropping the "Red Line" part to make it truely accurate.

As for the 56, saying Wash/Michigan is correct as that is as far as the bus actually goes. The bus stop between Wabash and Michigan for the 20 and 56 indicates that passengers should not board those routes at that location. I am still looking for "Wash" street !!!!

Except that the sign usually is Washington-Mich. There are a lot of buses that run or end on Mich. In fact, is there any bus signed Michigan?

The debate on the cross-town buses whether the sign says just Mich or Washington-Mich seems to go back to when the reverse bus lanes were proposed (i.e. the bus eastbound on Madison), as well as whether to say that the Madison bus ends at Washington-Mich, or just use the route name.

[trainman8119]

I am looking for Chicago and Mich too !!!!

As a funny thought, though, I tried to Google map 800 N. Mich Ave, in Chicago and

got an address for 800 N Chicago in Michigan City.

[Guest ctafan630]

I was reading some of the posts about destination sign issues, which made me want to ask this question: what do you think are best practices for effective destination sign readings?

For example, in Milwaukee, we have only the final destination displayed on our signs, (using a Chicago route) ours would read:

151 DEVON

Do you like the Chicago version better, with the route name and the word "to":

151 SHERIDAN

151 to DEVON/CLARK

Are their any other ideas that people think would work better (besides spelling the streets correctly, lol, as I have seen this to be a problem from a number of other posts). For example, should the direction be shown:

151 SHERIDAN NB

151 to DEVON/CLARK

Should short trips say "short trip" on their signs like they do in Toronto?:

151 SHERIDAN

151 to FOSTER

151 SHORT TRIP

Just curious to know what people think is the most effective way to convey the destination sign information to customers.

Just the route name doesn't tell you anything about where the bus is going.

Having the direction in the description doesn't help when you have a bus route thats makes a circle like the #64 or #69.

Having "Short trip" in the sign doesn't provide much more information either in my opinion. If the bus only goes a far as Foster, then that is where it goes. As a rider I just need to know where the bus is going. I think most tourists would agree that is what they need to know. Why would a tourist need to know if the run is a full run or a short trip?

The standard should be the Route Name to Destination. This should be accomplished with either two flips or three or by using smaller font to get the full route name and full destination on the sign.

[MCTSmke]

I am looking for Chicago and Mich too !!!!

As a funny thought, though, I tried to Google map 800 N. Mich Ave, in Chicago and

got an address for 800 N Chicago in Michigan City.

My favorite was Dear/Kinzie, I spent a good half hour trying to find that intersection on the map once, lol. I honestly did not realize that Dear was a shortened name until I saw it brought up on here.

Sort of like Pace. As far as I know the only Pace bus that has EASTBOUND and WESTBOUND is 208. I thought people knew where Evanston and Schaumburg are, but maybe not. Also, further reflection indicates that there are a number of places where both directions use the same stop--Golf Mill, Oakton, and Old Orchard.

For that matter, both directions of CTA 54A and 205 use the same stop at Old Orchard, and hence the bus stop sign does not distinguish directions. However, I assume that people knew the difference between Skokie Courthouse and the other terminal (Irving Park Blue Line or Howard Red Line).

One time I was trying to take a Pace bus westbound from a Metra station, but little did I know that the WB busses stopped EB on the street and EB busses boarded WB on the street.

When the bus arrived the destination sign didn't help me because I really did not know where the destination shown actually was (it was my first time on that route in a new area) so I asked the operator if he was going to the Blue line station. He gave me attitude and said "does the sign say...[such and such]". As if I should magicaly know what the sign would say when it was my frist time on that route. If that route had the "Eastbound" "Westbound" signs like the 208 does then I would have known that something was wrong.

[MCTSmke]

Just the route name doesn't tell you anything about where the bus is going.

Having the direction in the description doesn't help when you have a bus route thats makes a circle like the #64 or #69.

A loop can be considered a direction as shown in the examples below, or they could simply be exceptions. I do agree however that for the most part the CTA is pretty good with the information on their bus stops so that a direction on the signs would not be needed (Pace on the other hand could use such a system)

64 FOSTER-CANFIELD

64 HARLEM STA LOOP

69 CUMBERLAND

69 EAST RIVER

69 BLUE LINE LOOP

(and for reverse direction)

69 EAST RIVER

69 CUMBERLAND

69 BLUE LINE LOOP

Having "Short trip" in the sign doesn't provide much more information either in my opinion. If the bus only goes a far as Foster, then that is where it goes. As a rider I just need to know where the bus is going. I think most tourists would agree that is what they need to know. Why would a tourist need to know if the run is a full run or a short trip?

If someone is not familiar with the area and they do not know where any of the streets are then such an indicator can be helpful. I'll give an example (I'll use an example from Milwaukee so the area is not so familiar):

You look at the Milwaukee system map and see that Rt. 80 goes to the Airport, the line for the route also goes past the Airport to some unlabeled location south of the Airport. A bus approaches with a "80 LAYTON" sign...

Does this bus go to the Airport?

Is Layton the end of the route (where the line on the map ends), or some point prior?

(P.S. All of these have happened to me at some point in time when I have been in a different city)

• You could assume that the trip goes the length of the route, only to be surprised and confused when the bus turns somewhere not shown on the map (to do the turnaround loop).

• You could look at the map and try to find the street that the sign says (this would get rather hard if you had to do this after every single time you got on a bus, plus if the street is not a major street you might never find it on the map).

• You could ask every operator if they serve your stop (if your stop is a minor one then they might not even know where it is either, plus some might get an attitude with you if you ask them for help)

If the sign said "80 LAYTON" // "80 SHORT TRIP" then you would have a better idea that the bus does not go to the end of the line on the map. If it did NOT have the short trip indicator then you wouldn't have to worry about getting dumped off at some random location because you would know that the bus would serve all stops along on the route (including yours, where ever it may be)

(this is just a random example, and i'm not arguing that this is the best method either. I'm just throwing ideas out there)

[rmadisonwi]

If the sign said "80 LAYTON" // "80 SHORT TRIP" then you would have a better idea that the bus does not go to the end of the line.

But, in your example, it still wouldn't tell you whether or not the bus was going to the airport.

Milwaukee is generally better at using "via" in their signs, but that's largely a function of the fact that there are so many damn branches on their routes. Even then, though, some could be better (like "15 Drexel via 15th," where I once had an extensive discussion with the former director of marketing about why they couldn't change the sign to say "via Clement" since few people actually knew which "15th" that sign was in reference to; his response furthered my belief that the company's upper management of the day was totally out of touch with the riders they served...but I digress...).

Then you have examples like Vancouver, where they don't really have a standard. Generally, most of their signs indicate route number and destination (similar to the Milwaukee example). Then you get a few of their routes that list route number and name (which is the primary street on which the bus operates). So, you'll have a bus on Main Street that says "3 MAIN". Well, I'm already on Main Street. Where is the bus going, exactly? Similar situation for the 4 POWELL, 5 ROBSON, 6 DAVIE, 7 DUNBAR (the other direction at least says "NANAIMO STN" indicating the actual destination), 8 FRASER, 10 HASTINGS (one direction), 10 GRANVILLE (other direction), etc. (and just as a tiny little tidbit, their 22 KNIGHT bus operates a ways along Clark, 'twould be funny if it was the 22 Clark).

Or, you could take Edmonton, where their short turns actually carry a different route number (route 5 is the long trip, route 135 follows the same routing, but only goes part way).

Long story short, I think you could make arguments for and against each method out there. In the end, nothing is going to work for everybody, and most people won't read the signs anyway.

[MCTSmke]

Long story short, I think you could make arguments for and against each method out there. In the end, nothing is going to work for everybody, and most people won't read the signs anyway.

Yeah, that seems to be what I see out there. The only people who look at the signs are the ones that already know where the route is going.

(P.S. I completely agree about the 15 via 15th sign, thats one of the things I want to get changed one day)

[Guest ctafan630]

If someone is not familiar with the area and they do not know where any of the streets are then such an indicator can be helpful. I'll give an example (I'll use an example from Milwaukee so the area is not so familiar):

You look at the Milwaukee system map and see that Rt. 80 goes to the Airport, the line for the route also goes past the Airport to some unlabeled location south of the Airport. A bus approaches with a "80 LAYTON" sign...

Does this bus go to the Airport?

Is Layton the end of the route (where the line on the map ends), or some point prior?

(P.S. All of these have happened to me at some point in time when I have been in a different city)

• You could assume that the trip goes the length of the route, only to be surprised and confused when the bus turns somewhere not shown on the map (to do the turnaround loop).

• You could look at the map and try to find the street that the sign says (this would get rather hard if you had to do this after every single time you got on a bus, plus if the street is not a major street you might never find it on the map).

• You could ask every operator if they serve your stop (if your stop is a minor one then they might not even know where it is either, plus some might get an attitude with you if you ask them for help)

If the sign said "80 LAYTON" // "80 SHORT TRIP" then you would have a better idea that the bus does not go to the end of the line on the map. If it did NOT have the short trip indicator then you wouldn't have to worry about getting dumped off at some random location because you would know that the bus would serve all stops along on the route (including yours, where ever it may be)

(this is just a random example, and i'm not arguing that this is the best method either. I'm just throwing ideas out there)

[Busjack]

How will any of these potential signs help me know where Oak Park is since I am not familiar with the streets?

152 Addison to Central (short trip)

152 Addison to Austin (short trip)

152 Addsion to Harlem (short trip)

In about 99% of the cases the person waiting for the bus will ask the bus driver if he/she is going as far as Oak Park before boarding the bus to see if the bus is going where they need to go.

For another discussion what would you consider a short trip? The 151 Sheridan makes trips to Belmont & Halsted. In my opinion this is not a short trip since the run serves a dedicated terminal even though the terminal is not terminal at the end of the route.

As far as 151 Sheridan, either Belmont-Halsted is the short trip, or because the routes are not congruent (in that the 151 to Devon/Arthur-Clark/Ashland (same place) doesn't run on Belmont), 151 goes back to being the 153 Sheridan -Belmont (thus making the sign people gripe about, at least on the 156, relevant). Of course, there would still be the short turn that ends at Sheridan-Belmont instead of Belmont-Halsted.

As far as the Addison examples, your later statement that "In about 99% of the cases the person waiting for the bus will ask the bus driver.." pretty well sums it up and makes it moot, since people don't trust the signs on the front of the bus, often for good reason. Thus, any short turn indicator would have to be coordinated with enforcing that the destination signs are programmed properly and mean what they say. Given the reports of the northbound 147 to Mich-Balbo, we aren't there yet.

[MCTSmke]

How will any of these potential signs help me know where Oak Park is since I am not familiar with the streets?

It's not the presence of the indicator that is helpful... it is the LACK of an indicator that would be helpful (assuming they were used regularly). If there is an indicator then the I still would have to ask the operator if my stop was served regardless. However, if there was no indicator, then I would assume that the route goes to the end of the line on the map and serves all points on the route thereby avoiding having to ask the operator or get rudely scolded by the operator for not knowing (sadly I see it happen to customers on all systems often).

Again, I'm not arguing that this IS a good idea, just discussing various ideas and the pros and cons to them to see of there are any better concepts on how to convey information to customers in ways that might not have been thought of. I'll leave this idea in the no pile.

[Guest ctafan630]

It's not the presence of the indicator that is helpful... it is the LACK of an indicator that would be helpful (assuming they were used regularly). If there is an indicator then the I still would have to ask the operator if my stop was served regardless. However, if there was no indicator, then I would assume that the route goes to the end of the line on the map and serves all points on the route thereby avoiding having to ask the operator or get rudely scolded by the operator for not knowing (sadly I see it happen to customers on all systems often).

Again, I'm not arguing that this IS a good idea, just discussing various ideas and the pros and cons to them to see of there are any better concepts on how to convey information to customers in ways that might not have been thought of. I'll leave this idea in the no pile.

I still don't understand how an indicator will help people based on your original statement of "If someone is not familiar with the area and they do not know where any of the streets are then such an indicator can be helpful."

If people are not familiar with the streets an indicator on a sign will not give them any more information as to whether their stop is before or after "short trip".

In your reply above you are now saying if there is no indicator the bus serves all stops on the route because you looked at a map. If you looked at a map one should be able to conclude the route terminal from the map. You could then assume that terminal is standard terminal for the route.

I agree with you up to this point.

However, why is it necessary to have a "Short trip" indicator if you already know by looking at a map and saw what the standard terminal is? If I looked at a map and saw the 151 goes from Union Station to Clark/Devon, I could conclude these are the two standard terminals. If a 151 shows up with a "To Foster" sign I would conclude this bus isnt going to its normal terminal - no indicator necessary.

[Guest ctafan630]

As far as 151 Sheridan, either Belmont-Halsted is the short trip, or because the routes are not congruent (in that the 151 to Devon/Arthur-Clark/Ashland (same place) doesn't run on Belmont), 151 goes back to being the 153 Sheridan -Belmont (thus making the sign people gripe about, at least on the 156, relevant). Of course, there would still be the short turn that ends at Sheridan-Belmont instead of Belmont-Halsted.

Based on what you have said you said a 151 to Belmont/Halsted would be a short trip. How would you classify a 77 EB to Belmont/Halsted versus a 77 to Lake Shore/Diversey? Is the trip to Belmont/Halsted a short trip or would you say the trip to Lake Short/Diversey is an extended trip?

[Busjack]

Based on what you have said you said a 151 to Belmont/Halsted would be a short trip. How would you classify a 77 EB to Belmont/Halsted versus a 77 to Lake Shore/Diversey? Is the trip to Belmont/Halsted a short trip or would you say the trip to Lake Short/Diversey is an extended trip?

Basically there are no extended trips (unless you want to throw in a couple of irregular school ones, such as 79 to the two schools). Basically, anything that doesn't go the full length of the line on the map is a short turn.

[cta_44499_FG]

Based on what you have said you said a 151 to Belmont/Halsted would be a short trip. How would you classify a 77 EB to Belmont/Halsted versus a 77 to Lake Shore/Diversey? Is the trip to Belmont/Halsted a short trip or would you say the trip to Lake Short/Diversey is an extended trip?

Depending on the time of day I would classify the EB 77 Belmont to Halsted a short trip, in such case it would be a switchback for a late bus as all the daytime trips are scheduled to go to St. Joseph Hospital (Diversey/Lake Shore). Later on at night, the trips then scale back to service between Cumberland and Halsted, and then the 'N' service existing between Central and Halsted.

On the flipside however, a trip from the east end to the Kimball/Blue Line would be a short trip in my eyes, as would a trip ending at the Octavia terminus.

The 151s to Belmont/Halsted are regularly scheduled trips, but of course are "short trips". One could even consider it a separate route due to the fact that it is operated out of a seperate (Kedzie) garage. At one time, North Park operated some of those runs as well, which have since then all been abolished to Kedzie. Let us not forget the 151 trips to just Belmont also. North Park's runs which terminate at Foster would be short trips from the North Park perspective, since they are not traveling to the routes normal northern terminus at Clark and Arthur. 'N' service is between Berwyn L and Union Station, with a seperate additional layover time at Washington/State.

For an extended trip, this would be the late Sunday/holiday 151 trips which travel all the way to Paulina and Howard (Red/Purple/Yellow) L station. Figured I refer to it as such since thats what Bustracker calls it too! Of course this is only a temporary extension for a few hours that eventually scales back to the 'N' service from Berwyn L on south. (Of course, I still question why these Howard trips even exist to begin with rather then extending 147s hours...but what do I know). :P