If I ran Transit for one day...

[artthouwill]

23 minutes ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

 

What would be the purpose of this new convoluted rail line? What new or existing market does it serve that doesn't have adequate existing service? In this proposal, there's no advantage to taking this new line over any N/S CTA route that would run between these stations. The 53 from Armitage or North to Pulaski Pink would be just as fast, if not faster than taking this train line. Same thing goes for taking the 307 from Grand/Fullerton to Cermak, the 54 from Grand to Cermak, the 49 from North to Western Pink.

Additionally, scheduling nightmares with the Blue & Pink Lines aside, the northern/western portion of this route would reclaim the 606, a very popular bike and walking trail that won't just disappear or be subject to eminent domain without a very vocal and powerful lashing out. The section after that, is active freight tracks, and unlike with the Orange Line, there's not really space to purchase ROW to run CTA tracks parallel to them. Also assuming there would be no NIMBY pushback as well.

The way to actually do a proposal would be as follows: An actual proposal for the Pink Line would be an infill station, at say, Madison

• Pros
  • Closer access to United Center
    • Closest walking distance from a CTA station, is currently IMD
  • Direct access to Route 20
  • Closer access to schools and senior living facilities in the area
    • Patrick Sullivan Homes
    • Jesse Spalding School
    • Brown School of Technology
• Cons
  • Bulk of ridership would be dependent on United Center
  • Competes with Ashland for ridership
    • Also probably competes with IMD for ridership
  • Potential train/bus transfers will be limited due to parallel services
    • No advantage for west side riders to transfer from the 20 at this proposed station vs Washington/Wabash or Washington/Wells for south loop riders and everyone else won't gain or lose walking time to their destination
    • Most riders heading south or north will have switched to other bus routes prior

Something like this, where the rationale is explained, makes it easier for us to understand, and predict what CTA would do (here, a Madison Pink probably isn't on their short list). Despite our butting of heads in the past, @Busjack had a great point about making sure to not just "fill in the lines" and that's effectively what this train line is (really more of a trace, but that's beside the point). Look through some of the other proposals in this thread, see what people have suggested and why

I do think that the proposal is bad.  I agree with you that reclaiming the 606 trail wouldn't be a popular idea, but that routing could bring crowding relief to the heavy Blue Line, assuming pre COVID ridership levels. Scheduling Pink line trains between Blue Line trains is no different than scheduling Purple line trains between Brown line trains. I would tweak the northern terminal to Brickyard Mall and the southern or western terminal to North Riverside Mall.  Both malls are traffic generators and can serve as transit terminals for bus to rail transfers.  I think this would have been  viable years ago, but may be very costly now and, because of the pandemic,  the crowd relief factor in Bucktown and Wicker Park is lost.   Had this been the plan when the Pink Line was conceived. It would have been successful. 

[NewFlyerMCI]

39 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

I do think that the proposal is bad.  I agree with you that reclaiming the 606 trail wouldn't be a popular idea, but that routing could bring crowding relief to the heavy Blue Line, assuming pre COVID ridership levels. Scheduling Pink line trains between Blue Line trains is no different than scheduling Purple line trains between Brown line trains. I would tweak the northern terminal to Brickyard Mall and the southern or western terminal to North Riverside Mall.  Both malls are traffic generators and can serve as transit terminals for bus to rail transfers.  I think this would have been  viable years ago, but may be very costly now and, because of the pandemic,  the crowd relief factor in Bucktown and Wicker Park is lost.   Had this been the plan when the Pink Line was conceived. It would have been successful. 

Fair point about the scheduling. I was concerned about the Racine connector since iirc, it's single tracked, and I thought that would cause some issues. Also hadn't thought about crowding relief as well. I think even if the 606 could be reclaimed, the proposal still would've been DOA trying to go past Kimball/Pulaski

[Sam92]

22 hours ago, artthouwill said:

I do think that the proposal is bad.  I agree with you that reclaiming the 606 trail wouldn't be a popular idea, but that routing could bring crowding relief to the heavy Blue Line, assuming pre COVID ridership levels. Scheduling Pink line trains between Blue Line trains is no different than scheduling Purple line trains between Brown line trains. I would tweak the northern terminal to Brickyard Mall and the southern or western terminal to North Riverside Mall.  Both malls are traffic generators and can serve as transit terminals for bus to rail transfers.  I think this would have been  viable years ago, but may be very costly now and, because of the pandemic,  the crowd relief factor in Bucktown and Wicker Park is lost.   Had this been the plan when the Pink Line was conceived. It would have been successful. 

 

21 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

Fair point about the scheduling. I was concerned about the Racine connector since iirc, it's single tracked, and I thought that would cause some issues. Also hadn't thought about crowding relief as well. I think even if the 606 could be reclaimed, the proposal still would've been DOA trying to go past Kimball/Pulaski

The north riverside extension can stand alone as just a pink line extension. The current blue routing provides wider coverage BUT north ave is a busy and congested street. What if instead of using 606 for a new L you widened it and become an elevated bus only viaduct with a walkway on the said. A new 72X with some BRT features would use the 606 to bypass the worst traffic rejoin the regular 72 at Central Park but still run express since traffic is 4 lanes at that point and then terminate at brick yard on the west end. You still get the crowding relief you’re looking for but also in a cheaper way without diverting or complicating rail schedules 

[NewFlyerMCI]

Honestly, I don't think there's a lot CTA could do with further extensions or even new rail lines. We have Red Line South, hopefully we'll get Ford City extension. North Riverside Mall for the Pink Line isn't a bad idea, although I think it's somewhat redundant.

My only two suggestions would be the Brown Line to Jeff Pk (which I believe would be DOA in terms of actual feasibility) and merging the East 63rd branch of the Green Line with the ME's South Shore branch (which I believe would be a lot easier). In fact, if the platforms don't have to be raised or lowered, the struggle would be connecting the two tracks, since all the other infrastructure is in place and the platforms are long enough for 6-car trains. Maybe that parking lot at 63rd on the ME (or is that the church parking lot?) could serve as a portal entrance for a tunnel that would connect to the SS branch.

I think the addition of the Orange Line 22 years ago (I believe it opened the year I was born) filled in the last major service gap for the L. The service gaps that exist now just don't require an entirely new rail line imo.

[artthouwill]

37 minutes ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

Honestly, I don't think there's a lot CTA could do with further extensions or even new rail lines. We have Red Line South, hopefully we'll get Ford City extension. North Riverside Mall for the Pink Line isn't a bad idea, although I think it's somewhat redundant.

My only two suggestions would be the Brown Line to Jeff Pk (which I believe would be DOA in terms of actual feasibility) and merging the East 63rd branch of the Green Line with the ME's South Shore branch (which I believe would be a lot easier). In fact, if the platforms don't have to be raised or lowered, the struggle would be connecting the two tracks, since all the other infrastructure is in place and the platforms are long enough for 6-car trains. Maybe that parking lot at 63rd on the ME (or is that the church parking lot?) could serve as a portal entrance for a tunnel that would connect to the SS branch.

I think the addition of the Orange Line 22 years ago (I believe it opened the year I was born) filled in the last major service gap for the L. The service gaps that exist now just don't require an entirely new rail line imo.

I certainly agree with you about the Brown line to Jefferson Park.   I think the main problem would be building an elevated structure over Lawrence.   Thr city has an old law prohibiting L structures being built over streets.   Obviously that law was passed after 63rd, Lake Street,  Wabash, Van Buren, Wells, and Franklin St were already built.  That would be a popular and useful extension.

A Green Line extension to the ME South Chicago leg would be a waste.  No one would ride it with much faster express bus service.   The NE can't fill one car during rush hour.  Someone proposed something similar with the Kensington Local and Blue Island branch.  Neither works because its too many stops and there are faster alternatives available 

[NewFlyerMCI]

12 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

I certainly agree with you about the Brown line to Jefferson Park.   I think the main problem would be building an elevated structure over Lawrence.   Thr city has an old law prohibiting L structures being built over streets.   Obviously that law was passed after 63rd, Lake Street,  Wabash, Van Buren, Wells, and Franklin St were already built.  That would be a popular and useful extension.

A Green Line extension to the ME South Chicago leg would be a waste.  No one would ride it with much faster express bus service.   The NE can't fill one car during rush hour.  Someone proposed something similar with the Kensington Local and Blue Island branch.  Neither works because its too many stops and there are faster alternatives available 

I was wondering if it could continue on the ground level, although I imagine that would require a lot of imminent domain.

It could be a waste to extend the Green Line, but I think doing so would eliminate a lot of the issues that prevent people from riding now, namely being

• fares (acknowledging that the FTSC act is in effect now)
• lack of transfers (step-free and ventra transfers aren't available on the ME rn) and
• frequency (the green line branch frequency is slow enough that the corridor isn't getting more service than it needs, while being fast enough to possibly induce demand. 

Reducing the barriers to riding (or rather, the disincentives) makes it easier to ride. It would be hard to compete with the J14 (and with the 6, to a lesser extent), but if the south chicago branch was an integrated part of the L system, ridership would tick up. Once you get past Windsor Park, the J14 isn't the most lucrative option and the 6 takes a while before getting to 47th. If those riders would be inclined transfer at 67th/Jeffery from the 6 to the J14, suddenly this new Green Line becomes an attractive option, since they wouldn't have to board the bus at all. Additionally, you could induce demand via transfers from other services as well. There's a big ol' vacant lot sitting right next to 93rd. That could easily be turned into a transfer point and terminus for the N5, 26, 30, 71, 87, 95 and hey, maybe even the 6

There's also new or improved one-seat connections, for instance

• Intra-south side riders
• Access to IIT
• U.S. Cellular being short bus ride or medium length walk away
• Access to McCormick place is preserved (although no longer as direct, but not every train stopped there anyway)
• Access to Chinatown
• The West Side

[SaneHuman]

On 4/18/2014 at 1:07 PM, YoungBusLover said:

10.) Bus Drivers that are 20 minutes late or higher are required to call in and ask to go express to gain back lost time.(From what ive seen from riding on route 9 Drivers do this a lot,but only after they've passed 74th street and were told to.)

So...   As one is standing, suffering, and freezing, for well over 20 minutes, probably at least an hour since no one checks alleged schedules times in Chicago since they don't mean anything.  I am already late for court/work/etc. and about to get fired/arrested etx.  Now you are going to force the customer to wait an additional 40 minutes, risking their literal death in many cases because Chicago is also too stupid to build legitimate shelters at llaces which they refer to as "bus shelters" but which have no heat and no walls.  Fucking "brilliant" in the British sarcasm way.  This is literally THE REASON why people want to fire the majority of employees involved with running the CTA.  To avoid such extreme disregard for customers is literally the reason why this topic exists.

[Erin Mishkin Jr.]

4 hours ago, SaneHuman said:

So...   As one is standing, suffering, and freezing, for well over 20 minutes, probably at least an hour since no one checks alleged schedules times in Chicago since they don't mean anything.  I am already late for court/work/etc. and about to get fired/arrested etx.  Now you are going to force the customer to wait an additional 40 minutes, risking their literal death in many cases because Chicago is also too stupid to build legitimate shelters at llaces which they refer to as "bus shelters" but which have no heat and no walls.  Fucking "brilliant" in the British sarcasm way.  This is literally THE REASON why people want to fire the majority of employees involved with running the CTA.  To avoid such extreme disregard for customers is literally the reason why this topic exists.

There should be extra runs especially during a pandemic so there’s more  space to spread out    And to reduce wait times if possible

[artthouwill]

Even though it's fun to fantasize about different situations, what @SaneHumanhas to realize is that governments are corporations supported by a combination of taxpayers and riders.  Everyone wants our governments to fund all of our desires but balk at paying more taxes to fund them.  We already know from history that increasing taxes unstabiluzes the tax base.  Increased fares leads to reductions in ridership.  Obvioysly, service reductions discourages ridership, which affects farebox revenue,, which directly affects government funding.. This country keeps borrowing money to sustain an unsustainable economic structure.  

Other countries invest in and support transit.  Citizens in Other countries ride those models of transportation.   This U S  government supports the auto industry and doesn't support sustaining, let alone building infrastructure nor does it encourage people to ride transit.   

A lot if posters have shared ideas in this thread and some are very good.  But we assume financial resources are available  when in reality, the reason these ideas don't come to fruition is lack of funding.  Some of those ideas were planned out 50 plus years ago, some go back almost 80 years ago.  The Eisenhower administration made a shift to highway infrastructures and the national rail network died.   America is married to cars    

We want everything as long as someone else is footing the bill 

[SaneHuman]

On 4/15/2021 at 7:46 PM, artthouwill said:

Even though it's fun to fantasize about different situations, what @SaneHumanhas to realize is that governments are corporations supported by a combination of taxpayers and riders.  Everyone wants our governments to fund all of our desires but balk at paying more taxes to fund them.  We already know from history that increasing taxes unstabiluzes the tax base.  Increased fares leads to reductions in ridership.  Obvioysly, service reductions discourages ridership, which affects farebox revenue,, which directly affects government funding.. This country keeps borrowing money to sustain an unsustainable economic structure.  

Other countries invest in and support transit.  Citizens in Other countries ride those models of transportation.   This U S  government supports the auto industry and doesn't support sustaining, let alone building infrastructure nor does it encourage people to ride transit.   

A lot if posters have shared ideas in this thread and some are very good.  But we assume financial resources are available  when in reality, the reason these ideas don't come to fruition is lack of funding.  Some of those ideas were planned out 50 plus years ago, some go back almost 80 years ago.  The Eisenhower administration made a shift to highway infrastructures and the national rail network died.   America is married to cars    

We want everything as long as someone else is footing the bill 

....Nobody cares.  Refusing to pick up a customer when a bus is not literally impossible to enter, is obviously never acceptable.

 

(Obviously if any bus is in fact impossible to enter, another bus should arrive behind it within 5 minutes, which of course will also be paid for by the huge, insane number of people who are using at that moment for that particular run, high profits are made, and generally continue ti be made in that second bus as well...   however, full buses are also actually irrelevant, since the abusive poster was advocating for NOT-full buses to just suddenly stop licking up passengers for no reason.  This user also did NOT advocate for additional buses to be sent either.)

 

Additionally...   people pay fares.  Although price is literally completely irrelevant here to the extreme abuse that was advocated by the member I replied to, it is also irrelevant because of the fact that, in order to use a bus (at least in Northern Illinois), one must pay an exorbinant fare using personal currency.  Not via a deduction from paychecks of persons whi have social security numbers.

[NewFlyerMCI]

14 hours ago, SaneHuman said:

....Nobody cares.  Refusing to pick up a customer when a bus is not literally impossible to enter, is obviously never acceptable.

 

(Obviously if any bus is in fact impossible to enter, another bus should arrive behind it within 5 minutes, which of course will also be paid for by the huge, insane number of people who are using at that moment for that particular run, high profits are made, and generally continue ti be made in that second bus as well...   however, full buses are also actually irrelevant, since the abusive poster was advocating for NOT-full buses to just suddenly stop licking up passengers for no reason.  This user also did NOT advocate for additional buses to be sent either.)

 

Additionally...   people pay fares.  Although price is literally completely irrelevant here to the extreme abuse that was advocated by the member I replied to, it is also irrelevant because of the fact that, in order to use a bus (at least in Northern Illinois), one must pay an exorbinant fare using personal currency.  Not via a deduction from paychecks of persons whi have social security numbers.

When buses are crowded together, it's not unusual for the 1st or 2nd bus(es) to continue going at let the last bus pick up the passengers. Clearly the bus was not "impossible to enter" but would you still be upset? And the hyperbole you used in your previous example was ridiculous, 40 minute wait times for CTA buses, even delayed are extraordinary. As is, "something serious and law enforcement is probably involved extraordinary." Even without delays, I'm not sure there's a regular CTA bus route with headways worse than 30 minutes, even on Sunday. Even the 30 runs every ~24 mins on Sunday and that bus takes an eternity to come no matter what day of the week you're riding.

The "abusive" poster didn't advocate for buses to stop picking up passengers for "no reason", the reason given was to maintain the schedule. Same reason CTA trains start flashing lights and running express.

The fare to ride CTA isn't exorbitant. Words do actually have meaning. It's $2.50, with two $0.25 transfers. Philly charges you $2 (card only) with 2 $1 transfers. New York is set to raise the fare to $3.50 from where it currently is at $3.25. BART & WMATA charge fares based on distance to ride the train. Imagine riding from 79th to Wilson for $5.50 one way? A 7-day pass is $28. A daily roundtrip for 7 days is $35. And the pass gives you unlimited rides and transfers. And lastly your suggestion for fares leaves a lot of people unable to ride the bus.

[Sam92]

Hmm so if this flyover stretches far enough how smart would it be to use the un-used stretch of NB track leading to the ravenswood to stage and turnback the brownage trains inserting them at Belmont vs sending them all the way to Kimball? Or even smarter, with Brown Line slated to become all 2600s soon according to Garmon, it could become an issue like with blue where the 2600s get slightly overworked in the rush as a busy line; eliminate the Brownages altogether and revive the ravenstons but with Red Line crews short turning at Roosevelt, running back to Belmont where they would stage On the old track and for a trip south as a brown line where they’d return as a Purple Line and go out of service at Howard. That way you send less trains to 95th in the AM, move empty trains to the busier part of the brown line, and  Orange isn’t over served with the brown line extras returning south. It’ll be relatively cost neutral or might even save a few bucks cause that time wasted on the Dan Ryan now goes to busier parts of the system and like I said keeps the orange line balanced plus adds new 5000s to the growing demand on the brown without having to soend time training kimball crews 

[artthouwill]

11 minutes ago, Sam92 said:

Hmm so if this flyover stretches far enough how smart would it be to use the un-used stretch of NB track leading to the ravenswood to stage and turnback the brownage trains inserting them at Belmont vs sending them all the way to Kimball? Or even smarter, with Brown Line slated to become all 2600s soon according to Garmon, it could become an issue like with blue where the 2600s get slightly overworked in the rush as a busy line; eliminate the Brownages altogether and revive the ravenstons but with Red Line crews short turning at Roosevelt, running back to Belmont where they would stage On the old track and for a trip south as a brown line where they’d return as a Purple Line and go out of service at Howard. That way you send less trains to 95th in the AM, move empty trains to the busier part of the brown line, and  Orange isn’t over served with the brown line extras returning south. It’ll be relatively cost neutral or might even save a few bucks cause that time wasted on the Dan Ryan now goes to busier parts of the system and like I said keeps the orange line balanced plus adds new 5000s to the growing demand on the brown without having to soend time training kimball crews 

I get what you are trying to accomplish.   I think the only thing is that the purpose of the flyover was to eliminate conflicts with Red and Brown trains.   Your idea can make sense in terms of utilization,  but the setback is that you don't eliminate the cos.  nflicts.  A train ending at NB Belmont still has to get to a SB track, whether it's going to run a Red or Brown, possibly causing delays to SB service,  not to mention also delaying NB Red,  Brown,  and Purple trains which still use what you term unused track.

[Sam92]

8 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

I get what you are trying to accomplish.   I think the only thing is that the purpose of the flyover was to eliminate conflicts with Red and Brown trains.   Your idea can make sense in terms of utilization,  but the setback is that you don't eliminate the cos.  nflicts.  A train ending at NB Belmont still has to get to a SB track, whether it's going to run a Red or Brown, possibly causing delays to SB service,  not to mention also delaying NB Red,  Brown,  and Purple trains which still use what you term unused track.

The unused stretch of track I’m referring to is past all of that. After leaving the north side main the train would basically reverse around Southport. I doubt they are gonna rip out that old kimball main track right away so you can use that part between south port and Belmont while the other trains could still get around. When the train goes back into service south it just switches immediately to the outer track 

[Sam92]

9 minutes ago, Sam92 said:

The unused stretch of track I’m referring to is past all of that. After leaving the north side main the train would basically reverse around Southport. I doubt they are gonna rip out that old kimball main track right away so you can use that part between south port and Belmont while the other trains could still get around. When the train goes back into service south it just switches immediately to the outer track 

Basically that section between south port and Belmont would be used as a pseudo middle turnback. The conflict at south port is minimized by clearing the train at Belmont so it immediately reverses out of the way of other browns continuing to kimball. If cta plans to add more reds after the flyover then dan Ryan becomes even more overserved. 

[artthouwill]

1 minute ago, Sam92 said:

Basically that section between south port and Belmont would be used as a pseudo middle turnback. The conflict at south port is minimized by clearing the train at Belmont so it immediately reverses out of the way of other browns continuing to kimball.

I got it, but to access that track, you would still have to use the current crossover, thus still causing some conflicts, albeit a few less conflicts.   Evenifyousay reversethetrains After the Brownsuse the flyover,  you will delay other Browns waitingforthat train to reverseto your stage area.  Eitherthe followed has to wait on the flyover, or at Belmont.  The latter couldalsodelayany NB Purplelinetrains..  

[YoungBusLover]

On 4/15/2021 at 12:57 PM, SaneHuman said:

So...   As one is standing, suffering, and freezing, for well over 20 minutes, probably at least an hour since no one checks alleged schedules times in Chicago since they don't mean anything.  I am already late for court/work/etc. and about to get fired/arrested etx.  Now you are going to force the customer to wait an additional 40 minutes, risking their literal death in many cases because Chicago is also too stupid to build legitimate shelters at llaces which they refer to as "bus shelters" but which have no heat and no walls.  Fucking "brilliant" in the British sarcasm way.  This is literally THE REASON why people want to fire the majority of employees involved with running the CTA.  To avoid such extreme disregard for customers is literally the reason why this topic exists.

I'll just leave these examples of intervals from around the system here because the point I made went over your head to the point where you exaggerated your point.....All of these intervals were taken at different points of the year during weekday mornings, afternoons, weekends and overnights. Only on certain days service will get bad due to a number of factors,  runs being held in due to the pandemic, no reliefs, passenger capacity, bad weather, traffic accidents, police/fire/ems activity, the customers themselves etc etc, I made a point earlier last week about this very issue when it comes down to the "CUSTOMER"  complaining about the very service they use while being ignorant and not taking accountability on themselves for issues such as these. No where on these screenshots do you see a major gap of 40 plus minutes and even if customers were to be skipped chances are another bus will come behind them with in the next 5 to 10 minutes, certain routes are bad and you just to be aware of that but with things opening back up now as far as passenger loads you'll see less of that as time goes on but it still happens but not as frequent as last year.

 

 

[Sam92]

4 hours ago, artthouwill said:

I got it, but to access that track, you would still have to use the current crossover, thus still causing some conflicts, albeit a few less conflicts.   Evenifyousay reversethetrains After the Brownsuse the flyover,  you will delay other Browns waitingforthat train to reverseto your stage area.  Eitherthe followed has to wait on the flyover, or at Belmont.  The latter couldalsodelayany NB Purplelinetrains..  

How about after turning back at Roosevelt running lite to the staging point? If you’re inserting trains at Belmont then you can halve the number of kimball bound trains so by running lite back north you eliminate the time wasted of clearing the train minimizing impact. At that point starting back at Belmont would be no different than a train coming from kimball

[Sam92]

4 minutes ago, Sam92 said:

How about after turning back at Roosevelt running lite to the staging point? If you’re inserting trains at Belmont then you can halve the number of kimball bound trains so by running lite back north you eliminate the time wasted of clearing the train minimizing impact as the operator just as to move the train back east of the flyover to clear room for the following kimball bound train. At that point starting back at Belmont would be no different than a train coming from kimball

 

[artthouwill]

2 minutes ago, Sam92 said:

How about after turning back at Roosevelt running lite to the staging point? If you’re inserting trains at Belmont then you can halve the number of kimball bound trains so by running lite back north you eliminate the time wasted of clearing the train minimizing impact. At that point starting back at Belmont would be no different than a train coming from kimball

Assuming pandemic frequency of7 minute intervals would work, though north of Belmont,  a 15 minute intervals during rush periods would be unacceptable.   Any rush hour frequency of less than 5 minutes makes this plan difficult to do.

[strictures]

4 hours ago, YoungBusLover said:

I'll just leave these examples of intervals from around the system here because the point I made went over your head to the point where you exaggerated your point.....All of these intervals were taken at different points of the year during weekday mornings, afternoons, weekends and overnights. Only on certain days service will get bad due to a number of factors,  runs being held in due to the pandemic, no reliefs, passenger capacity, bad weather, traffic accidents, police/fire/ems activity, the customers themselves etc etc, I made a point earlier last week about this very issue when it comes down to the "CUSTOMER"  complaining about the very service they use while being ignorant and not taking accountability on themselves for issues such as these. No where on these screenshots do you see a major gap of 40 plus minutes and even if customers were to be skipped chances are another bus will come behind them with in the next 5 to 10 minutes, certain routes are bad and you just to be aware of that but with things opening back up now as far as passenger loads you'll see less of that as time goes on but it still happens but not as frequent as last year.

 

 

You left out the north end of the 151s which run to Clark/Devon.  Supposedly they run at 20 minute headways north of Belmont in each direction, but there are many times when the Ventra app shows no buses, which means it's a 30+ minute wait. 

Earlier this year, I waited for a SB 22 at Clark/Devon for over 45 minutes.   Over the years, I have waited over an hour for a NB Broadway at Elmdale & then 6 NB Broadways came. 

Of course none of those are as bad as when a Pace bus that's on an hourly basis, has an entire run missed for some reason & the wait is 2 hours!

[Sam92]

17 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

Assuming pandemic frequency of7 minute intervals would work, though north of Belmont,  a 15 minute intervals during rush periods would be unacceptable.   Any rush hour frequency of less than 5 minutes makes this plan difficult to do.

The 6 midways add themselves in for a 3 min headway so this would leave north of Belmont with 6 min headway’s which I feel would be acceptable. Also considering red line service is perceived as faster getting to the loop that might cause riders transfer to the red line so capacity is more spread out. Short turns knocking off equipment demand also has a domino effect of less trains conflicting at tower 18 

[Tcmetro]

It depends on if or when ridership recovers, but the idea for the Brown Line flyover is to increase frequency down from 3 mins to 2 mins or even less at peak. CTA has stated the new signal system on the O'Hare branch will support 90 second headways, but I'm inclined to believe there's a lot of other operational challenges in the way of making that a reality.

One of the issues is that CTA will be constructing a new yard as part of the 130th St extension, so there will still be a lot of trains coming through the south side to provide extra service on the north side. 

Here's the capacity study which was conducted a few years ago:

https://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/6/RP_CDMSMITH_RCM_Task2AExecutiveSummary_20170628_FINAL.pdf

[artthouwill]

1 hour ago, Sam92 said:

The 6 midways add themselves in for a 3 min headway so this would leave north of Belmont with 6 min headway’s which I feel would be acceptable. Also considering red line service is perceived as faster getting to the loop that might cause riders transfer to the red line so capacity is more spread out. Short turns knocking off equipment demand also has a domino effect of less trains conflicting at tower 18 

With 3 minute headway i don't think this works.  A short turn Brown has to clear the flyover, stop, the rail operator has to walk through 8 cars, switch  track signals to get to the stage track, all in less than 3 minutes because the follower is waiting.  This assumes a perfect world.

[Sam92]

24 minutes ago, Tcmetro said:

It depends on if or when ridership recovers, but the idea for the Brown Line flyover is to increase frequency down from 3 mins to 2 mins or even less at peak. CTA has stated the new signal system on the O'Hare branch will support 90 second headways, but I'm inclined to believe there's a lot of other operational challenges in the way of making that a reality.

One of the issues is that CTA will be constructing a new yard as part of the 130th St extension, so there will still be a lot of trains coming through the south side to provide extra service on the north side. 

Here's the capacity study which was conducted a few years ago:

https://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/6/RP_CDMSMITH_RCM_Task2AExecutiveSummary_20170628_FINAL.pdf

Thanks for the info! I I think the 2 min headways are supposed to be for the red line. If the brown line does need anything then the AM needs the service added at Belmont anyway as shown in the figure.