New Ideas

[Busjack]

You're basically seeing the modus operandi of Emanuel appointees sometimes under Emanuel himself to cut even when there is credible evidence that speaks against the cut or cutting as quickly as Emanuel wants to drop the ax.

What is more surprising is that recent statements (such as Brian Steele saying "the Mayor wants," with regard to the Red Line shutdown indicate that Claypool is merely Emanuel's puppet. Not even Daley went so far with Kruesi.

But to take this further OT, the school system will be a bigger political issue in that regard, rather than teeing off a comparative few over transit.

[trainman8119]

Will it be? No... we tried a petition signed by thousands and even got Ald. Pawar involved... no change, they still cut the route. CTA is finally doing whatever service cuts and fare increases they want, and don't care about the public opinion.

Never did and probably never will.

[jajuan]

What is more surprising is that recent statements (such as Brian Steele saying "the Mayor wants," with regard to the Red Line shutdown indicate that Claypool is merely Emanuel's puppet. Not even Daley went so far with Kruesi.

But to take this further OT, the school system will be a bigger political issue in that regard, rather than teeing off a comparative few over transit.

You're right, and I actually had the school closings issue on my mind when I made that post. But I didn't want to get us too far off topic by speaking more specifically than the general statement I made.

[NewFlyerMCI]

Does anybody have an opinion on the ideas for the 98 or 32?

[Busjack]

Does anybody have an opinion on the ideas for the 98 or 32?

Redundant of existing service.

[Sam92]

Does anybody have an opinion on the ideas for the 98 or 32?

26 is pretty much the 98 in a way... Just ends at the water tower instead of Navy Pier... If demand arised for service from South Shore to navy Pier that bad then they could simply extend the 26 along Chicago to Navy Pier following the 66 and maybe extend and expand service hours/frequency rather than create a whole other route....

[MetroShadow]

Does anybody have an opinion on the ideas for the 98 or 32?

32 - Redundant. Just extend the 112 north or extend the 24 south to 95th. [Not that the demand even exists]

[Busjack]

32 - ,,,Not that the demand even exists]

At one time 24 went down to 103rd (turnaround in the Beverly Garage lot). Obviously, the demand didn't exist, or it wouldn't have been cut back to 79th or Simeon.

Heck, since the Red Line is out, CTA could have brought back the 111AX Vincennes Express to downtown, but didn't.

[Busjack]

26 is pretty much the 98 in a way... Just ends at the water tower instead of Navy Pier... If demand arised for service from South Shore to navy Pier that bad then they could simply extend the 26 along Chicago to Navy Pier following the 66 and maybe extend and expand service hours/frequency rather than create a whole other route....

Apparently Navy Pier doesn't need that much service, or CTA wouldn't have rerouted 120-121.

[jajuan]

Heck the 56 would still have been operating there after the creation of the 124 if demand was that high.

[Sam92]

Apparently Navy Pier doesn't need that much service, or CTA wouldn't have rerouted 120-121.

Right.... Those were in a way redundant of the 124 going from the same area to Navy Pier. And in a way 26 doesn't end too far off from Navy Pier. Although with the crowds on the 26, I've wondered if they could maybe use some midday and bi-directional service if money ever became available

[Busjack]

Heck the 56 would still have been operating there after the creation of the 124 if demand was that high.

That was an intentional disconnection of the two segments of 56. Reason not clear, whether it had to do with garage assignments, keeping 56 on schedule, or passenger count indicating different headways. But it was clear that CTA was not running both 56 and 124 to Navy Pier.

[jajuan]

I realize the intentional split of 56 and 124. I brought them up as another example of undue duplication CTA doesn't need to return among routes going to Navy Pier.

[busfan2847]

Apparently Navy Pier doesn't need that much service, or CTA wouldn't have rerouted 120-121.

120-121 were rush hour routes only. It makes sense to push these into more office rich areas.

[renardo870]

Well, what about bringing the 6, 24 or 62 to Navy Pier?

[Busjack]

Well, what about bringing the 6, 24 or 62 to Navy Pier?

How much demand is there from the south side to do so? People from Simeon going to the Children's Museum?

6 Seems to be reversing o.k. doing a U turn on an apparently low traffic volume portion of Upper Wacker Dr.

[mkohut]

Well, what about bringing the 6, 24 or 62 to Navy Pier?

That would be duplicate service of 29

[MetroShadow]

Well, what about bringing the 6, 24 or 62 to Navy Pier?

124 addresses the need for transfers from the North side of the loop. That, and as already mentioned, the 29.

[BusHunter]

Well, what about bringing the 6, 24 or 62 to Navy Pier?

I like the idea of a #6 going to Navy Pier. Alot of tourists ride that. MSI, The Field Museum, Planetarium, Shedd, Navy Pier. Sounds like it would gain riders. You would also have a full time service to Navy Pier from Michigan Avenue.

[mkohut]

I like the idea of a #6 going to Navy Pier. Alot of tourists ride that. MSI, The Field Museum, Planetarium, Shedd, Navy Pier. Sounds like it would gain riders. You would also have a full time service to Navy Pier from Michigan Avenue.

This would be duplicate service when you have 2 going there during rush hour.

[jajuan]

I like the idea of a #6 going to Navy Pier. Alot of tourists ride that. MSI, The Field Museum, Planetarium, Shedd, Navy Pier. Sounds like it would gain riders. You would also have a full time service to Navy Pier from Michigan Avenue.

There's no need for it. As pointed out by mk, it would be a duplication of the #2 which already connects everything you just listed. And ridership on the #6 isn't exactly hurting if the full artics in both directions and ramped up service under the December decrowd plan are any indication. That's one route I would say doesn't need a gain of riders for the time being unless we want to see every bus regardless of model type always crowded more than they already have been. Rather than extending the 6 to Navy Pier, the way to go would be to expand the hours of the route that already connects MSI, Museum Campus and Navy Pier, namely the 2. Maybe move the layover point of the south end from Cottage Grove/60th to MSI in addition to expanding hours from rush hour only if by the slimmest of chances that CTA agrees that 2's present service hours aren't enough to connect those three points of interest for tourists. But then again, tourists could always ride the 6 or the 10 (when the 10 is runnng) into downtown and transfer to the 124

[Sam92]

There's no need for it. As pointed out by mk, it would be a duplication of the #2 which already connects everything you just listed. And ridership on the #6 isn't exactly hurting if the full artics in both directions and ramped up service under the December decrowd plan are any indication. That's one route I would say doesn't need a gain of riders for the time being unless we want to see every bus regardless of model type always crowded more than they already have been. Rather than extending the 6 to Navy Pier, the way to go would be to expand the hours of the route that already connects MSI, Museum Campus and Navy Pier, namely the 2. Maybe move the layover point of the south end from Cottage Grove/60th to MSI in addition to expanding hours from rush hour only if by the slimmest of chances that CTA agrees that 2's present service hours aren't enough to connect those three points of interest for tourists. But then again, tourists could always ride the 6 or the 10 (when the 10 is runnng) into downtown and transfer to the 124

Most of the 2's ridership on the south end comes from the #4, not MSI.... The bus fills up around 87th and 79th, then alot of that crowd empties at 60th to get on the 2 by U of C.... The rest are usually King, CMA students, and a few other groups of crowds that'd rather just stay on the bus downtown. In fact i forgot what thread it was in.... (one related to suggestions for new routes?) But at one time I even suggested bringing back the X4 in some form and combining its routing with the 2 north of that area based off of those observations to bring a quicker one-seat ride to those riders with another poster suggesting the same on King Drive. I'm with you on the expanded hours... Gives another quick way downtown that's closer than the red line or other routes that are further east. I also think 26 has the potential for expanded hours and bi-directional service....one seat ride at more times from south shore to downtown instead of having to take the 71 all the way to the red line and then switch; Lake Shore is closer from that area than the Red Line most deffinately

[See Tea Eh]

Why this sudden feeling that Navy Pier needs more service?

For one, the terminal is already pretty crowded. That's why the 120/121 had to layover behind the little park, out of sight.

Second, extending the 6, or any other route that operates with decent frequency, over there, is going to cost at least two, maybe three buses during the rush hour, because you'd likely lose the bus for an extra 15 minutes due to traffic. Even if the 6 just went down the ramp on Wacker Drive to Lake Shore, during the PM rush that thing can back up pretty far, and it could take you an extra 5-6 minutes just to get to Illinois from Columbus.

Not to mention that you'd be making the route even more unreliable by adding that extra mileage.

So, the #6 could connect to both MSI and Navy Pier. So what? How many folks are going to go to both, one right after the other, with no stop in between? At the very least, folks who have both on their itinerary for the same day would likely have a meal stop included, which probably going somewhere along Michigan Avenue or State Street, for which there is already service covered.

For the very few that are left that actually need a one-seat ride between MSI and Navy Pier, that's what transferring is for. Not worth the several hundred thousand dollars in annual expenses to accommodate the few people who would have such an itinerary.

[jajuan]

Most of the 2's ridership on the south end comes from the #4, not MSI.... The bus fills up around 87th and 79th, then alot of that crowd empties at 60th to get on the 2 by U of C.... The rest are usually King, CMA students, and a few other groups of crowds that'd rather just stay on the bus downtown. In fact i forgot what thread it was in.... (one related to suggestions for new routes?) But at one time I even suggested bringing back the X4 in some form and combining its routing with the 2 north of that area based off of those observations to bring a quicker one-seat ride to those riders with another poster suggesting the same on King Drive. I'm with you on the expanded hours... Gives another quick way downtown that's closer than the red line or other routes that are further east. I also think 26 has the potential for expanded hours and bi-directional service....one seat ride at more times from south shore to downtown instead of having to take the 71 all the way to the red line and then switch; Lake Shore is closer from that area than the Red Line most deffinately

It still passes MSI along the south end loop. But I think you missed my point of it all being a logical hypothetical move if I actually thought Navy Pier needs more service coming from the south side which actually I don't. The 2 just makes more sense in this hypothetical world we're delving in than extending the 6 since the 2 already runs to Navy Pier.

[BusHunter]

It still passes MSI along the south end loop. But I think you missed my point of it all being a logical hypothetical move if I actually thought Navy Pier needs more service coming from the south side which actually I don't. The 2 just makes more sense in this hypothetical world we're delving in than extending the 6 since the 2 already runs to Navy Pier.

If anything the #2 is more duplicative of the #29 to Navy Pier than the #6 would be because the #2 travels on State in both directions. The #6 just makes more sense to me than the #2. If they are concerned about traffic, they could extend the #6 to Navy Pier on weekends only. As far as the #2 accessing MSI, that's a poor connection because the last stop inbound is on Stony Island. I'm sure most tourists or even the average rider doesn't even think about that connection, yet alone use it.