Jump to content
garmon757

Bringing Back a Route and/or Segment

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, andrethebusman said:

Oh? How be that? In fact, that is when my involvement became the closest. Obviously you lived and traveled about in different parts of the system than I did, and saw different things than I did. I mostly hung around the south side and south suburbs.

Read my prior posts about the demographics of the south suburbs. The signs in windows in Calumet City for "HERE TO STAY" are long gone.Those people are long dead, too. Instead there are signs for Harold's Chicken Shack and carnicerias. If they hate the city and prefer Pace, it isn't because they fled in the 1960s. It's for such reasons as that Chicago public housing was torn down and not replaced, and many got Section 8 vouchers to move to the suburbs. More recent flight seems to be that gang wars have made Chatham, South Shore and similar areas unlivable.

For instance, Suburban Stats says Calumet City is 70% Black, 19% White, and 15% Hispanic.

Dolton is 90% Black. South Holland in 74% black.Blue Island is 30% Black and 47% Hispanic.Olympia Fields is 66% Black. Jesse Jackson Jr's district was extended out there, but it appear that the current congresswoman, Robin Kelly of Olympia Fields, is actually representative of her constituents.

An example of such flight is that Englewood has become so depopulated that they want to close 4 high schools now and replace them with one high school later. (Sun Times source) Population is on the decline in Chicago; only places that appear to have growth are near north and Little Village. The state's population is down too.

As I indicated, I don't think that news has made it down to you in Vero Beach, but the statistics bear out what anyone recently in the south suburbs has seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see what we are arguing about. In the 1970-80's a large percentage of the center city's population fled to the suburbs to get away from "them". Since then, a significant part of the center city's black population has followed them out to the suburbs, and the whites they displaced have moved further out. Meanwhile, millennials are moving back into the city to reclaim areas like Uptown, Bucktown, Lincoln Park that 30 years ago were hellholes. Armitage and Sheffield in the 1960's was an absolute dump where you would be afraid to wait for the bus. I remember riding the L past Willow St and looking down at all the abandoned buildings and seeing a dead dog in the middle of the street. Look at it now! This is the natural cycle, where an area is colonized by the relatively wealthy, gets passed down to less and less wealthy until it becomes a dump, then gets re-colonized by the wealthy looking for a "deal".

Places like Calumet City, Dolton, South Holland are still on the downward part of the cycle. As for city depopulation, considering many more housing units are being demolished than being built, why is this a surprise? In the early 60's my girlfriend Samantha's family lived at 53rd and Peoria. We went back there a couple of years ago. There is a single house standing within two blocks. So in that square block, the population has gone down by what, 99%? Most of Englewood is like that. So is much of Austin. If there are no houses, chances are nobody lives there. 

As a historical statement, in the mid-60's, when I started exploring, this is what I saw: the west side was black largely bound by Western on the east, the CNW on the north, Burlington on the south, Garfield Park on the west. South side was black south of 31st to about 79th, between the Rock Island and the IC, excluding 47th to 60th east of Washington Park (Hyde Park area). Black suburbs were East Chicago Heights, Robbins, Dixmoor, parts of Harvey, Chicago Heights east of the C&EI, and what was referred to as the Juneway Jungle, Howard to Juneway east of the L yards. That was about it. It might really surprise people today that on 9/28/69 the area around 95th/Dan Ryan was all white except for the projects west of the Ryan, even around 87th. South of South Shops was too.

Just some historical perspective...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I don't see what we are arguing about

You were the one who somehow turned the topic of this thread from "why is/isn't CTA running in suburbs" into some rant about the suburbs hate Chicago because of white flight in the 1960s. You also made a factually incorrect statement that CTA did not poach Pace bus lines, based on streeetcar and Insull history, notwithstanding the incidents I mentioned that happened in the 2000s.

Instead of facing how that would be irrelevant in 2018 to running 12 to Hillside or Wheaton (I suppose in your mind, the only reason 8A doesn't run to Chicago Heights is white racism), you just spent maybe 20 minutes typing a historical discourse that's irrelevant, because you lost track of what you started.

...which should end it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CTA should be running the 352. Or at the very least 108 should go to Harvey. 127th as the end of the line for 108 does not make much sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, andrethebusman said:

CTA should be running the 352. Or at the very least 108 should go to Harvey. 127th as the end of the line for 108 does not make much sense.

No, it shouldn't. It doesn't have the resources. Is CTA going to come up with 25 CNG buses? There is a coordination project going, and besides, the only justification for 108 (and it is a big justification) is that north of 127th has too heavy ridership to turn it over to Pace.

And since the community guidelines say

Backup facts and explain your positions. If making a statement of fact, always provide supporting evidence. For opinions or suggestions, always provide justification for your position. For example, do not suggest changes to CTA routes or operations without providing reasonable justification.

You haven't complied with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The presence or absence of CNG buses has nothing to do with anything. 352 could just as well use artics.

As for use of resources, 352 would be a better fit for CTA than say 201, 205, 206 or even 54A, which are all very light routes by comparison,  and in the first three cases are strictly non-Chicago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, andrethebusman said:

The presence or absence of CNG buses has nothing to do with anything. 352 could just as well use artics.

As for use of resources, 352 would be a better fit for CTA than say 201, 205, 206 or even 54A, which are all very light routes by comparison,  and in the first three cases are strictly non-Chicago. 

May I repeat, if you didn't get the message the first time:

[T]he community guidelines say

Backup facts and explain your positions. If making a statement of fact, always provide supporting evidence. For opinions or suggestions, always provide justification for your position. For example, do not suggest changes to CTA routes or operations without providing reasonable justification.

What are the facts (passenger generators, revenue sources, existence of resources) to justify your fantasy? Not the strawman that the CTA, after at least 10 years, finally did the right thing on the North Shore (especially since it also has a coordination project on S. Halsted).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes no sense to argue conditions today as if they always were. For instance, 352 before about mid-80's was a pretty minor route, in fact usually ran with the 8000-series 4523's. Now, it is probably the heaviest suburban route with 10-15 minute headway during rush hours and standing loads most of the day. If this is not justification for using artics, what is? 

If the only thing one worries about is cost, then any change to anything, except cutbacks, can never be justified. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, andrethebusman said:

It makes no sense to argue conditions today as if they always were. For instance, 352 before about mid-80's was a pretty minor route, in fact usually ran with the 8000-series 4523's. Now, it is probably the heaviest suburban route with 10-15 minute headway during rush hours and standing loads most of the day. If this is not justification for using artics, what is? 

If the only thing one worries about is cost, then any change to anything, except cutbacks, can never be justified. 

Again, you are evading. The question posed is what justification is there for CTA to run it?

If you are saying the sole justification for CTA to run it is that CTA has surplus artics., then you have to answer such questions as whether artics will fit in the bays of the Harvey TC, or whether CTA would have to pay big bucks to remodel Pace property.

One would also have to take into account that CTA's attempts to run artics on 66 and 79 apparently failed, and whether those reasons would also apply here.

You also seem to imply that Pace is incapable of running the route as it has structured it, and is incompetent to participate in the South Halsted Coordination Project. And also that it was improvident in just putting new equipment on the route (that was the basis of my CNG comment), something CTA is frequently guilty of.

Share this post


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

Again, you are evading. The question posed is what justification is there for CTA to run it?

If you are saying the sole justification for CTA to run it is that CTA has surplus artics., then you have to answer such questions as whether artics will fit in the bays of the Harvey TC, or whether CTA would have to pay big bucks to remodel Pace property.

One would also have to take into account that CTA's attempts to run artics on 66 and 79 apparently failed, and whether those reasons would also apply here.

You also seem to imply that Pace is incapable of running the route as it has structured it, and is incompetent to participate in the South Halsted Coordination Project. And also that it was improvident in just putting new equipment on the route (that was the basis of my CNG comment), something CTA is frequently guilty of.

66 and 79 artic service failed for a very good reason - the schedule was too fast. If you stop every block to load and unload with almost never skipping a stop on a street with a tremendous amount of auto traffic, an artic will be very slow compared to a 40-footer.vehicle. In addition, CTA reduced the number of buses on the routes when the artics were put on since they figured that two artics have about the same capacity as three 40-footers. Trouble was, it also increased to number of people getting on and off per trip. Biggest problem was slowness is the back doors, which are much slower closing than a standard bus rear door. Clark St (22) seems to work pretty decent because the schedule in the evenings is quite slow. However, artcs work best on routes with the least number of stops, especially under max load conditions.

Now getting back to "new equipment" - fine, Pace has CNG's, CTA has hybrids. Pace had to build a fueling station at South so those 91 buses are pretty much stuck there unless Pace builds another fueling station somewhere. A hybrid can run anywhere (see artics at 77th and Chicago Av). So who made a better decision? 

Where did CTA put the 7900's? Pretty much at every route out of 77th, 74th, Chicago, Forest Glen. Seems like they "spread the wealth" a lot better than Pace did...

If Pace built Harvey TC and others so small they can never use a bigger bus, I would call that severe lack of advance thinking if Pace is forever stuck with 40-foot or smaller buses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm done with this. If all you can do is ramble, instead of answering a simple question (you did not answer why CTA should run 352 or if an artic can run there, and what the capital cost would be at the TC), there is no use pursuig it.

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

×