Jump to content
garmon757

Bringing Back a Route and/or Segment

Recommended Posts

... Under that logic Western would see zero bus service today between 79th and 119th Streets outside of the mile stretch served by the 48 during rush hour since the 49A is now history. Not to mention half of Evanston's bus service would not exist since Pace hasn't exactly stepped up to the plate to take over the service.

It isn't necessarily "failing to step up to the plate," as Pace decided about 8 years ago that it wasn't going to compete with CTA when CTA decided to run over its routes (primarily CTA 201 and 205 extended to Old Orchard from Crawford and Central).

CTA finally came to the same conclusion, but ironically, it was to withdraw from city areas where Pace buses ran to get to the nearest "multimodal facility." Of course, CTA wouldn't say that it cooperated with Pace--only Pace could say that.

When the CTA Tattler asked for questions for Claypool when he took office, he stomped out when the service coordination one was presented, after making the 81% of the rides assertion. There was the later debate whether he intentionally avoided the question or time had run out a half hour earlier than he had originally offered.

Short of abolishing the service boards (on which we both agreed) the only ways to resolve this are (1) the RTA asserting the power to eliminate overlaps, but the legislation was watered down to require the concurrence of 9 directors even before the RTA Executive Director could investigate, or (2) CTA and Pace sitting down together and deciding to resolve the matter in a holistic manner. The only thing CTA and Pace did in that regard the last time around was that Pace got 17/317 all day (and maybe that Pace could reroute 353 away from King Dr.).

I'm sure the hangup is what I brought up on Ask Carole, when there was the Sunday only Doomsday plan, which would have ended local service in Evanston,* CTA would have to give up enough discretionary money so that Pace could operate the service. However, on a region wide basis, that would make more sense, as the Auditor General said that the lower cost carrier (i.e. Pace) should be preferred.

With all the stuff about CTA being accountable to da Mare, who isn't mayor of Evanston and Skokie, I'm surprised that Claypool hasn't figured that out. Maybe the only point is to cry about the funding formula.

________

*And most of West Ridge, which prompted me to check the 96 hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't necessarily "failing to step up to the plate," as Pace decided about 8 years ago that it wasn't going to compete with CTA when CTA decided to run over its routes (primarily CTA 201 and 205 extended to Old Orchard from Crawford and Central).

CTA finally came to the same conclusion, but ironically, it was to withdraw from city areas where Pace buses ran to get to the nearest "multimodal facility." Of course, CTA wouldn't say that it cooperated with Pace--only Pace could say that.

When the CTA Tattler asked for questions for Claypool when he took office, he stomped out when the service coordination one was presented, after making the 81% of the rides assertion. There was the later debate whether he intentionally avoided the question or time had run out a half hour earlier than he had originally offered.

Short of abolishing the service boards (on which we both agreed) the only ways to resolve this are (1) the RTA asserting the power to eliminate overlaps, but the legislation was watered down to require the concurrence of 9 directors even before the RTA Executive Director could investigate, or (2) CTA and Pace sitting down together and deciding to resolve the matter in a holistic manner. The only thing CTA and Pace did in that regard the last time around was that Pace got 17/317 all day (and maybe that Pace could reroute 353 away from King Dr.).

I'm sure the hangup is what I brought up on Ask Carole, when there was the Sunday only Doomsday plan, which would have ended local service in Evanston,* CTA would have to give up enough discretionary money so that Pace could operate the service. However, on a region wide basis, that would make more sense, as the Auditor General said that the lower cost carrier (i.e. Pace) should be preferred.

With all the stuff about CTA being accountable to da Mare, who isn't mayor of Evanston and Skokie, I'm surprised that Claypool hasn't figured that out. Maybe the only point is to cry about the funding formula.

________

*And most of West Ridge, which prompted me to check the 96 hours.

Yes how service is provided at and near the borders of the city limits is a strong reason why transit services in our area should be more streamlined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An Applebee's and Enterprise Rent-A-Car are also said to be opened as separate buildings, but you're right that it doesn't sound like there's enough to raw any traffic there until such time the conversion to a strip mall is completed. Though I get what you're saying about the tax dollars point, CTA is already steering sales tax dollars to municipalities outside Chicago with the 21 going to North Riverside Mall and the 82 and 96 serving Lincolnwood Town Center.

Don't forget about 97, 201, and 205 going to Old Orchard Mall and 78, 80, and 90 going to Harlem and Irving (HIP) Mall. 68 Serving A portion Of Park Ridge And 93 To Evanston.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget about 97, 201, and 205 going to Old Orchard Mall and 78, 80, and 90 going to Harlem and Irving (HIP) Mall. 68 Serving A portion Of Park Ridge And 93 To Evanston.

HIP isn't comparable, because Norridge is surrounded by Chicago. 68 probably only is to use the street in front of the Metra station as a turnaround, other than residential streets in Chicago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HIP isn't comparable, because Norridge is surrounded by Chicago. 68 probably only is to use the street in front of the Metra station as a turnaround, other than residential streets in Chicago.

I wasn't trying to compare malls. Technically HIP Mall is in Norridge territory. 78 and sometimes 80 terminates in Norridge despite Forest Preserve Drive is borderline between Chicago and Norridge. 90 serves both Norridge and Harwood Heights. About 68 serving one little street by the Metra station, I'm not going to assume that you haven't been on that route before but your input about it is inaccurate. 68 enters Park Ridge after it surpass Merill Street. That is approximately 3/5 of a mile from Touhy Avenue (Park Ridge Metra Station). Speaking of Norridge and Harwood Heights, it makes me wonder why 81 don't terminate at Cumberland and/or Harlem rather than having Lawrence Avenue split up in two routes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't trying to compare malls. Technically HIP Mall is in Norridge territory. 78 and sometimes 80 terminates in Norridge despite Forest Preserve Drive is borderline between Chicago and Norridge. 90 serves both Norridge and Harwood Heights. About 68 serving one little street by the Metra station, I'm not going to assume that you haven't been on that route before but your input about it is inaccurate. 68 enters Park Ridge after it surpass Merill Street. That is approximately 3/5 of a mile from Touhy Avenue (Park Ridge Metra Station). Speaking of Norridge and Harwood Heights, it makes me wonder why 81 don't terminate at Cumberland and/or Harlem rather than having Lawrence Avenue split up in two routes?

Look at the ridership report for 81 and 81w.You don't need the same frequently..

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't trying to compare malls. Technically HIP Mall is in Norridge territory. 78 and sometimes 80 terminates in Norridge despite Forest Preserve Drive is borderline between Chicago and Norridge. 90 serves both Norridge and Harwood Heights. About 68 serving one little street by the Metra station, I'm not going to assume that you haven't been on that route before but your input about it is inaccurate. 68 enters Park Ridge after it surpass Merill Street. That is approximately 3/5 of a mile from Touhy Avenue (Park Ridge Metra Station). Speaking of Norridge and Harwood Heights, it makes me wonder why 81 don't terminate at Cumberland and/or Harlem rather than having Lawrence Avenue split up in two routes?

Last, first.

The 81 trolley bus never went past Austin. All buses in the area were rerouted into Jefferson Park when it opened in 1970. Whatever was west of Jefferson Park was always light, whether the 64 Foster-Lawrence Loop or 81W, as opposed to 81, which was always heavy.

My other point was not to compare malls, but to compare the situation of suburbs. Norridge is surrounded by Chicago, and thus it was fairly inevitable that CTA was going to run through it. Evergreen Park is not much different. On the other hand, Old Orchard and North Riverside are way beyond the city limits, and when CTA bus lines (21, 201, and 205) were extended there, Pace made corresponding cutbacks (212 and 304) that inconvenienced suburban riders on the lines past those two malls.

However, your theory that CTA isn't authorized to run in the suburbs doesn't hold up either, in that the Metropolitan Transit Act says that it is legally authorized to run anywhere in Cook County except the panhandles west of 12000 West. The only valid point is the one jajuan made--Yes how service is provided at and near the borders of the city limits is a strong reason why transit services in our area should be more streamlined. That was an excellent summary of my lengthy piece. In that light 5 blocks in Park Ridge is trivial, unless you want to argue competition with the 209 bus.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last, first.

The 81 trolley bus never went past Austin. All buses in the area were rerouted into Jefferson Park when it opened in 1970. Whatever was west of Jefferson Park was always light, whether the 64 Foster-Lawrence Loop or 81W, as opposed to 81, which was always heavy.

My other point was not to compare malls, but to compare the situation of suburbs. Norridge is surrounded by Chicago, and thus it was fairly inevitable that CTA was going to run through it. Evergreen Park is not much different. On the other hand, Old Orchard and North Riverside are way beyond the city limits, and when CTA bus lines (21, 201, and 205) were extended there, Pace made corresponding cutbacks (212 and 304) that inconvenienced suburban riders on the lines past those two malls.

However, your theory that CTA isn't authorized to run in the suburbs doesn't hold up either, in that the Metropolitan Transit Act says that it is legally authorized to run anywhere in Cook County except the panhandles west of 12000 West. The only valid point is the one jajuan made--Yes how service is provided at and near the borders of the city limits is a strong reason why transit services in our area should be more streamlined. That was an excellent summary of my lengthy piece. In that light 5 blocks in Park Ridge is trivial, unless you want to argue competition with the 209 bus.

Your mention of what's in the Metropolitan Transit Act regarding where CTA can operate service means that from a legal standpoint and outside some overlapping with Pace routes, CTA isn't encroaching on Pace territory as has been the complaint from some other members in terms of extending the 90 to the Green Line, operating the 86 south of North Avenue, the 82 and 96 extensions giving on property service to the Lincolnwood Town Center, absorption of the former 25 West Cermak into the 21 to provide direct service to North Riverside Mall without needing to transfer, its former operation of the 17, the Yellow, Purple, Green and Blue Lines having terminii within the suburbs, and its bus routes serving Evanston, Skokie and Old Orchard. All those are still within Cook County.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your mention of what's in the Metropolitan Transit Act regarding where CTA can operate service means that from a legal standpoint and outside some overlapping with Pace routes, CTA isn't encroaching on Pace territory as has been the complaint from some other members in terms of extending the 90 to the Green Line, operating the 86 south of North Avenue, the 82 and 96 extensions giving on property service to the Lincolnwood Town Center, absorption of the former 25 West Cermak into the 21 to provide direct service to North Riverside Mall without needing to transfer, its former operation of the 17, the Yellow, Purple, Green and Blue Lines having terminii within the suburbs, and its bus routes serving Evanston, Skokie and Old Orchard. All those are still within Cook County.

One has to go back to the origins of the MTA Act, which was 1945. It only deals with legal authority, but clearly (1) CTA had to have the legal authority to run the former Chicago Rapid Transit Co. system, which extended into the suburbs, and (2) as Krambles's book points out, the initial CT Board investigated such things as taking over the west suburban systems, but was hampered by the terms of the original bond issue from doing so.

But back in 1945, there wasn't any Pace--just private bus companies with franchise rights and authority from the Illinois Commerce Commission. CTA also had to run subject to a city franchise ordinance (according to Krambles), and the only controversy was whether it could run over CMC routes, eventually resulting in it taking over CMC.

Also, I'm sure that in 1947, CTA was actually run as a separate municipal corporation, and not run politically as a division of CDOT, even though the mayor had the power to control the board.

So. legalisms don't resolve the issue raised by the Auditor General, and apparently also before the Fitzgerald Task Force, that service overlap is inefficient, which is on what I thought we agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One has to go back to the origins of the MTA Act, which was 1945. It only deals with legal authority, but clearly (1) CTA had to have the legal authority to run the former Chicago Rapid Transit Co. system, which extended into the suburbs, and (2) as Krambles's book points out, the initial CT Board investigated such things as taking over the west suburban systems, but was hampered by the terms of the original bond issue from doing so.

But back in 1945, there wasn't any Pace--just private bus companies with franchise rights and authority from the Illinois Commerce Commission. CTA also had to run subject to a city franchise ordinance (according to Krambles), and the only controversy was whether it could run over CMC routes, eventually resulting in it taking over CMC.

Also, I'm sure that in 1947, CTA was actually run as a separate municipal corporation, and not run politically as a division of CDOT, even though the mayor had the power to control the board.

So. legalisms don't resolve the issue raised by the Auditor General, and apparently also before the Fitzgerald Task Force, that service overlap is inefficient, which is on what I thought we agreed.

We still do agree. I was acknowledging that the legal technicality caught my eye. If anything it hammers home the point that the region's troubles with all the inefficiencies began the moment the state decided to solve the financial problems of the 70s and early 80s with the creation of this convoluted mess instead of creating a true regional transit system under one board along lines similar to what Seattle has with King County Metro, LA has with LA County Metro, NYC's MTA or Philly's service under SEPTA for example. A lot of major big cities around the country seem to be served by TAs that handle transit for both city and burbs with little or no conflict about how to divvy up funding or silly battles about turf. Then again those cities don't seem to have the mutual distrust with their suburban areas fueled by a local city mayor and state level politicians fanning the flames of said mistrust for political gain and benefit like we have here.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't trying to compare malls. Technically HIP Mall is in Norridge territory. 78 and sometimes 80 terminates in Norridge despite Forest Preserve Drive is borderline between Chicago and Norridge. 90 serves both Norridge and Harwood Heights. About 68 serving one little street by the Metra station, I'm not going to assume that you haven't been on that route before but your input about it is inaccurate. 68 enters Park Ridge after it surpass Merill Street. That is approximately 3/5 of a mile from Touhy Avenue (Park Ridge Metra Station). Speaking of Norridge and Harwood Heights, it makes me wonder why 81 don't terminate at Cumberland and/or Harlem rather than having Lawrence Avenue split up in two routes?

81 and 81W are nowhere in comparison as far as ridership is concerned to even consider having an 8 minute rush hour headway west of Jefferson Park. Plus, if buses bunch (as they naturally tend to do on a route like 81 due to ridership and traffic), you would simply has 2 or 3 buses jockeying through Norridge/Harwood together serving no purpose whatsoever for what one bus can accomplish on a 20-30 minute headway. As far as terminating it at Harlem, unless it's going to go about a mile out of the way to the Harlem/Higgins Blue Line, unless it's purpose is to be a Subway sandwhich shop feeder there is nowhere to turn it around without going onto private property.

As far as the 80 goes, it serves Norridge no matter where it turns around as it runs within Norridge city limits from Octavia to Ozanam when the bus is terminating at Cumberland. The latter is the case anyhow since, due to stink by HIP management several years ago, all midday service is operating to/from Cumberland anyway until late evening. Few AM/PM rush pullouts start here and if one does happen to be "to Harlem" during these periods, they are pulling in to the garage and not laying over for another trip.

By the late evening when all buses are ending at the HIP...it's closed anyway, providing little purpose other than to late shift workers.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We still do agree. I was acknowledging that the legal technicality caught my eye. If anything it hammers home the point that the region's troubles with all the inefficiencies began the moment the state decided to solve the financial problems of the 70s and early 80s with the creation of this convoluted mess instead of creating a true regional transit system under one board along lines similar to what Seattle has with King County Metro, LA has with LA County Metro, NYC's MTA or Philly's service under SEPTA for example. A lot of major big cities around the country seem to be served by TAs that handle transit for both city and burbs with little or no conflict about how to divvy up funding or silly battles about turf. Then again those cities don't seem to have the mutual distrust with their suburban areas fueled by a local city mayor and state level politicians fanning the flames of said mistrust for political gain and benefit like we have here.

While the MTA runs commuter rail in the suburbs,both Nassau(east of Queens) and Westchester(north of the Bronx)operate bus service independently of the MTA,however,they do accept MetroCard like MTAs buses in the city...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the MTA runs commuter rail in the suburbs,both Nassau(east of Queens) and Westchester(north of the Bronx)operate bus service independently of the MTA,however,they do accept MetroCard like MTAs buses in the city...

Do they infringe into or duplicate each others' territory, or do the county bus operations just run within the county and immediately adjacent areas, to serve that county's residents?

There was the prior discussion that prior to NICE, MTA was a contract operator, in effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they infringe into or duplicate each others' territory, or do the county bus operations just run within the county and immediately adjacent areas, to serve that county's residents?

There was the prior discussion that prior to NICE, MTA was a contract operator, in effect.

Around the Horn could supplant this, but in those cases (except for BXM4C), only to the nearest major terminus (Flushing-Main, Van Cortlandt, Wakefield, Jamaica), but usually out of the way for normal MTA operations...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

81 and 81W are nowhere in comparison as far as ridership is concerned to even consider having an 8 minute rush hour headway west of Jefferson Park. Plus, if buses bunch (as they naturally tend to do on a route like 81 due to ridership and traffic), you would simply has 2 or 3 buses jockeying through Norridge/Harwood together serving no purpose whatsoever for what one bus can accomplish on a 20-30 minute headway. As far as terminating it at Harlem, unless it's going to go about a mile out of the way to the Harlem/Higgins Blue Line, unless it's purpose is to be a Subway sandwhich shop feeder there is nowhere to turn it around without going onto private property.

As far as the 80 goes, it serves Norridge no matter where it turns around as it runs within Norridge city limits from Octavia to Ozanam when the bus is terminating at Cumberland. The latter is the case anyhow since, due to stink by HIP management several years ago, all midday service is operating to/from Cumberland anyway until late evening. Few AM/PM rush pullouts start here and if one does happen to be "to Harlem" during these periods, they are pulling in to the garage and not laying over for another trip.

By the late evening when all buses are ending at the HIP...it's closed anyway, providing little purpose other than to late shift workers.

Very well put indeed. Thanks. If it was a possibility just for kicks, would it be best for 81 just to terminate at Jefferson Park, Harlem/Higgins, or Harlem/Irving?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well put indeed. Thanks. If it was a possibility just for kicks, would it be best for 81 just to terminate at Jefferson Park, Harlem/Higgins, or Harlem/Irving?

Unless you have a way to address the need west of Milwaukee, The Jeff is sufficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the MTA runs commuter rail in the suburbs,both Nassau(east of Queens) and Westchester(north of the Bronx)operate bus service independently of the MTA,however,they do accept MetroCard like MTAs buses in the city...

Which gets to another reason what we have here is a convoluted mess. In what you point out regarding the MetroCard, you at least still have some form of fare cooperation in operation unlike here with the we'll accept cards A, B and C but not X, Y, and Z that we see now with CTA and Pace.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they infringe into or duplicate each others' territory, or do the county bus operations just run within the county and immediately adjacent areas, to serve that county's residents?

There was the prior discussion that prior to NICE, MTA was a contract operator, in effect.

New York MTA operated bus services in Nassau County as MTA Long Island Bus under contract to Nassau County. Nassau recently terminated the arrangement with MTA and the service was re-branded to Nassau Inter-County Express (NICE), operated by Veolia. Nassau County owns the vehicles under NICE and, as I recall, owned the buses during MTA operation.

NICE does operate into portions of Queens, but only as pickup only heading to Nassau and discharge only towards Queens. (Side note: a couple of MTA New York Transit routes operated into Nassau to serve a local mall just over the city line; not sure if that's the case anymore.)

Westchester County Bee-Line does have routes which extend into portions of The Bronx; I believe some routes are open pick-up/discharge while others are similar to the Nassau routes, though it's been years since I've been up that way.

MTA Bus (which was the former NYC DOT franchise routes) has one route that extends into Yonkers, Westchester County, the BxM3, which had been previously a privately franchised route whose operator's garage was in Yonkers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last, first.

The 81 trolley bus never went past Austin. All buses in the area were rerouted into Jefferson Park when it opened in 1970. Whatever was west of Jefferson Park was always light, whether the 64 Foster-Lawrence Loop or 81W, as opposed to 81, which was always heavy.

My other point was not to compare malls, but to compare the situation of suburbs. Norridge is surrounded by Chicago, and thus it was fairly inevitable that CTA was going to run through it. Evergreen Park is not much different. On the other hand, Old Orchard and North Riverside are way beyond the city limits, and when CTA bus lines (21, 201, and 205) were extended there, Pace made corresponding cutbacks (212 and 304) that inconvenienced suburban riders on the lines past those two malls.

However, your theory that CTA isn't authorized to run in the suburbs doesn't hold up either, in that the Metropolitan Transit Act says that it is legally authorized to run anywhere in Cook County except the panhandles west of 12000 West. The only valid point is the one jajuan made--Yes how service is provided at and near the borders of the city limits is a strong reason why transit services in our area should be more streamlined. That was an excellent summary of my lengthy piece. In that light 5 blocks in Park Ridge is trivial, unless you want to argue competition with the 209 bus.

My apology for responding back late. Despite that crazy scenario between me and you about this topic last week I must admit that you have some exemplary responses in this topic. About the competition between 68 and 209, if 68 would've surpassed Park Ridge then yes indeed this would've been a valid argument. The wildcard would be Metra UP-NW Line. Now think about it. Why would CTA and Pace have 68 and 209 closely parallel with UP-NW? You have more experience and knowledge than me. That's why I'm asking you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apology for responding back late. Despite that crazy scenario between me and you about this topic last week I must admit that you have some exemplary responses in this topic. About the competition between 68 and 209, if 68 would've surpassed Park Ridge then yes indeed this would've been a valid argument. The wildcard would be Metra UP-NW Line. Now think about it. Why would CTA and Pace have 68 and 209 closely parallel with UP-NW? You have more experience and knowledge than me. That's why I'm asking you.

Basically because bus and commuter rail usually are not in a competitive position. Would you pay $1.75 to ride between Park Ridge and Des Plaines on the bus or $2.75 on the train (although you could gamble on whether the conductor would inspect the fare, in which case it could be $0.00 or $5.75).

On the other hand, Pace has a policy not to compete with Metra, in the sense that anything parallel to a Metra line no longer goes downtown. In the South Cook restructuring, there was a proposal to have 355 feed the Kensington Metra station and 95th CTA station, but the riders said that the Hegewisch South Shore was adequate.

The other issues are that Metra doesn't offer short stops between stations, and there aren't transfers between train and bus other than Link Up and Bus Plus passes. Note that that is technically illegal, under the legislation that also mandated the open fare system.

There are a few places where Metra and CTA are competitive, such as Ravenswood, 53rd St. and 57th St., but that's about it. Otherwise. Metra is mostly used for long haul commutes or reverse commutes.

Apparently it was always like that. I really teed off someone by suggesting that the Chicago & North Shore Ry. lake shore route was really the progenitor of the 213 bus, as it ran aside the C&NW (now UP) North Line. Its parallel bridges are still marked in Lake Forest.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I think CTA should restore the 11 Lincoln service they eliminated south of the Western Brown Line station. I don't really think it would make much sense to have the rest of the Lincoln corridor to be minus buses running, while only a small portion of the route remains between the Brown Line station and Devon/Kedzie. Not to mention businesses along Lincoln either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically because bus and commuter rail usually are not in a competitive position. Would you pay $1.75 to ride between Park Ridge and Des Plaines on the bus or $2.75 on the train (although you could gamble on whether the conductor would inspect the fare, in which case it could be $0.00 or $5.75).

On the other hand, Pace has a policy not to compete with Metra, in the sense that anything parallel to a Metra line no longer goes downtown. In the South Cook restructuring, there was a proposal to have 355 feed the Kensington Metra station and 95th CTA station, but the riders said that the Hegewisch South Shore was adequate.

The other issues are that Metra doesn't offer short stops between stations, and there aren't transfers between train and bus other than Link Up and Bus Plus passes. Note that that is technically illegal, under the legislation that also mandated the open fare system.

There are a few places where Metra and CTA are competitive, such as Ravenswood, 53rd St. and 57th St., but that's about it. Otherwise. Metra is mostly used for long haul commutes or reverse commutes.

Apparently it was always like that. I really teed off someone by suggesting that the Chicago & North Shore Ry. lake shore route was really the progenitor of the 213 bus, as it ran aside the C&NW (now UP) North Line. Its parallel bridges are still marked in Lake Forest.

So you're trying to say that it's useless for Metra trains to have short stops? Indeed you're right about not having transfers between Metra and CTA/Pace busses but I didn't know that was illegal. Why haven't any action occured about it? 355 feeder for 95th and Kensington? Not a bad idea to me since 353 now operates via Bishop Ford between 95th and 130th. Do you think CTA, Pace, and Metra are very competitive on the south side besides Hyde Park?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're trying to say that it's useless for Metra trains to have short stops? Indeed you're right about not having transfers between Metra and CTA/Pace busses but I didn't know that was illegal. Why haven't any action occured about it? 355 feeder for 95th and Kensington? Not a bad idea to me since 353 now operates via Bishop Ford between 95th and 130th. Do you think CTA, Pace, and Metra are very competitive on the south side besides Hyde Park?

Around my area (east 95th) I'd say they are rather supportive of each other now with the 95W/381 alternating on 95th. 352 can be VERY crowded in the rush so having the 108 helps relieve some of the crowding in the city portion of Halsted (might be another reason for artic interlines on that route in addition to the fact that it serves carver). The other Pace routes are mainly feeders to the Dan Ryan from the south so not really competitive over here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're trying to say that it's useless for Metra trains to have short stops? Indeed you're right about not having transfers between Metra and CTA/Pace busses but I didn't know that was illegal. Why haven't any action occured about it? 355 feeder for 95th and Kensington? Not a bad idea to me since 353 now operates via Bishop Ford between 95th and 130th. Do you think CTA, Pace, and Metra are very competitive on the south side besides Hyde Park?

  • 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.

Share this post


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...