CTA Service Adjustments

[Busjack]

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).

Anything west of Western would also be at the mercy of Evergreen Park. I don't think anyone would appreciate 97th or 99th and Longwood (besides cutting off 1/2-3/4 mile of 95th eastbound). As I indicated above, if CTA wants to keep the route, it will eventually buy a lot for a turnaround.

[artthouwill]

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.

I agree with the 48 being clipped to 87th.   Why can't 87th get the short turns clipped to Damen and let the 95W use the 87th/Western turnaround?  There is very little if any transferring from 87th to the 349 and it is only Forest Preserve between Damen and Western.  The 87th/Damen can handle the 87th buses and the 48 has a low frequency that only runs during rush periods.  This minimizes mileage on the 95W.  If CTA insists on the Western routing north of 87th, why not just terminate it at the 79th terminal?  There is room there also and it shaves a 1/2 mile each way off.

[andrethebusman]

Here is a thought: How about west on 95th, North on California, east on 91st, South on Western, east on 9th. Goes past Little Company of Mary hospital plus all the shopping area along Western. California has very little residential in that area, the entire east side is parkland. 91st is parkland and shopping center on south side, mostly country club on north, so not too many NIMBY's. As for railroad tracks, 87th, 103rd and 111th cross same tracks and somehow survive, so why can't 95th?

[geneking7320]

Here is a thought: How about west on 95th, North on California, east on 91st, South on Western, east on 9th. Goes past Little Company of Mary hospital plus all the shopping area along Western. California has very little residential in that area, the entire east side is parkland. 91st is parkland and shopping center on south side, mostly country club on north, so not too many NIMBY's. As for railroad tracks, 87th, 103rd and 111th cross same tracks and somehow survive, so why can't 95th?

Do you think Pace would squawk about that?

[Busjack]

Do you think Pace would squawk about that?

Probably not, as CTA has already given Pace half of the passengers east of Western. Again, there may be the issue whether anyone is serving Walmart and similar business along 95th, but, again, passengers are considered a cost rather than people to be served.

[andrethebusman]

These "jointly operated" services are a real odd deal, considering the fares are different. We are almost getting to the point of New Jersey-style deals where some routes are operated jointly by jitney associations and NJ Transit (by virtue of NJT buying out some of the jitney permit holders!) Most places a single route has a single operator and all trips charge the same fare.

[Busjack]

These "jointly operated" services are a real odd deal, considering the fares are different. We are almost getting to the point of New Jersey-style deals where some routes are operated jointly by jitney associations and NJ Transit (by virtue of NJT buying out some of the jitney permit holders!) Most places a single route has a single operator and all trips charge the same fare.

Apparently since part of 96 was given to 290, and definitely as part of the Crowd Reduction Plan, that's how CTA shrinks. The only thing that could be analogous is if Detroit DOT canceled some lines because SMART goes into the city, but there you are dealing with a city department, not service boards which each have the right to set their own fares. Of course, the opposite is the case in the near north and west suburbs.

The NJT situation sounds more like when CTA and CMC were competing, or maybe when NYC still had the franchise routes as well as MTA (and apparently still have not merged NYCTA and MTA Bus Co.).

[andrethebusman]

Actually DDOT did exactly that about 20 years ago. Several city routes were given to SMART, while a couple of city routes were extended out into suburbia in place of SMART service. But for mostly political reasons, the arrangement was soon cancelled.

As for New York, MTA still has THREE bus operations in the city - NYCTA, Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transportation Authority (old Fifth Ave and Surface Transit in Manhattan and the Bronx) and MTA Bus (in Queens). The reason is that the union locals were never merged, so work rules are different in each system. For instance, NYCTA buses display run numbers, and are allowed to pass a late leader, while MABSTOA buses do not, and passing is strictly prohibited, as otherwise street supervisors would not be able to tell who is what run without having to actually stop every bus and ask. Until early 80's NYCTA and MABSTOA had separate fleets, lettered as such, and MTAB still does.

[orionbuslover]

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.

The nearby shops in the area are what's known in the transit industry as 'trip generators'. My mention of the route ending there for a long time, was to point out that the area commercial activity in the area is a major trip generator. Both shoppers and workers use the bus to get there and give the bus a purpose for serving the area. Clearly, CTA has had an agreement with the property owners for years that has benefited them. The point of contention seems to be that I mentioned the property owners wanted CTA out for a long time. That's factual, CTA is a public agency, the planning documents are public domain and you can request to see them. If denied maybe a FOIA request is in order? In the case of the 95W, CTA has a few options: continued use of the parking lot (which Andre and I both pointed out will most likely change in the near future), route the bus to 87th/Damen, purchase land for a terminal, or ask for permission to use local streets for layover/turnaround. Yes, the CTA still has to have permission to use a particular street from the local municipality. I'm not sure how receptive Oak Lawn will be to that option. The 2nd and 3rd options will cost the CTA money. The 2nd is increased costs in perpetuity. The 3rd, a huge up front cost and smaller expenditure in perpetuity.A decision will be made, we have to wait to see.

[Busjack]

...

As for New York, MTA still has THREE bus operations in the city - NYCTA, Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transportation Authority (old Fifth Ave and Surface Transit in Manhattan and the Bronx) and MTA Bus (in Queens). The reason is that the union locals were never merged, so work rules are different in each system. For instance, NYCTA buses display run numbers, and are allowed to pass a late leader, while MABSTOA buses do not, and passing is strictly prohibited, as otherwise street supervisors would not be able to tell who is what run without having to actually stop every bus and ask. Until early 80's NYCTA and MABSTOA had separate fleets, lettered as such, and MTAB still does.

That sounds pretty lame, especially since MTA has a mandate to run a unified system (although that appears consistently mean something else in New York, including their so called unified court system). There is something wrong with management, if they can't implement standard operating procedures. Various local unions are at Pace garages, but I never heard that interfering with management prerogatives. I haven't heard of idiocy such as that Pace Northwest buses can't have run boxes and Pace North Shore can, and entirely incompatible running rules would then apply to 210, 422, 423, 600, and 616, for instance. Pace River is represented by the Teamsters and Pace North Shore by ATU LU 241,* but that didn't stop River from dumping its 6600s on someone else (and then getting some back).

*Didn't used to be, but it appears that the ATU has merged some locals.

[orionbuslover]

That sounds pretty lame, especially since MTA has a mandate to run a unified system (although that appears consistently mean something else in New York, including their so called unified court system). There is something wrong with management, if they can't implement standard operating procedures. Various local unions are at Pace garages, but I never heard that interfering with management prerogatives. I haven't heard of idiocy such as that Pace Northwest buses can't have run boxes and Pace North Shore can, and entirely incompatible running rules would then apply to 210, 422, 423, 600, and 616, for instance. Pace River is represented by the Teamsters and Pace North Shore by ATU LU 241,* but that didn't stop River from dumping its 6600s on someone else (and then getting some back).

*Didn't used to be, but it appears that the ATU has merged some locals.

New York City's public employee unions are very, very, VERY strong. Someone like Rauner would never get elected in NYC or NYS. Work rule changes are unheard of in NYC.

Edited August 29, 2015 by orionbuslover

[Busjack]

New York City's public employee unions are very, very, VERY strong. Someone like Rauner would never get elected in NYC or NYS. Work rule changes are unheard of in NYC.

NY has had Republican mayors like Bloomberg, but, for running a business publishing company, he seems to have run a very soft business as mayor. For instance, he made a deal with Jerry Cooper, head of the Transit Alliance (owner of several private franchise companies) that the MTA would run Transit Alliance garages for 75 years.The equivalent here would be if John Hertz were still running the CMC garages until 2027, instead of all of them having closed a long time ago. (I take it that MBSTOA is the successor to the Hertz boulevard system in New York).

Regardless of whether unions are strong, there are still management prerogatives that aren't open to negotiation. Negotiations are usually allowed for terms and conditions of employment, such as here on such issues as the pension plan, picks, layoffs from certain seniority boards, disciplinary procedures, contracting out work etc. Saying that some buses can't have run boxes isn't negotiable.Like I said, there aren't some Pace buses labeled Teamsters for Pace River and Northwest, and an entirely different fleet for Pace garages represented by the ATU.

[orionbuslover]

NY has had Republican mayors like Bloomberg, but, for running a business publishing company, he seems to have run a very soft business as mayor. For instance, he made a deal with Jerry Cooper, head of the Transit Alliance (owner of several private franchise companies) that the MTA would run Transit Alliance garages for 75 years.The equivalent here would be if John Hertz were still running the CMC garages until 2027, instead of all of them having closed a long time ago. (I take it that MBSTOA is the successor to the Hertz boulevard system in New York).

Regardless of whether unions are strong, there are still management prerogatives that aren't open to negotiation. Negotiations are usually allowed for terms and conditions of employment, such as here on such issues as the pension plan, picks, layoffs from certain seniority boards, disciplinary procedures, contracting out work etc. Saying that some buses can't have run boxes isn't negotiable.Like I said, there aren't some Pace buses labeled Teamsters for Pace River and Northwest, and an entirely different fleet for Pace garages represented by the ATU.

Yes, NYC has had Republican mayors. But central to Rainer's campaign was getting the unions to play nice. In NYC, that would be considered weakening the union. And that just will not get past go. The dynamic of transit in NYC is very different than in most U.S. cities because it's valued. 50%(4 million) of people in NYC don't have cars, and 55% use transit to get to work. Transit workers there have shown many times over the decades that they will strike. A transit strike in NYC is very detrimental to the city's economy. Management will cave to the union way before they grow a backbone. The changes that Huberman and Claypool brought to the CTA would most certainly cause a strike in NYC.

[Busjack]

... Transit workers there have shown many times over the decades that they will strike. A transit strike in NYC is very detrimental to the city's economy. Management will cave to the union way before they grow a backbone. The changes that Huberman and Claypool brought to the CTA would most certainly cause a strike in NYC.

There also is the Taylor Law in NY, which means that the workers will lose 2 days pay for each day missed and the leaders will be put in jail.

[jajuan]

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.

Did I say they were the same? I acknowledged your point when i said let's not get too zero focused on rail stations being bus route terminals since they aren't as important to the larger point if we take into account others' point that other places to shop near the old mall location still serve as traffic generators. You've proven my point that you're too hung on Red Line stations acting as bus route terminals to expand your view to seeing a generic similarity between to two scenarios, one rreal and the other hypothetical. And that's fine since others could picture the overall point.

Edited August 30, 2015 by jajuan

[Busjack]

Did I say they were the same?

Didn't I say I was done with this?

[Brandon93]

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. 

Exactly and there is a huge difference between the 67 and 71. the 67 starts the 71st portion at 71st and Western and the 71 serves mainly the Eastern part of 71st and both have alternating terminals on the East side of their routes.

[andrethebusman]

Actually there are differences in work rules between PACE garages. Most extreme example is that PACE drivers start off as part-time, except in Aurora, where they all start as full-timers.

[andrethebusman]

On ‎9‎/‎11‎/‎2015 at 9:56 PM, Brandon93 said:

Exactly and there is a huge difference between the 67 and 71. the 67 starts the 71st portion at 71st and Western and the 71 serves mainly the Eastern part of 71st and both have alternating terminals on the East side of their routes.

67 is much more complex than 71. 71 is basically alternate Exchange/73rd and Torrence/112th during the day. 67 has two west terminals all day (Ford City and 69th/Western) more or less alternating, but the east end has basically every third bus via LaRabida. In addition, there are 71st/Pulaski turns in the late evening WB, 67th/Stony turns EB in the AM rush, and 69th/Red Line turns late evening EB. This is one of the most complex schedules in the system.