New Ideas

[See Tea Eh]

Regarding adding service to the 6, there would need to be more buses at 103rd to handle the added load, and unless the 6 is shared with 77th or any other garage, I don't see other garages giving up any buses at this time.

No, it wouldn't. You're talking about midday service (which is what making the 2 an all-day route would entail). That means leaving buses already on the road out longer.

[BusHunter]

No, it wouldn't. You're talking about midday service (which is what making the 2 an all-day route would entail). That means leaving buses already on the road out longer.

Also they would most likely do this with an existing fleet if used in the rush. Artthouwill does make a good point about the #26's are doing the service south of 67th, (in the rush) so it would seem to me that it would make sense to cut some of the #6 rush service south of 67th, and short turn some buses in favor of more service Hyde Park to downtown.

[jajuan]

Basically, there is dann's point, plus the point I made above that CTA is not in the business of promoting ridership because it is a loss, such as similar to CPS not promoting that children in parochial school and the suburbs fill the empty classrooms in schools it is closing by becoming CPS students.

Unless there is some bus that is only marginally light, more ridership means having to increase service and costs. The solution for deadheads seems to be reflected in the 77th St. buses stored downtown thread.

Either the 2 reverse rush is pulling its weight, or it isn't. There isn't a 26 reverse rush.

I understand what you're saying but maybe that's the problem in some ways? Expecting the demand to just fall in their laps? Plus I'm not saying anything about increase the service on the 2. Just a simple 'oh yes the 2 is also another option to get you back downtown from the Museum during PM rush. Those buses can be boarded at XYZ." Any increase in service would still have to be justified in buses in the present hours overflowing to a point to be a headache.

Also they would most likely do this with an existing fleet if used in the rush. Artthouwill does make a good point about the #26's are doing the service south of 67th, (in the rush) so it would seem to me that it would make sense to cut some of the #6 rush service south of 67th, and short turn some buses in favor of more service Hyde Park to downtown.

If they returned to the weekday short turns at Stony Island/63rd during rush hour that idea could work since as pointed out the 26 helps out well south of 67th even with the buses being 40 footers.

[Busjack]

...Expecting the demand to just fall in their laps? ..

No, that's now what I am saying. I am saying that they don't want the demand. If basically the system has be decrowded and is running at a loss (if you believe management), encouraging demand isn't the goal.

[jajuan]

I'm not quite sure that's completely what they mean by decrowd otherwise they wouldn't have placed resources from supposedly lower ridership routes on routes with higher demand. The goal isn't cut just for the heck of it. It's supposed to be to have buses and trains where the demand is and have the system on sound financial footing. The financial part implies they wouldn't balk at more demand especially if it means more revenues. So highlighting services isn't necessarily a bad idea.

[Busjack]

I'm not quite sure that's completely what they mean by decrowd otherwise they wouldn't have placed resources from supposedly lower ridership routes on routes with higher demand. The goal isn't cut just for the heck of it. It's supposed to be to have buses and trains where the demand is and have the system on sound financial footing. The financial part implies they wouldn't balk at more demand especially if it means more revenues. So highlighting services isn't necessarily a bad idea.

I'm sure we can debate about what the goal of the Crowd Reduction Plan was, but it sure seems like it wasn't to encourage more demand, but to accommodate existing demand a bit more comfortably.

The CTA Press Release on supposed statistics showing that the Crowd Reduction Plan "was working" was hashed over on the CTA Tattler, and Kevin O'Neil gave the impression that all they were were passenger count (i.e. boardings) divided by service hours, not an actual survey of the buses and trains to see if passengers were still stuffed like sardines. One poster said 152 was better, but then that that was because there were more articulated buses there. We know where those came from.

The May Financial Report also indicates that for March ridership, fare, and pass revenue was below budget. I suppose that if CTA wanted to reverse those trends, your theory would be that it should increase ridership, but there isn't any blitz to "ride CTA to the Children's Museum on Navy Pier" or the like. Since the Budget Presentation indicates that 47% of Passenger Revenue is from passes, CTA would get only half the bang for the buck you think, unless pass sales went way up. Except that there were the news stories this week that riders are resisting the price increase (which Emanuel said didn't happen) to the passes (CTA Tattler version with embedded link).

While you may have the argument that gas prices were lower in March than in May, this spike doesn't seem much different than the spike last year.

But, to summarize, CTA is not in the business of encouraging ridership.

__________

BTW, I see that a new name is on the Financial Report, and the numbers are more detailed, indicating again that prior staff was willing to fudge them. Karen Walker used to repeat that CTA fuel costs were under budget even though it was paying $3.60 when the going price tax free would have been $2.20 in 2009, and didn't start reporting that the hedge did not work until early 2012.

[jajuan]

I'm sure we can debate about what the goal of the Crowd Reduction Plan was, but it sure seems like it wasn't to encourage more demand, but to accommodate existing demand a bit more comfortably.

The CTA Press Release on supposed statistics showing that the Crowd Reduction Plan "was working" was hashed over on the CTA Tattler, and Kevin O'Neil gave the impression that all they were were passenger count (i.e. boardings) divided by service hours, not an actual survey of the buses and trains to see if passengers were still stuffed like sardines. One poster said 152 was better, but then that that was because there were more articulated buses there. We know where those came from.

The May Financial Report also indicates that for March ridership, fare, and pass revenue was below budget. I suppose that if CTA wanted to reverse those trends, your theory would be that it should increase ridership, but there isn't any blitz to "ride CTA to the Children's Museum on Navy Pier" or the like. Since the Budget Presentation indicates that 47% of Passenger Revenue is from passes, CTA would get only half the bang for the buck you think, unless pass sales went way up. Except that there were the news stories this week that riders are resisting the price increase (which Emanuel said didn't happen) to the passes (CTA Tattler version with embedded link).

While you may have the argument that gas prices were lower in March than in May, this spike doesn't seem much different than the spike last year.

But, to summarize, CTA is not in the business of encouraging ridership.

__________

BTW, I see that a new name is on the Financial Report, and the numbers are more detailed, indicating again that prior staff was willing to fudge them. Karen Walker used to repeat that CTA fuel costs were under budget even though it was paying $3.60 when the going price tax free would have been $2.20 in 2009, and didn't start reporting that the hedge did not work until early 2012.

All well worded and all but I still partially disagree and say they won't be getting too far with a not encouraging ridership mentality that you believe to be the overall theme. I still say their long term goal needs some ridership encouragement in the mix if they are to stay in business especially in this time of tight government budgets.

[Busjack]

.... if they are to stay in business especially in this time of tight government budgets.

Which is the whole issue, which probably can be translated to "do the political hacks need customer satisfaction to stay employed?" In that unlinked trips are now below what "originating fares" were in 1970 (according to Krambles's book, page 36), and instead of coming out and saying "ridership is bad on Lincoln, let's see how we can accommodate who is left or improve ridership" (as Pace would have done), CTA hid behind transit planning jargon provided by Northwestern and cut the routes after a sham hearing process. Maybe the riders on 146 are a bit more satisfied, but that probably doesn't matter.

Given that the response to tight budgets in 2010 was across-the-board service cuts, while the union might have weighed the calculus of a 10% cut and the remaining 90% decided to go along with it, the real question is whether anyone in a position to control the customer experience cares. The only determinant seems to be whether the Mayor wants to shove someone out. At least Emanuel claims to ride the L, but I'm sure Claypool's job and those of his underlings do not depend on the ridership or revenue report, or you would have seen a different response in the past few months.

As I implied above, it isn't any different at CPS or the Chicago Public Library.

Update: Besides that, the real determinant of employment is whether they can raise a tax; compare CTA of 2005-2007, and also Hammond, where ridership supposedly doubled, but there was no one willing to raise taxes, so no service.

[mkohut]

Given how are College Clowns can't solve the Pension Problem.

I can't see then raiseing taxes for Metra,Pace,and CTA to add service.

[Busjack]

Given how are College Clowns can't solve the Pension Problem.

I can't see then raiseing taxes for Metra,Pace,and CTA to add service.

There was the RTA tax hike in 2008 that should have been enough.

My only point is that if ridership is down, the reactions here are tax hike or service cut, and this region has had both. Pace did send out something yesterday on Dump the Pump Day, but that's about it with regard to encouraging ridership. Emanuel and Klein may have a policy of making the streets undrivable, but it seems like most of the focus is on encouraging biking.

[mkohut]

There was the RTA tax hike in 2008 that should have been enough.

My only point is that if ridership is down, the reactions here are tax hike or service cut, and this region has had both. Pace did send out something yesterday on Dump the Pump Day, but that's about it with regard to encouraging ridership. Emanuel and Klein may have a policy of making the streets undrivable, but it seems like most of the focus is on encouraging biking.

I think they do a good job all ready .Between Speed Humps,Planters in the middle of a intersection,and the Cameras who would want to drive in Chicago.Almost left out Parking Meters.

As I'm sure your aware with the higher gas prices there should be more sales tax money from that.Maybe by the year 2100 the state would have pay the RTA all the money it owns it.