If I ran Transit for one day...

[TransitQueen22]

owl service is one thing that annoys me bout cta. just have it run the entire route regardless. ppl got places they need to go overnight, and lord knows in this city walking at night is dangerous! also, there is too many gaps in service. no n/s owl route until pulaski, then western and ashland (despite them being very close together) also surprised the orange line serves a major airport, yet doesn't run owl. the red line should run to 130th, but that should've been done in its creation, and since the city is so broke, it doesn't seem like it will happen until wayyy later in the future. 

[artthouwill]

1 hour ago, TransitQueen22 said:

owl service is one thing that annoys me bout cta. just have it run the entire route regardless. ppl got places they need to go overnight, and lord knows in this city walking at night is dangerous! also, there is too many gaps in service. no n/s owl route until pulaski, then western and ashland (despite them being very close together) also surprised the orange line serves a major airport, yet doesn't run owl. the red line should run to 130th, but that should've been done in its creation, and since the city is so broke, it doesn't seem like it will happen until wayyy later in the future. 

Part of the reason for poor owl service is the lack of funding CTA has been receiving over the last 50 years.  When CTA has been forced into service cuts, owl service was always an easy target since there are fewer people who use it.  At one time, Green Line had owl service,  but due to extremely low ridership and proximity to the Red and Blue Lines,  was deemed unneccessary.

The routes that have partial route owl service serves the busiest portions of the routes. Personally I would like to see owl service on the Orange Line also, bu CTA has determined that there isn't enough demand to justify it yet, but the N62 is an alternative.  CTA has started Orange Line service at 3:30 instead of 4:00.  The last train leaving MDW is about 1a.m, so there's only 2 1/2 hours without service compared to 3 hrs for other lines.

Now York City runs 24 hours o most of its service,  but ridership justifies it.  

Here in  Chicago, the Red Line runs 24 -7, bu 95th, 87th, 79th, 69th, 63rd, Garfield  Chicago,  Clark/Division, North/Clybourn, Belmont,Lawrence, and Howard have connecting owl bus service.  The Blue Line also runs 24-7, with Pulaski, Western, Chicago, Division, Western,Belmont,and Jefferson Park with connecting owl bus service.  People want the service,  but don't want higher fares, don't want higher taxes,  and don't use the existing services enough to warrant increases.  Demand is why Red Line owl service is every 15 minutes instead of the 30 minutes on the Blue Line. 

[NewFlyerMCI]

On 1/2/2020 at 5:39 AM, TransitQueen22 said:

owl service is one thing that annoys me bout cta. just have it run the entire route regardless. ppl got places they need to go overnight, and lord knows in this city walking at night is dangerous! also, there is too many gaps in service. no n/s owl route until pulaski, then western and ashland (despite them being very close together) also surprised the orange line serves a major airport, yet doesn't run owl. the red line should run to 130th, but that should've been done in its creation, and since the city is so broke, it doesn't seem like it will happen until wayyy later in the future. 

 

On 1/2/2020 at 8:00 AM, artthouwill said:

Part of the reason for poor owl service is the lack of funding CTA has been receiving over the last 50 years.  When CTA has been forced into service cuts, owl service was always an easy target since there are fewer people who use it.  At one time, Green Line had owl service,  but due to extremely low ridership and proximity to the Red and Blue Lines,  was deemed unneccessary.

The routes that have partial route owl service serves the busiest portions of the routes. Personally I would like to see owl service on the Orange Line also, bu CTA has determined that there isn't enough demand to justify it yet, but the N62 is an alternative.  CTA has started Orange Line service at 3:30 instead of 4:00.  The last train leaving MDW is about 1a.m, so there's only 2 1/2 hours without service compared to 3 hrs for other lines.

Now York City runs 24 hours o most of its service,  but ridership justifies it.  

Here in  Chicago, the Red Line runs 24 -7, bu 95th, 87th, 79th, 69th, 63rd, Garfield  Chicago,  Clark/Division, North/Clybourn, Belmont,Lawrence, and Howard have connecting owl bus service.  The Blue Line also runs 24-7, with Pulaski, Western, Chicago, Division, Western,Belmont,and Jefferson Park with connecting owl bus service.  People want the service,  but don't want higher fares, don't want higher taxes,  and don't use the existing services enough to warrant increases.  Demand is why Red Line owl service is every 15 minutes instead of the 30 minutes on the Blue Line. 

In regards to Midway, while I would be a fan of 24hr Orange Line service, they actually don't need it. Midway isn't that busy compared to O'hare (domestically ranked #27 vs #2 or #3 usually), nor do same the same slate of scheduled flights (Midway usually has no commercial departures from 12:30a-5:45a, give or take ~15 mins, while O'hare will have at least 2-4 flights per hour from 12m-5:30a). On top of that, O'hare also has no bus service, but Midway has 2 24hr routes (should be 3, looking at you 55), one of which mirrors the Orange line for a bit. Combined with the expanded service hours that @artthouwill mentioned and they're actually covered pretty good.

[NewFlyerMCI]

1 minute ago, artthouwill said:

We weren't talking about now, but if/when the actual Red Line extension to 130th really happens.  Why would Pace continue to run a bus through the city to 95th when 130th would be much closer?  Those not transferring to the Red Line can transfer at 127th to CTA 8A S. Halsted .  The 108 would be eliminated since, as I noted earlier,  east west routes on 119th, 115th, 111th, and 103rd would serve the Red Line extension stations.   Also,  111th and 103rd stations would only be 1/2 mile east of Halsted.  Remember, Pace is a suburban bus agency.   Is it possible for Pace to add another route to run from Harvey north of 127th on Halsted?  If the demand is there,  possibly, but I doubt it.

Yes, I know. I'm saying I believe passenger frustration would prevent the truncation of the 352 without some sort of other alternative, since I've seen that more people take the 352 and 108 over the 8A for years. It's not that 95th is closer, it that the 352/108 go directly to the station, unlike the 8A at 79th. I will admit I hadn't considered the availability of E/W bus services, but Halsted is also a commercial corridor in its own right, people work and shop along there. I would expect Pace to maybe parse down, but not totally remove service north of 130th. At the very least, I'd see in truncated at 111th or 103rd, seeing as sending it over to where the 130th station is going to be is serving a whole lot of nowhere and would be duplicative of existing service along 130th

[artthouwill]

1 hour ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

Yes, I know. I'm saying I believe passenger frustration would prevent the truncation of the 352 without some sort of other alternative, since I've seen that more people take the 352 and 108 over the 8A for years. It's not that 95th is closer, it that the 352/108 go directly to the station, unlike the 8A at 79th. I will admit I hadn't considered the availability of E/W bus services, but Halsted is also a commercial corridor in its own right, people work and shop along there. I would expect Pace to maybe parse down, but not totally remove service north of 130th. At the very least, I'd see in truncated at 111th or 103rd, seeing as sending it over to where the 130th station is going to be is serving a whole lot of nowhere and would be duplicative of existing service along 130th

There is no duplication of service on 130th.    The 352 would go DIRECTLY to the 130th Red Line station.   I would imagine the 352 and 359 would run Express along 127th and 130th between Halsted and the station.  The alternative station could be 115th, only because I'm sure some type of bus Terminal would be built there ( with the 34, 115, and 119 serving it).  Again,  those from Harvey that want to continue on Halsted can easily transfer at 127th.

We still don't know if Toni Preckwinkle's plan to beef up Metra Electric and Rock Island service (and reduce fares) would impact Pace service,  Pulse or no Pulse.

[NewFlyerMCI]

3 hours ago, artthouwill said:

There is no duplication of service on 130th.    The 352 would go DIRECTLY to the 130th Red Line station.   I would imagine the 352 and 359 would run Express along 127th and 130th between Halsted and the station.  The alternative station could be 115th, only because I'm sure some type of bus Terminal would be built there ( with the 34, 115, and 119 serving it).  Again,  those from Harvey that want to continue on Halsted can easily transfer at 127th.

We still don't know if Toni Preckwinkle's plan to beef up Metra Electric and Rock Island service (and reduce fares) would impact Pace service,  Pulse or no Pulse.

My bad, I didn't realize the 353 didn't make any stops along 130th. Again, I just think this is one instance where its more preferable to keep service as is (as is being the elimination of the 108 and the 352 to at least 115th, only stopping at major intersections like the 386 does)

[Tcmetro]

The DEIS for the Red Line South from 2015 lists the following changes:

• 9 Ashland extended to 103rd St Red Line
• 103 and 106 combined into a new route that operates along 103rd from Pulaski to Stony Island
• 108 Halsted/95th eliminated
• 111 and 112 combined into a new route that operates along 111th St from Pulaski to Corliss
• 115 would operate as a bi-directional loop line on 115th, Cottage Grove, 95th, and Vincennes
• 119 Michigan/119th would add a stop at the Michigan/116th Red Line station
• 348 would be extended to 130th St Red Line
• 353 would terminate at 130th St Red Line
• 30 would be extended to 130th St Red Line
• 352 would terminate at 111th St Red Line
• 359 would terminate at 111th St Red Line

The bus plan developed for the DEIS was for modeling purposes, but probably gives some direction as to what may be considered in the future.

One not mentioned on the list is the 34 being extended to 130th St Red Line, which seems like a no-brainer to me. I also think it would be useful for Pace to extend the 355, 358, and 364 from Hegewisch to 130th Red Line. Maybe even an extension of the new 103 further east to 112th and Ave B.

The relevant document is at: https://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/6/CTA_RLE_DraftEIS_AppH.pdf , page 75

[NewFlyerMCI]

37 minutes ago, Tcmetro said:

The DEIS for the Red Line South from 2015 lists the following changes:

• 9 Ashland extended to 103rd St Red Line
• 103 and 106 combined into a new route that operates along 103rd from Pulaski to Stony Island
• 108 Halsted/95th eliminated
• 111 and 112 combined into a new route that operates along 111th St from Pulaski to Corliss
• 115 would operate as a bi-directional loop line on 115th, Cottage Grove, 95th, and Vincennes
• 119 Michigan/119th would add a stop at the Michigan/116th Red Line station
• 348 would be extended to 130th St Red Line
• 353 would terminate at 130th St Red Line
• 30 would be extended to 130th St Red Line
• 352 would terminate at 111th St Red Line
• 359 would terminate at 111th St Red Line

The bus plan developed for the DEIS was for modeling purposes, but probably gives some direction as to what may be considered in the future.

One not mentioned on the list is the 34 being extended to 130th St Red Line, which seems like a no-brainer to me. I also think it would be useful for Pace to extend the 355, 358, and 364 from Hegewisch to 130th Red Line. Maybe even an extension of the new 103 further east to 112th and Ave B.

The relevant document is at: https://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/6/CTA_RLE_DraftEIS_AppH.pdf , page 75

I feel like it would be better to have the 115 run from 95th to 117th/Marshfield via S King Dr & 115th and extend the 4 to the new Michigan Station instead of this bi-directional loop

[Anthony Devera]

5 hours ago, Tcmetro said:

The DEIS for the Red Line South from 2015 lists the following changes:

• 103 and 106 combined into a new route that operates along 103rd from Pulaski to Stony Island
• 111 and 112 combined into a new route that operates along 111th St from Pulaski to Corliss
• 115 would operate as a bi-directional loop line on 115th, Cottage Grove, 95th, and Vincennes

Maybe even an extension of the new 103 further east to 112th and Ave B.

I definitely agree with these except the bi-directional loop. I feel like those don't really work too well, plus, there would be a lot of duplication on 95th.

Since the 111 is becoming a new route, I think it could also take over the current 111A. Then the riders of the 111A would have a direct rail link.

4 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

I feel like it would be better to have the 115 run from 95th to 117th/Marshfield via S King Dr & 115th and extend the 4 to the new Michigan Station instead of this bi-directional loop

Another option is to have the 112 take over the 115th leg and terminate at the Michigan Station. Then extend both the 3 and 4 to Michigan Station. However, this might make the 3 too long, unless it gets cut in Downtown.

[artthouwill]

8 hours ago, Tcmetro said:

The DEIS for the Red Line South from 2015 lists the following changes:

• 9 Ashland extended to 103rd St Red Line
• 103 and 106 combined into a new route that operates along 103rd from Pulaski to Stony Island
• 108 Halsted/95th eliminated
• 111 and 112 combined into a new route that operates along 111th St from Pulaski to Corliss
• 115 would operate as a bi-directional loop line on 115th, Cottage Grove, 95th, and Vincennes
• 119 Michigan/119th would add a stop at the Michigan/116th Red Line station
• 348 would be extended to 130th St Red Line
• 353 would terminate at 130th St Red Line
• 30 would be extended to 130th St Red Line
• 352 would terminate at 111th St Red Line
• 359 would terminate at 111th St Red Line

The bus plan developed for the DEIS was for modeling purposes, but probably gives some direction as to what may be considered in the future.

One not mentioned on the list is the 34 being extended to 130th St Red Line, which seems like a no-brainer to me. I also think it would be useful for Pace to extend the 355, 358, and 364 from Hegewisch to 130th Red Line. Maybe even an extension of the new 103 further east to 112th and Ave B.

The relevant document is at: https://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/6/CTA_RLE_DraftEIS_AppH.pdf , page 75

@NewFlyerMCI will be happy with the 352 and 359 going to 111th Red Line.  I agree with him that the 4 could be extended to 115th Red Line.  I don't think the 34 AND 119 are necessary on Michigan Ave north of 115th.  CTA could do a 119 Vincennes/119th between 95th Red Line and 115th Red Line  via 95th, Vincennes , 119th (serving Marshfield Plaza), 119th, Michigan to 115th.   Or CTA can make the 115 King Drive/115th  and truncate the 119 to operate between 115th Red Line and 119th and Western.There is no purpose of extending the 9 Ashland to 103rd Red Line, as the 103 would already do that.

The 30, 348, 353, 355, 358, and 364 extension to 130th is good.  I'm surprised the 71 wasn't included.

I expected the 103/106 and the 111/112 route combinations as well as the elimination of the 108.  Assuming that the 8A would have to do the Carver school trippers,  why not extend it to the 130th station?  Even though the 34 wasn't mentioned,  I would think it would serve the station en route to Altgeld Gardens.

[artthouwill]

8 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

I feel like it would be better to have the 115 run from 95th to 117th/Marshfield via S King Dr & 115th and extend the 4 to the new Michigan Station instead of this bi-directional loop

And the 112 rerouted to 119th and Western via Vincennes and 119th.  It could still interline with a 119 119th operating between 119th and Western and 115th Red Line station.  This pretty much accomplishes the same thing. 

[NewFlyerMCI]

3 hours ago, Anthony Devera said:

I definitely agree with these except the bi-directional loop. I feel like those don't really work too well, plus, there would be a lot of duplication on 95th.

Since the 111 is becoming a new route, I think it could also take over the current 111A. Then the riders of the 111A would have a direct rail link.

Another option is to have the 112 take over the 115th leg and terminate at the Michigan Station. Then extend both the 3 and 4 to Michigan Station. However, this might make the 3 too long, unless it gets cut in Downtown.

I was thinking the same thing about the 111A. I'd also say the 3 doesn't need to go north of Wacker, but it usually fills up decently before it gets to Randolph (coming from Fairbanks/Erie) and it leaves the south side without a direct connection to the Mag Mile (the 2 doesn't really count) and the Near North Side in general for anything east of Halsted.

3 hours ago, artthouwill said:

@NewFlyerMCI will be happy with the 352 and 359 going to 111th Red Line.  I agree with him that the 4 could be extended to 115th Red Line.  I don't think the 34 AND 119 are necessary on Michigan Ave north of 115th.  CTA could do a 119 Vincennes/119th between 95th Red Line and 115th Red Line  via 95th, Vincennes , 119th (serving Marshfield Plaza), 119th, Michigan to 115th.   Or CTA can make the 115 King Drive/115th  and truncate the 119 to operate between 115th Red Line and 119th and Western.There is no purpose of extending the 9 Ashland to 103rd Red Line, as the 103 would already do that.

The 30, 348, 353, 355, 358, and 364 extension to 130th is good.  I'm surprised the 71 wasn't included.

I expected the 103/106 and the 111/112 route combinations as well as the elimination of the 108.  Assuming that the 8A would have to do the Carver school trippers,  why not extend it to the 130th station?  Even though the 34 wasn't mentioned,  I would think it would serve the station en route to Altgeld Gardens.

I was very much so lol. I also agree that I'm not sure what the purpose of the 9 going to 103rd is. The Vincennes/119th solution seems fairly circuitous and from the handful of times I've taken the 112, it doesn't seem like there's much boarding/alighting on the Vincennes portion of the trip. I'm used to people getting off along 95th or 111th. I'm happy to be wrong. I was thinking that section might just have to lose service, as loath as I am to admit it. I was thinking the 34 would end at 130th and just run in both directions along Langley, 133rd and Ellis. 71 probably wasn't included because it'd be 10 mins of the bus driving from 112th/Torrence to 130th, serving nothing except the scant few plant workers and not even that section of Hegewisch because potential passengers wouldn't be able to reach the bus.

1 minute ago, artthouwill said:

And the 112 rerouted to 119th and Western via Vincennes and 119th.  It could still interline with a 119 119th operating between 119th and Western and 115th Red Line station.  This pretty much accomplishes the same thing. 

Would this be coming from 95th? As is 95th, Vincennes, 119th, terminal? Or coming from 111th/Pulaski?

[artthouwill]

9 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

I was thinking the same thing about the 111A. I'd also say the 3 doesn't need to go north of Wacker, but it usually fills up decently before it gets to Randolph (coming from Fairbanks/Erie) and it leaves the south side without a direct connection to the Mag Mile (the 2 doesn't really count) and the Near North Side in general for anything east of Halsted.

I was very much so lol. I also agree that I'm not sure what the purpose of the 9 going to 103rd is. The Vincennes/119th solution seems fairly circuitous and from the handful of times I've taken the 112, it doesn't seem like there's much boarding/alighting on the Vincennes portion of the trip. I'm used to people getting off along 95th or 111th. I'm happy to be wrong. I was thinking that section might just have to lose service, as loath as I am to admit it. I was thinking the 34 would end at 130th and just run in both directions along Langley, 133rd and Ellis. 71 probably wasn't included because it'd be 10 mins of the bus driving from 112th/Torrence to 130th, serving nothing except the scant few plant workers and not even that section of Hegewisch because potential passengers wouldn't be able to reach the bus.

Would this be coming from 95th? As is 95th, Vincennes, 119th, terminal? Or coming from 111th/Pulaski?

From 95th.  Remember the 111 would be one route from Pulaski to Corliss. The interline would work similarly in the current 111 and 115, two routes with a common south terminal.

[NewFlyerMCI]

Is there any merit in having the 24 truncated entirely to 79th/Perry, running the 8A along that stretch of Holland, 83rd & Vincennes, and extending the 8 to 87th/Racine? This would give all week service to that shopping area, with the 8 making up for loss of service on Halsted from 79th to 87th. This also gives the opportunity for more transfers to said shopping center (say for instance, east of Dan Ryan 79 riders, who would then have access to a WalMart that isn't at 95th & Western to make up for Target pulling out of the south side)

[artthouwill]

1 hour ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

Is there any merit in having the 24 truncated entirely to 79th/Perry, running the 8A along that stretch of Holland, 83rd & Vincennes, and extending the 8 to 87th/Racine? This would give all week service to that shopping area, with the 8 making up for loss of service on Halsted from 79th to 87th. This also gives the opportunity for more transfers to said shopping center (say for instance, east of Dan Ryan 79 riders, who would then have access to a WalMart that isn't at 95th & Western to make up for Target pulling out of the south side)

I suppose it could be done.  CTA would probably have to sell the 79th turnaround .  With the frequency of the 8, would there be enough room for the 8 and. 44 at the 87th/Racine turnaround?

[NewFlyerMCI]

32 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

I suppose it could be done.  CTA would probably have to sell the 79th turnaround .  With the frequency of the 8, would there be enough room for the 8 and. 44 at the 87th/Racine turnaround?

Why would they have to sell it? 87th/Racine might be tight during rush hour, but the 44 runs every 20 mins outside of that, so there wouldn't be too much problems.

[artthouwill]

19 minutes ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

Why would they have to sell it? 87th/Racine might be tight during rush hour, but the 44 runs every 20 mins outside of that, so there wouldn't be too much problems.

If the 8A were rerouted as you suggested and the 8 was extended as you suggested. there would be nothing serving the 79th and Halsted turn around unless you reroute 79th buses to serve it.  Why would either route have to turn into it when transfers can be made at the intersection?  Thus there would be no need for the turnaround unless you either short turn buses at 79th during the day or late evening. 

[NewFlyerMCI]

2 hours ago, artthouwill said:

If the 8A were rerouted as you suggested and the 8 was extended as you suggested. there would be nothing serving the 79th and Halsted turn around unless you reroute 79th buses to serve it.  Why would either route have to turn into it when transfers can be made at the intersection?  Thus there would be no need for the turnaround unless you either short turn buses at 79th during the day or late evening. 

The 24 would still need to turn around there, unless it would move to the garage like the 94 and the 85 do

[artthouwill]

4 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

The 24 would still need to turn around there, unless it would move to the garage like the 94 and the 85 do

But the 24 is terminating at 79th and Perry,

[NewFlyerMCI]

10 hours ago, artthouwill said:

But the 24 is terminating at 79th and Perry,

Ohhh, I see the confusion, you meant at 79th & Halsted. My bad! ?

[YoungBusLover]

On 1/16/2020 at 1:18 PM, NewFlyerMCI said:

Is there any merit in having the 24 truncated entirely to 79th/Perry, running the 8A along that stretch of Holland, 83rd & Vincennes, and extending the 8 to 87th/Racine? This would give all week service to that shopping area, with the 8 making up for loss of service on Halsted from 79th to 87th. This also gives the opportunity for more transfers to said shopping center (say for instance, east of Dan Ryan 79 riders, who would then have access to a WalMart that isn't at 95th & Western to make up for Target pulling out of the south side)

So the 8A would would continue to start/terminate at 79th and Perry run WB on 79th then turn SB on to Vincennes taking over the current 24 routing until it reaches 87th and Halsted and thus continuing onto its normal route? The 24 getting cut back to 79th and Perry would be a big plus only if the frequency of the 8A was increased and service lasted an hour longer. Also the 8 to getting extended to 87th and Racine is a bit of a wild card in my opinion due to the one way trips being so long to begin with. However, if there was alternating service with every other bus run going as far 79th and then 87th and Racine then i'm all for it. The only issue with the 8 going to 87th and Racine I have is the peak rush traffic and making the NB/WB to 87th via Halsted and vise versa.

[NewFlyerMCI]

1 hour ago, YoungBusLover said:

So the 8A would would continue to start/terminate at 79th and Perry run WB on 79th then turn SB on to Vincennes taking over the current 24 routing until it reaches 87th and Halsted and thus continuing onto its normal route? The 24 getting cut back to 79th and Perry would be a big plus only if the frequency of the 8A was increased and service lasted an hour longer. Also the 8 to getting extended to 87th and Racine is a bit of a wild card in my opinion due to the one way trips being so long to begin with. However, if there was alternating service with every other bus run going as far 79th and then 87th and Racine then i'm all for it. The only issue with the 8 going to 87th and Racing I have is the peak rush traffic and making the NB/WB to 87th via Halsted and vise versa.

Yes, that's the routing. I suggested the 8 going to 87th/Racine since there was a terminal there and I didn't want to leave that mile of Halsted without service. I had also thought about Summit/86th for a potential layover spot since the Metra station is there, but I figured since there was a terminal less than half a mile away that would be a better location. I like the idea of alternating SB trips, although that would make for 3 SB terminals on the 8. In regards to the frequency, the 24 and 8A have a similar rush hour frequency, the 8A just adds early morning, midday and weekend service to that stretch. However, I'm not sure there'd be anyway to up the frequency without making changes to the 108 and maybe 352 as well. Lastly, for the turn, the 8 could use Summit; It would be two turns instead of 1, but would avoid the 87th/Halsted intersection. Also, to clarify: you would want NB service to last an hour later on the 8A, or SB? Or both?

[YoungBusLover]

12 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

Yes, that's the routing. I suggested the 8 going to 87th/Racine since there was a terminal there and I didn't want to leave that mile of Halsted without service. I had also thought about Summit/86th for a potential layover spot since the Metra station is there, but I figured since there was a terminal less than half a mile away that would be a better location. I like the idea of alternating SB trips, although that would make for 3 SB terminals on the 8. In regards to the frequency, the 24 and 8A have a similar rush hour frequency, the 8A just adds early morning, midday and weekend service to that stretch. However, I'm not sure there'd be anyway to up the frequency without making changes to the 108 and maybe 352 as well. Lastly, for the turn, the 8 could use Summit; It would be two turns instead of 1, but would avoid the 87th/Halsted intersection. Also, to clarify: you would want NB service to last an hour later on the 8A, or SB? Or both?

For the last part of your statement, I would want both NB/SB service to last an hour longer.

[NewFlyerMCI]

Any merit to extending the 44 to Union Station (via Canal, Adams, Clinton, Harrison, Canal). The downsides are that it would extend its duplicativeness of the 8 and that it would have to layover on the street (Clinton/Adams maybe?) unless it's going to loop through the transit center twice. Benefits include increased south side access to the shopping center at Roosevelt/Canal, access to Union Station and possibly easier access to West Loop, since it would be possibly faster to stay on the 44 than to ride to Halsted and transfer to the Orange Line. Alternatives also include a routing via Canal, Archer, Halsted, Canalport, 18th, Canal, then the rest of the extension since the 18 makes a left on Halsted, but that's not as necessary.

[YoungBusLover]

6 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

Any merit to extending the 44 to Union Station (via Canal, Adams, Clinton, Harrison, Canal). The downsides are that it would extend its duplicativeness of the 8 and that it would have to layover on the street (Clinton/Adams maybe?) unless it's going to loop through the transit center twice. Benefits include increased south side access to the shopping center at Roosevelt/Canal, access to Union Station and possibly easier access to West Loop, since it would be possibly faster to stay on the 44 than to ride to Halsted and transfer to the Orange Line. Alternatives also include a routing via Canal, Archer, Halsted, Canalport, 18th, Canal, then the rest of the extension since the 18 makes a left on Halsted, but that's not as necessary.

I would have that route goes as far as the Clinton Blue station, turn around and layover just south of the station entrance but that's about as far as I would extend it. Ridership/demand is key for the extension to even become a pilot.