CTA Service Adjustments

[See Tea Eh]

Actually, Krambles implied something similar 20 years ago but never got to it when he said (page 132, footnote 8) "Short trip riders who go through peak load points on long lines may actually be the most costly to the Authority since only traveling a short distance, they set the maximum amount of equipment that must be operated." Of course, he was speaking about fare policy rather than allocation of equipment.

I don't know the context of that comment, and am not inclined to figure out exactly what book I should open to page 132, but if we assume that the fare is the same for everyone, and not distance-based, then those short-trip riders are the least costly. Someone who pays a fare to ride 10 blocks certainly isn't costing more to transport than the person that boards at, for example, Berwyn on the 49 and rides to 79th, or Irving Park on the 9 and rides all the way to 103rd.

I'm not even sure I agree that they "set the maximum amount of equipment that must be operated," since each passenger is contributing to the requirement, whether they're riding 1/2 mile or 20 miles.

In the context of this discussion, if there are a bunch of short-distance riders traveling through the peak load point, that's actually good because it allows the extra service to only cover a portion of the route rather than the entire route.

Put another way, if the 151 had the same total number of passengers (and, therefore, same total revenue collection), but the vast majority of them rode north of Belmont (and possibly north of Foster), the 151 would be a hell of a lot more expensive to operate than it is today (for the sake of argument, we'll assume that all of the Lake Shore expresses stayed the same for ridership patterns).

Another person who would directly disagree with Krambles' assessment is none other than Charles Tyson Yerkes, who said: "The short hauls and the people who hang on the straps are the ones we make our money out of...we make no money on the man who has a seat and rides to the end of the line." (This has often been quoted as "the straphangers pay the dividends.")

I suppose that an argument could be made that since 49 and 49B overlap between Berwyn and the Brown Line, all 49s should end at the Brown Line, but apparently the Berwyn terminal (which goes back to Green Hornet streetcar days) has utility for the amount of buses needing to lay over, as well as jajuan's point that most of those on 49B riding through on 49 transfer at Berwyn.

There's nothing that would stop those transfers from occurring at the Brown Line if that's where the 49 turned around.

There may be other arguments against turning the 49 at the Brown Line, but the present location of 49B-49 transfers isn't really one of them.

One good argument against it would be that the traffic pattern for exiting the bus turnaround and heading south would be quite difficult to accomplish without an extra traffic light. The traffic backs up quickly and blocks the exit, particularly during rush hour, making a left turn difficult. I have seen it myself on buses that have made the left turn (such as 49s that were short-turned because they were running late).

[BusHunter]

Actually, Krambles implied something similar 20 years ago but never got to it when he said (page 132, footnote 8) "Short trip riders who go through peak load points on long lines may actually be the most costly to the Authority since only traveling a short distance, they set the maximum amount of equipment that must be operated." Of course, he was speaking about fare policy rather than allocation of equipment.

I suppose that an argument could be made that since 49 and 49B overlap between Berwyn and the Brown Line, all 49s should end at the Brown Line, but apparently the Berwyn terminal (which goes back to Green Hornet streetcar days) has utility for the amount of buses needing to lay over, as well as jajuan's point that most of those on 49B riding through on 49 transfer at Berwyn.

art mentioned a number of short turn routes, mostly of very long standing (i.e. 55 had a short turn at St. Louis when it was extended from Morgan with the opening of the Dan Ryan line in 1969, and I'll bet that 6 Garfield has a similar one before then), but I don't remember any that were strictly the center portion of a route (i.e. Western from Archer to Milwaukee, for instance).

The first is undoubtedly the case, although I don't see CTA revisiting this for a while (like maybe 6 years, especially if they think more artics will do the job). However, on the second point, the trend on this thread has been that when the short turns were mentioned, calling the CTA liars, but BusHunter's post seems to be the first to say that it is working.

The Blue line has to be seen to be believed, (but this is just weekends I'm referring to) It's almost like you are riding on the Forest Pk branch, there's that much room. As far as me argueing about the #77, I was most concerned with the pullins. What is the point of pullins pulling in early in a peak direction? This is not at the benefit of putting more buses in the heart of the route. If that were the case you may be losing something (service) but you are gaining something (capacity and frequency) At least it's a healthy balance instead of lose lose.

[Busjack]

I don't know the context of that comment, and am not inclined to figure out exactly what book I should open to page 132, .

Krambles & Peterson, CTA at 45,

As opposed to the nonexistent book, "Claypool and See Tea Eh at 65."

And, as I indicted, the context was fare policy.

[jajuan]

There's nothing that would stop those transfers from occurring at the Brown Line if that's where the 49 turned around.

There may be other arguments against turning the 49 at the Brown Line, but the present location of 49B-49 transfers isn't really one of them.

One good argument against it would be that the traffic pattern for exiting the bus turnaround and heading south would be quite difficult to accomplish without an extra traffic light. The traffic backs up quickly and blocks the exit, particularly during rush hour, making a left turn difficult. I have seen it myself on buses that have made the left turn (such as 49s that were short-turned because they were running late).

The other argument against it besides the reason I already pointed out, despite your disagreement, and your mention of the effect to traffic either to the buses pulling out or the traffic passing Leland is the sheer number of 49s that need to layover during rush hour especially now that the headways during those times are now as little as 3 or 5 mins. There would be upwards of 5 or 6 buses laying over at Berwyn before the crowd reduction plan went into effect so imagine how many you would have now with a 3 minute headway. The Brown Line terminal is much too small for that kind of load in either scenario, especially with also being the layover point for both the 11 and the 49B.

[See Tea Eh]

Krambles & Peterson, CTA at 45,

As opposed to the nonexistent book, "Claypool and See Tea Eh at 65."

And, as I indicted, the context was fare policy.

Unless the detail of the context was charging distance-based fares, I'll go with Yerkes over Krambles.

[Busjack]

Unless the detail of the context was charging distance-based fares, I'll go with Yerkes over Krambles.

Let's also remember that Yerkes left town shortly after constructing a streetcar system based on not issuing transfers between the original and extension lines, instead of connecting them, and also screwed around with 3 types of cable cars because he wouldn't pay royalties to SF. Not to mention that he was talking about conditions in the 1880s and 1890s. Get your horsecars out.

[See Tea Eh]

He also built the Loop.

He also operated at a time when transit was expected to make money.

Regardless, the math hasn't changed in the past 100 years.

[Busjack]

...

Regardless, the math hasn't changed in the past 100 years.

So, how much do you have budgeted to clean up horse poop on the streets? That entered into his math. Also, how many monthly passes did he sell? I bet none.

[See Tea Eh]

Horse poop vs. diesel fuel. Whatever.

The point is that it costs more to carry a passenger a longer distance than a shorter one.

The existence of monthly passes only exacerbates the disparity. For the same price, I could ride daily from Linden to UPS, or O'Hare to 112th & Torrence, or from North Avenue & Lake Shore down to Wacker & Michigan.

Which rider do you think costs CTA the least to transport?

Doesn't matter if the year is 1899, 1999, or 2013.

[Busjack]

Horse poop vs. diesel fuel. Whatever.

The point is that it costs more to carry a passenger a longer distance than a shorter one.

The existence of monthly passes only exacerbates the disparity. For the same price, I could ride daily from Linden to UPS, or O'Hare to 112th & Torrence, or from North Avenue & Lake Shore down to Wacker & Michigan.

Which rider do you think costs CTA the least to transport?

Doesn't matter if the year is 1899, 1999, or 2013.

Again, it isn't a matter of my opinion. I cited a source that I consider responsible (and certainly the last CTA Executive Director to be so characterized), and you sure haven't posted any numbers, but rely on a 120 year old quote.

Like I said, when I see Claypool and See Tea Eh at 65 at Kroch and Brentano's, I'll buy it.

[See Tea Eh]

It's called common sense. Too bad you never seem to be able to use any.

[jajuan]

Horse poop vs. diesel fuel. Whatever.

The point is that it costs more to carry a passenger a longer distance than a shorter one.

The existence of monthly passes only exacerbates the disparity. For the same price, I could ride daily from Linden to UPS, or O'Hare to 112th & Torrence, or from North Avenue & Lake Shore down to Wacker & Michigan.

Which rider do you think costs CTA the least to transport?

Doesn't matter if the year is 1899, 1999, or 2013.

Granted but CTA isn't a distance based system as Metra, so that detail only matters as far as the number of each number of fares the CTA has to collect against what funding it gets from governmental tax dollars to not go in the red. Now yes there are some routes that may operate better with a bit of short turning but as I stated before it's time to start expanding our collective thinking to seeing that short turning isn't going to work for every route and that yes the system does have routes that operate just fine without partial trips that aren't school trips.

[artthouwill]

One thing I can say that is positive about all this is that they really boosted service on the Blue line on weekends. (They also boosted weekend service on the Red and Brown lines) Trains are about 5-6 minutes apart now, before they were 10 minutes plus. Every other train goes to UIC. Service actually seems better than during the week. I like the change, even though it does short change the Forest Park branch, but they appear to have almost the same service as the whole line did before. Maybe they should test this idea out on the buses. It could actually have a positive response if riders knew when the service was to the cut sections, but the challenge would lie on where to cut. I'm sure with all the ridership statistics CTA has though that shouldn't be a problem.

One byproduct of short turning trains at UIC, especially during peak periods, is the elimination of backups at the Forest Park terminal. Before this change, sometimes there were trains backlogged from the terminal all the way to the Harlem station. Part of that may be because trains were not pulled into the turnaround loop quickly enough to ease the backload. Perhaps operators didn't want to be stuck in that loop waiting for the next inbound train to depart. We know the diamond crossover experiment failed miserably and actually exacerbated the situation. But now that the service adjustment has taken place, there is virtually no delay in trains pulling into Forest Park. Also, the operator has time to check the train for sleeping or hiding passengers before pulling into the loop or yard. At least the O'Hare end of the route has a third track not only in the station itself,, but there are two crossovers in the tunnel preceding the station. The first crossover introduces the third track (which sometimes has been used to park trains and other times used to alleviate a backlog) and the second crossover is just before the station. During peak periods, all three tracks (platforms) have been used. At the end of peak periods, the train that was heading to the yard was the one that used the third platform.

I know in the past there used to be Red Line signage on the trains that read Wilson. I know that at one time there were trains that terminated there (which probably predated the Englewood/Jackson Pk-Howard via State ST subway days). While I don't think the current configuration would be conducive to short turning trains there, if they could include that as a feature in addition to making Wilson a transfer point between Red and Purple Line trains, that would be great (even if the Purple Line transfer there alone would alleviate SOME of the Red Line crowding).

[See Tea Eh]

Granted but CTA isn't a distance based system as Metra, so that detail only matters as far as the number of each number of fares the CTA has to collect against what funding it gets from governmental tax dollars to not go in the red. Now yes there are some routes that may operate better with a bit of short turning but as I stated before it's time to start expanding our collective thinking to seeing that short turning isn't going to work for every route and that yes the system does have routes that operate just fine without partial trips that aren't school trips.

CTA's fares are not distance-based (which leads to the disparity), but I assure you, CTA's costs certainly are impacted by distance.

Nobody's arguing that there aren't some routes that do just fine without short-turning. My point is that short-distance passengers cost less to transport than long-distance passengers. If 60 people boarded the 49 at Berwyn and they all rode to 79th, you'd only ever collect 60 fares on that trip. With short-distance travelers and frequent ons and offs, you could easily serve 100 to 120 passengers (or more, there's theoretically no limit, right up to the point of 60 people getting on at each stop and riding exactly one stop, but that's a bit extreme). The running time will be slightly longer for a bus stopping regularly vs. running nonstop, but it's not going to be double for a trip that carries twice as many passengers. (Just to cite numbers, according to Google Maps, driving nonstop from Berwyn & Western to 79th & Western, along Western Avenue, in current traffic, is 1 hour 4 minutes; consider that a bus has slower acceleration than a car and can't make as many traffic lights, we'll just round that off to 1h10; a one-way trip on the 49, midday, is about 1h30).

If the peak load on the bus (that which drives the headway requirements) is 60 passengers, then you could carry 60 people at whatever fare level (for the sake of simplicity, we'll call it $2), and collect $120 in revenue for a 1h10 trip, or serve 120 people ($240 in revenue) for a 1h30 trip. And yes, the math does stay essentially the same, even if the specific numbers change. If it's 1899 and the fare is twopenny a ride, or 2012 and the fare is $2/ride (or if we want to use some "average fare" figure, such as the $0.99/ride that it was in 2011), short-distance riders with higher passenger turnover allows you to carry more people and collect more revenue, while your costs do not increase on the same level.

If you have, hypothetically, a large uptick in riders starting at Armitage, and then a drop off at the Orange Line (hypotheticals here), then you could actually save money by running short turns between Armitage and the Orange Line. Then, instead of a 1.5-hour one-way, you have a 45-minute one-way. This costs less to operate, because it then requires fewer buses to operate the required headway through the route's peak load point.

But apparently Busjack, who has never worked in the industry and frequently does not understand concepts and relies on what he's read from what other people wrote, thinks it would be cheaper to run all those buses from end-to-end and CTA would collect more revenue if they only carried 60 passengers per trip than 120 or so. That's the point I'm disagreeing with.

[Busjack]

It's called common sense. Too bad you never seem to be able to use any.

You claimed you knew more than the rest of us--post the numbers. They exist somewhere in CTA.

[Busjack]

....

I know in the past there used to be Red Line signage on the trains that read Wilson. I know that at one time there were trains that terminated there (which probably predated the Englewood/Jackson Pk-Howard via State ST subway days). While I don't think the current configuration would be conducive to short turning trains there, if they could include that as a feature in addition to making Wilson a transfer point between Red and Purple Line trains, that would be great (even if the Purple Line transfer there alone would alleviate SOME of the Red Line crowding).

In effect, the Brown-Purple from Belmont south is that short turn. Other than that, the Red Line train really doesn't clear out, although it is less crowded around Loyola. Also, one can infer that the turnaround loop in the Howard yard is better.

And the Wilson plans do call for double platforms for express/local transfers.

[jajuan]

But apparently Busjack, who has never worked in the industry and frequently does not understand concepts and relies on what he's read from what other people wrote, thinks it would be cheaper to run all those buses from end-to-end and CTA would collect more revenue if they only carried 60 passengers per trip than 120 or so. That's the point I'm disagreeing with.

I didn't see him say that at all. What I did see him say is that there are mitigating circumstances that no longer exist from 100 years ago and some that exist today that didn't exist then that have an effect on your budget numbers in terms of how much you budget for some items and what items you're budgeting for. And since when do we question anyone's ability to make intelligent interpretation of available information just because that person doesn't work for the organization. Don't lawyers and lawyers do it all the time when giving their professional advice to any business that call on their services?

And I did acknowledge how distance plays into CTA's covering its expenses when I made the point of how many fares they need to collect and I'll go further with their determining how much is adequate to charge while balancing that delicate line of not driving too many to alternative modes of transportation.

[Busjack]

But apparently Busjack, who has never worked in the industry and frequently does not understand concepts and relies on what he's read from what other people wrote, thinks it would be cheaper to run all those buses from end-to-end and CTA would collect more revenue if they only carried 60 passengers per trip than 120 or so. That's the point I'm disagreeing with.

Apparently you don't score anything on reading comprehension, either.

If you went back to my original point, it was about short turning on both ends of the route to save money. Not running the buses empty on each end.

In fact, your last point agrees with Krambles, not Yerkes.

I expect your apology.

[jajuan]

Now on a lighter note, how does the short turning work on the 146 during the weekday midday hours? I noticed that they're able to maintain the 20 minute headway on the southbound side while providing a ten minute one for northbound buses from Museum Campus to Wilson. Are those northbound buses ending at Wilson in the midday pull-ins or do they deadhead back to Museum Campus for another trip? I welcome an expanded view of how it works on the route during the rush hours. I don't ask about how the 147 short turning works because I think I can see the pattern with those short turns as they appear to still be in part North Park operators doing a trip to/from Devon and Broadway and then deadheading to get in position for a trip as a 136 and repeating that cycle through the rush hour.

[Busjack]

Now on a lighter note, how does the short turning work on the 146 during the weekday midday hours? I noticed that they're able to maintain the 20 minute headway on the southbound side while providing a ten minute one for northbound buses from Museum Campus to Wilson. Are those northbound buses ending at Wilson in the midday pull-ins or do they deadhead back to Museum Campus for another trip? I welcome an expanded view of how it works on the route during the rush hours. I don't ask about how the 147 short turning works because I think I can see the pattern with those short turns as they appear to still be in part North Park operators doing a trip to/from Devon and Broadway and then deadheading to get in position for a trip as a 136 and repeating that cycle through the rush hour.

I read the schedule as just that they folded in the 145 trips except the Wilson portion into 146. Hence there are various blocks of "every 20 minutes from Berwyn or 10 from Montrose," and either the reverse, or "then every 13 to 16 minutes from Planetarium and every 6 to 8 minutes from Harrison/State to Broadway/Foster and/or Berwyn Red Line." The only difference seems to be that the northbound short terminal is Wilson-Marine, but I assume the bus has to turn around somewhere to get back to Montrose-Marine. Since it is every 10 minutes bidirectionally off rush south of Montrose, the only real question is what the afternoon rush does when trips end at Grace, but, other than the garage assignment, shouldn't be any different from what similar 145 trips did. Also, the trips from Montrose-Marine seem to peter out at 4 p.m., which indicates that the Grace trips aren't in service southbound.

And to bring this back to the other topic, I guess this is one line that gets short turned on both ends, although I doubt it was conceived as such.

BusTracker indicates that both types of runs go to and from the Planetarium midday.

[See Tea Eh]

Apparently you don't score anything on reading comprehension, either.

If you went back to my original point, it was about short turning on both ends of the route to save money. Not running the buses empty on each end.

In fact, your last point agrees with Krambles, not Yerkes.

I expect your apology.

Honestly, Busjack, I can never figure out what point you're making because you never actually state what your position is.

The quote you provided from Krambles book says nothing about short turns. In fact, it isn't even an absolute statement. He uses the word "may" which, at best, indicates that it's a possibility to consider, but it is not presented in a way that indicates he actually believes it to be the case (if it were otherwise, it wouldn't say "may" and it wouldn't be relegated to a footnote).

Having looked up the book in question, he spends most of the chapter stating that there is/has been lots of interest in distance-based fares, but says the reasons they haven't been implemented are largely technical and social (namely, fare collection technology and the general acceptance that there should be one fare for the whole system). If it was really the short-trip passengers that were the most costly, why would there be constant consideration for raising fares on long-distance passengers?

So, given that I've provided more context to the Krambles quote, can you please state what your position is, so that I can figure out exactly what it is you're trying to say?

I'd apologize if I had anything to apologize for (at best, it's my inability to keep up with your mind games as a substitute for actual useful content). I won't apologize for actually having done this type of work for a living and being able to take things in greater context.

[Busjack]

Honestly, Busjack, I can never figure out what point you're making because you never actually state what your position is.

...

So, given that I've provided more context to the Krambles quote, can you please state what your position is, so that I can figure out exactly what it is you're trying to say?

I'd apologize if I had anything to apologize for (at best, it's my inability to keep up with your mind games as a substitute for actual useful content). I won't apologize for actually having done this type of work for a living and being able to take things in greater context.

Maybe you should read what I put in bold in the part of my post that you quoted, instead of creating strawmen.

And, apparently you should apologize for putting words into others' posts and then justifying them by saying you are retired from having worked at CTA. Frank Kruesi could have said the same.

[jajuan]

I read the schedule as just that they folded in the 145 trips except the Wilson portion into 146. Hence there are various blocks of "every 20 minutes from Berwyn or 10 from Montrose," and either the reverse, or "then every 13 to 16 minutes from Planetarium and every 6 to 8 minutes from Harrison/State to Broadway/Foster and/or Berwyn Red Line." The only difference seems to be that the northbound short terminal is Wilson-Marine, but I assume the bus has to turn around somewhere to get back to Montrose-Marine. Since it is every 10 minutes bidirectionally off rush south of Montrose, the only real question is what the afternoon rush does when trips end at Grace, but, other than the garage assignment, shouldn't be any different from what similar 145 trips did. Also, the trips from Montrose-Marine seem to peter out at 4 p.m., which indicates that the Grace trips aren't in service southbound.

And to bring this back to the other topic, I guess this is one line that gets short turned on both ends, although I doubt it was conceived as such.

BusTracker indicates that both types of runs go to and from the Planetarium midday.

Thanks but that's not what I'm getting at because both directions' Wilson or Montrose trips don't exactly overlap for all that long as I can pull up that same route progress display for both directions and the progress display shows no pull down option for a short trip in the opposite direction. So again for the portion of the midday when there is no overlap in short turn trips, do the buses deadhead for another trip or are they buses that are pulling into or out of the garage? But never mind, I looked at the pattern myself for a while and got my question answered.

[See Tea Eh]

Maybe you should read what I put in bold in the part of my post that you quoted, instead of creating strawmen.

And, apparently you should apologize for putting words into others' posts and then justifying them by saying you are retired from having worked at CTA. Frank Kruesi could have said the same.

When did I say I was retired?

You're good at finding links and quotes and such, so this should be no problem for you, right?

[Busjack]

Thanks but that's not what I'm getting at because both directions' Wilson or Montrose trips don't exactly overlap for all that long as I can pull up that same route progress display for both directions and the progress display shows no pull down option for a short trip in the opposite direction.

I saw that, and considered it a bit strange.

In fact, things are more screwed up than that. I was hoping for southbound arrival times north of Lawrence every 20 minutes (which I got) and south of Montrose every 20, but the segment between Irving Park and Belmont shows 5 buses at once. So, something is fouled up, whether in the real or virtual world.