Jump to content

Milwaukee County Transit System


Recommended Posts

  • 2 months later...
  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

At least two 44xx units, 4424 and 4438, are now part of the First Transit fleet for U of MN Twin Cites. 3333 looks like it could be from MCTS as well, however the mirrors and obviously fleet number do

Just when you thought all the MCTS 4400's were retired bus 4434 picks me up this morning on Route 76

These photos are from around a month ago now, but for those who may not have already seen photos elsewhere from the Bus History Association's 2016 Milwaukee region convention and transit properties to

Posted Images

Boooo.... Hissss.... Southridge Mall. Badly place bus stop for Handicapped people.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10200431113500753

MCTS got kicked out of several historical layover places last year because the property owners suddenly decided they didn't want transit buses anymore. As I recall, those locations were Southridge, 108th/Cleveland, Brown Deer/Green Bay, and 124th/Capitol.

The good news in one of them, at 124th/Capitol, is that the Pick & Save which owned the lot right next door welcomed them with open arms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Chicago area's suburban bus service, Pace ran into that situation most notably with the Yorktown Shopping Center located in the western suburb of Lombard. That mall's owner no longer wanted transit buses in the lot of that mall and kicked out the six bus routes that served the mall: 313, 322, 715, 834, 877 and 888. 313, 322 and 834 actually terminated there and therefore had layovers in the lot while the other three simply had service stops there. This is only my own speculation that came to mind as this was occurring, but I suspect that the mall owners were banking on getting away with the move due to Lombard, Illinois being a fairly affluent suburb located about 20 miles from Chicago city limits with many residents in the surrounding area driving their own cars. They seriously underestimated how much of a stink shoppers and mall workers were able to create after the buses were moved. They got some traction when mall employees, living in both the city and nearby suburban areas, were able to successfully argue to their employers in the stores and shops within the mall that walking across the pretty sizable parking lot between the bus stops and mall entrances was not only a safety concern but made it more difficult to get to work on time. The buses were allowed back, but part of the compromise was that there couldn't be extensive layovers on the lot. So only the 322 actually terminates and has a layover at the mall. 313 and 834 only stop there before continuing to the Branding/Finley terminus that they were using (along with 322) during the time that the buses were kicked off the mall parking lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Chicago area's suburban bus service, Pace ran into that situation most notably with the Yorktown Shopping Center located in the western suburb of Lombard. That mall's owner no longer wanted transit buses in the lot of that mall and kicked out the six bus routes that served the mall: 313, 322, 715, 834, 877 and 888. 313, 322 and 834 actually terminated there and therefore had layovers in the lot while the other three simply had service stops there. This is only my own speculation that came to mind as this was occurring, but I suspect that the mall owners were banking on getting away with the move due to Lombard, Illinois being a fairly affluent suburb located about 20 miles from Chicago city limits ...

There was a much simpler explanation--the mall owners were tired of the buses tearing up the parking lot. Pace had to repave it, and agree only to drop off at the mall, but layover on Branding Drive.

And the most recent one was Randhurst Village being designed with very small traffic circles, thereby making sure that the bus couldn't navigate it, so 234 and 696 now stop only on Elmhurst Road.

Not to mention that Glenbrook Hospital reconfigured its entrance so only to accommodate a bus at the bus stop sign, so the layovers for 210 and 270 were also moved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a much simpler explanation--the mall owners were tired of the buses tearing up the parking lot. Pace had to repave it, and agree only to drop off at the mall, but layover on Branding Drive.

And the most recent one was Randhurst Village being designed with very small traffic circles, thereby making sure that the bus couldn't navigate it, so 234 and 696 now stop only on Elmhurst Road.

Not to mention that Glenbrook Hospital reconfigured its entrance so only to accommodate a bus at the bus stop sign, so the layovers for 210 and 270 were also moved.

Yeah but I didn't completely buy that particular argument from them then and still don't now a few years after that episode given North Riverside, Golf Mill, Old Orchard, Lincolwood Town Center, Oakbrook Center and Ford City to name a few have not taken that tact and could have also used the similar argument. What's next? "Oh we don't want that bus on our street now because it tears up the street"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but I didn't completely buy that particular argument from them then and still don't now a few years after that episode given North Riverside, Golf Mill, Old Orchard, Lincolwood Town Center, Oakbrook Center and Ford City to name a few have not taken that tact and could have also used the similar argument. What's next? "Oh we don't want that bus on our street now because it tears up the street"?

There is such a thing as private property. I suppose that the CTA bus runs on your front lawn. Also, at least originally, CTA needed a franchise to run on city streets (according to Krambles).

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is such a thing as private property. I suppose that the CTA bus runs on your front lawn. Also, at least originally, CTA needed a franchise to run on city streets (according to Krambles).

I know that Senor Sarcasm. What I mean is they could have just come out and said they no longer wanted buses on their property without the lame excuses and in the case of Randhurst without the elaborate scheme to make sure buses stay out.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that Senor Sarcasm. What I mean is they could have just come out and said they no longer wanted buses on their property without the lame excuses and in the case of Randhurst without the elaborate scheme to make sure buses stay out.

As a private property owner they can have any excuse or no excuse.

And, as I mentioned above, the buses do stop there; they just aren't allowed to lay over there, See, for instance the route 834 front and back of the schedule.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a private property owner they can have any excuse or no excuse.

And, as I mentioned above, the buses do stop there; they just aren't allowed to lay over there, See, for instance the route 834 front and back of the schedule.

And I do believe I already mentioned that was the case, except for 322 apparently since it doesn't go to Branding/Finley. At any rate, whatever their excuse may have been, the fact that the move made the news still likely got them to thinking they would have been hit in the wallet if they didn't compromise on some form of a solution getting the buses back closer to the doors. This all went down close to the worst parts of the downward swing in the economy if I'm not mistaken. And all retailers were freaking out about customer counts tanking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still do. If CTA doesn't have operating rights on a street, they can't put bus stops on it.

So when CTA wanted to route the 82 on Douglas Boulevard instead of Roosevelt between Homan and Central Park a decade and a half ago for example, they had to get permission from the city to be on Douglas and Homan south of Roosevelt on a permanent basis?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So when CTA wanted to route the 82 on Douglas Boulevard instead of Roosevelt between Homan and Central Park a decade and a half ago for example, they had to get permission from the city to be on Douglas and Homan south of Roosevelt on a permanent basis?

Probably not, since at one time there was a 136 Douglas bus.

But it might come up if, for instance, CTA would actually take suggestions from here to run on Pratt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boooo.... Hissss.... Southridge Mall. Badly place bus stop for Handicapped people.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10200431113500753

God bless that guy, it's a hard thing to try to live independently with a mobility device as it is. Thow in stuff like that and it can be downright depressing I imagine.

US mall grounds in general, from my observations, are never designed for pedestrians but only cars. They are built in auto oriented suburbs, and cater solely to clients who arrive in a personal vehicle. Sure there might be a bus stop somewhere, but it rarely seems to be given much thought in terms of convenience and comfort. I've seen stops placed out on the edge, in the middle of a lot, off the grounds entirely "because only the rifraff ride buses and we don't want those kind of people here", and of course the ever popular, "Hey, we'll just toss a bus shack next to the dumpsters and loading docks." Even when there are malls that place a stop right by an entrance it can still be challenging due to the distance and time a bus has to travel just to serve the stop. I've seen examples of transit stops incorporated right into shopping centers in other countries, I hope to see it here as well someday. At least the Mall of America hasn't entirely shunned transit riders yet, although their transit station is a bit of a 'by the dumpsters and docks' situation.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

I know that Senor Sarcasm. What I mean is they could have just come out and said they no longer wanted buses on their property without the lame excuses and in the case of Randhurst without the elaborate scheme to make sure buses stay out.

Remember when Scottsdale Mall at 79th/Kilpatrick decided the CTA could still stop there, but closed the entrance at the bus stop so you had to walk all the way around to get in the place? Some mall managers do have the concept that buses "bring shoplifters not shoppers" to they evict buses entirely, or at the least move the buses as far away from the entrance as possible. Staten Island Mall in New York did one like that too, made buses stop at the very edge of the parking lot, a good 2 blocks from the entrances. Another New York mall, Green Valley, was across the street from Queens, and the city bus had to end across a major road from the mall, which was in Nassau County (eventually NYCTA got some kind of special dispensation to actually make a left turn into the mall parking lot, the first NYCTA bus stop outside of the city).
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Just curious, but is there a timetable on when the new M-Cards are due out? I saw MCTS was in the testing phase; I'm wondering if they'll be available by August.

I haven't seen an official timeline, other than testing is supposed to start this month with a small group of riders. I'm guessing they want to avoid a Ventra-like fiasco (though I actually don't know if the back-end technology is the same), so the test timeline will only be a guess.

Meanwhile, they have launched their own bus tracker, powered by Clever Devices. Route 21 is the only route currently live. http://realtime.ridemcts.com/bustime/home.jsp

Visually looks almost identical to CTA Bus Tracker. However, CTA has, I believe, a 30-minute maximum time for stop arrival predictions, whereas MCTS has a much longer timeframe (I'm not sure if it's limited based on time, or based on a specific number of buses to predict). Anything beyond 30 minutes doesn't have a bus number attached to it, and I'm guessing might mean it is based on a schedule rather than real-time.

I've checked in on it a few times, and have seen mostly 5300s on the 21. There are also occasionally a handful of 5100s, and I saw one 5000 a few days ago. I'm not up-to-date on MCTS's roster, so I don't know if that means FDL only has mostly 5100s and 5300s now, or (more likely) they have only outfitted a certain number of buses with the technology so far, and are specifically assigning them to the 21 until more of the fleet gets outfitted.

Based on the 21 and 80 being the first two routes testing stop announcements, I'd guess that the 80 will be next to get real-time tracking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Visually looks almost identical to CTA Bus Tracker. However, CTA has, I believe, a 30-minute maximum time for stop arrival predictions, whereas MCTS has a much longer timeframe (I'm not sure if it's limited based on time, or based on a specific number of buses to predict). Anything beyond 30 minutes doesn't have a bus number attached to it, and I'm guessing might mean it is based on a schedule rather than real-time.

....

Seems similar in theory to Pace, in that Pace shows next 3 buses, but usually only the the first one is real time. However, since here the interval is15 minutes,and most of the buses are on the street, I don't see why some don't have bus numbers, and why they are going out more than an hour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, when the county took over the transit sytem, they contracted with the old Transport Co owners to run it, albeit under a new corporate name. This is a very common practice, for instance, Gary Transit ran Gary PTC for years. When you get right down to it, when CTA took over CSL, nothing changed as far as who was in charge, except a few folks from CRT were added to the CSL beaurocracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All buses have the displays inside but they only show time currently. FDL has 5100-5120 I think. THhe rest of the 5100s to 5189 are at KK. Fiebrantz(FB) has 5200-5234, Fon Du Lac (FD) has 5300-5355, KK and FB share the 5400s and Fdl has the 5500s. I have seen some people with the new MCard during this test phase.

Andre- My dad drove for the predessecor company and when the county took over The private corporation was created, and the culture has been taught from one generation to the next. There was talk of Milwaukee county bringing operations in house but my fear is that it would become a political position like the head of CTA has been in the recent past.

These technological improvements have been long overdue here and I wonder if that has been because of lack of leadership initiative at the top.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...