CTA Service Adjustments

[jajuan]

In that CTA is now doing what orionbuslover and Andre say it is doing, it is moot, until such time as any eventuality mentioned by BusHunter occurs.

Actually the whole thing was moot for me with the end of the demolition as I pointed out several days and was ready to let the discussion go then when I said the following:

I think you missed my point, which had nothing to do with whether or not the owners of what used to be Evergreen Plaza/The Plaza wanted buses off property. My point was strictly about the current and recent construction to tear the unused property down just how much detail or prior notice CTA about how long that construction would be given CTA's detour notices for 48 and 95W originally saying "until further notice" instead of stating the detour/service ends by a specific or approximate date. So that does suggest some level of initial unclear communication between the two. And now that there's truly nothing there that remains of the mall, there's definitely no reason for either route to pull into private parking lots. So your point about how long Plaza owners wanted buses out is moot. 

But for whatever reason orionbuslover wanted to keep going with a contention that this was about Plaza owners wanting CTA buses off Plaza property when he responded with the following:

You may think the point is moot but it is not. The owners wanted CTA out ASAP. The notice said 'until further notice' because at the time the agreement to access the property was rescinded, it was thought to be permanent and the best option was to route the bus 1.5 miles away to a sufficient layover spot. Apparently staff didn't throw in the white flag and worked hard to secure a more sensible turnaround/layover. Most likely working with Oak Lawn officials for permission to use side streets to complete a turn around.

It's something that he has not proven. So that's why I didn't let him off the hook so quickly and easily. Now moving along, in response to Sunday service on the 39 ending effective this coming Sunday, it looks like they've shown the demand for weekend service just wasn't there as much as some thought might have been as far as Sundays are concerned. But it doesn't make the experiment a failure from the standpoint that they would not have known for sure if they didn't at least try.

[artthouwill]

Interesting that the 39 Sunday service ended but not the Saturday Service. 

 

[jajuan]

Interesting that the 39 Sunday service ended but not the Saturday Service. 

 

Perhaps Saturday service was meeting whatever thresholds they had in mind was enough to keep that service going.

[orionbuslover]

On point 1, are you kidding me?? I posed the question of what incentive buses of either route had to continue pulling on to the property. And by that I was really getting at what real incentive did anyone have to wait for a bus in the parking lot. So because that's where 95W ends is not a real answer.

It's a perfect answer. Think about it, the 95W has ended there for many, many years. On private property that the CTA didn't have to pay for or maintain. My intial statement about the owners wanting CTA out for some time is true. The person in charge of the final decision of whether or not CTA  has access to he property has not remained constant over the years. When new people come in, so do new philosophies. Initially, CTA was going to be off the property for good. And that's why the first notice said the new layover spot was until further notice. People worked hard to gain access to the property again. And that was the point I was making. So, you can unhook me now. The mall itself hasn't been a major trip generator in years, but the area within walking distance still is. The incentive for the CTA to still use the lot is very obvious. The nearest suitable layover space is a 3 mile roundtrip away. That's an operational nightmare, especially when you have a big, now empty lot right next to where the route ends. A precedent has been set and with the up coming construction of new buildings, we'll see if it's a strong one.

 

It's also convenient that you edited your post at about the same time Andre gave clarification of how the buses are turning around, a clarification that already lined up with my original hypothesis.

I guess your saying I deleted or added something to my post based off what Andre said? I did not. 

In that CTA is now doing what orionbuslover and Andre say it is doing, it is moot, until such time as any eventuality mentioned by BusHunter occurs.

I've been coming to this site on a almost daily basis for 10 years now. I know all the roles the various posters take. And I can not believe THE on and only Busjack mentioned me. ?

[jajuan]

It's a perfect answer. Think about it, the 95W has ended there for many, many years. On private property that the CTA didn't have to pay for or maintain. My intial statement about the owners wanting CTA out for some time is true. The person in charge of the final decision of whether or not CTA  has access to he property has not remained constant over the years. When new people come in, so do new philosophies. Initially, CTA was going to be off the property for good. And that's why the first notice said the new layover spot was until further notice. People worked hard to gain access to the property again. And that was the point I was making. So, you can unhook me now. The mall itself hasn't been a major trip generator in years, but the area within walking distance still is. The incentive for the CTA to still use the lot is very obvious. The nearest suitable layover space is a 3 mile roundtrip away. That's an operational nightmare, especially when you have a big, now empty lot right next to where the route ends. A precedent has been set and with the up coming construction of new buildings, we'll see if it's a strong one.

 

I guess your saying I deleted or added something to my post based off what Andre said? I did not. 

 

I've been coming to this site on a almost daily basis for 10 years now. I know all the roles the various posters take. And I can not believe THE on and only Busjack mentioned me. ?

The discussion though was not about Plaza owners' policy. You brought that part up. So the onus was on you to prove that contention. You did not. In fact when asked for a valid source, you gave some response about some unseen and unknown person from Schaumburg. And "95W ending there for decades" is not a valid response no matter how you try slicing it. As for the nearby shops around, so what? There are several other bus routes that terminate near similar shopping strips and clusters but give service to customers of the respective shops without going on private propertyproperty since those clusters aren't malls in the traditional sense. So that's not necessarily enough even if it might be sensible. Nice try on that one though. But as I stated days ago, all of it was a moot point with the demolition being over and both routes back to normal with slight alterations. But if you want to talk further about permanent solutions beyond what they came up with for now, I'm game. I agree with Busjack that CTA may have to bite and actually build a traditional off street terminal after buying required land for it. Looking at the number of retail properties in that area and depending on what gets built on the former mall space, one thought that comes to mind is they may need to do similar to how they did the 119th/Western terminal for #119. That terminal has a bus driveway that runs parallel to the east side of the Walgreen's parking lot and feeds into the terminal directly to the northnorth of and looping around the store.

Edited August 26, 2015 by jajuan

[BusHunter]

I'll be enjoying a malt with shaggy, while you guys have your flame war,  but I will say this. When has CTA last bought a piece of land and made it a street terminal? If anything we are losing those spots all over the city. In the end they are going to have to negotiate with some property owner to get the rights to use it's land or they are out looking for an alternate terminal.

Edited August 26, 2015 by BusHunter

[cta5658]

Here's an idea (which I know might be farfetched but it's just an idea): Have the 95W terminate at 95th/Ashland

[andrethebusman]

The real answer would be for 95W to go further west - maybe even as far as Cicero, serving two major hospitals and a big shopping area west of Pulaski. Right now, it ends where it ends because in 1936 it was the end of civilization, and besides South West Towns Bus Co (later Suburban Transit) took care of what was west of there. But times have changed, and maybe an extension to say Laramie would be justified, with 381 actually reduced west of there.

[Busjack]

Here's an idea (which I know might be farfetched but it's just an idea): Have the 95W terminate at 95th/Ashland

 

The real answer would be for 95W to go further west - maybe even as far as Cicero, serving two major hospitals and a big shopping area west of Pulaski. Right now, it ends where it ends because in 1936 it was the end of civilization, and besides South West Towns Bus Co (later Suburban Transit) took care of what was west of there. But times have changed, and maybe an extension to say Laramie would be justified, with 381 actually reduced west of there.

Both comments basically ignore that 95W was cut back to supplemental service as part of the Crowd Reduction Plan. Running it to Ashland would essentially make it meaningless (in that it won't get into Beverly, where the politicians live). On the other hand, the Crowd Reduction Plan certainly indicates that CTA is not going to extend it. Pace has a corridor study going on 95th, so if anything is going to happen west of Western, Pace will do it.

[jajuan]

Since when is debating out different opinions a flame war? But anyway yes chopping off one third of 95W does make it meaningless. And going farther west of Western definitely ain't happening with the Decrowd reduction in buses and coordination with 381. Now if there were a way to combine it back with 95E with maybe alternate buses going west of the 95th Red line terminal to keep coordination with Pace in place, that would be an idea to shoot for.

[Busjack]

Since when is debating out different opinions a flame war? But anyway yes chopping off one third of 95W does make it meaningless. And going farther west of Western definitely ain't happening with the Decrowd reduction in buses and coordination with 381. Now if there were a way to combine it back with 95E with maybe alternate buses going west of the 95th Red line terminal to keep coordination with Pace in place, that would be an idea to shoot for.

As I indicated before, and you seemed unwilling to accept, that would make it too confusing for those on the east portion.

[jajuan]

As I indicated before, and you seemed unwilling to accept, that would make it too confusing for those on the east portion.

No I'm not ignoring it. I just don't accept simple reading of a destination sign should be all that confusing. 67 and 71 both alternating terminals after all and both seem to do just fine. 

[Busjack]

No I'm not ignoring it. I just don't accept simple reading of a destination sign should be all that confusing. 67 and 71 both alternating terminals after all and both seem to do just fine. 

But neither implies that sometimes you have to transfer to continue on an arterial and other times you do not. You keep relying on the far end of the route, not that the crapshoot is at the 69th Red Line station, if say you are going from LaRabida to 69th and Western, and sometimes you can stay on 67 but others you have to use "another carrier."

Edited August 26, 2015 by Busjack

[andrethebusman]

How many years was 95E and 95W the same route? Almost 50? People seemed to be able to figure out that some 95's went east and others west. Then for years there were two east terminals, with alternate trips to 83rd/Jeffery and alternate to 92nd/Mackinaw. People might be rather stupid, but it is still possible to have short-turns, I think. Some will get on the wrong bus every day, but most will eventually figure it out.

[jajuan]

But neither implies that sometimes you have to transfer to continue on an arterial and other times you do not. You keep relying on the far end of the route, not that the crapshoot is at the 69th Red Line station, if say you are going from LaRabida to 69th and Western, and sometimes you can stay on 67 but others you have to use "another carrier."

And you're still overcomplicating and overthinking the scenarios. Just take the 71 for instance and disregard having a CTA rail station as a terminus. When CTA merged its former structure with what was the 27 as a result of the Lake Shore Corridor study in 2003, they actually created a route that does similar to what I proposed with merging the two 95th street routes back together in that alternating buses go either to 112th/Torrence, the old 27's far end, or 73rd/Exchange, the original 71's far end. Both of those terminus points opposite the 69th/Red Line terminus are referenced on system maps and schedule brochures show every other bus operates beyond the 73rd/Exchange terminus. Similar situation to merging the two 95th routes. The only true difference is the 71 scenario starts from the west and north end and moves east and then south, while the 95th merging starts east and moves west as far as alternating terminals is concerned. So again, how is reading a destination sign so confusing, especially when the 71 situation has existed for almost a decade and a half?

How many years was 95E and 95W the same route? Almost 50? People seemed to be able to figure out that some 95's went east and others west. Then for years there were two east terminals, with alternate trips to 83rd/Jeffery and alternate to 92nd/Mackinaw. People might be rather stupid, but it is still possible to have short-turns, I think. Some will get on the wrong bus every day, but most will eventually figure it out.

Thank you Andre. That's pretty much my point. Yes you will always have that few who are dumb, but after that adjustment period, the vast majority don't need short turning situations too dumbed down. Heck, I have a multitude of friends from the south side who joke about how BusTracker comes in very handy during winter months with the 71 to deal with the Exchange short turns that comprise half the runs.

[BusHunter]

They could make a circulator bus from the #87 short turns at Western. Since they short turn there, why not send a few down to 95th and make it like a loop route from 95th/dan ryan to 87th/dan ryan. What would have worked good back in the day was when the #103 did short turns at Vincennes, cause they could have sent those in a loop out to Western and back to 95/red line. Not that they couldn't do that but they would probably have to make headways 30 minutes versus 20. Both 103rd and 95th would have additional coverage in the form of pace and 104th/pulaski trips. 103rd out to western would be 15 minute headways. It doesn't seem like alot of people ride Western to Pulaski on 103rd. Plus you have even greater coverage east of vincennes on 95th, so basically you would mostly be concerned with the vincennes to western crowd on 95th.

Edited August 27, 2015 by BusHunter

[Busjack]

And you're still overcomplicating and overthinking the scenarios. Just take the 71 for instance and disregard having a CTA rail station as a terminus. When CTA merged its former structure with what was the 27 as a result of the Lake Shore Corridor study in 2003, they actually created a route that does similar to what I proposed with merging the two 95th street routes back together in that alternating buses go either to 112th/Torrence, the old 27's far end, or 73rd/Exchange, the original 71's far end.

Apparently you typed but missed the concept. Nobody is transferring to anything else on a random basis as 73rd and Exchange.

I'll concede that the two ends of 67 are 5 ends, but the middle is not.

You provide some other instance where one has a choice of staying on the same CTA bus or having a 50% chance of having to transfer to a Pace bus. I guess by your theory, only half of the 90s should go to the Green Line.*

*But, based on similar thinking, only half of 307s go north of there.

 

[garmon757]

Hey guys, there's nothing wrong with debating no matter if it's agreeable and disagreeable. No deletions involved but just try to keep it just a tiny bit down. Other than that, carry on debaters. 

How is this a flame war though? 

[andrethebusman]

Here is what I found out about what is going on at the Plaza. Right now, the 48 and 95W are turning around in the far south end of the parking lot, but this is very temporary. The entire mall (with the exception of Planet Fitness) is going to be leveled. Carson's will be getting a new store, located in what was the south parking lot and the current one will be demolished. The new store is supposed to be done by year's end (wishful thinking, me thinks), but at that point what is left of the parking lot will be redone, with NO provision for buses. Therefore, around December the matter of what to do with 48 and 95W will have to be addressed again. Right now, the prevailing opinion is 48 gets cut to Damen/87 permanently, while 95W ends up with the big loop via Western-83rd-Damen-87th. Far from ideal, but unless someone comes up with a better idea and Evergreen Park agrees to it, this is it.

[jajuan]

Apparently you typed but missed the concept. Nobody is transferring to anything else on a random basis as 73rd and Exchange.

I'll concede that the two ends of 67 are 5 ends, but the middle is not.

You provide some other instance where one has a choice of staying on the same CTA bus or having a 50% chance of having to transfer to a Pace bus. I guess by your theory, only half of the 90s should go to the Green Line.*

*But, based on similar thinking, only half of 307s go north of there.

Where did I say anything was random about the 73rd/Exchange short turns? Nor did I suggest that concept in considering merging both the 95th routes. So I think you missed mine. With 71 it's every other bus short turned. And I simply suggested doing something like that on 95th by a possible merging the 95s back together. 95W is every 20 mins while 95E is about every 10. So how is merging the two and keeping it at every other bus goes west of the train station random? And you're still too attached to both current 95th bus routes being rail feeders when what I'm actually saying is there is no need for what is mainly a 95th bus to merely be a feeder route. My suggestion of the short turns was to accommodate for Pace also having bus service on 95th through to Western and CTA and Pace recently putting actual coordination on that stretch. That's why I said you're over thinking the scenario. And yes maybe only half the 90s need go to the Green Line if CTA and Pace are going to share a significant stretch of Harlem.

[Busjack]

Where did I say anything was random about the 73rd/Exchange short turns? Nor did I suggest that concept in considering merging both the 95th routes. So I think you missed mine. With 71 it's every other bus short turned. And I simply suggested doing something like that on 95th by a possible merging the 95s back together. 95W is every 20 mins while 95E is about every 10. So how is merging the two and keeping it at every other bus goes west of the train station random? That's why I said you're over thinking the scenario.

No you are overreading and misreading. Apparently you can't figure out my point that there isn't a transfer point at 73rd and Exchange.

[jajuan]

Here is what I found out about what is going on at the Plaza. Right now, the 48 and 95W are turning around in the far south end of the parking lot, but this is very temporary. The entire mall (with the exception of Planet Fitness) is going to be leveled. Carson's will be getting a new store, located in what was the south parking lot and the current one will be demolished. The new store is supposed to be done by year's end (wishful thinking, me thinks), but at that point what is left of the parking lot will be redone, with NO provision for buses. Therefore, around December the matter of what to do with 48 and 95W will have to be addressed again. Right now, the prevailing opinion is 48 gets cut to Damen/87 permanently, while 95W ends up with the big loop via Western-83rd-Damen-87th. Far from ideal, but unless someone comes up with a better idea and Evergreen Park agrees to it, this is it.

This makes one wonder why the 48 being clipped at 87th permanent sooner. But I suppose that has to do with the pick system and there needing to be a pick on that change. 

[jajuan]

No you are overreading and misreading. Apparently you can't figure out my point that there isn't a transfer point at 73rd and Exchange.

And folks can't just transfer at 71st/Exchange before a short turned bus loops around? I do believe that's how my friends and other south siders riding that route do things, so actually no I didn't misread. I'm sorry but you're seeing complications that really aren't there in the grand scheme.

[Busjack]

And folks can't just transfer at 71st/Exchange before a short turned bus loops around? I do believe that's how my friends and other south siders riding that route do things, so actually no I didn't misread. I'm sorry but you're seeing complications that really aren't there in the grand scheme.

You have so totally missed the point that I am out of here. If you think 71st or 73rd  and whatever is 95th and State, I can't deal with that.

[MetroShadow]

Here is what I found out about what is going on at the Plaza. Right now, the 48 and 95W are turning around in the far south end of the parking lot, but this is very temporary. The entire mall (with the exception of Planet Fitness) is going to be leveled. Carson's will be getting a new store, located in what was the south parking lot and the current one will be demolished. The new store is supposed to be done by year's end (wishful thinking, me thinks), but at that point what is left of the parking lot will be redone, with NO provision for buses. Therefore, around December the matter of what to do with 48 and 95W will have to be addressed again. Right now, the prevailing opinion is 48 gets cut to Damen/87 permanently, while 95W ends up with the big loop via Western-83rd-Damen-87th. Far from ideal, but unless someone comes up with a better idea and Evergreen Park agrees to it, this is it.

48 to Ashland/95? *Ducks*

As for the 95W, there's no good way to send that bus around without adding more time. The Western-83-Damen-87 loop looks like the lesser of two evils (because anything used west of Western is at the mercy of the railroad tracks). Combining it with 95E won't necessarily solve that problem either ("does the ends justify the means" type of scenario).