CTA Service Adjustments

[Busjack]

While the #270 issue is more a bus stops related issue. (the bus is at least running) If they did axe #90N, then they eliminate most of the service post rush, as #423 doesn't run but every hour NB after 6PM. (and only then til 7:40PM) As far as adding service to the #77 or #79, we need to ask how many buses can they put on one route? When the buses are lined up in a pack, all that happens is the pack gets greater. Running an X service puts two different packs of buses in service together running independently, this way buses won't get trapped behind the pack. But the main issue for CTA is that this will conflict with BRT, especially if introduced on the #9 or #49. They most likely don't want to go down that road especially if they plan on asking for premium fares to ride such service as BRT.

The main issue seems to be that since they cut bus service everywhere 20% in 2010, stuff like 77 or 79 are way overcrowded (especially since they took the artics off 79).

Some of this happened already, in that last week BusTracker had a notice that, in effect, one bus was taken off 80 in June and put on 77. However, strangely enough, the BusTracker alert now has that effective "Monday, Dec. 19," which is a Wednesday this year (an alert dating back to 2011?).

As far as bunching, maybe the supervisors ought to learn how to use BusTracker.

[Busjack]

Thank You for the correction.But,still they would only be useing half of the money they are planning to use for the route.

You got a reference that the RTA even got that money from the feds? RTAMS doesn't indicate it.

Update: I don't even see where you got LaSalle. I ran a search on the Tribune article, which came up with "not found."

[Guest]

Im sure the 56A No. Milwaukee will get the axe along with the #90 Harlem, south of Grand and the entire 90N route.

[Kevin]

I suppose that a notice of hearing with more specifics will have to come out within the next week.

That was posted yesterday evening, before the rest of the news went public: Notice of Public Hearing CTA Decrowding Initiative

132 was mentioned in the Tribune, but how many others are there?

In addition to the press release, there's another page on CTA's site that links to a PDF with more details.

[RJL6000]

Im sure the 56A No. Milwaukee will get the axe along with the #90 Harlem, south of Grand and the entire 90N route.

Actually, the #90 south of Grand is being spared the ax. However, the eliminations of #56A and #90N are in the plans, along with the #17 and the #49A.

As for other routes that are being eliminated, they include the #145 Wilson-Marine Express. The loss of the #145 will be partly compensated for by adding extra service on the #146 Inner Drive Express.

The #122 and #123 will be folded into #120 and #121, respectively. And the #1 will be eliminated south of 35th Street.

Finally, the current #111 will be split into two new routes, numbered #111 and #115.

Also, a number of existing routes are being expanded to begin earlier in the day and/or continue running until later in the evening (at least on weekdays). These routes are:

#6 Jackson Park Express

#14 Jeffery Express

#18 16th/18th

#50 Damen

#59 59th/61st

#70 Division

#75 74th/75th

#92 Foster

#111 King Drive/111th (newly split from existing #111 Pullman/111th/115th)

#115 Pullman/115th (newly split from existing #111 Pullman/111th/115th)

#146 Inner Drive Express (segment from Michigan/Harrison to the Museum Campus)

Of those above routes that will be getting expanded service hours, the #6, #14, #70 and #75 will also operate more frequently than their present schedule (at least during rush periods).

[jajuan]

Actually, the #90 south of Grand is being spared the ax. However, the eliminations of #56A and #90N are in the plans, along with the #17 and the #49A.

As for other routes that are being eliminated, they include the #145 Wilson-Marine Express. The loss of the #145 will be partly compensated for by adding extra service on the #146 Inner Drive Express.

The #122 and #123 will be folded into #120 and #121, respectively. And the #1 will be eliminated south of 35th Street.

Finally, the current #111 will be split into two new routes, numbered #111 and #115.

In addition to the 145 they also propose chopping the 144 and compensating with service on the 148. That one's not going to fly because for one the 144 has decent ridership and the whole reason we even have a 148 is because the folks in the high rises on the Inner Drive didn't like the 146 being the only regular everyday express route along that stretch during the time that the 145 was on the Outer Drive up to Irving Park. Cutting 145 makes sense only if 148 expands beyond rush only peak direction service. One other thing they propose is cutting the X28 but sending all 28 buses into downtown during the rush hour with no indication of if these would be doing so as an express bus. And as Busjack indicated 55A and 55N aren't getting touched at all.

[Busjack]

That was posted yesterday evening, before the rest of the news went public: Notice of Public Hearing CTA Decrowding Initiative

In addition to the press release, there's another page on CTA's site that links to a PDF with more details.

Thanks. Page 10 of the pdf has the information of interest.

So I guess the rest of us and I don't have to speculate about what is being cut.

Based on page 10, my opinions:

• X28; send 28 downtown--doesn't seem to make much difference, as most 28s became X28 during rush hour.
• 122, 123--what they say there doesn't make sense, because those go to Illinois Center, not Streeterville. The comment above about combining the Union/Ogilvie ends would make more sense, unless there is the idea of crossing the River after reaching Navy Pier and serving Illinois Center that way.
• 144, 145--undoing some of the North LSD restructuring, but Wilson-Michigan buses not going to Wilson didn't make sense.
• 1--Never was much point going south of 35th; Green Line within a couple of blocks.
• 10 and 33--Apparently what gets it up to 9 contract routes, but N201 gets axed, too.

Finally, while I have been saying for about 15 years that CTA has no business running 17 based on that the L went there maybe 65 years ago, are they coordinating with Pace in that 317 doesn't run when CTA does?

For that matter, I suggested on the CTA Tattler when Claypool took over, that he should meet with Pace, basically to get CTA buses out of Evanston and Skokie. While both agencies seem to want to mitigate overlap by retreating, will there ever be real coordination?

[RJL6000]

Finally, while I have been saying for about 15 years that CTA has no business running 17 based on that the L went there maybe 65 years ago, are they coordinating with Pace in that 317 doesn't run when CTA does?

Pace does not operate the #317 during the hours that CTA operates the #17. With the elimination of the #17, Pace will take over all of those trips that are currently operated by the CTA, making that route just plain Pace #317.

[jajuan]

Pace does not operate the #317 during the hours that CTA operates the #17. With the elimination of the #17, Pace will take over all of those trips that are currently operated by the CTA, making that route just plain Pace #317.

I think that's what he was stabbing at. Would Pace be getting full coverage of the route? And outside of surmised aldermanic pressure, how do you justify keeping the 55A and 55N intact when you're cutting entire routes or route segments that get far better ridership performance? Cutting the 144 and 145 does nothing to stem crowding on the 146 and 148 when the 144 and 145 themselves also get fairly good bus loads. You just lend more credence that you're doing another exercise in who has or is exercising more pull down in City Hall among the alderman or at the very least who you think does.

[Busjack]

Cutting the 144 and 145 does nothing to stem crowding on the 146 and 148 when the 144 and 145 themselves also get fairly good bus loads. You just lend more credence that you're doing another exercise in who has or is exercising more pull down in City Hall among the alderman or at the very least who you think does.

The question is the meaning of the pdf saying "add service to 148" and "146."

This seems to be a combination of:

• 144 doesn't get the express ride quite as far north.
• Especially with respect to 145-148, undoing adding route numbers to 146 simply because someone north of Belmont complained at the original restructuring that they lost "half their service" because only 146 ran between Irving Park and Belmont, even though the number of trips on 146 was increased. Before that, 145 was essentially the current 148, except all day, and there weren't all the 145 trips to Grace; 146 covered that segment.

Pace does not operate the #317 during the hours that CTA operates the #17. With the elimination of the #17, Pace will take over all of those trips that are currently operated by the CTA, making that route just plain Pace #317.

The real question was whether CTA has already come to an agreement with Pace about that, or is just assuming that Pace is going to pick up the rush hour route?

[RJL6000]

The real question was whether CTA has already come to an agreement with Pace about that, or is just assuming that Pace is going to pick up the rush hour route?

The CTA and Pace did reach an agreement as early as 1992, when it eliminated weekend service on the #17. At that point Pace created the #317 as a weekend-only route. The agreement was renegotiated in 1997 when the CTA eliminated off-peak service on the #17, after which Pace added weekday off-peak service on the #317. And now, this agreement is set to expire this year, and will likely not be renegotiated. Thus, with no new agreement on the table, Pace will simply take over the rush hour service from the CTA.

[Busjack]

...Thus, with no new agreement on the table, Pace will simply take over the rush hour service from the CTA.

CTA assumes? Or is just betting that Pace won't say "we don't have the funding?"

[RJL6000]

CTA assumes? Or is just betting that Pace won't say "we don't have the funding?"

Maybe a little of both. If there had been an agreement dividing the route between the CTA and Pace, then the CTA would have been required to continue operating the #17 beyond the target elimination date. And with that agreement, had the CTA actually eliminated the route, there would have been absolutely no bus service at all whatsoever in the Bellwood-to-Westchester segment of the route during rush periods.

[Busjack]

Maybe a little of both. If there had been an agreement dividing the route between the CTA and Pace, then the CTA would have been required to continue operating the #17 beyond the target elimination date. And with that agreement, had the CTA actually eliminated the route, there would have been absolutely no bus service at all whatsoever in the Bellwood-to-Westchester segment of the route during rush periods.

Which gets back to my point that instead of each agency taking territory and then retreating, at least the Executive Directors should meet, coordinate routes, and assure that it actually is covered.

But this is Chicago. And, depending on the notice eventually given, I bet there is a turnout based on "you are eliminating this service."

[jajuan]

The question is the meaning of the pdf saying "add service to 148" and "146."

This seems to be a combination of:

• 144 doesn't get the express ride quite as far north.
• Especially with respect to 145-148, undoing adding route numbers to 146 simply because someone north of Belmont complained at the original restructuring that they lost "half their service" because only 146 ran between Irving Park and Belmont, even though the number of trips on 146 was increased. Before that, 145 was essentially the current 148, except all day, and there weren't all the 145 trips to Grace; 146 covered that segment.

The real question was whether CTA has already come to an agreement with Pace about that, or is just assuming that Pace is going to pick up the rush hour route?

If it's an undoing of adding route numbers that are essentially the same sarvice then fine, but if it is an elimination of service without adding service to 146 and 148 being defined as you're getting a redesignating of the 144 and 145 as part of the two former, then that's an idiotic no go. Same as with the eliminate X28 and send 28 downtown. If that doesn't mean, redesignating the X28 trips as 28 but in this case the 28 is express during rush hour periods then it's a dumb move in light of routes such as 55A and 55N are allowed to exist intact. I mean why does there even need to be a 62H when most of that route is covered by the 62?

[Busjack]

If it's an undoing of adding route numbers then fine, but if it is an elimination of route numbers without adding service to 146 and 148 meaning you're redesignating the 144 and 145 as part of the two former, then that's an idiotic no go. Same as with the eliminate X28 and send 28 downtown. If that doesn't mean, redesignating the X28 trips as 28 but in this case the 28 is express during rush hour periods then it's a dumb move in light of routes such as 55A and 55N are allowed to exist intact.

They aren't real clear what they are going to do, but I suppose they are doing something substantive to get $16 million out of the whole exercise, so I'll go along with you on that.

[RJL6000]

Which gets back to my point that instead of each agency taking territory and then retreating, at least the Executive Directors should meet, coordinate routes, and assure that it actually is covered.

But this is Chicago. And, depending on the notice eventually given, I bet there is a turnout based on "you are eliminating this service."

This is quite similar to the situation that existed for several years on the #18 16th/18th: After the 1998 cuts, the #18 was reduced to an unusual schedule: It operated during rush periods only on weekdays but during daytime hours on weekends. In 2009, all-day service on weekdays was restored.

[Busjack]

This is quite similar to the situation that existed for several years on the #18 16th/18th

Except that only involved CTA, not two agencies with a lack of trust.

If there is any analogy, it would be to 54A/254, but at the time of the North Shore restructuring, Pace's consultant said it didn't make sense to provide better service on Saturday than CTA did during the week, so they dropped the route, even though the consultant said that 254 had 500 boardings per Saturday, which is far better than what RTAMs indicates on many Pace North Shore routes during the week.

[Guest ctafan630]

Thanks. Page 10 of the pdf has the information of interest.

So I guess the rest of us and I don't have to speculate about what is being cut.

Based on page 10, my opinions:

• X28; send 28 downtown--doesn't seem to make much difference, as most 28s became X28 during rush hour.
• 122, 123--what they say there doesn't make sense, because those go to Illinois Center, not Streeterville. The comment above about combining the Union/Ogilvie ends would make more sense, unless there is the idea of crossing the River after reaching Navy Pier and serving Illinois Center that way.
• 144, 145--undoing some of the North LSD restructuring, but Wilson-Michigan buses not going to Wilson didn't make sense.
• 1--Never was much point going south of 35th; Green Line within a couple of blocks.
• 10 and 33--Apparently what gets it up to 9 contract routes, but N201 gets axed, too.

Finally, while I have been saying for about 15 years that CTA has no business running 17 based on that the L went there maybe 65 years ago, are they coordinating with Pace in that 317 doesn't run when CTA does?

For that matter, I suggested on the CTA Tattler when Claypool took over, that he should meet with Pace, basically to get CTA buses out of Evanston and Skokie. While both agencies seem to want to mitigate overlap by retreating, will there ever be real coordination?

In regards to the 122 and 123, why can't these routes be combined and serve both train stations with a reroute down Clinton in the PM rush. It doesn't make a lot of sense two have four separate routes since train stations are not that far apart. During the AM rush, the route can go down Canal from Union station, right on Washinton to Franklin, Left on Franklin, right on Lake to the side street to go onto lower Wacker, left on Michigan to Navy Pier. How far into Streeterville does the CTA plan on taking these routes. There is already the #125 which is a rush hour only route. Plus the #157 and #151 serve the Streeterville area day round. If people want to go to Ill Center directly they can take either the #60 or the #20 buses.

Cutting #64 and #90N make sense.

In reagrds to the #69, I agree cutting it makes sense but don't see the point in rerouting the #81W. Does the CTA plan on rerouting the #81W off Cumberland and onto East River?

[CURRENTZ_09]

The CTA and Pace did reach an agreement as early as 1992, when it eliminated weekend service on the #17. At that point Pace created the #317 as a weekend-only route. The agreement was renegotiated in 1997 when the CTA eliminated off-peak service on the #17, after which Pace added weekday off-peak service on the #317. And now, this agreement is set to expire this year, and will likely not be renegotiated. Thus, with no new agreement on the table, Pace will simply take over the rush hour service from the CTA.

But question this, with the agreement set to expire, don't you think pace & cta might be in agreement to combine service levels when the agreement is set to expire. This also questions about the proposed eliminated CTA routes that parallel pace routes and what type of agreement is in place.

[Busjack]

In regards to the 122 and 123, why can't these routes be combined and serve both train stations with a reroute down Clinton in the PM rush. It doesn't make a lot of sense two have four separate routes since train stations are not that far apart.

...

In effect, you would then have the 158A Wacker Express (at least for 120 and 121), which was eliminated when 120 and 121 were instituted in the 1970s.

The question probably is whether 121 is loaded to the gills at Union Station, thus precluding those at Ogilvie from using it.

On the other hand, I said that the pdf didn't make sense.

[Chicago13]

I'm willing to bet they'll get some flack from the businesses along Lincoln between Western & Fullerton about cutting service. The Brown Line doesn't necessarily parallel Lincoln the whole way.

Really, only 3 stations are within 2 blocks walking distance of Lincoln (Irving, Addison and Paulina). And I seriously doubt people are going to want to transfer to a bus from the other stations to get there.

[MetroShadow]

In reagrds to the #69, I agree cutting it makes sense but don't see the point in rerouting the #81W. Does the CTA plan on rerouting the #81W off Cumberland and onto East River?

Through route it west on Lawrence past Cumberland and through the complex on East River. It can be done.

Edited August 22, 2012 by MetroShadow

[MetroShadow]

But question this, with the agreement set to expire, don't you think pace & cta might be in agreement to combine service levels when the agreement is set to expire. This also questions about the proposed eliminated CTA routes that parallel pace routes and what type of agreement is in place.

See 381 and 95W.

[Guest ctafan630]

In effect, you would then have the 158A Wacker Express (at least for 120 and 121), which was eliminated when 120 and 121 were instituted in the 1970s.

The question probably is whether 121 is loaded to the gills at Union Station, thus precluding those at Ogilvie from using it.

On the other hand, I said that the pdf didn't make sense.

The 121 runs more frequently than the 123 in the PM - at least it seems that way to me. The 121 uses 40 buses while the 123 uses 60 buses on most runs. If they could use 60 foot buses on a combined route that should take care of the passenger loading. Plus the route is not very long to begin with. If it meant standing for 5 minutes in the route section where the bus goes express, I would be ok with that.