Night Owl Network

[Guest ChicagoRail]

Just my two cents: Have N5 follow Route #71 between 69th Red Line & 75th/South Shore, then the current route to/from 95th Red Line.

[NewFlyerMCI]

On 8/11/2022 at 10:30 AM, Anthony Devera said:

How does the following proposal sound:

• OWL service on route 71 between 69th Red Line and 91st/Commercial
• N9 gets cut to Ashland/95th
• OWL service on route 95 between 95th/Ashland and 91st/Commercial, interlining with N71 at 91st/Commercial
• Discontinue N5

I made this proposal such that it overlaps the daytime routes as much as possible, and it also provides better route spacing between 63rd and 79th. The only downside I can see with this proposal is that riders along Ashland lose the direct connection to 95th station.

Also, should this discussion be moved to a different topic? I believe this topic is supposed to be about the X4, not the N5.

You could just not cut the N9 service. This N95 (LOL) and N9 could just run together, or if duplication is that much of an issue, have the N95 end at 95th/Dan Ryan. The N34 still exists and that connection to the N9 might be important. 

[YoungBusLover]

On 8/2/2022 at 1:31 PM, NewFlyerMCI said:

• If CTA really marketed it, the Orange Line would do better than the N62. People are generally more comfortable taking the train than they are the bus. When I had late night shifts at FedEx, I would just uber to Midway instead of the company shuttle, b/c it only took us as far as 79th/Cicero, where I did not want to wait for a bus at past 11p at night, even with other people. Even in Philly, I didn't mind coming back from campus at 2a, 3a in the morning when the trains ran overnight, but definitely switched to Ubers once they suspended the service due to COVID, especially b/c I had to transfer
  • The real issue with this, again, is the fact that 9/10, you can't walk to anywhere residential in under 7-10 mins from an Orange Line station. You'd actually probably have to keep the N62 if other bus changes aren't made (N53 & N55 extensions, maybe a N8, etc), which sort of nixes the use of 24hr Orange Line. I'd love to see how much it would cost to keep 8 station managers and 2-3 operators active for 2-3 hours.
• I assumed part of the reason for the N87's routing was lack of driver facilities. I know 91st/Commercial doesn't have anything (another point for a 93rd/Exchange bus terminal) and I don't recall 87th/Western having anything either, so that leaves the Red Line. @YoungBusLover can you speak to this? Then, there's also your account of ridership, which doesn't surprise me.
• As @renardo870 said, any N28 would most likely have to go to 47th Red Line or, as I suggested, State/Washington. This one I can't really speculate how useful it'd be though.

The ridership plays a key role but also along with 87th and Damen being the only other location outside of 79th/Western having a secure safe bathroom to go to. Once you're over east you might as well hold it until you head back west to the red line. They should bring back these 4 configurations I posted below with the right promotion. The N87 going to 91st/Commercial via 79th/Western would generate some ridership since a lot of riders asked me about it in the past trying to catch the 49/X49. The N47 pretty much being the full route just running overnight would really benefit that entire corridor of blue collar workers EB/WB. The N20 going to Harlem/Lake should be diverted over to the Forest Park Blue Line reason being connections to early morning Pace buses added with there is a need for service in that general area. Why doesn't the 20 head over to Harlem let alone Forest Park? I know it may be Pace territory but... Lastly the N9 should go back to North/Clybourn having taken that route many times overnight hardly anyone is coming/going to North/Clark let alone towards North Ave, the overall ridership starts at the North/Clybourn Red line station.

[Busjack]

1. "With the right promotion:" Except for bar hoppers, there aren't any discretionary riders on Owl. Either people have to get to or from work or they don't.The analysis should be on where the hospitals,* nursing homes, foundries, etc. are, and not where you want a washroom.
2. "Pace territory:" The only reason CTA was running those buses was because it canceled Owl L runs. Apparently, there wasn't enough demand even for a bus. Since it is Pace territory, let Pace figure out the solution, which now seems to be TNF. Again, the Pace approach is "[such and such business] approached us to provide service."

_______________________

*N201 is only justified by Evanston Hospital.

[artthouwill]

51 minutes ago, YoungBusLover said:

The ridership plays a key role but also along with 87th and Damen being the only other location outside of 79th/Western having a secure safe bathroom to go to. Once you're over east you might as well hold it until you head back west to the red line. They should bring back these 4 configurations I posted below with the right promotion. The N87 going to 91st/Commercial via 79th/Western would generate some ridership since a lot of riders asked me about it in the past trying to catch the 49/X49. The N47 pretty much being the full route just running overnight would really benefit that entire corridor of blue collar workers EB/WB. The N20 going to Harlem/Lake should be diverted over to the Forest Park Blue Line reason being connections to early morning Pace buses added with there is a need for service in that general area. Why doesn't the 20 head over to Harlem let alone Forest Park? I know it may be Pace territory but... Lastly the N9 should go back to North/Clybourn having taken that route many times overnight hardly anyone is coming/going to North/Clark let alone towards North Ave, the overall ridership starts at the North/Clybourn Red line station.

I could be wrong @YoungBusLover buried would consider North/Clybourn to be unsafe.  It seems no different from 79th and Cottage Grove or 95th and Cottage Grove where drivers wouldn't feel safe laying over.  For whatever reason,  North/Clybourn Red Line station has been one of the most dangerous and crime ridden stations on the Red line,  despite the gentrification around the station.   I would say North and Clark ia a safer place. 

[jajuan]

On 8/10/2022 at 10:38 PM, MetroShadow said:

Those are interlines. And oft-times those make the most sense when you're switching routes on the same bus. West Division does this quite well for a long time.

It makes zero sense to the user and customer if you're asking Clever to flip multiple times, especially with overlaps in many places (95-71-75-15-6-67). The N5 designation should stay as it makes the most sense operationally. 

Other example: AC Transit has their 800 series Night Owls covering multiple routes at a time:

• 800 is combo of Transbay (F), 6, 51B, 72 (North of University), and 72M
• 801 is a combo of the 10 and 99
• 802 is the 72 (South of University)
• 805 is the NL, 57, and 73 to Oakland Airport
• 840 is the 40
• 851 is the entire 51A and 51B (only to the UC Campus)

For this case, it makes no sense to flip the signs for multiple routes - a designated number series and destination is suffice.

 

You left out the 6, 15, and 75. And leaving out the 26 makes it Seven.

 

On 8/10/2022 at 10:58 PM, artthouwill said:

The N5 shares routing with the 6. 15,  and 75, but isn't replacement of owl service for those routes.  In the case of the 6 and the 15, those routes are still running when the N5 starts running.  As I explained earlier,  the Jeffery  portion of the route was covered by the owl routing of the old 27.  The original routing was 73rd NOT 75th.  When the 27 was rerouted to South Shore Drive in the early 80s, 73rd was no longer an option because it was a one way side street  between South Shore and Exchange.   So the owl routing along Jeffery was extended to 75th and 75th to South Shore since it is a two way thoroughfare to the lake.

When the N5 starts,  EB 67 service is curtailed at the. 69th Red Line station.  When the N5 starts, so does the N9, covering 95th between Commercial and Ashland  

On the part about the Jeffery-75th routing, you're both technically correct in the since that CTA used to put a special note to riders on the 6's bus stop signs and schedules, as well as the 6's listing on the system maps, that they could get owl service between 63rd/Stony and 75th/Jeffery from the 27. But either way, MetroShadow is correct that 305/316 sign flip is done because Pace is operating an intentional interline. For CTA though, it makes no sense for them to flip through several different signs in place of the N5 designation because it defeats the very purpose of why they created the route in place, which was to be a night owl replacement for the busiest segments of several routes for which they eliminated owl service at the time, namely the former 27 (now a portion of present day 71, created through combining old 71 and 27), the 67, and the former 95E, which is now the eastern portion of the present day 95 (recombination of 95E and 95W into one route). To expand MeteoShadow's example from the bay area even further, just as AC Transit has the 800s, MUNI's 90 and 91 owl routes serve similar functions. 90 is a combination of the 9 San Bruno and 47 Van Ness (temporarily suspended because of COVID, and leaving the 49 Van Ness/Mission as the only present MUNI daytime Van Ness route). 91 is a combination of the 8 Bayshore, 28 19th Ave, 30 Stockton and the light rail route T Third Ave.

[jajuan]

1 hour ago, YoungBusLover said:

The ridership plays a key role but also along with 87th and Damen being the only other location outside of 79th/Western having a secure safe bathroom to go to. Once you're over east you might as well hold it until you head back west to the red line. They should bring back these 4 configurations I posted below with the right promotion. The N87 going to 91st/Commercial via 79th/Western would generate some ridership since a lot of riders asked me about it in the past trying to catch the 49/X49. The N47 pretty much being the full route just running overnight would really benefit that entire corridor of blue collar workers EB/WB. The N20 going to Harlem/Lake should be diverted over to the Forest Park Blue Line reason being connections to early morning Pace buses added with there is a need for service in that general area. Why doesn't the 20 head over to Harlem let alone Forest Park? I know it may be Pace territory but... Lastly the N9 should go back to North/Clybourn having taken that route many times overnight hardly anyone is coming/going to North/Clark let alone towards North Ave, the overall ridership starts at the North/Clybourn Red line station.

On your point about the N9, you just eliminated my early morning connection from the 22 from when I need to be at work early enough that it's still too early to connect from the 22 to the Ashland bus at Clark/Belle Plaine. Red Line is not a good alternative because it's a 20 minute walk to the nearest station from my place. There are other folks in my area who are making similar connections to Ashland. That doesn't even get into the fact that no one is trying to ride the Red Line at night as much these days because of the increase in  crime happening on that line from both ends making the news lately. N9 should stay as is.

[YoungBusLover]

8 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

I could be wrong @YoungBusLover buried would consider North/Clybourn to be unsafe.  It seems no different from 79th and Cottage Grove or 95th and Cottage Grove where drivers wouldn't feel safe laying over.  For whatever reason,  North/Clybourn Red Line station has been one of the most dangerous and crime ridden stations on the Red line,  despite the gentrification around the station.   I would say North and Clark ia a safer place. 

All the crime that happens at North/Clybourn is at Subway level and the layover of about 8-12 minutes for 3 overnight trips wouldn't be so bad to try out again. North/Clark has it's fare share of weirdos over there near Lincoln Park Zoo aka the homeless/junkies that camp out over there. I work Halsted late nights and there is generally no activity at North/Clybourn it's just as dead as any other part of the surrounding areas. The past few incidents do spark some concern but overall I think it could work.

 

30 minutes ago, Busjack said:

1. "With the right promotion:" Except for bar hoppers, there aren't any discretionary riders on Owl. Either people have to get to or from work or they don't.The analysis should be on where the hospitals,* nursing homes, foundries, etc. are, and not where you want a washroom.
2. "Pace territory:" The only reason CTA was running those buses was because it canceled Owl L runs. Apparently, there wasn't enough demand even for a bus. Since it is Pace territory, let Pace figure out the solution, which now seems to be TNF. Again, the Pace approach is "[such and such business] approached us to provide service."

_______________________

*N201 is only justified by Evanston Hospital.

Yeah that's where I was going with the promotion aspect of it all, promoting owl service for the working class riders. The late night crowds will ride whatever comes but the real ridership is the blue collar workers. As far as Pace is concerned they hardly run frequent enough to keep an owl ridership on the far westside of the city. 

[YoungBusLover]

3 minutes ago, jajuan said:

On your point about the N9, you just eliminated my early morning connection from the 22 from when I need to be at work early enough that it's still too early to connect from the 22 to the Ashland bus at Clark/Belle Plaine. Red Line is not a good alternative because it's a 20 minute walk to the nearest station from my place. There are other folks in my area who are making similar connections to Ashland. That doesn't even get into the fact that no one is trying to ride the Red Line at night as much these days because of the increase in  crime happening on that line from both ends making the news lately. N9 should stay as is.

One could argue reinstating the N72 would solve that dilemma but that's wishful thinking.  

[Busjack]

35 minutes ago, YoungBusLover said:

...

Yeah that's where I was going with the promotion aspect of it all, promoting owl service for the working class riders. The late night crowds will ride whatever comes but the real ridership is the blue collar workers are. As far as Pace is concerned they hardly run frequent enough to keep an owl ridership on the far westside of the city. 

The point is that you don't have to "promote it" to them; they have to get to work some way or the other. Maybe CTA has to promote itself to employers, like Pace did to UPS and Amazon. But except for that and 352, Pace apparently sees no need for OWL service. Should CTA operate VanGo or BOS?

[YoungBusLover]

53 minutes ago, Busjack said:

The point is that you don't have to "promote it" to them; they have to get to work some way or the other. Maybe CTA has to promote itself to employers, like Pace did to UPS and Amazon. But except for that and 352, Pace apparently sees no need for OWL service. Should CTA operate VanGo or BOS?

In a sense I agree with you on that point. At this day in age with how far we've come in the digital age you'd think some form of promotion would help boost ridership day & night. If riders were drilled via promotion with looming service changes to night owl services I guarantee it would benefit CTA in the long term. So many riders ask me  why night owl service around the system is so lackluster with limited options to choose from. The easy answer is ridership doesn't support keeping it running which is true. 

[jajuan]

23 hours ago, YoungBusLover said:

One could argue reinstating the N72 would solve that dilemma but that's wishful thinking.  

Except I'm traveling directly to a location on Ashland and not one on North Avenue. A three vehicle trip that involves using the owl network facilitates padding in significantly more time than a two vehicle one due to the half hour headways involved on each route.

[Busjack]

21 hours ago, Tcmetro said:

The IRM CTA website also has a service pamphlets section. I'm not sure how long the Owl map has been produced, but before 1997 most night routes operated the same paths as the daytime versions.

 

That's essentially correct. There wasn't an Owl system, but the back of the map showed hours of service and a small owl symbol. Around 1997, the system was recategorized as backbone, supplemental and owl. Also, until about then, most L lines ran owl. That was cut back to the Red and Blue Lines, and routes such as N20, N60, and N201 substituted.