If I ran Transit for one day...

[artthouwill]

1 hour ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

 

I agree with most of this, although on the 8/8A, they should both just end at 95th Red Line (had there been space). Fortunately, there should be some sort of shakeup on this corridor within the next 5-10 years, with Pace Halsted.

The 54B's terminal has always been baffling to me

The 59's east-of-Ryan routing has always confused me. A couple of years back, I'd have agreed with the truncation, however, there are two things to consider; the Jewels that's now there, and xfer connections. The 59 has never been the highest ridership route (and is one of the few CTA routes with no Sunday service), but those bus-to-bus connections are still important. 3, 4 & 29 not being able to switch to the 59 anymore relegates riders to the 55 or 63 and a longer walk than they'd usually have. Maybe a good compromise is the fountain at 60th/Cottage where the 2 lays over?

I'd be okay with an 8 extension either to 95th Red Line or 99th and Halsted, laying over on the Parnell bridge, but because there are facilities at 95th,  I'd be okay with that.  The CTA/Pace/Pulse corridor study might answer this issues.

I'm not a historian, but it sounds like Cermak and Kenton might have been a streetcar routing prior to buses.

As for the east of the Ryan routing if the 59, 61st was (is?)a one way going EB between State and Indiana.  So WB buses had to turn off of 61st at Indiana.  I suppose CTA chose to use 60th WB between Indiana and State to keep the routing close together, although it probably would have made more sense to use Michigan EB abd Indiana WB between 59th and 61st.  But I think the route used State because there use to be an L station at 59th and State and the route could serve the station directly.  This benefitted 59th Street passengers as 61st also had a station for passengers along 61st.  The State St station closed in the early 70s and 61st station and the 59th and Wentworth station closed during the Green Line rebuild.

Now that those stations are gone, there's really no need for the route east of the Ryan.  Passengers can transfer to the Red Line or the 24 which runs close to State.   There aren't a bunch if 59th Street passengers transferring to the 3 or 4. Isn't there a Jewel at 61st and Halsted?

If 61st just had to have service,  I would route some 63rd Street buses that way.  If you wanted to avoid some confusion,  call this route the 61 61st/63rd which could operate between Stony Island and 63rd and Kedzie.  But I don't think any route is necessary unless you wanted to move the 2 or the other University route to 61st Street  

[Anthony Devera]

3 hours ago, artthouwill said:

I'd be okay with an 8 extension either to 95th Red Line or 99th and Halsted, laying over on the Parnell bridge, but because there are facilities at 95th,  I'd be okay with that.  The CTA/Pace/Pulse corridor study might answer this issues.

I'm not a historian, but it sounds like Cermak and Kenton might have been a streetcar routing prior to buses.

As for the east of the Ryan routing if the 59, 61st was (is?)a one way going EB between State and Indiana.  So WB buses had to turn off of 61st at Indiana.  I suppose CTA chose to use 60th WB between Indiana and State to keep the routing close together, although it probably would have made more sense to use Michigan EB abd Indiana WB between 59th and 61st.  But I think the route used State because there use to be an L station at 59th and State and the route could serve the station directly.  This benefitted 59th Street passengers as 61st also had a station for passengers along 61st.  The State St station closed in the early 70s and 61st station and the 59th and Wentworth station closed during the Green Line rebuild.

Now that those stations are gone, there's really no need for the route east of the Ryan.  Passengers can transfer to the Red Line or the 24 which runs close to State.   There aren't a bunch if 59th Street passengers transferring to the 3 or 4. Isn't there a Jewel at 61st and Halsted?

If 61st just had to have service,  I would route some 63rd Street buses that way.  If you wanted to avoid some confusion,  call this route the 61 61st/63rd which could operate between Stony Island and 63rd and Kedzie.  But I don't think any route is necessary unless you wanted to move the 2 or the other University route to 61st Street  

As a Hyde Park resident, I like having the 59 as a faster and less crowded way to get to either Garfield Red Line or Midway Airport. I do agree that 61st is rather close to 63rd so it doesn't absolutely need service. Here are a few east of Ryan route options I'm thinking of:

• 59th - Prairie - 61st - Cottage Grove - 59th (WB) / 60th (EB) - terminate at 60th/Stony Island. Provides better route spacing between 55th and 63rd.
• 59th - King Drive - 60th - 59th (WB) / 60th (EB) - terminate at 60th/Stony Island. Provides better route spacing between 55th and 63rd.
• 59th - Prairie - 61st - Cottage Grove - 57th EB - Ellis SB - 59th EB - terminate somewhere along that loop, possibly 57th/Cottage Grove. This would serve UChicago Hospitals.
• 59th - Prairie - 61st - Cottage Grove - 57th EB - Stony Island - 59th WB - terminate at 59th/Stony Island. Main issue with this is that 57th is a narrow street, and 57th under the Metra tracks might not have enough clearance.

[YoungBusLover]

10 hours ago, Anthony Devera said:

With this in mind, I'll suggest a few routing changes:

• 8A: Instead of running via 79th, run via Halsted and 71st, terminate at 69th Red Line. Or run via 79th and Vincennes to 69th Red Line. This gives a better connection to the Red Line. Only issue is space at 69th.
• 54: Extend via Cicero, Lawrence, and Milwaukee to Jefferson Park, similar to the old X54. Only issue is space at JP.
• 54B: Terminate at the 16th/Cicero loop, so as to create a better connection to the Pink Line. Only issue is the railroad crossing at 16th, but if vehicles can still turn from Cicero onto 16th and vice-versa when there is a train, then it shouldn't be a problem.
• 59: Between State and King Drive, run in both directions via 59th, Prairie, and 61st. This way the bus makes less turns and avoids a few lights.

The 8A should run to Halsted Orange line to be quite honest with you, the 352 can help pick up the slack once the pulse service begins. 

Keep the 54/ 54B as is.

In regards to the 59, from State to King Drive there is at least 3 set of lights until you reach Prairie but on 61st there is only 2 sets, that right turn heading NB from 61st and King towards 59th has a tight radius also traffic during the PM rush in that general area of reconfiguration is a nightmare. The current routing is just fine.

[artthouwill]

13 minutes ago, YoungBusLover said:

The 8A should run to Halsted Orange line to be quite honest with you, the 352 can help pick up the slack once the pulse service begins. 

Keep the 54/ 54B as is.

In regards to the 59, from State to King Drive there is at least 3 set of lights until you reach Prairie but on 61st there is only 2 sets, that right turn heading NB from 61st and King towards 59th has a tight radius also traffic during the PM rush in that general area of reconfiguration is a nightmare. The current routing is just fine.

I don't understand the logic of extending 8A to the Orange Line    if you want to shorten the 8 to the Orange Line,  this doesn't work because there are many riders south of the Orange Line that ride north of the station,  mainly the UIC area. If the idea was to run the 8 and 8A  

Together  between 79th and the Orange Line,  this makes no sense either as a lot of 8s run between Broadway and Root. So evidence suggests that extra service south of Root isn't necessary  

There's no reroute if the 59 east of  the Ryan that's going to significantly increase ridership    it is a futile exercise.   Just truncate the route 

 

 

V

 

 

[YoungBusLover]

21 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

I don't understand the logic of extending 8A to the Orange Line    if you want to shorten the 8 to the Orange Line,  this doesn't work because there are many riders south of the Orange Line that ride north of the station,  mainly the UIC area. If the idea was to run the 8 and 8A  

Together  between 79th and the Orange Line,  this makes no sense either as a lot of 8s run between Broadway and Root. So evidence suggests that extra service south of Root isn't necessary  

There's no reroute if the 59 east of  the Ryan that's going to significantly increase ridership    it is a futile exercise.   Just truncate the route 

 

 

V

 

 

The service gaps we have already at times on both routes south of UIC is utterly bad to begin with. I work the #8 4 days a week counting weekends and the service is bad at certain times on both routes where you have to wait 30 minutes for an 8A going SB after waiting 15-20 minutes for a 8 to even get to 79th to transfer over. Only a handful of runs run from Broadway, Division/Randolph head to Root during the AM/PM rush and that's if there's enough manpower to cover it. Service south of the orange line would benefit greatly if the 8A was extended there because the demand would support it and it would also help the local 8s that may be delayed due to traffic or manpower shortages especially on the weekend to maintain some type of consistency in intervals.

As far as the 59 is concerned those seniors will not take 63rd as an alternate that live east of the Ryan. 

[artthouwill]

2 hours ago, YoungBusLover said:

The service gaps we have already at times on both routes south of UIC is utterly bad to begin with. I work the #8 4 days a week counting weekends and the service is bad at certain times on both routes where you have to wait 30 minutes for an 8A going SB after waiting 15-20 minutes for a 8 to even get to 79th to transfer over. Only a handful of runs run from Broadway, Division/Randolph head to Root during the AM/PM rush and that's if there's enough manpower to cover it. Service south of the orange line would benefit greatly if the 8A was extended there because the demand would support it and it would also help the local 8s that may be delayed due to traffic or manpower shortages especially on the weekend to maintain some type of consistency in intervals.

As far as the 59 is concerned those seniors will not take 63rd as an alternate that live east of the Ryan. 

If those dervuce gaps are as bad as you say on the 8A now, imagine how much worse it is would be if that route went all the way to the Orange Line.   I know there are still staffing issues and extending an affected route only would exacerbate the problem.

[NewFlyerMCI]

3 hours ago, YoungBusLover said:

The 8A should run to Halsted Orange line to be quite honest with you, the 352 can help pick up the slack once the pulse service begins. 

Keep the 54/ 54B as is.

In regards to the 59, from State to King Drive there is at least 3 set of lights until you reach Prairie but on 61st there is only 2 sets, that right turn heading NB from 61st and King towards 59th has a tight radius also traffic during the PM rush in that general area of reconfiguration is a nightmare. The current routing is just fine.

 

2 hours ago, artthouwill said:

I don't understand the logic of extending 8A to the Orange Line    if you want to shorten the 8 to the Orange Line,  this doesn't work because there are many riders south of the Orange Line that ride north of the station,  mainly the UIC area. If the idea was to run the 8 and 8A  

Together  between 79th and the Orange Line,  this makes no sense either as a lot of 8s run between Broadway and Root. So evidence suggests that extra service south of Root isn't necessary  

There's no reroute if the 59 east of  the Ryan that's going to significantly increase ridership    it is a futile exercise.   Just truncate the route 

 

2 hours ago, YoungBusLover said:

The service gaps we have already at times on both routes south of UIC is utterly bad to begin with. I work the #8 4 days a week counting weekends and the service is bad at certain times on both routes where you have to wait 30 minutes for an 8A going SB after waiting 15-20 minutes for a 8 to even get to 79th to transfer over. Only a handful of runs run from Broadway, Division/Randolph head to Root during the AM/PM rush and that's if there's enough manpower to cover it. Service south of the orange line would benefit greatly if the 8A was extended there because the demand would support it and it would also help the local 8s that may be delayed due to traffic or manpower shortages especially on the weekend to maintain some type of consistency in intervals.

As far as the 59 is concerned those seniors will not take 63rd as an alternate that live east of the Ryan. 

I'm not a Halsted rider, so I'll defer to youngbuslover's reasoning, but I will say 119th to 26th is a long ride. Not atypical for CTA, right about where the 3 & 4 are, but still. Doubling the length of the line isn't exactly going to help consistency/frequency issues.

As for the 59, this is really a case of where it's best to do nothing. The alignment probably wouldn't have been made today, but it exists and people depend on it, might as well keep it. The alternatives exist, but won't be popular, and the change would only save the ~20 mins it'd take to go from Garfield Red to 60th/Stony and back, not including layover. So maybe that removes a single bus necessary to run it? And with the Whole Foods closing, that leaves the Aldi's on 63rd and the Jewels on 61st/Cottage as one of Englewood's transit-accessible grocery stores. And sure, there aren't a bunch of people transferring, but they're still there. I used to take the 3 & 59 on occasion, in part because I didn't like waiting under the tracks for the 63, and taking that route is slightly less hectic than taking the 79

[YoungBusLover]

6 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

 

 

I'm not a Halsted rider, so I'll defer to youngbuslover's reasoning, but I will say 119th to 26th is a long ride. Not atypical for CTA, right about where the 3 & 4 are, but still. Doubling the length of the line isn't exactly going to help consistency/frequency issues.

As for the 59, this is really a case of where it's best to do nothing. The alignment probably wouldn't have been made today, but it exists and people depend on it, might as well keep it. The alternatives exist, but won't be popular, and the change would only save the ~20 mins it'd take to go from Garfield Red to 60th/Stony and back, not including layover. So maybe that removes a single bus necessary to run it? And with the Whole Foods closing, that leaves the Aldi's on 63rd and the Jewels on 61st/Cottage as one of Englewood's transit-accessible grocery stores. And sure, there aren't a bunch of people transferring, but they're still there. I used to take the 3 & 59 on occasion, in part because I didn't like waiting under the tracks for the 63, and taking that route is slightly less hectic than taking the 79

6 hours ago, artthouwill said:

If those dervuce gaps are as bad as you say on the 8A now, imagine how much worse it is would be if that route went all the way to the Orange Line.   I know there are still staffing issues and extending an affected route only would exacerbate the problem.

If the 52A/53A can run from 115th to there respective orange line stations the 8A can as well. Shoot have every other run on the 8A go to the orange line its not rocket science here people ?. The real issue is regular service on the 8 versus the 8A which was my original argument. The 8A is nothing more than a helper to the main route itself that needs it.

[NewFlyerMCI]

1 hour ago, YoungBusLover said:

If the 52A/53A can run from 115th to there respective orange line stations the 8A can as well. Shoot have every other run on the 8A go to the orange line its not rocket science here people ?. The real issue is regular service on the 8 versus the 8A which was my original argument. The 8A is nothing more than a helper to the main route itself that needs it.

I know it’s not rocket science lol. My point with the 8A wasn’t really the new length, but the fact that it’s going to double, there’s just no way to avoid that it’ll be easier for route disruptions and frequency issues to crop up is all. The 8A needs about 5-6 buses to run it’s schedule, it has currently has 3 (that can be tracked at least). That doesn’t get better if you extend the route.

That said, I like the idea. Same thing the 52/52A does.

CTA really needs to start renumbering these all these -A routes to -S ?

[Anthony Devera]

47 minutes ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

CTA really needs to start renumbering these all these -A routes to -S ?

The problem with having N or S in the name of a route is that the S could be mistaken for a 5, so someone might mistake the 8S for the 85 (I know they don't run in the same neighborhood, but still), and N is currently used for night routes. Although with that argument B could be mistaken for 8. Personally I'd just give it a whole different route number, although I do see the benefit of the suffixes.

[artthouwill]

3 hours ago, Anthony Devera said:

The problem with having N or S in the name of a route is that the S could be mistaken for a 5, so someone might mistake the 8S for the 85 (I know they don't run in the same neighborhood, but still), and N is currently used for night routes. Although with that argument B could be mistaken for 8. Personally I'd just give it a whole different route number, although I do see the benefit of the suffixes.

Well there are the audio announcements so one can HEAR 8S South Halsted or 52S South Jedzie.  There was once a 90N North Harle., a 95E 93rxd/95th, abd currently a 63W West 63rd St. So it would make sense to have a S route.  However,  the A and B routes predate me so they probably don't go anywhere,  but an S route is possible in the future 

[monsieurmétro]

2 hours ago, artthouwill said:

Well there are the audio announcements so one can HEAR 8S South Halsted or 52S South Jedzie.  There was once a 90N North Harle., a 95E 93rxd/95th, abd currently a 63W West 63rd St. So it would make sense to have a S route.  However,  the A and B routes predate me so they probably don't go anywhere,  but an S route is possible in the future 

I have to agree here, its also worth noting that the S can be smaller than the numerals and the font can be designed to differentiate the S character from the 5 character, and the 2 and Z characters should any routes with the letter Z be incorporated at any point.

I also agree with respect to the existing A and B suffixed routes that changing them unless some other change is going to happen isn't really too necessary, but should a new route be added that is a southern variant of an existing route, taking the number of that existing route and adding the S suffix would be ideal.

[Busjack]

2 hours ago, urbanguy0508 said:

Here is a web map of new/modified CTA bus routes that I wish existed on the far northwest side of the city.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=157GdOhyN2ccInGdkrwduJJ0ZvVmGPyQ&usp=sharing

 

1. You posted in the wrong place,
2. 90N was considered unnecessary by CTA because Pace 423 covers it and Pace determined no more service was needed.
3. The East River extension is necessary only if trees would ride it.

[urbanguy0508]

On 12/28/2022 at 4:22 PM, Busjack said:

1. You posted in the wrong place,
2. 90N was considered unnecessary by CTA because Pace 423 covers it and Pace determined no more service was needed.
3. The East River extension is necessary only if trees would ride it.

Ah my bad.

Valid points. I know most of these routes aren't feasible to operate, but I thought it'd be fun to put them on a web map.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the new 92W and modified 88 routes.

[clownpatrol]

Has interest in the Brown-Blue line connection via Jefferson Park died?  I see even active transportation alliance has taken its page down on it... Such a no-brainer in my eyes - one 2-3 mile long subway under Lawrence Ave. Yes a subway, sick of all the half measures transit authorities do today in response to NIMBYs. Build it right the first time and it will last over a century.

[Tcmetro]

28 minutes ago, clownpatrol said:

Has interest in the Brown-Blue line connection via Jefferson Park died?  I see even active transportation alliance has taken its page down on it... Such a no-brainer in my eyes - one 2-3 mile long subway under Lawrence Ave. Yes a subway, sick of all the half measures transit authorities do today in response to NIMBYs. Build it right the first time and it will last over a century.

It's not really on the CTA's radar. They're focused on the Red Line extension and the rebuilding of the Red and Blue lines right now. The last expansion studies were like 15 years ago and were for the Circle, Orange, and Yellow lines.

There's a few challenges to the Brown Line extension to Jefferson Park, namely:

- Expense.

- Construction disruptions on what is a relatively healthy commercial corridor.

- CTA might not be interested in having a surface section between the elevated and subway portions of the line, which would require additional money.

- Additional yard space needed to run more trains. Pre-pandemic, Brown Line demand needed additional trains from Midway yard in AM peak.

- Relatively low improvement in access to transit. The most likely station locations are Pulaski and Elston, which are about 15 mins walk from existing Brown & Blue line stations. 

- Walkshed is relatively limited with the cemeteries and forest preserves to the north.

- Political considerations of an investment on the north side that's largely designed to get travelers to O'Hare.

 

Benefits, in my opinion:

- Serves a dense neighborhood that has strong transit usage

- Helps decentralize the L network from being so downtown focused.

- Jefferson Park provides connections to the Metra and in the long-term a potential connection to a line that uses the rail corridor near Cicero Ave.

[clownpatrol]

6 hours ago, Tcmetro said:

It's not really on the CTA's radar. They're focused on the Red Line extension and the rebuilding of the Red and Blue lines right now. The last expansion studies were like 15 years ago and were for the Circle, Orange, and Yellow lines.

There's a few challenges to the Brown Line extension to Jefferson Park, namely:

- Expense.

- Construction disruptions on what is a relatively healthy commercial corridor.

- CTA might not be interested in having a surface section between the elevated and subway portions of the line, which would require additional money.

- Additional yard space needed to run more trains. Pre-pandemic, Brown Line demand needed additional trains from Midway yard in AM peak.

- Relatively low improvement in access to transit. The most likely station locations are Pulaski and Elston, which are about 15 mins walk from existing Brown & Blue line stations. 

- Walkshed is relatively limited with the cemeteries and forest preserves to the north.

- Political considerations of an investment on the north side that's largely designed to get travelers to O'Hare.

 

Benefits, in my opinion:

- Serves a dense neighborhood that has strong transit usage

- Helps decentralize the L network from being so downtown focused.

- Jefferson Park provides connections to the Metra and in the long-term a potential connection to a line that uses the rail corridor near Cicero Ave.

Agree with everything you wrote. I wonder how many of the constraint problems could be solved by having the Brown continue past JP on the Blue line right of way to O'hare. The Brown line then could make use of the Rosemont rail yard -- I'm not sure of yard constraints there.

Agree that the political will is away from the far north side, which is a shame as Albany Park would see a huge benefit and it would connect the three most  heavily used lines in a simple way.

I understand why it is not a top priority project but my confusion is why it has completely disappeared from the discourse.

[artthouwill]

1 hour ago, clownpatrol said:

Agree with everything you wrote. I wonder how many of the constraint problems could be solved by having the Brown continue past JP on the Blue line right of way to O'hare. The Brown line then could make use of the Rosemont rail yard -- I'm not sure of yard constraints there.

Agree that the political will is away from the far north side, which is a shame as Albany Park would see a huge benefit and it would connect the three most  heavily used lines in a simple way.

I understand why it is not a top priority project but my confusion is why it has completely disappeared from the discourse.

I can't see running Blue AND Brown Line trains on the same r.o

w to O'Hare.   Before the pandemic, each line was running peak service at about 3 minute intervals.

  There are only 3 berthing positions available at O'Hare.   There simply wouldn't be enough room to support two very high frequency routes 

  Jefferson Park would make sense to terminate Brown Line trains on an upper level. 

First priority is rebuilding North Sideain ( Red and Purple) between Lawrence and Howard. 

2 Extend Red Line service from 95th south to 130th 

 

3

 Upgrade power on Blue Line O'Hare branch. 

4

  Rebuild and renovate Blue Line Forest Park branch. 

5 At some point  extend Orange Line from Midway to Ford City. 

Those are actual plans that are in various stages with the Orange Line atvthe bottom of the barrel. 

[Busjack]

15 hours ago, clownpatrol said:

I understand why it is not a top priority project but my confusion is why it has completely disappeared from the discourse.

Besides whatever the cost of a subway and connecting to the Blue Line (there does not seem to be room for ramps, like at Congress and Paulina), CTA is now committed to about $4 billion on the RPM and RLE.

One could also ask why Ford City, Old Orchard, and the Circle Line are no longer priorities. Also, since you started with ATA having dropped it, I never thought ATA set anything authoritative.

[clownpatrol]

On 1/21/2023 at 9:26 PM, artthouwill said:

I can't see running Blue AND Brown Line trains on the same r.o

w to O'Hare.   Before the pandemic, each line was running peak service at about 3 minute intervals.

  There are only 3 berthing positions available at O'Hare.   There simply wouldn't be enough room to support two very high frequency routes 

  Jefferson Park would make sense to terminate Brown Line trains on an upper level. 

First priority is rebuilding North Sideain ( Red and Purple) between Lawrence and Howard. 

2 Extend Red Line service from 95th south to 130th 

 

3

 Upgrade power on Blue Line O'Hare branch. 

4

  Rebuild and renovate Blue Line Forest Park branch. 

5 At some point  extend Orange Line from Midway to Ford City. 

Those are actual plans that are in various stages with the Orange Line atvthe bottom of the barrel. 

All valid but if I ran CTA for a day ...

Jeff Park would make an excellent (even better) regional gateway for the NW/ N suburbs and  NW/N side of the City

 

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, clownpatrol said:

All valid but if I ran CTA for a day ...

Jeff Park would make an excellent (even better) regional gateway for the NW/ N suburbs and  NW/N side of the City

 

Jefferson Park is already crowded, and doesn't have a park and ride. You've also turned backwards the original rationale, and the advertised reason for the X80 bus--to get passengers from Lakeview to O'Hare. If I'm reading "regional gateway for the NW/ N suburbs and  NW/N side of the City" properly, you would have to show that passengers from Park Ridge or Edison Park want to go to Albany Park or Ravenswood. Otherwise, they can take the Blue Line or Metra. Not worth $200 million for a subway (my guess).

[artthouwill]

I would like to steer in a different direction.   If I ran transit,  I would change the train announcements to include more information

1. Announce bus routes ( by routes number only) that serve each station.  Some stations like Rosemont,  Jefferson Park,  Midway,  and 95th will have longer announcements.   I would be willing to exclude the downtown Loop stations.

2.  Announce specific Metra LInes.  Blue LIne Clinton would announce Metra BNSF, Southwest Service, Heritage Corridor,  Milwaukee District, and North Central Service trains.  Green Line Clinton would announce Metra Union Pacific trains.  Wabash and Washington would announce. Etra Electric and South Shire Line trains.

3.  Announce Metra connections at outer stations such as Davis, Harlem Green Line,  and Jefferson Park.

I WOULD clean up some announcement and/or signage discrepancies.

1. All Loop trains would announce this is a train to the Loop.

10 Madison and 56 Milwaukee buses going to Michigan Ave and Washington would have the same destination signage.  Currently only the 20 has Millennium Park as a destination even though it and the 56 has the same destination. 

I would add Red signage to the Express routes to differentiate from the other routes. That would also mean reassigning X28 to the downtown route.

[NewFlyerMCI]

On 1/21/2023 at 8:13 PM, clownpatrol said:

I understand why it is not a top priority project but my confusion is why it has completely disappeared from the discourse.

It's no longer in political discourse, but most people, especially northsiders will tell you that a brown line extension should be CTA's next big (feasible) capital project. FWIW, I agree, the CTA needs a shift away from "radiality" of the system

[NewFlyerMCI]

44 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

10 Madison and 56 Milwaukee buses going to Michigan Ave and Washington would have the same destination signage.  Currently only the 20 has Millennium Park as a destination even though it and the 56 has the same destination. 

I wonder if this is because the 20 has two downtown destinations, although I agree this should be standardized.

Quote

I would add Red signage to the Express routes to differentiate from the other routes. That would also mean reassigning X28 to the downtown route.

Can you elaborate? AFAIK, express routes are shown on bus stops with red text. And did the X28 get brought back?

[Busjack]

2 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

It's no longer in political discourse, but most people, especially northsiders will tell you that a brown line extension should be CTA's next big (feasible) capital project. FWIW, I agree, the CTA needs a shift away from "radiality" of the system

The "next" isn't going to be until the 2030s, if that. Other than that, I don't know what "most" people means. As for "radiality," there was the 1939 plan, which chicago-l.org describes and details what was built in the succeeding 80 years, very little as subway.