Jump to content
TripleTransit1

If I ran Transit for one day...

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, andrethebusman said:

Waukegan is your basic small town bus system (same as Elgin, Aurora, Joliet). All routes come together once of twice an hour. This is something that goes back to streetcar days and can be found in a thousand smaller cities. It works excellent. Big systems do not do this because headways are different on different routes. Like 95/Ryan. Many routes, but all leaving at different times. CTA tried a pulse point once, at night at State/Washington. Didn't work too good. Could not figure out the idea of we all leave at once 

Wait, so do nite owl buses that go downtown still not do State/Washington at :10 & :40 past the hour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, fg.mark said:

If anything, the loop on the 88 Higgins should be eliminated.  The route should go westbound on Higgins to Foster, then continue on Foster to Canfield, then north on Canfield to Devon/Avondale.  

So you think that Resurrection Hospital and Resurrection High School should be cut off from public transit access?

 

Most of the people on the west end of the route are going to/from the Harlem Blue Line station.  Do you think that people in the far northwest corner of the city are going to want to want to travel all the way to Jefferson Park to catch a train?  Especially on that  narrow segment of Higgins between Foster and JP that slows to a crawl in rush hour?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

The NB 349 diversion would only take about 4-5 mins total because of the way Gregory is set up. Less time for SB 349. I said no diversion (as in an serious one) is needed, since Western/Gregory is right next to where I'm talking about.

The railroad crossing would cause delays. Otherwise, that time seems about accurate, although I'm not sure what exact routing you had in mind.

5 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

There's also no direct connection for NB 349 to 359. This is the sort of thing I was attempting to mitigate.

The pedestrian ramp isn't any less direct than having to cross the street at the corner to transfer.

5 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:
  • No unnecessary time for the 359, since the location I'm talking about is just off Vermont street.
  • The creation of such a terminal might actually spur rail to bus ridership & vice versa (for example, if i lived on the 359, i'd certainly be interested in the RI or ME over the Red Line)

359 already stops just before the crossing on Vermont, about as close to the station as you can get. I don't think more people would start transferring to Metra if a terminal were built a block south, which would still add 2-3 minutes to the route.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, NewFlyerMCI said:
  • Only the 348 would end there because only the 348 ends there now
  • The 349 and 877 serving Harvey is effectively immaterial
  • The presence of a terminal could encourage transfers btwn Pace and ME/RI
    • However, it's intended purpose was to facilitate easier transfers between all bus routes in the area at a central location, which also would be located near the train stations, where there is also parking, and where the whole facility is stone's throw from "downtown" Blue Island
  • You are the one that brought up pulse points, that's not what I was suggesting. I did not mention tailoring headways or substantial diversions to facilitate this
    • There wouldn't be any significant diversions, since it wouldn't take route more than 5 mins total (excepting extreme passenger loads, ADA passengers, etc) to deviate, serve and return to the original routing. The exception to this may be/probably is the 877, which runs so infrequently, it's immaterial.
  • Yes, on street transfers are available. However,
    • Not between all routes
    • Lack of shelters
    • Current transfers to Metra are lacking

This is a fairly simple solution that makes things easier, has small QoL improvements, and can facilitate future growth, all without having to even acquire new property or cause any substantial change to area bus routes.

I guess if someone can get Pace to do a pilot, it would be worth a try.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Pace831 said:

The railroad crossing would cause delays. Otherwise, that time seems about accurate, although I'm not sure what exact routing you had in mind.

The pedestrian ramp isn't any less direct than having to cross the street at the corner to transfer.

359 already stops just before the crossing on Vermont, about as close to the station as you can get. I don't think more people would start transferring to Metra if a terminal were built a block south, which would still add 2-3 minutes to the route.

  • Railroad crossing hadn't crossed my mind, thank you
  • I think (I'm happy to be wrong) that this is my favor, since I was hoping to get rid of that type of transfer all together?
  • Much like widening highway lanes, the option of having a central terminal might induce that demand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

I guess if someone can get Pace to do a pilot, it would be worth a try.

A pilot program shouldn't involve construction of a new facility that would become useless if the pilot were to fail.

51 minutes ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

This is a fairly simple solution that makes things easier, has small QoL improvements, and can facilitate future growth, all without having to even acquire new property or cause any substantial change to area bus routes.

I think you're underestimating the ease of implementing this and overstating the benefits. The current system doesn't need any major changes, although I agree there could be more shelters and directional signs to help with transfers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

I think (I'm happy to be wrong) that this is my favor, since I was hoping to get rid of that type of transfer all together?

OK, I see your point here.

5 minutes ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

Much like widening highway lanes, the option of having a central terminal might induce that demand

I don't understand the analogy. An option has to be perceived as the superior one for people to choose it, and I'm not sure what advantage the terminal has over the street stops for a 359 rider (which was the example you gave). For the other routes, I doubt that through riders would be OK with having to spend additional time diverting to the terminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Pace831 said:

A pilot program shouldn't involve construction of a new facility that would become useless if the pilot were to fail.

I think you're underestimating the ease of implementing this and overstating the benefits. The current system doesn't need any major changes, although I agree there could be more shelters and directional signs to help with transfers.

I agree with that first point. My vision was only the building of a turnaround with 2-3 bays with shelters, a small bike rack and a ventra card machine

I also agree, the solution is simple, implementation is not, and on this scale, when is it? And I've maintained from the beginning, it might not be an immediate need, but certainly one that could provide a net benefit later down the line, and the time may arise when it's worth exploring as an option.

1 minute ago, Pace831 said:

OK, I see your point here.

I don't understand the analogy. An option has to be perceived as the superior one for people to choose it, and I'm not sure what advantage the terminal has over the street stops for a 359 rider (which was the example you gave). For the other routes, I doubt that through riders would be OK with having to spend additional time diverting to the terminal.

Usually, when you widen a highway, you might reduce traffic for a little while, but ultimately, traffic will return to new or worse levels than when you started, known as "induced demand" (rough definition). A sort of "if you build it, they will come", and that was the analogy I was making.

5 extra mins shouldn't hurt that much, if at all, which is why only the routes in the immediate were chosen. I do see how this may be problematic for NB 349 riders

Edited by NewFlyerMCI
including an additional response

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

Usually, when you widen a highway, you might reduce traffic for a little while, but ultimately, traffic will return to new or worse levels than when you started, known as "induced demand" (rough definition). A sort of "if you build it, they will come", and that was the analogy I was making.

You're somewhat misinterpreting that theory. With highways, there is latent demand that is not generated until capacity is increased. Faster roads attract more traffic because of the existence of people who want them. For your analogy to work, you would have to show that:

1. Travel patterns exist where a transfer from bus to train would be an option. (You sort of did this already)

2. The absence of a terminal influences people to choose other options. (I'm not convinced)

That finally gets us back to the topic this discussion deviated from. If you believe the advocates for the south side Metra proposal, lower fares and faster service are what people really want.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...