Guest ctafan630 Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 Through route it west on Lawrence past Cumberland and through the complex on East River. It can be done. Sure it can be done, but does it make sense. Would the CTA reroute it just to avoid double service on Cumberland when the #331 is operating? Currently the #331 runs weekdays every 20-30 minutes from about 5:30a to 8:30p. On Saturday it is roughly every hour and no operation on Sunday. If the CTA reroutes the 81W to East River at all times, it makes no sense for non-rush hour service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkohut Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 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. There is something wrong with this picture how can Route 165 not get cancel with ridership of less than 100 people. Yet,Lakefront Routes are getting cancel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 There is something wrong with this picture how can Route 165 not get cancel with ridership of less than 100 people. Yet,Lakefront Routes are getting cancel. There is a particular industrial area being served, and basically only during rush hour. I don't know if they can walk from the 63W, but at the moment there isn't alternative service. Also, the combined schedule indicates that 165 is merely alternate 63W trips. Note today's CTA Tattler on arbitrary use of ridership statistics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetroShadow Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 Sure it can be done, but does it make sense. Would the CTA reroute it just to avoid double service on Cumberland when the #331 is operating? Currently the #331 runs weekdays every 20-30 minutes from about 5:30a to 8:30p. On Saturday it is roughly every hour and no operation on Sunday. If the CTA reroutes the 81W to East River at all times, it makes no sense for non-rush hour service. The question is begged on whether or not there is service on Cumberland > Service through East River/Pavilion? You have to check the data for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 The question is begged on whether or not there is service on Cumberland > Service through East River/Pavilion? You have to check the data for that. Again, the pdf isn't clear on what CTA proposes, but I tend to go along with the comment that one could either take 81W via East River or if you are just going on Cumberland, 331. In any event, it seems like they are trying to cut out a bus that just circles every 20 minutes, or an interlined bus that has an additional 20 minute loop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetroShadow Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 If I am reading this correctly, we are re-designating 145 as the 148 and the 144 back into the 146, express zones and everything? That section is confusing, nevermind potentially filing into the "bad idea" category to eliminate Wilson service outside of the weekday rush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamir4317 Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 Schedule Integration with Pace #95W West 95th (coordinate with Pace #381) Okay, so does this mean that the 95W will operate on a 381 type schedule (like every 20 minutes)? Instead of that, why not merge the 95W & 95E back into the 95-93rd-95th? #X28 Stony Island Express (send #28 downtown during peak instead) Just keep both the 28 & X28 as is. Or, create the 28 Stony Island Express (no X in the route). It would run like the old 6 Jeffery with local stops along SI, then start the express portion on 47th/Lake Park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetroShadow Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 Okay, so does this mean that the 95W will operate on a 381 type schedule (like every 20 minutes)? Instead of that, why not merge the 95W & 95E back into the 95-93rd-95th? Just keep both the 28 & X28 as is. Or, create the 28 Stony Island Express (no X in the route). It would run like the old 6 Jeffery with local stops along SI, then start the express portion on 47th/Lake Park. (1) Seems like the goals here. It's more schedule coordination than anything else. I'm not sure combining would be a good idea (it's 45 minutes from 92nd and Buffalo to Evergreen Park), but it should be considered anyhow. (2) When X28 debuted back in 2003, all of those trips went downtown (before it was fixed later). This probably would mean a short-turn at 47 for buses that aren't heading to the Loop--all others proceed north. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkohut Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 There is a particular industrial area being served, and basically only during rush hour. I don't know if they can walk from the 63W, but at the moment there isn't alternative service. Also, the combined schedule indicates that 165 is merely alternate 63W trips. Note today's CTA Tattler on arbitrary use of ridership statistics. You got 63W and Pace Route going on 63rd.Why not have 386 go down 65 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artthouwill Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 There is a lot to digest here, but I will offer my two cents: 1. 1 Indiana/Hyde Pk: Why not just eliminate the entire route instead of just the service south of 35th? The #4 Cottage Grove runs 24 hrs north of 35th to Jackson/Adams. 2. 28/X28. It appears that the express portion will remain intact during rush hours, but there will be no local/express duplicity, meaning during nonpeak times all buses run between 103rd and 47th/Lake Park, and during rush periods all buses run downtown to Union Station. The question is will the routing be entirely on Lake Park (like the 28 local now) or along S Hyde Park Blvd (like the current X28)? My guess would be the latter, since the 15 covers Lake Park between Hyde Pk and 56th. 3. 17 Westchester: I've been clamoring for this elimination as this was the perfect example of unnecessary duplication. This is Pace territory, let Pace run it. 4. 111 King/111th and 115 Pullman/115. Just when I made a point about eliminating duplicity, they turn around and duplicate service. The 353 covers the King Drive portion between 95th/Red Line and 111th/ Michigan already so what is the point of this route? The 115 route seems okay, but the 111 King Drive seems a waste. 5. 11 Lincoln: 37 Sedgwick: I don't understand eliminating the routing between Western and Fullerton, even if it does cover the same area that the Brown Line does. I don't have the ridership numbers, but if the ridership is that low, why not eliminate the route altogether? The 210 could cover the routing from Western Brown Line. The 37 (current 11) also runs parallel to the Brown south of Fullerton, yet I don't see any crush loads on that segment of the route, but it manages to stay alive in one way shape or form. 6. 144/145/146/148: When the first North Lake Shore restructuring was done, the 145 was nonstop between downtown and Irving Pk while the 146 (which was nonstop between downtown and Irving) became nonstop between downtown and Belmont. When crush loading became evident on the new 146, why didn't they just add buses then to the 146 instead of adding 145 back and then renaming the new 145 the 148. The added (or original) 145s were short turned at Grace anyway. So in essence, we are back to the 1st stage of the N LSD restructuring except the 144 (which was the renamed original 146) gets the ax, and the 148 stays, hence no service along Clarendon or Wilson except rush periods. That is okay because Clarendon is a stone's throw from Marine Dr anyway. The question is will all 146s go to the Museum Campus or will they short turn the K operated 146s downtown? 7. 95W/381. See RTA? We told you we can work together!!! 8. 49A/349: See 17 Westchester 9. Private contracted routes: Perhaps the motorcoach industry will pray for route eliminations so that they can bid on these contracts and not have to compete against public transit for "charter" work. Yes I know that these are "public routes" technically speaking, but basically these routes provide services that can be provided by private bus companies (and in the case of U.of C and the 192, this service once was provided by a motorcoach company or two). Another thought. By shortening the #1 and with the route 35 extension, could one or both routes be moved to K? Could they possibly be interlined? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 You got 63W and Pace Route going on 63rd.Why not have 386 go down 65 There was a proposal to have it go down 73rd (merge it with the 382). Didn't happen as part of the South Cook-Will restructuring, though. What probably would be a more valid question is why CTA saved 63W if 386 covers the territory, although that is one of the Posted Stops Only in the City from Midway. I have a feeling that you want to be a transit planner at some agency or the other, but aren't qualified. Maybe rmadisonwi can help you out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 There is a lot to digest here, but I will offer my two cents: 1. 1 Indiana/Hyde Pk: Why not just eliminate the entire route instead of just the service south of 35th? The #4 Cottage Grove runs 24 hrs north of 35th to Jackson/Adams. CORRECTED: The schedule reflects (and I forgot) that 4 is full time via 35th and Michigan. So, I withdraw my prior comment. 9. Private contracted routes: Perhaps the motorcoach industry will pray for route eliminations so that they can bid on these contracts and not have to compete against public transit for "charter" work. Yes I know that these are "public routes" technically speaking, but basically these routes provide services that can be provided by private bus companies (and in the case of U.of C and the 192, this service once was provided by a motorcoach company or two). That gets us long back. While these don't violate FTA regs., despite what someone claimed as a matter of law, I had made the point then that I don't see the point of using sales tax dollars to subsidize these, nor comparable Pace UPS routes or Express Service to Special Events. Trainman had then said that the U of C ones could be justified as a neighborhood shuttle (you can get on by paying the fares), but I don't think CTA would have started them for that reason on its own initiative. U of C used to have Laidlaw operate their system, and some private contractor is operating the late evening routes. Since the question is how much can CTA afford to subsidize these routes, basically it shouldn't, in which case that opens them back up to the private operators, IMO. I had 154 on my contractor route list, but apparently Ricketts is paying enough to satisfy CTA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkohut Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 There was a proposal to have it go down 73rd (merge it with the 382). Didn't happen as part of the South Cook-Will restructuring, though. What probably would be a more valid question is why CTA saved 63W if 386 covers the territory, although that is one of the Posted Stops Only in the City from Midway. I have a feeling that you want to be a transit planner at some agency or the other, but aren't qualified. Maybe rmadisonwi can help you out. If you look at the hole 63W route there is duplicate service.Doyou need 63W,62H,and Pace Route 307 going between Harlem and Archer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 If you look at the hole 63W route there is duplicate service.Doyou need 63W,62H,and Pace Route 307 going between Harlem and Archer They are just going to a turnaround in Argo. So where do you want them to lay over? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dp1 Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 I am actually Surprised the #100 Jeffery Manor Express didnt get the Axe. That is a route that has light ridership, and could be replaced with other service. The #111 split is interesting too along with the #11 Lincoln as well. The X28 is a good cut, but the reason, according to the Hyde Park community website the X28 was created was because the community was split over how it went through Hyde Park. Stony Island riders preferred the bus travel down Lake Park from 56th to 47th, while others preffered the choice of the #6 and #28 on Hyde Park Blvd. CTA preffered that routing, but riders complained, so the route was split. So basically the X28 cut brings that route full circle a little if the new #28 does travel through Hyde Park to Downtown on Lake Park. That was the original planned route in '03. It would be nice if the off peak #28 served the Green Line at 47th or just make it full time downtown again to add capacity for Hyde Park and cut the #10 outright. The cut of the #145 is odd too. If any route should be cut it should be the duplicate #148 bus. I feel the same way about the #144 as well. The 55A Austin is another upset. The 55N Narragansett doesnt draw well. Lastly I think you will see a #48 South Damen/Western route before its said and done, giving CTA a presence on Western Avenue between 87th and 119th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Flyer Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 They are just going to a turnaround in Argo. So where do you want them to lay over? tHE ONLY REASON THE 62h WAS CREATED WAS BECAUSE FOLKS DIDN'T WAN TTO RIDE TO PULASKI TO CATCH THE oRANGE LINE BECAUSE OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS AT KILPATRICK THAT HOLDS UP TRAFFIC SOMETIMES FOR 20 MINUTES. tHEY DON'T NEED THE 165 THEY CAN WALK THE 2 BLOCKS FROM 63RD. a LOT OF THESE ROUTES WERE CREATED TO KEEP aRCHER OPEN AFTER THE oRANGE LINE OPENED. yoU GET RID 63w,165, 62H 55n THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ALOT OF ROUTES OUT OF aRCHER GONE ALONG WITH THE 62X 162,99,99m, 61 THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HALF THE STATION Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Flyer Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 AND IF YOU READ THE FINE PRINT YOU'LL HAVE ACTUALLY 21 ROUTES CUT IF THE SUBSIDY ROUTES DON'T GT PICKED UP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amtrak41 Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 No more Lincoln Bus between Western & Fullerton http://www.transitchicago.com/news_initiatives/projects/decrowding.aspx I know they were after that bus several years ago in one of the Doomsday scenarios (as well as the Loop station shuttles) seemingly regarded as redundant to force use of the "grid" routes. As a tourist a few years ago, I used the #11 to connect from the Pace 210 in Morton Grove to the CTA 76 for hotel on eastern Diversey Pkwy. But last week, I changed for the Brown Line at Western. With a 20lb suitcase and 8lb backpack, ADA has it advantages (and consequences) of not having to schlep up and down 1903 L steps. Is the 37 a new/old route ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artthouwill Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 You got 63W and Pace Route going on 63rd.Why not have 386 go down 65 It may seem insignificant, but by going down 63rd, the 386 provides an easy connection to the 307 at 63rd/Harlem. You lose that connection routing the 386 any other way (65th or 73rd). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artthouwill Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 tHE ONLY REASON THE 62h WAS CREATED WAS BECAUSE FOLKS DIDN'T WAN TTO RIDE TO PULASKI TO CATCH THE oRANGE LINE BECAUSE OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS AT KILPATRICK THAT HOLDS UP TRAFFIC SOMETIMES FOR 20 MINUTES. tHEY DON'T NEED THE 165 THEY CAN WALK THE 2 BLOCKS FROM 63RD. a LOT OF THESE ROUTES WERE CREATED TO KEEP aRCHER OPEN AFTER THE oRANGE LINE OPENED. yoU GET RID 63w,165, 62H 55n THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ALOT OF ROUTES OUT OF aRCHER GONE ALONG WITH THE 62X 162,99,99m, 61 THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HALF THE STATION If anything, then why not operate the 63W in a loop, EB am rush, WB am rush, 63rd only, off peak, WB 63rd p.m. rush, EB 65th P.M. rush Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 If anything, then why not operate the 63W in a loop, EB am rush, WB am rush, 63rd only, off peak, WB 63rd p.m. rush, EB 65th P.M. rush About half of them already do that. See my prior message with schedule link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artthouwill Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 About half of them already do that. See my prior message with schedule link. I know half already do. I meant all buses. Operating a WB 63 @165 seems redundant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwantae Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 It may seem insignificant, but by going down 63rd, the 386 provides an easy connection to the 307 at 63rd/Harlem. You lose that connection routing the 386 any other way (65th or 73rd). They should have 386 to replace 165 since they're no longer doing all CTA stops on 63rd, All they can do is to travel via Cicero, Oak Park Ave, back on 63rd as back to usual route so passengers can still transfer to and from 307 as an suggestion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CURRENTZ_09 Posted August 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 Out of all the privately own routes i can only see the 10 and probably the 33, 132 abd 169 surviving Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artthouwill Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 About half of them already do that. See my prior message with schedule link. I know half already do. I meant all buses. Operating a WB 63 @165 seems redundant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.