Jump to content
garmon757

Bringing Back a Route and/or Segment

Recommended Posts

  • Metra has about figured out where to have its stops. There was State Senator Kwame whatever, who proposed a blatantly unconstitutional law that Metra and South Shore would have to make all local stops, which was quickly withdrawn because it would unconscionably delay service for riders on the outer portions of the route. Whenever Metra adds a stop, its schedule reflects that the trip is 3 minutes longer.
  • No action has occurred because state law is ignored unless a scandal results. Forest Claypool is not legally qualified for his job, and neither is no one at the CT Board, but the press doesn't care about that either. However, a Metra Executive Director committing suicide and the next one getting a $700,000 severance for blowing the whistle on apparent political corruption on the Board, and the press takes some notice,
  • Maybe you should reread the Pace South Cook-Will Restructuring topic. Pace is not going to undo what it just did. I tried to explain the history of the theories that underlie current transit planning.

Hmmm, I see. Thanks for the info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has both winners and losers [ for the latter, look at the posts for the #11 Lincoln bus extension - which just bit the dust for good - but don't expect Ald. Ameya Pawar to take the blame.O.o]. To return to the subject, I would like to see the #X54 Cicero express bus between Jefferson Park and Midway restored to weekday daylight hours service. I think there are enough 40-footers @ Chicago garage that can handle the route, unless the Authority opts to put this @ Forest Glen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, pudgym29 said:

I think there are enough 40-footers @ Chicago garage that can handle the route, unless the Authority opts to put this @ Forest Glen.

As I just indicated, that is not the criterion. There seems to be a surplus of buses. What there does not seem to be is a surplus of money to pay operators and other operating expenses, unless there is some demand for through service.

If there is demand for faster through service, there could be a reinstatement like on Ashland and Western, and you'll note that the number of buses was again only a minor consideration, as rush hour frequency on the locals was reduced.

The real question is whether there is a bunch of passengers complaining about transferring at 24th Place,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Anthony Devera said:

Route 11 needs to be restored south of Western Brown Line. There are many businesses along Lincoln Ave, and lack of bus service will hinder the success of these businesses.

I think the chances of that happening are basically none, they gave the pilot time to play out and the ridership just wasn't there. Those busses would be better utilized on another route or as spares.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Anthony Devera said:

Route 11 needs to be restored south of Western Brown Line. There are many businesses along Lincoln Ave, and lack of bus service will hinder the success of these businesses.

 

11 hours ago, ajm522 said:

I think the chances of that happening are basically none, they gave the pilot time to play out and the ridership just wasn't there. Those busses would be better utilized on another route or as spares.

As @ajm522 said. CTA gave it a 14 month trial and got 1/3 the daily ridership it needed. With that evidence, it isn't coming back. The "many businesses," such as the yoga studio in the promotional materials, didn't generate sufficient ridership.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that stretch rapidly adjusted to taxi and Lyft or Uber ride share services in the three and a half year intervening time between its first elimination and the start of the pilot, more the Lyrt and Uber factor. Like everyone else said, folks didn't flock to the bus on that portion in the 14 months that CTA gave it a chance to run. So it ain't coming back, so no need to demand that CTA waste the money and buses for something that we just got shown people are not riding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, jajuan said:

more the Lyrt and Uber factor.

CTA seems to attribute ridership loss to Lyft and Uber. I wonder how much, and if that's one of the reason's the proposed budget is not out on time, again.

While I don't think Lyft and Uber are much of a draw for the elderly and disabled who originally complained about 11 being canceled,it certain is to the yoga studio and Trader Joe's crowd that the promotional materials sought to reach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Busjack said:

CTA seems to attribute ridership loss to Lyft and Uber. I wonder how much, and if that's one of the reason's the proposed budget is not out on time, again.

While I don't think Lyft and Uber are much of a draw for the elderly and disabled who originally complained about 11 being canceled,it certain is to the yoga studio and Trader Joe's crowd that the promotional materials sought to reach.

And that's what I was kind of getting at. The elderly and disabled were the biggest voices wanting the extension, but it still needed younger riders too to be enough of a success to justify continued service. With so many of them being more likely to opt for Uber and Lyft, those two did indeed have some impact at least among that yoga studio and Trader Joe crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Anthony Devera said:

I think Route 36 should be extended to Howard station via Sheridan. This would duplicate Route 147, but I feel that it would create a better grid.

Up either Sheridan or Clark, it would be redundant, unless it were offset by making 147 rush hour only. Is there any real problem in transferring at Sheridan and Devon? Also take into account that the L is parallel for through passengers.

I have the feeling that you are not complying with the Community Guidelines for suggesting new routes, as you admit here you are making certain assumptions based only on the map (by using the term "grid"), rather than passenger generators.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Busjack said:

Up either Sheridan or Clark, it would be redundant, unless it were offset by making 147 rush hour only. Is there any real problem in transferring at Sheridan and Devon?

Again, this was just a suggestion, not something that is absolutely necessary. One problem with the transfer at Sheridan/Devon is that people have to walk between the bus stops. It would be a different story if Route 147 ran via Broadway between Devon and Foster, where the buses would share some stops, but since it does not, maybe extending Route 36 could streamline the service a bit more. However, the stops are not too far from each other, so it should be fine. Route 147 should not be reduced to rush hour only because it currently has very good ridership.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Anthony Devera said:

Again, this was just a suggestion, not something that is absolutely necessary. One problem with the transfer at Sheridan/Devon is that people have to walk between the bus stops. It would be a different story if Route 147 ran via Broadway between Devon and Foster, where the buses would share some stops, but since it does not, maybe extending Route 36 could streamline the service a bit more. However, the stops are not too far from each other, so it should be fine. Route 147 should not be reduced to rush hour only because it currently has very good ridership.

There used to be a NB 147 stop right in front of the Granada Theater, but that was eliminated some time ago. That made transfers to the WB 155 easier than at Sheridan/Arthur, because you got off a couple of minutes extra time to cross Sheridan.

But the 147/136/151 SB stop at Sheridan/Broadway is going to get moved east to Winthrop soon, when the Woodruff Arcade Building is torn down soon & the new high rise is built there. That's going to make it difficult for those transferring from SB 36 or 155 to those buses a long walk from the stop on Devon, which is west of the alley next to the shipping container Starbucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, strictures said:

or 155

They can always transfer at Loyola.

Update: If the proposal were implemented, 155 would lose transfer opportunities to 36 along Devon, and they usually can transfer to 151..

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anthony Devera @Busjack I have to agree with Busjack on this one mate (community guidelines) because your claim of having #36 isn’t substantial enough to have it as a reasonable discussion. I carefully read everybody’s response about it and it’s literally a dead end to me. I’m sorry mate but I have to shut that discussion down immediately. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Master58 said:

Can someone clarify how the old 14 S Lake Shore Drive Express was constructed?  

Not sure what you are asking, but there originally was the Jeffrey Express, which was 5A or 6. As it became more crowded, it was split into 6 and 14. 14 remained pretty much unchanged in the restructuring in approx. 2003 (just renamed to Jeffery Express), but 6 became Jackson Park Express with the south end moved to South Shore Drive, and 15 became the local service on Jeffrey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Busjack said:

Not sure what you are asking, but there originally was the Jeffrey Express, which was 5A or 6. As it became more crowded, it was split into 6 and 14. 14 remained pretty much unchanged in the restructuring in approx. 2003 (just renamed to Jeffery Express), but 6 became Jackson Park Express with the south end moved to South Shore Drive, and 15 became the local service on Jeffrey.

I was talking about the layout of the old 14 S lake Shore Express route.  Before it became 14 Jeffrey Express in 2003.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Master58 said:

I was talking about the layout of the old 14 S lake Shore Express route.  Before it became 14 Jeffrey Express in 2003.

As I indicated, the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Master58 said:

Can someone clarify how the old 14 S Lake Shore Drive Express was constructed?  

Basically the 14is the same.  Originally the South terminal was 100th and Yates, which had been the 6 Jeffery Express terminal.  When the 5 Jeffery was eliminated, the 6 extended to the 5(s former terminus at 103rd andTorrence.

When the 103rd garage opened, both the 6 and14 were extended to the garage at 103rd and Stony Island. Busjack mentioned the 2003 restructure when the 15 replaced the 6 South of 67th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also one thing worth mentioning about the 14 (now J14) which gets to the crux of what you're actually asking @Master58 and therefore more directly answers your question, is that at the time if was peak direction rush hour only before the 2003 restructuring and was for a time interlined with a number of the old 127 NW/McCormick Place (later NW/Madison when McCormick Place portion was axed and Roosevelt/Madison Circulator before elimination with the interline ending in the Roosevelt Circulator days) runs. Though both it and the 6 ran along Jeffery before summer 2003, it's attracting feature in its compliment of the 6 was it having a longer express zone than the 6 making it possible to reach Jeffery at 67th Street in about 10 to 15 mins without the tour through Hyde Park done by the 6 in both its 6 Jeffery Express and 6 Jackson Park Express iterations. Also since the 14 at that time was a rush only route it merely ended at Olgilvie (still named Northwestern Station for most of those service years) on the Madison side and started at Olgilvie on the Washington side. Also at its south end, buses operated on Yates between 100th and 103rd while the buses on the 6 operated on Torrence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While this route is before my time, I've always thought that East 83rd street could use bus service again. The Wal-Mart and 87th Red Line would be decent passenger attractors and it could run from the Wal-Mart that is currently served by the 24 to 83rd/Lakefront.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2017 at 9:53 PM, NewFlyerMCI said:

While this route is before my time, I've always thought that East 83rd street could use bus service again. The Wal-Mart and 87th Red Line would be decent passenger attractors and it could run from the Wal-Mart that is currently served by the 24 to 83rd/Lakefront.

Basically the problem here is that CTA couldn't come up with the match for the JARC grant. The lakefront reference would become more relevant if the South Works ever gets developed.

Generally speaking, there was not an 83 bus, but the 95 looped back to 83rd and South Chicago. I did have a roll sign from 77th with an unused 83 reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2017 at 9:39 PM, jajuan said:

Also one thing worth mentioning about the 14 (now J14) which gets to the crux of what you're actually asking @Master58 and therefore more directly answers your question, is that at the time if was peak direction rush hour only before the 2003 restructuring and was for a time interlined with a number of the old 127 NW/McCormick Place (later NW/Madison when McCormick Place portion was axed and Roosevelt/Madison Circulator before elimination with the interline ending in the Roosevelt Circulator days) runs. Though both it and the 6 ran along Jeffery before summer 2003, it's attracting feature in its compliment of the 6 was it having a longer express zone than the 6 making it possible to reach Jeffery at 67th Street in about 10 to 15 mins without the tour through Hyde Park done by the 6 in both its 6 Jeffery Express and 6 Jackson Park Express iterations. Also since the 14 at that time was a rush only route it merely ended at Olgilvie (still named Northwestern Station for most of those service years) on the Madison side and started at Olgilvie on the Washington side. Also at its south end, buses operated on Yates between 100th and 103rd while the buses on the 6 operated on Torrence. 

Also of note:  When the 14 first started, it ran WB on Washington and EB on Madison, as those streets  had reverse flow bus lanes.  

Also when the route first started service, there weren't  any destination signs for the then new route.  NB buses simply had the  NW Station generic roll sign and  SB buses had a blank sign.  Drivers would put paper in the windshield with 14 handwritten on it.

Initial hours of service were 6 to a.m NB from 100th and p.m SB 4 to 6 from ME Station.  Southbound riders ad to pay a 25 Cents  express surcharge (as did most express  bus riders  did from downtown).

This route was originally operated from the 52nd/Cottage Grove garage with mostly  40 ft buses.  When 52nd closed and the route shifted to 77th garage, it became mostly attics.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in 1975 (before Helvetica destination signs) CTA proposed an 83rd Street bus from Dan Ryan either via 79th-South Chicago-83rd-Burley-87th-Buffalo to 91st-Commercial-91st loop or via Lafayette-83rd-Anthony-Jeffery-83rd-Burley. Went to a public hearing on the matter. There was EXTREME objection to having buses on 83rd between State and Jeffery because of noise, congestion, narrow street, etc. Because of the then-recent 71st-Yates debacle involving the same issues that resulted in every bus stop sign between 87th and 75th being defaced and riding approaching zero (single digits per day), the proposal was never brought up again. However, 77th buses did get 83 signs cut in, and the new Helvetica curtains had 83 signs too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×