If I ran Transit for one day...

[TransitQueen22]

I didn't realize a lot of these points so thank you all for the clarifications. I'm sad to find out 54A is actually getting eliminated, now its gonna be even harder to get to Old Orchard. Regarding 41, why haven't the petitions worked?? Can CTA at least do a trial run? And for 44 I was thinking maybe running it on Loomis until 31st? If a bus is able to turn there, of course Wallace is a little to close to Halsted but hey if the ridership is there i guess there is no need to.

[west towns]

where are you boarding 54A going to old orchard

[artthouwill]

3 hours ago, TransitQueen22 said:

I didn't realize a lot of these points so thank you all for the clarifications. I'm sad to find out 54A is actually getting eliminated, now its gonna be even harder to get to Old Orchard. Regarding 41, why haven't the petitions worked?? Can CTA at least do a trial run? And for 44 I was thinking maybe running it on Loomis until 31st? If a bus is able to turn there, of course Wallace is a little to close to Halsted but hey if the ridership is there i guess there is no need to.

When did you become interested in transit?  Do you like buses?  Trains?

[TransitQueen22]

Lol i ride buses daily and serveral of the rail lines (mostly to sightsee around the city) so i just decided to join to voice sum opinions i had on cta operations. i started riding about 4 years ago. 

1 hour ago, artthouwill said:

When did you become interested in transit?  Do you like buses?  Trains?

 

[TransitQueen22]

3 hours ago, west towns said:

where are you boarding 54A going to old orchard

near six corners. it takesme 2 buses if anything why cant cta just extend 54 to terminate at devon or peterson since its a little hard to get to that part of the city, then 641 could replace service north of it?

[NewFlyerMCI]

9 minutes ago, TransitQueen22 said:

near six corners. it takesme 2 buses if anything why cant cta just extend 54 to terminate at devon or peterson since its a little hard to get to that part of the city, then 641 could replace service north of it?

As I've learned here, most of what it comes down to is a) potential ridership and to a lesser extent b) terminal availability.

In this case, the 54 would have to be extended to Peterson/Pulaski or more likely, Central/Caldwell. Where the ridership part comes in is: Would service from Central/Caldwell to Cicero/Pensacola be enough to justify extending the route, in which the answer here is probably no. The existing routing is covered by the 54A, a peak-only route (which outside of downtown, indicates low ridership) and the 84. It would also provide no direction connection to a L station until Cicero on the Green or Blue. By which point, riders could probably have been halfway downtown on the 84 & a transfer to the Red Line @ Bryn Mawr. Furthermore, ridership on the 54A is supposedly so low that the new Pace route is going to take the Edens from Foster to Touhy, skipping a swath of the section in proposed extension is (which seems like such a short distance to be on the expy, but hey, if it works for the 143) Given this, there's no real case for a 54 extension to anything north of Jeff Pk.

I'm happy to be wrong about any of this!

[sht6131]

On 6/29/2014 at 4:01 PM, artthouwill said:

 

I think the only real agreeable one would be owl service on the 72, considering the gap in east west owl service between Chicago Ave and Belmont.

They already have partial owl service between Ashland and Clark provided by #8 Ashland.

[NewFlyerMCI]

15 minutes ago, sht6131 said:

They already have partial owl service between Ashland and Clark provided by #8 Ashland.

Numbah 9 is the one you want, I think ?

[chicagocubs6323]

1 hour ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

Numbah 9 is the one you want, I think ?

So we got the #8 Ashland and the #9 Halsted 

[sht6131]

27 minutes ago, chicagocubs6323 said:

So we got the #8 Ashland and the #9 Halsted 

NewFlyer is correct. My mistake. Its # 9 Ashland.

[chicagocubs6323]

Just now, sht6131 said:

NewFlyer is correct. My mistake. Its # 9 Ashland.

Yeah I know.  I was just joking

[NewFlyerMCI]

29 minutes ago, chicagocubs6323 said:

So we got the #8 Ashland and the #9 Halsted 

There's just something so funny about seeing #9 Halsted, I actually laughed out loud ?

[sht6131]

1 hour ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

There's just something so funny about seeing #9 Halsted, I actually laughed out loud ?

And I am so embarrassed because I take pride in knowing all the route numbers by memory since I was a kid. It also is the second time I made the same mistake with this route number.

Another senior moment with a mental block.

[Pace831]

1 hour ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

Also, surprised no one wants to do a Blue Island Transit Center. Take that lot at the corner of Grove & Irving, turn it into a terminal, and you have Harvey-lite.

What routes would go there? Just 348 and 359, or would you divert others there such as 349, 385, or 877? I’m not sure this is needed because there aren’t a lot of transfers between bus and train in Blue Island, unlike Harvey.

[NewFlyerMCI]

1 hour ago, Pace831 said:

What routes would go there? Just 348 and 359, or would you divert others there such as 349, 385, or 877? I’m not sure this is needed because there aren’t a lot of transfers between bus and train in Blue Island, unlike Harvey.

It was my understanding that Harvey was a bus-to-bus transfer center primarily and train transfers were secondary. I'm happy to be wrong. In regards to BI, the 349 already goes thru the area, so no diversion needed. It would be the 348, 349, 359, 385 & 877 (& 354 if it was beneficial to break up the loop). My idea was more of a consolidation so that people could all transfer in the same area and if they happened to need the RI or ME, it would just so happen to be there.

I got the idea from something similar in Baltimore, where there were 5 or so routes in one area and multiple transfers points, but none between all 5 routes. There also happened to be a commuter rail station, so they took the closest parking lot, turned it into a terminal and routed everything in there. There aren't a lot of transfers from rail to bus and vice versa, but there are a lot from bus to bus and also people who live/work in the neighborhood, so I was thinking there might be some benefit of doing the same here.

[artthouwill]

13 minutes ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

It was my understanding that Harvey was a bus-to-bus transfer center primarily and train transfers were secondary. I'm happy to be wrong. In regards to BI, the 349 already goes thru the area, so no diversion needed. It would be the 348, 349, 359, 385 & 877 (& 354 if it was beneficial to break up the loop). My idea was more of a consolidation so that people could all transfer in the same area and if they happened to need the RI or ME, it would just so happen to be there.

I got the idea from something similar in Baltimore, where there were 5 or so routes in one area and multiple transfers points, but none between all 5 routes. There also happened to be a commuter rail station, so they took the closest parking lot, turned it into a terminal and routed everything in there. There aren't a lot of transfers from rail to bus and vice versa, but there are a lot from bus to bus and also people who live/work in the neighborhood, so I was thinking there might be some benefit of doing the same here.

I think that Harvey and BI are too close together to have essentially two Pulse centers.

[fg.mark]

If anything, the loop on the 88 Higgins should be eliminated.  The route should go westbound on Higgins to Foster, then continue on Foster to Canfield, then north on Canfield to Devon/Avondale.  

[Pace831]

1 hour ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

It was my understanding that Harvey was a bus-to-bus transfer center primarily and train transfers were secondary. I'm happy to be wrong. In regards to BI, the 349 already goes thru the area, so no diversion needed. It would be the 348, 349, 359, 385 & 877 (& 354 if it was beneficial to break up the loop). My idea was more of a consolidation so that people could all transfer in the same area and if they happened to need the RI or ME, it would just so happen to be there.

I got the idea from something similar in Baltimore, where there were 5 or so routes in one area and multiple transfers points, but none between all 5 routes. There also happened to be a commuter rail station, so they took the closest parking lot, turned it into a terminal and routed everything in there. There aren't a lot of transfers from rail to bus and vice versa, but there are a lot from bus to bus and also people who live/work in the neighborhood, so I was thinking there might be some benefit of doing the same here.

If that’s your reasoning, I’m confused about why you say no diversion is necessary for 349, unless you meant 359. Transfers between buses are already available, so if the intent is not to serve the Metra stations, the proposed terminal would probably just add unnecessary time to the routes, especially 359 and 385.

[NewFlyerMCI]

1 minute ago, artthouwill said:

I think that Harvey and BI are too close together to have essentially two Pulse centers.

Western isn't slated to have Pulse service nor was I advocating for there to be one or one serving BI.

8 hours ago, Pace831 said:

If that’s your reasoning, I’m confused about why you say no diversion is necessary for 349, unless you meant 359. Transfers between buses are already available, so if the intent is not to serve the Metra stations, the proposed terminal would probably just add unnecessary time to the routes, especially 359 and 385.

• Serving the stations would be a side benefit.
• The NB 349 diversion would only take about 4-5 mins total because of the way Gregory is set up. Less time for SB 349. I said no diversion (as in an serious one) is needed, since Western/Gregory is right next to where I'm talking about.
• There's also no direct connection for NB 349 to 359. This is the sort of thing I was attempting to mitigate.
• No unnecessary time for the 359, since the location I'm talking about is just off Vermont street.
• The creation of such a terminal might actually spur rail to bus ridership & vice versa (for example, if i lived on the 359, i'd certainly be interested in the RI or ME over the Red Line)

[artthouwill]

33 minutes ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

Western isn't slated to have Pulse service nor was I advocating for there to be one or one serving BI.

• Serving the stations would be a side benefit.
• The NB 349 diversion would only take about 4-5 mins total because of the way Gregory is set up. Less time for SB 349. I said no diversion (as in an serious one) is needed, since Western/Gregory is right next to where I'm talking about.
• There's also no direct connection for NB 349 to 359. This is the sort of thing I was attempting to mitigate.
• No unnecessary time for the 359, since the location I'm talking about is just off Vermont street.
• The creation of such a terminal might actually spur rail to bus ridership & vice versa (for example, if i lived on the 359, i'd certainly be interested in the RI or ME over the Red Line)

When I said pulse point, I didn't mean Pulse as in the Pace BRT, but more like a transit center where multiple lines meet for connections, like Waukegann's Metra station.

[NewFlyerMCI]

10 hours ago, fg.mark said:

If anything, the loop on the 88 Higgins should be eliminated.  The route should go westbound on Higgins to Foster, then continue on Foster to Canfield, then north on Canfield to Devon/Avondale.  

This seems interesting, but would it need a layover? It seems like it would take longer than the current 17 mins from Jeff Pk to Canfield/Devon. Also, do you believe ridership would exceed that of the current routing and what would you propose to replace current service?

[NewFlyerMCI]

8 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

When I said pulse point, I didn't mean Pulse as in the Pace BRT, but more like a transit center where multiple lines meet for connections, like Waukegann's Metra station.

You could say the same for Rosemont & Cumberland, Naperville & Rt 59, Yorktown Center & Oakbrook Center or even Harvey & Homewood. In this case, BI would be the smaller TC and Harvey the bigger one. By that logic, none of the routes should go through BI as they are now, since that's still effectively a pulse point

[artthouwill]

49 minutes ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

You could say the same for Rosemont & Cumberland, Naperville & Rt 59, Yorktown Center & Oakbrook Center or even Harvey & Homewood. In this case, BI would be the smaller TC and Harvey the bigger one. By that logic, none of the routes should go through BI as they are now, since that's still effectively a pulse point

What you are proposing IS NOT the same.   At Rosemont, and Cumberland,  those are terminals.  Yorktown is a destination and a Terminal (though the 313, 722, 834, 877 stage at Branding/Finley) with the 715 and 888 being thru routes.  In your scenario  only the 348 would end there.  Both the 349 and 877 already serve HTC .  The 385 already provides a transfer to the 349 and 877 without diversions.  Most of that traffic is not transferring to ME or RI and there are no other traffic generators there.  Harvey is a Terminal with the 352 and the 364 being the only thru routes (except an 877/888 combo).  It is located in downtown Harvey, which just happens to have a ME station across Park Blvd and 154th.

In my Waukegan example,  all Pace  routes terminate at Washington and Sheridan, right near the Metra station.  It is a *pulse point" because the buses are timed to arrive and depart around the same time for the purpose of transfers.  I won't say transfers aren't possible at BI, but I don't think rerouting some buses to create a transfer point works if the demand isn't there.

[andrethebusman]

Waukegan is your basic small town bus system (same as Elgin, Aurora, Joliet). All routes come together once of twice an hour. This is something that goes back to streetcar days and can be found in a thousand smaller cities. It works excellent. Big systems do not do this because headways are different on different routes. Like 95/Ryan. Many routes, but all leaving at different times. CTA tried a pulse point once, at night at State/Washington. Didn't work too good. Could not figure out the idea of we all leave at once 

[NewFlyerMCI]

2 hours ago, artthouwill said:

What you are proposing IS NOT the same.   At Rosemont, and Cumberland,  those are terminals.  Yorktown is a destination and a Terminal (though the 313, 722, 834, 877 stage at Branding/Finley) with the 715 and 888 being thru routes.  In your scenario  only the 348 would end there.  Both the 349 and 877 already serve HTC .  The 385 already provides a transfer to the 349 and 877 without diversions.  Most of that traffic is not transferring to ME or RI and there are no other traffic generators there.  Harvey is a Terminal with the 352 and the 364 being the only thru routes (except an 877/888 combo).  It is located in downtown Harvey, which just happens to have a ME station across Park Blvd and 154th.

In my Waukegan example,  all Pace  routes terminate at Washington and Sheridan, right near the Metra station.  It is a *pulse point" because the buses are timed to arrive and depart around the same time for the purpose of transfers.  I won't say transfers aren't possible at BI, but I don't think rerouting some buses to create a transfer point works if the demand isn't there.

• Only the 348 would end there because only the 348 ends there now
• The 349 and 877 serving Harvey is effectively immaterial
• The presence of a terminal could encourage transfers btwn Pace and ME/RI
  • However, it's intended purpose was to facilitate easier transfers between all bus routes in the area at a central location, which also would be located near the train stations, where there is also parking, and where the whole facility is stone's throw from "downtown" Blue Island
• You are the one that brought up pulse points, that's not what I was suggesting. I did not mention tailoring headways or substantial diversions to facilitate this
  • There wouldn't be any significant diversions, since it wouldn't take route more than 5 mins total (excepting extreme passenger loads, ADA passengers, etc) to deviate, serve and return to the original routing. The exception to this may be/probably is the 877, which runs so infrequently, it's immaterial.
• Yes, on street transfers are available. However,
  • Not between all routes
  • Lack of shelters
  • Current transfers to Metra are lacking

This is a fairly simple solution that makes things easier, has small QoL improvements, and can facilitate future growth, all without having to even acquire new property or cause any substantial change to area bus routes.