CTA Route #77 Belmont

[pudgym29]

This specific CTA route gets so many comments in other bus topics; it should get its own. I ride this route a lot, so I am interested in keeping it running smoothly. [topic='http://forum.chicagobus.org/topic/1542-more-bus-moves/page-62#entry37512']I have referred in here a picture of people waiting to board a westbound #77 bus @ 12:40am @ Kimball [and some of them were not able to board the 40-footer].

My vista is: I do not really care which CTA garage(s) runs #77, but #77 really, really needs 60-foot buses for many of its runs, especially in the late evening. I have rode it both eastbound and westbound: From Harlem to Sheridan, and mid-points in between. Westbound buses fill up @ the North Side “L” and do not reduce to no-standee level until Western Ave., and then they get crush loads again @ Kimball. This remains to about Cicero Ave.

As for a plan to operate every other bus from Harlem to Kimball (and the reverse), that might work. CTA probably would not put 60-footers on these short turns. I think the late night solution would be to take Kedzie's 60-footers which ran route #151 Sheridan to Belmont|Halsted and have them make one run westbound to Harlem (or Cumberland), and then back east to Kimball, where they would then deadhead back south, either on route #82 Kimball-Homan, or out-of-service on Kedzie Ave.

Edited August 27, 2013 by pudgym29

[sw4400]

This specific CTA route gets so many comments in other bus topics; it should get its own. I ride this route a lot, so I am interested in keeping it running smoothly. I have referred in here a picture of people waiting to board a westbound #77 bus @ 12:40am @ Kimball [and some of them were not able to board the 40-footer].

My vista is: I do not really care which CTA garage(s) runs #77, but #77 really, really needs 60-foot buses for many of its runs, especially in the late evening. I have rode it both eastbound and westbound: From Harlem to Sheridan, and mid-points in between. Westbound buses fill up @ the North Side “L” and do not reduce to no-standee level until Western Ave., and then they get crush loads again @ Kimball. This remains to about Cicero Ave.

As for a plan to operate every other bus from Harlem to Kimball (and the reverse), that might work. CTA probably would not put 60-footers on these short turns. I think the late night solution would be to take Kedzie's 60-footers which ran route #151 Sheridan to Belmont|Halsted and have them make one run westbound to Harlem (or Cumberland), and then back east to Kimball, where they would then deadhead back south, either on route #82 Kimball-Homan, or out-of-service on Kedzie Ave.

As I said in the past, pudgym29, one of two things have to happen to make this route less crammed..

• Introduction of 60' buses to #77: Whether somehow or other Forest Glen can house some artics, or another garage like North Park or Kedzie can supplement artics for this route, it can really stand to use them because of the overcrowding once you hit the Kimball Blue Line and it seems like half the city of Chicago boards(that's pure exaggeration, but it seems like it).

• A split #77 Belmont service: I believe this can be done with education and a split signage along Belmont. I can see a 77A as the Belmont bus that makes all stops and runs down Kimball to pick up at the Blue Line Subway, while 77B is exactly the same bus service, only difference is it doesn't turn down Kimball to go to the Blue Line Subway, it just stays on Belmont to the end of the line. The 77A would needs artics to better pick up passengers along Belmont and the crushloads at the Kimball Blue Line. 77B could use the stock 40' buses as it just runs west and east on Belmont from Lake Shore to the lines' final destination.

I can even see #77A being operated by North Park or Kedzie if Forest Glen can't use artics and #77B being operated by Forest Glen.

I have personally rode a 6000-Series once on Belmont to go to around Kilpatrick or Kostner and I think if I have to do something like that again, I'll just take Irving Park to Cicero and Cicero south. When we got to the Blue Line Subway at Kimball, it was a nightmare... I was about midway in the bus seated when the masses started to board... when all was said and done, every seat was taken, people were standing in the aisles from the back near the engine on up and even standing on the stairs in the front by the doors and the back by the push doors!!! You had to yell to the Bus Operator you were getting off due to the excessive overcrowding. No bus should be that overcrowded. You can't say that isn't a violation of FTA rules... the Bus Operator needs to be able to see that passenger side mirror, especially in a city like Chicago where bikes share the road. If he/she can't see and starts pulling to the right to let off passengers off and a bicyclist comes out of nowhere and runs into the bus and worse yet gets run over, maybe that'll wake up the CTA to do something. I don't want this to ever happen, but this might be the only way for the CTA to really do something about overcrowded routes such as #77.

The split could run something like this:

77A runs every 5-8 minutes during peak times, 7-13 minutes during off-peak times

77B runs every 6-10 minutes during peak times, 9-15 minutes during off-peak times and may not be a 24-hour route, just run from 4:30a-10 or 11p weekdays and 6a-10 or 11p weekends.

The signs for a split route could read as the following:

[MetroShadow]

From my experiences that people can't (or don't) read the difference between an 80 or an X80, splitting the two wouldn't bode well. Then again if you even introduce a limited route, it would yield the same result--people don't pay attention and look foolish on the limited.

Artics, or even increased short-turns between Kimball (read: somewhere east of Central) and the Lake would be suffice.

[sw4400]

From my experiences that people can't (or don't) read the difference between an 80 or an X80, splitting the two wouldn't bode well. Then again if you even introduce a limited route, it would yield the same result--people don't pay attention and look foolish on the limited.

Artics, or even increased short-turns between Kimball (read: somewhere east of Central) and the Lake would be suffice.

It's just an idea to make the route less crowded. From experience... nobody reads the signs anywhere, MetroShadow. We had a restroom out of order due to a broken flusher and just seconds after I put the sign up, someone walks in there and uses it like it wasn't there. And I printed the text nice and big for anyone to see. How people don't get on the Kennedy Expy on the "Do Not Enter" rampway is beyond me. Maybe if a bathroom is broken at work again, I can make a sign with the "Do Not Enter" design so people can read perhaps.

[artthouwill]

How about extending the 52 to go westward along Belmont to, say, Laramie or Central. It could serve the Blue Line station at Kimball. It could also be done as an interline. Route 52 buses terminate at Addison and deadhead to Kimball Blue Line and runs a short turn 82 round trip before returning to the 52. You could also shorten some 54s at Belmont and interline them with a short turn 77 to the Belmont/Kimball Blue Line. Heck, why not interline some 8 Halsted buses by shortening them to Belmont and run a 77 to Kimball Blue Line and back to Halsted and returning to the 8 along with 151 Kedzie garage buses continuing along Belmont to Kimball Blue Line and back throughout the day..

Passengers would be required to read and listen to the signage and destination. I don't know if a Minneapolis style letter designation would help such as

77 Bemont: Full route from Lake Shore to Cumberland. Operated by F.

77A Belmont: Halsted to Kimball Blue Line station ONLY. Operated by 7 and K

77B Belmont: Kimball Blue Line to Cicero, Laramie or Central ONLY. Operated by C and K

Belmont is such a narrow street in its entirety, however, it seems to invite even more congestion with traffic by adding more buses

[mkohut]

One thing that keeps happening on Belmont is Bus Bunching.

I even seen at 6 in the morning going east.

143,156 can do Belmont trips going up to Kimball in PM Rush going back to the garage.

[BusHunter]

One thing that keeps happening on Belmont is Bus Bunching.

I even seen at 6 in the morning going east.

143,156 can do Belmont trips going up to Kimball in PM Rush going back to the garage.

That because the whole route is heavy with riders. I'm surprised with today's technology that when buses bunch up like that they just don't default to short turn at different locations. That's a hard route to fix. If you short turn too many buses at Halsted or Octavia you can still end up with a whole bunch of riders for the follower. I still think a few of these #156's should do #77 short runs in/out to Kimball/Blue line at least. The solution may just well be to have pullouts/pullins at different locations on the line, They were doing that before with pullins/pullouts via the Kennedy Expwy.

[artthouwill]

That because the whole route is heavy with riders. I'm surprised with today's technology that when buses bunch up like that they just don't default to short turn at different locations. That's a hard route to fix. If you short turn too many buses at Halsted or Octavia you can still end up with a whole bunch of riders for the follower. I still think a few of these #156's should do #77 short runs in/out to Kimball/Blue line at least. The solution may just well be to have pullouts/pullins at different locations on the line, They were doing that before with pullins/pullouts via the Kennedy Expwy.

While you said the whole route is heavy with riders, using K's 151 and 156s to short turn at Kimball only fixes part of the problem. What about WEST of Kimball? I suppose when the Red Lins South project is done, 77th could keep most of the 4300s and send Novas to Forest Glen, which those buses could be used to operate 77s between Kimball Blue Line and whatever point west it chooses to do turnarounds (be it Harlem, Cumberland, or wherever).

[BusHunter]

While you said the whole route is heavy with riders, using K's 151 and 156s to short turn at Kimball only fixes part of the problem. What about WEST of Kimball? I suppose when the Red Lins South project is done, 77th could keep most of the 4300s and send Novas to Forest Glen, which those buses could be used to operate 77s between Kimball Blue Line and whatever point west it chooses to do turnarounds (be it Harlem, Cumberland, or wherever).

I think the only place the 77th novas are going to is to the scrapper. In fact that should start after the the ryan project is over as those are the oldest spare buses that CTA no longer needs. It should be interesting to see what else happens when the ryan project is over, will Kedzie get more #4300's or will they try out artics at a new garage (74th or Chicago) The #77 is going to have to be shared with an artic garage, sometime in the future. I think all these top 10 ridership routes systemwide will have some sort of artic service whether that is by sharing garages or not.

[artthouwill]

I think the only place the 77th novas are going to is to the scrapper. In fact that should start after the the ryan project is over as those are the oldest spare buses that CTA no longer needs. It should be interesting to see what else happens when the ryan project is over, will Kedzie get more #4300's or will they try out artics at a new garage (74th or Chicago) The #77 is going to have to be shared with an artic garage, sometime in the future. I think all these top 10 ridership routes systemwide will have some sort of artic service whether that is by sharing garages or not.

Maybe some of the oldest Novas go to the scrapper, but remember 77th still has the highest numbered Novas it got from FG.

[Sam92]

I think the only place the 77th novas are going to is to the scrapper. In fact that should start after the the ryan project is over as those are the oldest spare buses that CTA no longer needs. It should be interesting to see what else happens when the ryan project is over, will Kedzie get more #4300's or will they try out artics at a new garage (74th or Chicago) The #77 is going to have to be shared with an artic garage, sometime in the future. I think all these top 10 ridership routes systemwide will have some sort of artic service whether that is by sharing garages or not.

Well, with the exception of #9 and 77, the rest of the top 10 are already assigned to or shared with artic garages. As far as #77 is concerned, K could run artics from the 143, 151 and 156 as others have stated... There's also the possibility of Chicago and 74th becoming artic capable and potentially having their own set of artics from the 150 artic contract. That could give them a chance to maybe spilt #77 between K and C giving more artic coverage. As far as the rest of the top 10, all routes except the 8, 9, and 77 see some regular artic use. King Drive has been seeing some regular 4300 runs

[cta_44499_FG]

Artics would not be able to use the Belmont/Octavia terminal due to them being required to turn onto Octavia first to enter the terminal. Unless parking is banned along the northeast side of the street the either the back end will clip a mirror on the way in or the operator will turn too late, thinking they'll avoid this, and then attempt to back up and still clip a car. Parking on both sides of Octavia make completing the turn into the terminal impossible.

[BusHunter]

That's a wider turn than the neva/addison turn

And that's done on a daily basis. I'd be more concerned with the belmont/kimball terminal with the congestion for the right turn onto kimball and then the left on belmont but who's to say if they would skip that terminal or not else I see no real concern.

[jajuan]

It's just an idea to make the route less crowded. From experience... nobody reads the signs anywhere, MetroShadow. We had a restroom out of order due to a broken flusher and just seconds after I put the sign up, someone walks in there and uses it like it wasn't there. And I printed the text nice and big for anyone to see. How people don't get on the Kennedy Expy on the "Do Not Enter" rampway is beyond me. Maybe if a bathroom is broken at work again, I can make a sign with the "Do Not Enter" design so people can read perhaps.

There are valid points in your idea as I've said before, but you're still overcomplicating it by introducing new route numbers. It could easily be stipulated that not all westbound buses on the route will enter the Kimball Blue line terminal without changing the route number from 77. Plus for folks who do pay attention to destination signs having a 77A or 77B might give an impression that they're routes that operate on Belmont as extension routes beyond the bounds of the main route like an 8A, 49B or 52A bus serves to do for the 8, 49 and 52 for example.

[See Tea Eh]

It could easily be stipulated that not all westbound buses on the route will enter the Kimball Blue line terminal without changing the route number from 77.

I really can't think of any good reason to do that. Creating new route numbers would be confusing enough, but keeping it all route 77 and expecting passengers (and drivers, for that matter) to figure out which trips do and don't serve the Blue Line, especially when you'll still have bunching/gaps, and now buses can't leapfrog each other because the bus that passes up might be the one that the passenger wanted. Then you're essentially cutting service to the Blue Line terminal in half, when a lot of people both get on and get off there, which just means that the buses that do serve the terminal are going to get more hammered than they already are.

The real answer is to add service and have better operating discipline to keep buses on time rather than creating complications to the route and cutting service to one of the busiest stops on the route.

[sht6131]

Do not know the passenger count between the Kimball Blue and Cumberland. If for example it was between the Blue and Harlem, why not shortline between these two points during the AM and PM rush. The eastbound would read "TO KIMBALL BLUE LINE STATION ONLY". There would be no 77A or 77B to confuse. I am certain that the schedule dept. could adjust by adding a few more runs from FG. Some through runs between Lake Shore and Cumberland would be used. Of course if its also heavy between the Blue and Cumberland naturally this would not work. This would be similar to the Blue operating every other trip between UIC and Jefferson Park.

[cta_44499_FG]

There are valid points in your idea as I've said before, but you're still overcomplicating it by introducing new route numbers. It could easily be stipulated that not all westbound buses on the route will enter the Kimball Blue line terminal without changing the route number from route 77.

The public (English speaking for that matter) already cannot grasp:

77 to Lake Shore

77 to Halsted

77 to Cumberland

77 to Central

77 to Harlem

77 to Blue Line

So.....needless to say 77A or B or 77Xxyyz is not going to help.

Also, if buses skipping the Blue Line terminal is a good idea, then so is passing the rope and noose to the follower bus operator and kicking the stool away.

While I still stick to (from experience) there is no need to send every single westbound operating beyond the Blue Line to Cumberland (at least during the midday ala the old 80 alternation between Harlem and Cumberland and certain pm rush trips), having buses skip the Blue Line entirely makes suicide look like a good thing.

[jajuan]

The public (English speaking for that matter) already cannot grasp:

77 to Lake Shore

77 to Halsted

77 to Cumberland

77 to Central

77 to Harlem

77 to Blue Line

So.....needless to say 77A or B or 77Xxyyz is not going to help.

Also, if buses skipping the Blue Line terminal is a good idea, then so is passing the rope and noose to the follower bus operator and kicking the stool away.

While I still stick to (from experience) there is no need to send every single westbound operating beyond the Blue Line to Cumberland (at least during the midday ala the old 80 alternation between Harlem and Cumberland and certain pm rush trips), having buses skip the Blue Line entirely makes suicide look like a good thing.

Well it's not my idea, but if by that very small chance that CTA thought it was a good idea, he makes his point too complicated by wanting to make two separate routes with different route numbers that in reality are still the same thing with that one difference between them. That's why I said if CTA were to implement his hypothetical scenario, it's easily accomplished by keeping the designation 77 and make a note that alternate trips going wesbound don't pull into the Kimball/Belmont Blue Line terminal.

[Busjack]

Well it's not my idea, but if by that very small chance that CTA thought it was a good idea, he makes his point too complicated by wanting to make two separate routes with different route numbers that in reality are still the same thing with that one difference between them. That's why I said if CTA were to implement his hypothetical scenario, it's easily accomplished by keeping the designation 77 and make a note that alternate trips going wesbound don't pull into the Kimball/Belmont Blue Line terminal.

Lets go back to the streetcar days, when there was 68 Division, Division-Milwaukee, 70 Division, 70A* Division, and 6 Division-Van Buren, mostly because the street car tracks were not allowed to cross Humboldt Park.

Then, let's go really old school. Since New Flyer just got a contract from King County (with options to San Francisco) to build 40 and 60 foot Xcelsior trolley buses, let's get some too and reinstate the Belmont route. That'll make sure that they can't pass each other, and thus reinforce the bus bunching requirement. I mean, didn't someone bring up Marty McFly the other day?

*A were buses. One trolley route was east of Humboldt Park and other other was west of Grand.

[jajuan]

I really can't think of any good reason to do that. Creating new route numbers would be confusing enough, but keeping it all route 77 and expecting passengers (and drivers, for that matter) to figure out which trips do and don't serve the Blue Line, especially when you'll still have bunching/gaps, and now buses can't leapfrog each other because the bus that passes up might be the one that the passenger wanted. Then you're essentially cutting service to the Blue Line terminal in half, when a lot of people both get on and get off there, which just means that the buses that do serve the terminal are going to get more hammered than they already are.

The real answer is to add service and have better operating discipline to keep buses on time rather than creating complications to the route and cutting service to one of the busiest stops on the route.

I know all that, but I figured for once instead of playing devil's advocate and highlighting flaws and have it perceived as an attack or being hostile and overly confrontational, how about I consider the slim chance CTA goes along with an idea with the complications streamlined and see what legitimate concerns arise.

[pudgym29]

Artics would not be able to use the Belmont/Octavia terminal due to them being required to turn onto Octavia first to enter the terminal. Unless parking is banned along the northeast side of the street the either the back end will clip a mirror on the way in or the operator will turn too late, thinking they'll avoid this, and then attempt to back up and still clip a car. Parking on both sides of Octavia make completing the turn into the terminal impossible.

Octavia is not an LAZ parking meter street. There is space for maybe two cars between Belmont Ave and the entrance on the east side of Octavia. Prohibiting parking in this small span of Octavia should not inconvenience any motorists. (Really need a free spot? Cheat in the bank parking lot. It has an ATM, so the scalawag could claim he was about to make a transaction there.)

[jajuan]

Octavia is not an LAZ parking meter street. There is space for maybe two cars between Belmont Ave and the entrance on the east side of Octavia. Prohibiting parking in this small span of Octavia should not inconvenience any motorists. (Really need a free spot? Cheat in the bank parking lot. It has an ATM, so the scalawag could claim he was about to make a transaction there.)

And create the headache for CTA of the bank complaining that all those unauthorized buses on its property are tearing up its parking lot.

[brownliner]

 

And create the headache for CTA of the bank complaining that all those unauthorized buses on its property are tearing up its parking lot.

Are you suggesting that the CTA doesn't control that turnaround? Or that the bank owns the street?

[jajuan]

 

Are you suggesting that the CTA doesn't control that turnaround? Or that the bank owns the street?

I'm not talking about the turnaround or the street. Check out his post again. He said the buses could cheat and cut into the bank PARKING LOT. I'm sure they do own and/or control the parking lot and wouldn't appreciate CTA drivers bringing 60 foot buses onto its lot, tearing up the lot which is the headache I'm speaking of.

[Chicago13]

I'm not talking about the turnaround or the street. Check out his post again. He said the buses could cheat and cut into the bank PARKING LOT. I'm sure they do own and/or control the parking lot and wouldn't appreciate CTA drivers bringing 60 foot buses onto its lot, tearing up the lot which is the headache I'm speaking of.

Actually, no he's not talking about buses using the bank parking lot. He's talking about motorists using it should parking be banned on Octavia to make room for 60ft buses to make the turn into the turnaround.