If I ran Transit for one day...

[Tcmetro]

More Purple Line and through the subway seem contemplated However station plans don't call for dual platforms between Howard and Wilson, and adding more "express stops" in that range would mean that it isn't express. Various surveys indicate that the south end of the Red Line does not have the passenger load that the north side does, and hence any Purple Express should end at one of the Cermak stations (or if a Chinatown station is built on the Orange Line in accordance with the lifeless Circle Line proposal)..

Update: Your concept of "express" service would be better served by bringing back A and B trains on the Red Line itself.

I was thinking of a more NYC-style service operation, where people take local trains to the nearest express station, and change over to the express service. Of course, the NYC subway is quite a bit more comprehensive and a large amount of trips benefit from such an operation. I think adding a stop or two to the Purple Line could help relieve rush-hour pressure on the Red Line, and perhaps CTA has a similar mindset with new Wilson stop and the Loyola stop proposed during the RPM scoping.

[NewFlyerMCI]

I was thinking of a more NYC-style service operation, where people take local trains to the nearest express station, and change over to the express service. Of course, the NYC subway is quite a bit more comprehensive and a large amount of trips benefit from such an operation. I think adding a stop or two to the Purple Line could help relieve rush-hour pressure on the Red Line, and perhaps CTA has a similar mindset with new Wilson stop and the Loyola stop proposed during the RPM scoping.

Adding the Wilson stop seems to be reasonable enough, possibly the Loyola stop as well. However, Loyola, if I read correctly, was harder to build because it was on a curve. Turning Loyola into a 2 side platform config from its current island platform (which requires a realignment of tracks) or building completely separate platforms seems to be the only options. Anymore stations and like I said earlier, Evanstonioans and Skokieans are going to raise a fuss. And honestly, I don't think CTA would try for anymore Purple Line stations after Wilson, especially since Wilson is the only station where there is a remnant of something to work with, instead of building from scratch. From that point, the only things they could do is eliminate service at Wellington and Diversey (or consolidate them as I stated earlier) and possibly Armitage, Sedgwick and Chicago. I do agree with the idea of the Purple heading into the State St Subway and terminating at Roosevelt or Chinatown.

I don't think many people from November to late Feb/early March would take a Red Line train to Wilson, disembark, use a transfer and switch to the Purple Line, especially with the station's proximity to the lake and even if they made a virtual transfer point like they have at Lake. Roosevelt (and the rest of the East Loop and North Side Red Line stations) as it is are heinous enough in the winter.

[strictures]

Taking the assumption that CTA can foul up anything...

They claimed (when 74th was made all BusTracker) that the supervisors had laptops and could deal with bus bunching. Apparently they couldn't.

Maybe a computer plugged into BusTracker can do better.

However, in the scenario you posted, if they are going back to the garage, wouldn't work hours and overtime be implicated? A normal rush hour round trip is 2-1/2 hours; what's it going to be in the snow? You probably would need a good chunk of the extra board stationed at Howard.

I think you misunderstood me.

I want the buses that stay in service flipped at Devon & just let the end of shift go back to NP or maybe just tell one of them to return south only to Devon or Foster & then go to NP.

[Busjack]

I think you misunderstood me.

I want the buses that stay in service flipped at Devon & just let the end of shift go back to NP or maybe just tell one of them to return south only to Devon or Foster & then go to NP.

I might have missed your "not going to NP" part, but if you are saying flip a Howard bus at Devon (actually Arthur) it then depends on how loaded the leader is and thus how long the two buses are going to have to sit at Arthur to clear out the first one. I can sorta accept your point that if the headway is messed up, it isn't going to make much difference to the riders either way between Arthur and Howard.

I also don't know how much limiting a return trip to Devon or Foster would help the passengers, as that would assume that most are on the bus only for a comparatively short trip compared to the length of the line. But, if they are going downtown they are asking for at least a 2 hour ride under winter conditions.

[NewFlyerMCI]

I think you misunderstood me.

I want the buses that stay in service flipped at Devon & just let the end of shift go back to NP or maybe just tell one of them to return south only to Devon or Foster & then go to NP.

I might have missed your "not going to NP" part, but if you are saying flip a Howard bus at Devon (actually Arthur) it then depends on how loaded the leader is and thus how long the two buses are going to have to sit at Arthur to clear out the first one. I can sorta accept your point that if the headway is messed up, it isn't going to make much difference to the riders either way between Arthur and Howard.

I also don't know how much limiting a return trip to Devon or Foster would help the passengers, as that would assume that most are on the bus only for a comparatively short trip compared to the length of the line. But, if they are going downtown they are asking for at least a 2 hour ride under winter conditions.

The way it is now, CTA runs 4-5 additional trips between 5:45p and 6:20p that end at Foster. Would changing it so that every other bus from 3:45p to 5:45p ends at Devon (Arthur) and returns downtown?

[strictures]

I might have missed your "not going to NP" part, but if you are saying flip a Howard bus at Devon (actually Arthur) it then depends on how loaded the leader is and thus how long the two buses are going to have to sit at Arthur to clear out the first one. I can sorta accept your point that if the headway is messed up, it isn't going to make much difference to the riders either way between Arthur and Howard.

I also don't know how much limiting a return trip to Devon or Foster would help the passengers, as that would assume that most are on the bus only for a comparatively short trip compared to the length of the line. But, if they are going downtown they are asking for at least a 2 hour ride under winter conditions.

When they had the supervisor at Howard, many buses were flipped there to go to either Devon or Foster. I rode many of them. They then went back to NP.

[NewFlyerMCI]

Would something similar to DC's Circulator service work here? Possibly joint owned and operated by CTA (or RTA) and CDOT? If it did, would absorbing the 124, 125 and 130 as a starting point be a good idea?

[Kevin]

Would something similar to DC's Circulator service work here? Possibly joint owned and operated by CTA (or RTA) and CDOT? If it did, would absorbing the 124, 125 and 130 as a starting point be a good idea?

I believe that the #124 will be re-branded as a circulator route once the Central Loop BRT project is complete (late this year).

[MetroShadow]

Would something similar to DC's Circulator service work here? Possibly joint owned and operated by CTA (or RTA) and CDOT? If it did, would absorbing the 124, 125 and 130 as a starting point be a good idea?

The city once had the trolleys, which were the closest thing we had to the DC Circulator (but ended before the debut of said circulator). The 127 was another one, as part of the West side restructuring project; but 124 is as close to the CTA circulator that we've got currently.

[Busjack]

Would something similar to DC's Circulator service work here? Possibly joint owned and operated by CTA (or RTA) and CDOT? If it did, would absorbing the 124, 125 and 130 as a starting point be a good idea?

LA DOT also has DASH, usually using ElDorado EZ Riders.

As MetroShadow points out, at one time there were free trolleys downtown and to Navy Pier. However, it doesn't look like CDOT now wants to compete with CTA, as the only joint project like that is the Washington-Madison one, as Kevin and MetroShadow pointed out.

[NewFlyerMCI]

Extend 8 to 95th/Red Line, truncate 8A to 95th/Red Line, discontiune 108. As it is now, the 8 would have much better coverage and the service the 108 provides would no longer be duplicated. Of course, addtional rush hour service or increased headways could be implemented to fill in the gaps.

Extend 57 to Cicero and Pensacola (Montrose) to better provide more North-South options for area neighborhoods, such as Cragin. Some trips (during rush hour and possibly school runs) would keep to its current routing.

[MetroShadow]

Extend 8 to 95th/Red Line, truncate 8A to 95th/Red Line, discontiune 108. As it is now, the 8 would have much better coverage and the service the 108 provides would no longer be duplicated. Of course, addtional rush hour service or increased headways could be implemented to fill in the gaps.

Extend 57 to Cicero and Pensacola (Montrose) to better provide more North-South options for area neighborhoods, such as Cragin. Some trips (during rush hour and possibly school runs) would keep to its current routing.

Halsted Corridor: While something has to be done with the 108 (which is practically the feeder to 95th and the high schools), the 352 just had owl service and provides adequate service to 95th. The question is whether or not you need to:

(1) Extend the longer route another 3 miles south - Which doesn't make sense. The argument of the 9 doesn't apply in this instance.

(2) Deal with the 8A when 352 and 359 provide enough service in the South end of 95th. I don't think this is so much an issue.

(3) Provide a service replacement if you choose to eliminate the 108. Whether or not that's a branch of the 8A, 34, or the 30, that's up for debate.

As for the 57: The 54 and 85 provide service as needed. Extending the 57 north of Grand (where there is already service) is redundant. Crosstown buses provide service as well. Pass.

[rvwnsd]

As for the 57: The 54 and 85 provide service as needed. Extending the 57 north of Grand (where there is already service) is redundant. Crosstown buses provide service as well. Pass.

Not to mention Laramie is pretty much a wide side street north of Grand Avenue.

[NewFlyerMCI]

Halsted Corridor: While something has to be done with the 108 (which is practically the feeder to 95th and the high schools), the 352 just had owl service and provides adequate service to 95th. The question is whether or not you need to:

(1) Extend the longer route another 3 miles south - Which doesn't make sense. The argument of the 9 doesn't apply in this instance.

(2) Deal with the 8A when 352 and 359 provide enough service in the South end of 95th. I don't think this is so much an issue.

(3) Provide a service replacement if you choose to eliminate the 108. Whether or not that's a branch of the 8A, 34, or the 30, that's up for debate.

As for the 57: The 54 and 85 provide service as needed. Extending the 57 north of Grand (where there is already service) is redundant. Crosstown buses provide service as well. Pass.

I did forget about Carver Military. The 8A would have to cover that in lieu of 108. Why wasn't that in the CRP? As for 57, that seems a bit far to walk in either direction (west or east) and north of Grand, there is no bus service. Its 8 blocks to Central (or 5 and a giant park) and even longer to Cicero.

Not to mention Laramie is pretty much a wide side street north of Grand Avenue.

Laramie is no different than Central Park, Homan, California and etc streets that look identica to Laramie, at least north of Grand.l (1 lane for parking on each side and 1 lane of travel on each side).

[MetroShadow]

I did forget about Carver Military. The 8A would have to cover that in lieu of 108. Why wasn't that in the CRP? As for 57, that seems a bit far to walk in either direction (west or east) and north of Grand, there is no bus service. Its 8 blocks to Central (or 5 and a giant park) and even longer to Cicero.

Laramie is no different than Central Park, Homan, California and etc streets that look identica to Laramie, at least north of Grand.l (1 lane for parking on each side and 1 lane of travel on each side).

108 Wasn't as important as it is a rush-only feeder.

The width of the streets isn't really the problem, but extending the route 3 miles when drivers usually take those streets (since Central and Cicero both can get congested) would be a problem. The route would also suffer turning issues (very tight turn at Montrose) and schedule adherence on the north end (which passing by Milwaukee and Cicero both is subject to traffic issues through the day). Crosstown service is covered every 1/2 mile; and you don't need every route to cover every major arterial.

Central Park doesn't have service, and Homan is the same linear arterial thing as Kimball.

[NewFlyerMCI]

I was recently reading something called the South Lakefront (or Lakeshore) Study and it brought up the concept of reintroducing streetcar serivce in Chicago. They haven't had streetcar service since the trolleys were discontiuned, before my time. They suggested starting with Cottage Grove (?) and expanding outward.

- What would you call the service?

- CTA, RTA, CDOT or a collab between any of them?

- Where would you start?

- What would be the final plan? (i.e. corridors that would served if your entire propsosed system was introduced)

- Would you rather not have streetcar?

- Would Chicago be better or worse with streetcars?

http://www.camsys.com/pubs/SouthLkfrtCompReport.pdf

http://www.humantransit.org/2009/07/streetcars-an-inconvenient-truth.html

http://www.humantransit.org/2010/03/streetcars-vs-light-rail-is-there-a-difference.html

I see feasibility here [with streetcars], but I think Chicago would be much better served by Light Rail, at least as a measure of cutting costs (Converting Pink, Yellow, South Shore Branch and possibly even Purple Line (Evanston)). Just my opinion.

[Busjack]

I was recently reading something called the South Lakefront (or Lakeshore) Study and it brought up the concept of reintroducing streetcar serivce in Chicago. They haven't had streetcar service since the trolleys were discontiuned, before my time. They suggested starting with Cottage Grove (?) and expanding outward.

- What would you call the service?

- CTA, RTA, CDOT or a collab between any of them?

- Where would you start?

- What would be the final plan? (i.e. corridors that would served if your entire propsosed system was introduced)

- Would you rather not have streetcar?

- Would Chicago be better or worse with streetcars?

http://www.camsys.com/pubs/SouthLkfrtCompReport.pdf

http://www.humantransit.org/2009/07/streetcars-an-inconvenient-truth.html

http://www.humantransit.org/2010/03/streetcars-vs-light-rail-is-there-a-difference.html

I see feasibility here [with streetcars], but I think Chicago would be much better served by Light Rail, at least as a measure of cutting costs (Converting Pink, Yellow, South Shore Branch and possibly even Purple Line (Evanston)). Just my opinion.

Streetcars and light rail are essentially the same thing.

Converting heavy rail to light rail means throwing out about 500 rapid transit cars. Anyway, CTA discovered about 2 years into its existence that streetcars were not practical, and could not be converted into rapid transit cars without scrapping the bodies and salvaging the components. Also, when it ran single unit trains on the Evanston line and Skokie Swift, it still ran heavy rail equipment, because it was compatible with those lines.

What was called "multimodal use of the streets" i.e. light rail was proposed for such things as the "defunct" Monroe St. circulator. No way found to fund that.

Other than that, the South Lakefront study turned out to be another joke; just an attempt to keep some consultants employed. Ask Mr. Gray Line about that.

[Tcmetro]

Streetcars aren't very useful, I wouldn't be surprised if one ends up being built downtown though. If any money is to be invested in streetcar projects, they should have their own lane.

I'm reminded of an idea a few years back to remove cars from Clark and the pavement with a streetcar line and expanded sidewalks. Certainly seemed well intentioned, but I don't think it would fly.

In any case, I'd rather see the X-bus lines come back, which are a lot cheaper than new rails.

[MetroShadow]

Streetcars aren't very useful, I wouldn't be surprised if one ends up being built downtown though. If any money is to be invested in streetcar projects, they should have their own lane.

I'm reminded of an idea a few years back to remove cars from Clark and the pavement with a streetcar line and expanded sidewalks. Certainly seemed well intentioned, but I don't think it would fly.

In any case, I'd rather see the X-bus lines come back, which are a lot cheaper than new rails.

Only if signal priority is a thing would perhaps justify a return of the X-routes.

[Busjack]

Streetcars aren't very useful, I wouldn't be surprised if one ends up being built downtown though. If any money is to be invested in streetcar projects, they should have their own lane.

I'm reminded of an idea a few years back to remove cars from Clark and the pavement with a streetcar line and expanded sidewalks. Certainly seemed well intentioned, but I don't think it would fly.

In any case, I'd rather see the X-bus lines come back, which are a lot cheaper than new rails.

The trolley books basically said that LRT only works on its own right of way, Toronto being the only example in North America (I don't know if they count Mexico) of a streetcar system running on the street grid. A minimum would seem to be a median in a parkway, which one has in Chicago essentially only on Stony Island (although the area around 79th would be a problem), or if Metra gave the South Chicago branch to CTA. A separate right of way, such as the Carrol Street or McCormick Place busway might be possible. But what downtown is getting, instead of the defunct Monroe St. one, is the Washington-Madison bus plan, because the feds kicked in enough that the city could afford the $30 million price tag on that.

Only if signal priority is a thing would perhaps justify a return of the X-routes.

Apparently that isn't that hard to do, except Rahm expects the RTA to pay to change all the traffic lights in the city, which apparently rely on 1960s technology.

[NewFlyerMCI]

What were the parameters that determined whether or not a particular street/serivce got an "X" route. For instance, why X55, X80 and X28 over, say, X77, X66 or X79?

[Busjack]

What were the parameters that determined whether or not a particular street/serivce got an "X" route. For instance, why X55, X80 and X28 over, say, X77, X66 or X79?

In the cases you mention, essentially history. There was a proposed Congestion Mitigation grant for X66 and X79 (also X8 and 14) tied to raising the parking tax and leasing out the parking meters. The parking tax wasn't passed in time, and the Bush Administration didn't extend the deadline (saying that it was leaving it to Obama, who didn't either).

It has been questioned here whether Belmont and 79th east of State were wide enough that X would work. 66 eventually got articulated buses. 14 became Jeffery Jump based on a later, much cheaper grant.

The earlier justification for X55, X80 and similar routes was that they provided a form of express service where the L did not (i.e. predominantly crosstown routes).

X28 was a part of the South Lake Shore Drive restructuring, providing downtown service, when prior service ended at 47th. X3 and X4 were also part of that. The intent was to provide alternatives to everyone transferring to Jeffery.

[NewFlyerMCI]

After securing some federal, state and city money through mysterious means, maybe some Enviro 500's? They seat more than the 4300's who currently seat the most (56) compared to Enviro 500's 77 seated passengers and 22 standing. They seem to work well in Seattle (Although, I understand that they have special cirumstances) and Las Vegas, among other places. Suggested #2800. Initial order 2800-2840, then if they were successful, 2841-2869

Routes (Primary/Secondary):

6

J14

143 (Does it actually command that type of passenger demand during its run times (Peak Direction Opr. Only)?)

146

147

134 (Can it fit the transition from Wacker to Lake Shore? If not, then no)

135 (Can it fit the transition from Wacker to Lake Shore? If not, then no)

136 (Can it fit the transition from Wacker to Lake Shore? If not, then no)

151

9

79

49

66

77

82

53

[jajuan]

After securing some federal, state and city money through mysterious means, maybe some Enviro 500's? They seat more than the 4300's who currently seat the most (56) compared to Enviro 500's 77 seated passengers and 22 standing. They seem to work well in Seattle (Although, I understand that they have special cirumstances) and Las Vegas, among other places. Suggested #2800. Initial order 2800-2840, then if they were successful, 2841-2869

Routes (Primary/Secondary):

6

J14

143 (Does it actually command that type of passenger demand during its run times (Peak Direction Opr. Only)?)

146

147

134 (Can it fit the transition from Wacker to Lake Shore? If not, then no)

135 (Can it fit the transition from Wacker to Lake Shore? If not, then no)

136 (Can it fit the transition from Wacker to Lake Shore? If not, then no)

151

9

79

49

66

77

82

53

Umm you would have to get around the clearance issues with a lot of Chicago's underpasses. Why do you think double decker buses pretty much only operate downtown for the private tourist bus lines? Double decker buses are basically too tall for the road environment provided by Chicago. You have to do more than just say, 'Oh this city's TA has this type of bus so maybe CTA and/or Pace should have them too'. You also have to look at what other factors are in play in those other cities that Chicago's surface environment can't necessarily provide or accommodate. Case in point, the now nonexistent 145 and the 148, in that same period that it operated on Wilson, both had to be rerouted from it's loop via Wilson, Damen, Lawrence, Ravenswood West, Leland and Ravenswood East to a counterclockwise one via Ashland and Lawrence over to Ravenswood because the battery pods on top of the 4000s made them unable to fit under the UP-N underpass like the 7500s were capable of doing when CTA used them on those routes.

[Busjack]

Umm you would have to get around the clearance issues with a lot of Chicago's underpasses. Why do you think double decker buses pretty much only operate downtown for the private tourist bus lines?...

I forgot that Enviros were double deckers until you mentioned it.

For instance, with regard to going between North Park and routes on LSD, the buses have to get under the underpasses at Ravenswood (UPN) and Broadway (Red Line). Most of them are posted at about 11 feet. There is the always convenient viaduct clearances page.Only sufficient clearances at Ravenswood are at Foster (listed as 13'10") and Lawrence (14'4").

Alexander Dennis says that the Enviro 500 requires a clearance of 13.6' for the America model.

Remember that the hybrid bus couldn't get under the underpass on Wilson and Ravenswood (listed at 10'6"), and most of the hybrids are 11'.

Sheridan east of Broadway is listed as 12'3". There are pictures of CMC double deckers going under it, but it wasn't mentioned what the dimension was (other than they were shorter than comparable NYC buses). People have mentioned that asphalt repaving may have affected the height of the street, or that the viaducts are conservatively posted, but that's still 15" short for an Enviro.

Other clearances intersecting bus routes at the Red Line are Berwyn (11'4"), Bryn Mawr (12'6"), Foster (11'10"), Granville (11'1), Lawrence (11'2"), Rogers (11'8"), Sheridan-Loyola (12'8") and Howard (11'6").

All of the overpasses on Jeffery are posted 11'6".

So, the mysterious means also include completely rebuilding the UPN and RPM, and various railroads on the south side. Of course we know Chicago has those means

...They seat more than the 4300's who currently seat the most (56) compared to Enviro 500's 77 seated passengers and 22 standing. ...

CTA doesn't care about seating, and counts an articulated bus as about 120 passengers.