If I ran Transit for one day...

[BusHunter]

They need to really banish these x buses and introduce light rail not only on x routes but around museums and the lakefront. Light rail can go places the buses cant go because they can use an independent right of way.  They are also more anestically pleasing to see versus a bunch of buses stuck in traffic. It also modernizes the city. From a traffic perspective with the growth of population this is a no brainer.

[NewFlyerMCI]

4 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

They need to really banish these x buses and introduce light rail not only on x routes but around museums and the lakefront. Light rail can go places the buses cant go because they can use an independent right of way.  They are also more anestically pleasing to see versus a bunch of buses stuck in traffic. It also modernizes the city. From a traffic perspective with the growth of population this is a no brainer.

Any specific corridors?

[BusHunter]

The lakefront needs its own corridor 6-10 express buses is alot of buses basically doing the same thing. That could easily be eliminated with one  universal service, then with connections at navy pier and buckingham fountain and the museum campus and even msi it has the potential to be a smash hit. But to be trully successful it would need a local service down michigan ave via balbo and the south connection to lsd. Later connections could include the downtown brt lite corridor but over  time they could establish a network and it would also be something modern that propels us into the future. 

 

[Busjack]

9 hours ago, BusHunter said:

The lakefront needs its own corridor 6-10 express buses is alot of buses basically doing the same thing. That could easily be eliminated with one  universal service, then with connections at navy pier and buckingham fountain and the museum campus and even msi it has the potential to be a smash hit. But to be trully successful it would need a local service down michigan ave via balbo and the south connection to lsd. Later connections could include the downtown brt lite corridor but over  time they could establish a network and it would also be something modern that propels us into the future. 

 

Since the Monroe one got defunct about 20 years ago, where is the source of money for it?

[BusHunter]

12 hours ago, Busjack said:

Since the Monroe one got defunct about 20 years ago, where is the source of money for it

 

I dont know but with all the tax and water increases lately they sure don't have any problem funding the escalating school and police pensions. If there is a will there is a way. Problem seems there is no will though at least as far as public transit infrastructure improvements .

[Tcmetro]

That is because those pieces of infrastructure are heavily burdened with backlogged needs and unmanageable debts and are critical to the city functioning. They also have revenue streams that are politically more feasible to increase. Transit expansion is primarily funded by sales tax or state appropriations (besides federal funds) which are much more difficult to increase. 

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, Tcmetro said:

That is because those pieces of infrastructure are heavily burdened with backlogged needs and unmanageable debts and are critical to the city functioning. They also have revenue streams that are politically more feasible to increase. Transit expansion is primarily funded by sales tax or state appropriations (besides federal funds) which are much more difficult to increase. 

No, it's because the Illinois Supreme Court said there basically is nothing that can be done with pensions other than raise taxes. Water rates were increased a couple of years ago for infrastructure; the new water utility tax is just for the Municipal Employees Pension Fund.

So, BusHunter is correct on that.

[BusHunter]

12 hours ago, Busjack said:

No, it's because the Illinois Supreme Court said there basically is nothing that can be done with pensions other than raise taxes. Water rates were increased a couple of years ago for infrastructure; the new water utility tax is just for the Municipal Employees Pension Fund.

So, BusHunter is correct on that.

Water rates were raised this year, what they did was add the garbage collection fee to it and they prorated it from the beginning of 2016, so you basically paid 8-9 months on top of your bill. Garbage fees are 9-10 dollars a month. There was also a raise in water rates. It's been crazy in Dunning, people are selling there houses over this because we all just had a tax increase of $400-600 dollars starting with this last payment. If you were accessed higher the raise is even greater. That's like on a 250K average accessment. My next door neighbor had a meter installed, I don't have a meter. Unfortunately the city plans on raising the meter rates, so you are still getting a raise. Now they plan on raising the water bill even higher through 2020, I used to pay 200 something, this last bill was about 500 and they are calling for 50-60 dollar raises each time the bill comes out, so I figured it was like 600 something by 2020 and that's only for 6 months. They say water is free but it slowly is becoming the highest utility I have. It's like we live in Tokyo or something!! This is why Rahm has to go. Don't the suburbs get stuck with this water bill/tax issue? We are all on Lake Michigan together and some are cook county residents.

Now my problem with all this is all the new money is coming in and transit don't get nothing. They are strictly getting sales tax money. That's not fair. And when the teachers come up and want to strike because they want them to contribute more to their own pensions the city caves and gives them what they want. Somewhere this will have to change, but the city is trying to change it with computer stay at home schooling. You can look it up, some schools have went this way already but it's still a pilot. Now the police pensions are another story.

[Busjack]

9 hours ago, BusHunter said:

Don't the suburbs get stuck with this water bill/tax issue? We are all on Lake Michigan together and some are cook county residents.

Depends on what suburbs. Some buy from Chicago, and their rates were increased. Some like Harvey couldn't pay it. However, again there is a distinction between the rates (which pay for pipes and treatment) and this tax, which pays for the Municipal Employees Pension Fund. The suburbs are not paying the tax.

Most suburbs on the lake (also Northbrook, because they got an easement) pump directly from the lake and treat their water, and also resell (i.e. some got off Chicago's intake and get water from Evanston). They set their own rates.

9 hours ago, BusHunter said:

They are strictly getting sales tax money.

Not true. The RTA Act of 2008 tripled the Real Estate Transfer Tax to pay for CTA Pension* bonds. So, when your neighbors sell, the buyers have to pay that.

__________

*Strangely, Kruesi was the first to realize that the pensions were unfunded, and had the Legislature do something about it. Also, I bet the real reason there were severe  cutbacks in 2010 is that the real estate market went into the toilet, but the bondholders still had to be paid. Now that the real estate market has rebounded, that pressure may be off.

[strictures]

14 hours ago, BusHunter said:

Water rates were raised this year, what they did was add the garbage collection fee to it and they prorated it from the beginning of 2016, so you basically paid 8-9 months on top of your bill. Garbage fees are 9-10 dollars a month. There was also a raise in water rates. It's been crazy in Dunning, people are selling there houses over this because we all just had a tax increase of $400-600 dollars starting with this last payment. If you were accessed higher the raise is even greater. That's like on a 250K average accessment. My next door neighbor had a meter installed, I don't have a meter. Unfortunately the city plans on raising the meter rates, so you are still getting a raise. Now they plan on raising the water bill even higher through 2020, I used to pay 200 something, this last bill was about 500 and they are calling for 50-60 dollar raises each time the bill comes out, so I figured it was like 600 something by 2020 and that's only for 6 months. They say water is free but it slowly is becoming the highest utility I have. It's like we live in Tokyo or something!! This is why Rahm has to go. Don't the suburbs get stuck with this water bill/tax issue? We are all on Lake Michigan together and some are cook county residents.

Now my problem with all this is all the new money is coming in and transit don't get nothing. They are strictly getting sales tax money. That's not fair. And when the teachers come up and want to strike because they want them to contribute more to their own pensions the city caves and gives them what they want. Somewhere this will have to change, but the city is trying to change it with computer stay at home schooling. You can look it up, some schools have went this way already but it's still a pilot. Now the police pensions are another story.

Get a meter!

I did that six years ago & my bill became a third of what the flat rate was. I've talked at least three neighbors into doing it & all of their bills dropped by at least half. In addition, with the Meter Save program, you won't pay any more than the flat rate for the first seven years.

One neighbor had a bad main shut off valve & when the city put in the meter, they gave him a new inside shut off valve, for free! That saved him at least $300 on a plumber, because they don't like working on those ancient lead pipes, which the city is going to have to replace soon anyway.

If I was still on the flat rate, my bill would be about $950 a year. The actual bill will be maybe $300!

[BusHunter]

10 hours ago, strictures said:

Get a meter!

I did that six years ago & my bill became a third of what the flat rate was. I've talked at least three neighbors into doing it & all of their bills dropped by at least half. In addition, with the Meter Save program, you won't pay any more than the flat rate for the first seven years.

One neighbor had a bad main shut off valve & when the city put in the meter, they gave him a new inside shut off valve, for free! That saved him at least $300 on a plumber, because they don't like working on those ancient lead pipes, which the city is going to have to replace soon anyway.

If I was still on the flat rate, my bill would be about $950 a year. The actual bill will be maybe $300!

Yeah they charge by how many sinks/baths you have or something. I'm just in a standard single family home, sounds like you may be in a duplex or multi level structure. My next door neighbor had leaks in his plumbing. which is like a red flag to me, cause any water usage is metered whether intentional or not. He had called a plumber previously but my concern is more with lawn watering cause you can put many gallons on a lawn. I'll really have to talk to my neighbor and see his water bill. But we have people all around here talking about this even on the next block. This is going to be a major issue into the mayoral election.

[strictures]

12 hours ago, BusHunter said:

Yeah they charge by how many sinks/baths you have or something. I'm just in a standard single family home, sounds like you may be in a duplex or multi level structure. My next door neighbor had leaks in his plumbing. which is like a red flag to me, cause any water usage is metered whether intentional or not. He had called a plumber previously but my concern is more with lawn watering cause you can put many gallons on a lawn. I'll really have to talk to my neighbor and see his water bill. But we have people all around here talking about this even on the next block. This is going to be a major issue into the mayoral election.

With flat rate, you're charged by the width of your building times the number of floors, plus a separate charge for the width of your property for the lawn.

That's why your account number has the number twice, with a dash in the middle. Like I said, with Meter Save, you won't pay more than flat rate for seven years. Go to www.metersave.org for details.

[jajuan]

On 10/23/2016 at 11:18 AM, BusHunter said:

The lakefront needs its own corridor 6-10 express buses is alot of buses basically doing the same thing. That could easily be eliminated with one  universal service, then with connections at navy pier and buckingham fountain and the museum campus and even msi it has the potential to be a smash hit. But to be trully successful it would need a local service down michigan ave via balbo and the south connection to lsd. Later connections could include the downtown brt lite corridor but over  time they could establish a network and it would also be something modern that propels us into the future. 

 

 

On 10/23/2016 at 9:09 PM, Busjack said:

Since the Monroe one got defunct about 20 years ago, where is the source of money for it?

Besides that question from Busjack, what's this beef against express buses? The fact that the North Side express buses are faster than the Red Line in many cases, and the 26 has been seeing growth while the ME South Chicago Branch seems to be virtually unused are good examples that rail isn't always a better option to buses. Do we really want CTA to go down to virtually no express buses for something that's not a guarantee? Busjack already pointed out that what light rail options through the Monroe example that were proposed gained no traction and little support to even get anywhere. The statement that they do the virtually the same thing is false. Each have distinct customer targets. Plus I doubt CTA wants to be guilty of having wasted grant money to change the 14 to the J14 only to follow your advice to ax it BH. Washington Metro already stirred up a stink with reports that it may want to abandon its Metroway BRT lanes on which the BRT route of the same name operates a few short years after the introduction of both and millions of dollars spent to complete them. And that doesn't even get into the raucous caused by the 2003 experiment to run the 145 nonstop directly to Irving Park from downtown or the huge stink that came from CTA eliminating that route in 2012. Transit getting none of the money from recent new few and tax increases are not good enough reasons to stir up that kind of unwanted turmoil on the CTA's part. 

[BusHunter]

Yeah but Jajuan as the city keeps raising it's taxes and fees the residents want something more than express buses, they want a modern city with many of the amenities of one. As other cities like DC, SF, LA, Minneapolis-St Paul modernize there cities with light rail, here we sit with a 20 year adventure just to get a red line extension. I hear more and more stories like this city has done this and this city has done that, what have we done? Just virtually rebuild our system, but really on paper they haven't expanded it so as far as population increases are concerned they have failed. You might say well we have heavy rail so we don't need light rail, but many cities I mentioned have both such as DC or Philly or SF, some have even incorporated pcc retro service as part of there transportation package, which really does wonders for tourism.

Now you can say express buses are a cheaper alternative, but they don't really help with gridlock and things the major cities deal with on a regular basis. Light rail can go off road so to speak and run just like an "L" service to handle lighter needs where you can't put heavy rail such as the Museum Campus, Navy Pier or at MSI. This is where the light rail cities have excelled. Another thing because LR is electrical it is more environmentally friendly. We can only stand so many gas munching buses on our roads. All this just adds to the typical modern city motif and is something that portrays that and can boost tourism. Time to move up to 21st century guys.

 

[Busjack]

10 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

Yeah but Jajuan as the city keeps raising it's taxes and fees the residents want something more than express buses, they want a modern city with many of the amenities of one. As other cities like DC, SF, LA, Minneapolis-St Paul modernize there cities with light rail, here we sit with a 20 year adventure just to get a red line extension. I hear more and more stories like this city has done this and this city has done that, what have we done? Just virtually rebuild our system, but really on paper they haven't expanded it so as far as population increases are concerned they have failed. You might say well we have heavy rail so we don't need light rail, but many cities I mentioned have both such as DC or Philly or SF, some have even incorporated pcc retro service as part of there transportation package, which really does wonders for tourism.

Now you can say express buses are a cheaper alternative, but they don't really help with gridlock and things the major cities deal with on a regular basis. Light rail can go off road so to speak and run just like an "L" service to handle lighter needs where you can't put heavy rail such as the Museum Campus, Navy Pier or at MSI. This is where the light rail cities have excelled. Another thing because LR is electrical it is more environmentally friendly. We can only stand so many gas munching buses on our roads. All this just adds to the typical modern city motif and is something that portrays that and can boost tourism. Time to move up to 21st century guys.

 

Essentially, though, light rail is streetcars, and there were reasons why CTA got rid of them in 1958. As you mention gridlock, it does not work unless there is a right of way. If you think gridlock on the 22 bus is bad now, get on an LRV on Clark that is restricted to using the tracks. As has been pointed out numerous times in the literature, it only works in places  that had an abandoned railroad right of way (Boston Green Line Riverside branch) or median (New Orleans; most of the Minneapolis line). Toronto is about the only place that runs a system in the streets, and it recently had to order some weird Bombardier cars to make it accessible. I wonder how loading wheelchairs from safety islands works, if that is how it is done.

Another thing to consider is that in Chicago during the streetcar era, streetcars were not allowed on the boulevards, including Michigan Ave, downtown, for what seems the obvious reasons that the wires and tracks are eyesores. CMC arose explicitly for this reason. While there were proposals for Carroll Street and what's now the McCormick Place busway, nobody is going to allow stringing wires all over Grant Park and the Museum Campus. If one wants to be environmentally conscious, put battery electric buses there. Note, again, in the trolley bus era, the trolley lines were not extended into Lincoln and Burnham Parks, but ended at Broadway (78, 80, 81), Halsted (74, 77), and Indiana (12). Only streetcar service was a trestle over the IC at Roosevelt.

I noted earlier the defunct Monroe Circulator; apparently they couldn't convince downtown interests to agree to a special tax district to mall Monroe Street to provide  a bit more direct access between the Chicago Stadium area and McCormick Place.

But to get to my prior point, there is nothing modern about light rail.

[BusHunter]

Yeah but sf has shown us that it doesn't need overhead cabling to make a system work. That is because essentially they are cable cars. A typical streetcar would not work on the hills of sf. But it does raise an interesting question why couldn't the electrical infrastructure be in the ground. It works for heavy rail why not light rail? 

Essentially a light rail system can only work in the heavily touristed  lake shore areas of the city and would not work so much in the inner city itself. You have to think of these things as tourist objects that work only in the downtown or historic areas because that is essentially what they are relics of the past A well run city doesn't rely on one good thing but many things to be successful.

[Busjack]

10 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

Yeah but sf has shown us that it doesn't need overhead cabling to make a system work. That is because essentially they are cable cars. A typical streetcar would not work on the hills of sf. But it does raise an interesting question why couldn't the electrical infrastructure be in the ground. It works for heavy rail why not light rail? 

They tried that in Washington D.C. Problem here, and also the problem with cable cars on Cottage Grove from about 1880-1906 is that the snow and ice get into the groove and foul up the system. Keeping ice off the third rail is hard enough, think about what would happen under the street.

The only reason they survived in SF is that electric trolleys couldn't make it up the grade, but the literature also indicates that cable cars are about the least energy efficient method possible.

Undoubtedly, there would also be problems when switching.

10 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

Essentially a light rail system can only work in the heavily touristed  lake shore areas of the city

Which is why they would be a blight.

[BusHunter]

1 hour ago, Busjack said:

They tried that in Washington D.C. Problem here, and also the problem with cable cars on Cottage Grove from about 1880-1906 is that the snow and ice get into the groove and foul up the system. Keeping ice off the third rail is hard enough, think about what would happen under the street.

The only reason they survived in SF is that electric trolleys couldn't make it up the grade, but the literature also indicates that cable cars are about the least energy efficient method possible.

Undoubtedly, there would also be problems when switching.

Which is why they would be a blight.

That seems to make sense, thanks for clearing that up. I don't think they would be blight, but eye candy. Kenosha doesn't seem to be shelving it's system. I wonder how many tourism dollars they gained??? It wouldn't be there if it wasn't doing something for the community. Things like this is what makes SF and other cities so cool just remember that. Imagine SF with no cable cars!! Unfathomable!!

[Busjack]

21 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

but eye candy. Kenosha doesn't seem to be shelving it's system. I wonder how many tourism dollars they gained??? It wouldn't be there if it wasn't doing something for the community.

Essentially there it was a 25 cent attraction (now apparently $1; brochure) to get people from the Metra station (again making a broad assumption about branding) past a couple of museums in an attempt to develop a piece of lakefront made vacant when the American Motors plant left town. I don't know if it has spurred development. The analogy here would be whether there would be any reason to send a streetcar to the South Works property, which so far hasn't developed either.

Your other comments seem to imply that CTA's mission is to do something for the tourists. Tourists want to see the museums, but as history with stuff like the 10 bus, is only interested in that traffic if it pays for itself or the museums subsidize it.

There is also the issue of cost. This review notes that Kenosha was fairly cheap at $4 million, or $2 million/mile. but other projects cost something like $12-14 million per mile. Of course, if you were talking Chicago building something heavy enough to transport passengers on a regular basis as opposed to being an amusement ride, and given Chicago construction costs (and probably some land acquisition costs), it would be much more expensive.

[jajuan]

On 11/18/2016 at 11:02 AM, BusHunter said:

Yeah but Jajuan as the city keeps raising it's taxes and fees the residents want something more than express buses, they want a modern city with many of the amenities of one. As other cities like DC, SF, LA, Minneapolis-St Paul modernize there cities with light rail, here we sit with a 20 year adventure just to get a red line extension. I hear more and more stories like this city has done this and this city has done that, what have we done? Just virtually rebuild our system, but really on paper they haven't expanded it so as far as population increases are concerned they have failed. You might say well we have heavy rail so we don't need light rail, but many cities I mentioned have both such as DC or Philly or SF, some have even incorporated pcc retro service as part of there transportation package, which really does wonders for tourism.

Now you can say express buses are a cheaper alternative, but they don't really help with gridlock and things the major cities deal with on a regular basis. Light rail can go off road so to speak and run just like an "L" service to handle lighter needs where you can't put heavy rail such as the Museum Campus, Navy Pier or at MSI. This is where the light rail cities have excelled. Another thing because LR is electrical it is more environmentally friendly. We can only stand so many gas munching buses on our roads. All this just adds to the typical modern city motif and is something that portrays that and can boost tourism. Time to move up to 21st century guys.

 

 

On 11/18/2016 at 11:32 AM, Busjack said:

Essentially, though, light rail is streetcars, and there were reasons why CTA got rid of them in 1958. As you mention gridlock, it does not work unless there is a right of way. If you think gridlock on the 22 bus is bad now, get on an LRV on Clark that is restricted to using the tracks. As has been pointed out numerous times in the literature, it only works in places  that had an abandoned railroad right of way (Boston Green Line Riverside branch) or median (New Orleans; most of the Minneapolis line). Toronto is about the only place that runs a system in the streets, and it recently had to order some weird Bombardier cars to make it accessible. I wonder how loading wheelchairs from safety islands works, if that is how it is done.

Another thing to consider is that in Chicago during the streetcar era, streetcars were not allowed on the boulevards, including Michigan Ave, downtown, for what seems the obvious reasons that the wires and tracks are eyesores. CMC arose explicitly for this reason. While there were proposals for Carroll Street and what's now the McCormick Place busway, nobody is going to allow stringing wires all over Grant Park and the Museum Campus. If one wants to be environmentally conscious, put battery electric buses there. Note, again, in the trolley bus era, the trolley lines were not extended into Lincoln and Burnham Parks, but ended at Broadway (78, 80, 81), Halsted (74, 77), and Indiana (12). Only streetcar service was a trestle over the IC at Roosevelt.

I noted earlier the defunct Monroe Circulator; apparently they couldn't convince downtown interests to agree to a special tax district to mall Monroe Street to provide  a bit more direct access between the Chicago Stadium area and McCormick Place.

But to get to my prior point, there is nothing modern about light rail.

Besides Busjack's post that makes my point, one huge thing you're overlooking BH is that other cities that you are citing did not have virtually all their express bus services axed in favor of light rail. So it gets back to my point that I made years ago when the light rail talk popped up previously. We really need to get beyond the "other cities have a particular transit toy so why can't we have that toy" argument without thoroughly examining that there is a reason why specific transit modes work in some cities but don't work in others. There are routes in SF's MUNI system that were converted from trolleybuses to regular buses (which for them are diesel and hybrids) specifically because of the very fact that the trolleybus wires along those routes came to be seen as a convoluted eyesore to SF residents living along those transit routes in addition to MUNI also wanting to speed up service along those routes as diesel and hybrid buses can readily pass each other when one is delayed. You also ignore that most of the light rail cities don't have a heavy rail rapid transit service like we do, or theirs isn't as extensive as ours if they do. In fact the only two transit systems in the country to have all five modes of transit (buses, trolleybuses, light rail, heavy rail rapid transit, and commuter rail) are SEPTA in Philly and MBTA in Boston. Like other cities with both heavy rail rapid transit and light rail, the light rail services act to supplement the rapid transit lines as SEPTA only has two rapid transit routes and MBTA three. Minneapolis, Seatte, and SF don't have rapid transit and don't seek to get it any time soon because it would cost millions of dollars they don't have to build. (BART yes is a rapid transit system serving SF, however it's a regional one separate from MUNI that links SF with cities and towns in Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Mateo Counties and therefore more analagous to PATH in relation to NJ Transit and MTA, despite PATH being considered defined as a railroad under the national definition than a rapid transit system).

UPDATE: Edited to include my point about BART.

[Busjack]

31 minutes ago, jajuan said:

In fact the only two transit systems in the country to have all five modes of transit (buses, trolleybuses, light rail, heavy rail rapid transit, and commuter rail) are SEPTA in Philly and MBTA in Boston.

Again, the only reason light rail survived in Boston and Philly is that they had their own right of way, including a subway downtown. SF also has a subway downtown and really doesn't get into street running until it exits the tunnels under the hills.Chicago might still have had it if it had built the proposed LaSalle, Washington, and Jackson streetcar subways, but this being Chicago, that never happened and Lind's book indicated that the proposal for the Washington one included ventilation for conversion to bus and that Jackson was supposed to be part of the Congress Rapid Transit. Even if Chicago had built those subways, there would still be the question whether the light rail would be stuck in traffic on Clark St. or Broadway north of the portal, which was the reason CTA eventually got rid of streetcars.

As for other cities, I'm sure it gets down to the other point I previously made that the question is whether they intend to move the masses--in which case Chicago's (and New York's) answer is rapid transit--or "a transit toy" as you put it. Clearly, Kenosha has a transit toy.

Outside the country, but in North America, Toronto was the only place that had a traditional surface system of streetcars and other modes, but this indicates that they dumped trolley buses about 25 years ago. There was some talk about waterfront routes, but this seems to indicate they haven't happened yet.

 

[jajuan]

4 minutes ago, Busjack said:

Again, the only reason light rail survived in Boston and Philly is that they had their own right of way, including a subway downtown. SF also has a subway downtown and really doesn't get into street running until it exits the tunnels under the hills.Chicago might still have had it if it had built the proposed LaSalle, Washington, and Jackson streetcar subways, but this being Chicago, that never happened and Lind's book indicated that the proposal for the Washington one included ventilation for conversion to bus and that Jackson was supposed to be part of the Congress Rapid Transit. Even if Chicago had built those subways, there would still be the question whether the light rail would be stuck in traffic on Clark St. or Broadway north of the portal, which was the reason CTA eventually got rid of streetcars.

As for other cities, I'm sure it gets down to the other point I previously made that the question is whether they intend to move the masses, in which case Chicago's (and New York's) answer is rapid transit, or "a transit toy" as you put it. Clearly, Kenosha has a transit toy.

 

I know and got that point. Even though I didn't explicitly state it, I agreed with that point and used it as a springboard, to borrow a diving reference, to make and flesh out further the more general case that each city has its own unique reasons why it has certain transit modes over others when compared to transit options in other cities. And I used the term transit toy because I think sometimes when we have these transit hypothetical discussions, some of us forget the main reason for any transit system is to transport the masses from point A to point B, such as home to school and/or work and back, and not simply as a game of transit toys for us transit enthusiasts as some of us sometimes want to steer the discussion. Your point about right of way steers to other clear signs that Chicago is saying no to the light rail question for now in that Dearborn traffic lanes downtown have been reconfigured from three regular NB traffic lanes to the current system of protected two-way bike lanes, an offset parking lane similar to what's been done on North Broadway, two regular traffic lanes and a more clearly defined bus lane that shares space with right turn lanes at right turn intersections. That's without getting into the fact that CDOT partnered with CTA and built CTA's Loop Link bus corridor lanes and station stops in addition to other amenities for bikers. 

[Busjack]

3 minutes ago, jajuan said:

Your point about right of way steers to other clear signs that Chicago is saying no to the light rail question for now in that Dearborn traffic lanes downtown have been reconfigured from three regular NB traffic lanes to the current system of protected two-way bike lanes, an offset parking lane similar to what's been done on North Broadway, two regular traffic lanes and a more clearly defined bus lane that shares space with right turn lanes at right turn intersections.

Besides the Emanuel Administration's consistent drive to commandeer the streets away from vehicular traffic, that's essentially why we will never see the Ashland BRT. $5 million of federal consultant relief otherwise down the drain.

[NewFlyerMCI]

How feasible would the following be:

• Route 30 would run from 69th St Red Line to 112th/Avenue B. Existing route would remain until Ewing/106th, at which point the route would operate 106th, Avenue C, 112th, Avenue B, 106th, Ewing. Sunday service would extend to 69th St Red Line and existing headways would remain.
  • Sunday service would be reduced to 30 minute headways or eliminated.
• Route 100 would run from 95th/Dan Ryan Red Line to Hegewisch. Existing route would remain until Ewing/106th, at which point the route would operate via Ewing, 112th, Avenue O, Brainard, Baltimore, 132nd, Exchange, 130th, Baltimore and ending at the Hegewisch NICTD station.
  • Route 95 would be rerouted onto 95th from Cottage Grove to Woodlawn
  • Route 100's express zone would be extended to 95th/Stony Island, with 1 stop at 95th/Woodlawn.
  • Saturday & midday service would be introduced with 20 minute headways
  • Sunday service would be introduced with 30 minute headways

This would lessen the travel time from Hegewisch back to society (32 mins vs 38 mins, using car travel times). It would also provide more direct connections & serve more important locations, such as Chicago State University & 95th St. It would reduce the amount of buses on the 30, but increase on the 100.

[artthouwill]

On 2/4/2019 at 8:50 PM, NewFlyerMCI said:

How feasible would the following be:

• Route 30 would run from 69th St Red Line to 112th/Avenue B. Existing route would remain until Ewing/106th, at which point the route would operate 106th, Avenue C, 112th, Avenue B, 106th, Ewing. Sunday service would extend to 69th St Red Line and existing headways would remain.
  • Sunday service would be reduced to 30 minute headways or eliminated.
• Route 100 would run from 95th/Dan Ryan Red Line to Hegewisch. Existing route would remain until Ewing/106th, at which point the route would operate via Ewing, 112th, Avenue O, Brainard, Baltimore, 132nd, Exchange, 130th, Baltimore and ending at the Hegewisch NICTD station.
  • Route 95 would be rerouted onto 95th from Cottage Grove to Woodlawn
  • Route 100's express zone would be extended to 95th/Stony Island, with 1 stop at 95th/Woodlawn.
  • Saturday & midday service would be introduced with 20 minute headways
  • Sunday service would be introduced with 30 minute headways

This would lessen the travel time from Hegewisch back to society (32 mins vs 38 mins, using car travel times). It would also provide more direct connections & serve more important locations, such as Chicago State University & 95th St. It would reduce the amount of buses on the 30, but increase on the 100.

I don't think any of this makes sense. 

The 30 currently connects the Hegewisch neighborhood  in the southeastern most section of the city to shopping and businesses along Ewing and the South Chicago district around 91st and Commercial.  Hegewisch riders seeking to go downtown will use the South Shore

  Thus the 30 and 100 swapping south terminals makes no sense.

As for the 95 and 100, there is sufficient ridership along 93rd between Cottage Grove and Woodlawn to justify the current routing.  Remember passengers living south of 93rd in that area do not have access to 95th due to the railroad tracks running along 94th.  Also there is little residential area south of 95th between Cottage Grove and Woodlawn that is served by the current 100th on 95th and the 4 and 115 on Cottage Grove. 

If I would do anything, I would return the 100 to it's original Jeffery Manor loop and restore the 106th routing back to the 106, even if only for rush hours only.