Return of the 11 & 31 Bus

[jajuan]

6 minutes ago, Busjack said:

That was Claypool's justification for doing nothing at all in that corridor.

The question only arose because of the prior combination of 11 and 37 into Lincoln-Sedgwick. Originally, that seemed justified only by the fact that 37 was a NP bus and thus to eliminate the deadhead. Now that 37 is a C route, that doesn't make any difference.

Yeah true, eliminating the 37 deadhead to NP became moot when 37 became a K route in the interim between being a NP route and now a C route. But let me not stray too far off topic.

[Busjack]

Sun-Times has maps of both routes (if you really hit zoom).

The south end of Lincoln is a mix of what was predicted: sb via Sheffield, then back via Fullerton and Lincoln.

31 is essentially Ashland-Orange Line, Archer, Pitney, 31, Wentworth/LaSale. 35, State, 31, and then looping east of King Dr.

The article also discusses Pawar's concern that it doesn't include the morning rush, but he isn't "throwing CTA under the bus."

[BusHunter]

31 minutes ago, Busjack said:

Sun-Times has maps of both routes (if you really hit zoom).

The south end of Lincoln is a mix of what was predicted: sb via Sheffield, then back via Fullerton and Lincoln.

31 is essentially Ashland-Orange Line, Archer, Pitney, 31, Wentworth/LaSale. 35, State, 31, and then looping east of King Dr.

The article also discusses Pawar's concern that it doesn't include the morning rush, but he isn't "throwing CTA under the bus."

So you see sw4400, if you ride the #11 to/from work, that's 2 rides out of 1,500 needed to keep the #11 extension.

I don't know why they are cutting the morning service, how do they expect it to pass unless that is the plan. By right then they should cut that total in half because that is sort of unfair. By contrast, the #31 will only need 830 riders and it will run normal business hours. That's going to be tough anyway with 8 or 9 runs on the #31 each run will have to pick up 50 riders per trip per direction, if you figure bidirectionally with 2 runs total. On the #11 they would have to pick up 30 riders each trip if they did 3 trips per hour 6 total bidirectionally, estimating 6 hours of service that would be 18 trips south, 18 north. 36 trips total. Maybe the total is higher (1,500) cause they are doing 3 trips an hour, (we hope) But how will they count existing riders who stay on the bus at Western/brown line? They could count with passenger counters I suppose.

This being said the #11 could pass maybe, but the #31 I don't know.

[andrethebusman]

BOTH are 10am-7pm if you read down a bit in the article. Basically, they are not looking for commuters, but the senior crowd who made the noise about the discontinuances in the first place. Realistically, they don't come out until after the morning rush, and most are in by sunset. So this makes sense, but it also makes these quintessential "political dinkeys". In retrospect, the reason both got canned to begin with was that neither had any significant rush hour use. Lincoln would have a good load south of Fullerton and north of Leland, but very little in the middle, as it was a hideously slow trip, almost 90 minutes downtown to Howard, with all the triple intersections in the middle part. 31st would do a little better now, connecting with the Ryan, but realistically 35th in this section (Ashland to State) doesn't do all that good riding-wise either.

[BusHunter]

Nothing beats the #151 that used to run on Sunday from Howard to the loop. That route was easily 2 hours because it did all the heavy parts of Sheridan from Rogers Park to Edgewater, Uptown then did the Inner Lk. Shore crowd, Northern Lincoln Pk, then did the Gold Coast and Michigan Avenue and then it did Union Station. I'd like to see it's ridership numbers.

35th has lots of factories east of Ashland, that's one thing that totally kills the #39. Then it has alot of north south service like the #44. #31 at least has some residential, what hurts it is it doesn't go anywhere. I think ridership was actually kind of decent on the #11. It's better than the #55N or #55A that's for sure. It just seemed to get cut for political reasons, I think or it wouldn't have any support for it to come back.

[Juniorz]

Get Ready! to Plan and Support the Route 11 & 31 Service Pilot's debuting during the 2Q

For more information on the Route 11 service extension

http://www.transitchicago.com/11pilot/

For more information on the Route 31's Return

http://www.transitchicago.com/31pilot/

Service for both routes will be Weekdays (Mon–Fri) from 10am-7pm 

Route 11 extension service begins June 20th, Route 31 Returns in September!

Spread the word and support!

[Busjack]

11 hours ago, BusHunter said:

I don't know why they are cutting the morning service, how do they expect it to pass unless that is the plan.

You didn't read the article. CTA Spokesmodel said it was tailored to the demand. Also, if you go back 4 years, the complaining was by seniors, people working at sheltered workshops, etc., and the current statements (and Andre's post) reflect that,

Also, you didn't comprehend the statement in the meeting video that it is based on productivity in passengers per service hour. If they add 12 service hours (you acknowledge 3 buses), that's probably another 480 passengers/day more it needs.

11 hours ago, BusHunter said:

But how will they count existing riders who stay on the bus at Western/brown line? They could count with passenger counters I suppose.

The laser passenger counters in the doorwells count both boarding and exiting and save the locations to the Clever Device. At least the data would be there that someone got off on Belmont.

 

[TaylorTank1229]

3 hours ago, Juniorz said:

Get Ready! to Plan and Support the Route 11 & 31 Service Pilot's debuting during the 2Q

For more information on the Route 11 service extension

http://www.transitchicago.com/11pilot/

For more information on the Route 31's Return

http://www.transitchicago.com/31pilot/

Service for both routes will be Weekdays (Mon–Fri) from 10am-7pm 

Route 11 extension service begins June 20th, Route 31 Returns in September!

Spread the word and support!

10am to 7pm, huh? Guess they didn't really have the budget for earlier hours.

[BusHunter]

3 hours ago, Busjack said:

You didn't read the article. CTA Spokesmodel said it was tailored to the demand. Also, if you go back 4 years, the complaining was by seniors, people working at sheltered workshops, etc., and the current statements (and Andre's post) reflect that,

Also, you didn't comprehend the statement in the meeting video that it is based on productivity in passengers per service hour. If they add 12 service hours (you acknowledge 3 buses), that's probably another 480 passengers/day more it needs.

The laser passenger counters in the doorwells count both boarding and exiting and save the locations to the Clever Device. At least the data would be there that someone got off on Belmont.

 

Hey no fair, that CTA spokesmodel wasn't available when I posted that. Funny I remember everyone using the service, not just seniors, but if that's how they want to spin it... sw4400 is not a senior!!  Maybe they should call it the shoppers local.  Only thing is where would they be shopping or going to see a doctor? CVS That will probably hurt it because if someone can't use it in the morning why would they think to use it in the PM. I'd really like to see the ridership per hour before because I don't believe the midday is better than the rush. Also not sending it to Clark/north will hurt it because maybe someone could have used it to go to the zoo or museum. This is a summer test. While they are returning the #11 it is with conditions. If they weren't going to play fair why worry about it at all. 

I don't see what you're talking about per service hour, I read per service day.

Interesting the #31 is every 30 minutes not every hour. So who rallied for the #31, the seniors because they barely have an AM service either. I don't get this, they didn't do this to #39.

[Busjack]

27 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

Hey no fair, that CTA spokesmodel wasn't available when I posted that.

But you quoted a post with the link to the Sun-Times, on which that was based.

27 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

sw4400 is not a senior!!

He was concerned about the Jewel on Lincoln losing business. I don't know how many customers took the bus to there before 10 a.m.

27 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

I don't see what you're talking about per service hour, I read per service day.

Go to the board meeting video. At about 23:40. Mr. Senn asks "can you tell me how you reached your target," and Ms.Morey said "Our average bus route carries about 43 passengers per service hour, so we used the number of service hours multiplied by 43 to determine what the target ridership should be."

[BusHunter]

12 minutes ago, Busjack said:

But you quoted a post with the link to the Sun-Times.

He was concerned about the Jewel on Lincoln losing business. I don't know how many customers took the bus to there before 10 a.m.

Go to the board meeting video. At about 23:05. Mr. Senn asks " can you tell me how you reached your target," and Ms.Moury said "Our average bus route carries about 43 passengers per service hour, so we used that multiplied by the number of service hours to determine what the target ridership should be."

Yeah but did you just read that. It states we multiplied our service hour passengers to get the service day requirement. Unless your going to say I'm off 13 riders per hour in my calculations but it was just an estimate as I didn't know the frequency last night..

Unless I'm out of the loop there is no Jewel on Lincoln that doesn't require walking 2 blocks. Can a senior do that? Whole Foods is coming though. Too late though. Now you could say those seniors will have a viable link to the Tony's on Foster or the shops of Kimball/Lincoln. They could even go to Home Depot or take in some Red Lobster or Olive Garden if they were willing to walk the block or so from Kedzie to the town center. Although any bus would probably succeed if it went to Wal Mart. It's right down Touhy.

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, BusHunter said:

Yeah but did you just read that. It states we multiplied our service hour passengers to get the service day requirement. Unless your going to say I'm off 13 riders per hour in my calculations but it was just an estimate as I didn't know the frequency last night..

Unless I'm out of the loop there is no Jewel on Lincoln that doesn't require walking 2 blocks. Can a senior do that? Whole Foods is coming though. Too late though. Now you could say those seniors will have a viable link to the Tony's on Foster or the shops of Kimball/Lincoln. They could even go to Home Depot or take in some Red Lobster or Olive Garden if they were willing to walk the block or so from Kedzie to the town center. Although any bus would probably succeed if it went to Wal Mart. It's right down Touhy.

I watched the board video about noon yesterday, when I posted that I had. I looked at it again to refresh my recollection, which turned out to be correct.

There are 2 similar statements from Hosinski in the Sun-Times:

To safely survive, the No. 11 needs to roughly hit a target of 1,500 riders a day. The target is based on a systemwide average per vehicle hour and is less than when the No. 11’s midsection was axed, CTA spokeswoman Catherine Hosinski said.

...

“There are limited resources, such as funding,’’ Hosinski said. “Therefore, the hours that best matched the type of trips that were missed are being provided.”

There is a Jewel at 4250 N. Lincoln Ave., which is to what sw appeared to be referring. (Juniorz found a more readable version of the proposed map, which shows a stop at Berteau.)

 

[jajuan]

21 hours ago, Busjack said:

Sun-Times has maps of both routes (if you really hit zoom).

The south end of Lincoln is a mix of what was predicted: sb via Sheffield, then back via Fullerton and Lincoln.

31 is essentially Ashland-Orange Line, Archer, Pitney, 31, Wentworth/LaSale. 35, State, 31, and then looping east of King Dr.

The article also discusses Pawar's concern that it doesn't include the morning rush, but he isn't "throwing CTA under the bus."

So that answers the question in my mind of what would get cut to pay for this partial restoration and keep things budget neutral: AM rush and weekend service on the route get the ax. Almost makes you wonder if that was to keep Pawar from being able to say he scored a total win from them. So on the one hand #11 riders can celebrate getting to ride south of the Western Brown Line station again, but now they have to look for alternatives to the Lincoln bus during AM rush and weekends. There are other routes that have no AM rush service either, but those are routes in some large part geared to the city's tourists or geared toward special events: the 10, 124 and 130. Can't really say that applies to the 11. So in a way structuring the restored service in the way reported is kind of a head scratcher. But then again, considering a large part of the constituency whom Pawar positioned himself as protesting the DeCrowd cut of the 11 being seniors might be part of that. At least that could be an argument CTA can make. If a large number of those saying their transit life line got taken away are seniors, then AM rush service can be taken because a lot of seniors aren't trying to go anywhere in AM rush as many seniors are retired and thus don't have an AM rush need to try to get to a job or school. At least that might be in the planners' minds anyway.

The loop used to get back to Sheffield is that of the #74 that popped in my head when they stated that service would be to Fullerton.

[Busjack]

14 hours ago, jajuan said:

So that answers the question in my mind of what would get cut to pay for this partial restoration and keep things budget neutral: AM rush and weekend service on the route get the ax.

They got the axe 4 years ago. Only question is how much could they afford to put back. But it is certainly not 2016 budget neutral.

The Sun-Times said what the budget impact would be:

To completely restore the No. 11 would have cost the CTA about $1.5 million a year when it was cut, Pawar said. The 180-day No. 11 test will cost $385,000 and the No. 31 pilot program will cost $251,000, Hosinski said.

In short, someone found $385K to make Pawar go away.

[jajuan]

2 hours ago, Busjack said:

They got the axe 4 years ago. Only question is how much could they afford to put back. But it is certainly not 2016 budget neutral.

The Sun-Times said what the budget impact would be:

To completely restore the No. 11 would have cost the CTA about $1.5 million a year when it was cut, Pawar said. The 180-day No. 11 test will cost $385,000 and the No. 31 pilot program will cost $251,000, Hosinski said.

In short, someone found $385K to make Pawar go away.

Poor choice of words on my part. I was thinking along the lines of not breaking the bank, which is what I should have said, given how RTA initially seemed a bit more cautious about budgets and maybe a little nervous due to the state's continued budget crisis that both the governor and legislature seem to show little interest in having resolved anytime soon since we're ten months in and still nothing. My supposition about the senior constituency's impact on the schedule for the #11 extension seems to have been in the right direction since I spotted this in the release on the extension pilot page:

"These hours of service are intended to serve the kind of trips the community desired, such as service to senior activities, medical appointments, and shopping trips along Lincoln Avenue. This schedule also best corresponds with adjacent Brown Line service and the other eleven north-south and east-west bus routes that cross or stop in the area."

[Busjack]

23 minutes ago, jajuan said:

RTA initially seemed a bit more cautious about budgets and maybe a little nervous due to the state's continued budget crisis that both the governor and legislature seem to show little interest in having resolved anytime soon since we're ten months in and still nothing

How many times do I have to tell you that that has  nothing to do with the RTA sales tax? As noted in the CTA Tattler, Carter is not complaining about funding. Maybe this shows a change of emphasis--the RTA sales tax is generating enough that some service can be restored, and Emanuel can send his crying puppet Claypool off to some other cause.

The rest has been noted in this thread several times already.

[jajuan]

46 minutes ago, Busjack said:

How many times do I have to tell you that that has  nothing to do with the RTA sales tax? As noted in the CTA Tattler, Carter is not complaining about funding. Maybe this shows a change of emphasis--the RTA sales tax is generating enough that some service can be restored, and Emanuel can send his crying puppet Claypool off to some other cause.

The rest has been noted in this thread several times already.

Alright calm down. Before you bite my head off, I was talking about RTA's initial squawking at the very beginning of the budget battle, along with the other initial confusion in general about the state's funding of its various obligations, at the time about the governor's proposed cuts to state funds to agency for the service boards outside of the RTA sales tax. Part of that squawking was a caution to CTA last year that the governor was proposing at the time that CTA's share of state funding be cut by $105 million as part of his proposed cost cutting to the overall state budget.

[Busjack]

10 minutes ago, jajuan said:

Alright calm down. Before you bite my head off, I was talking about RTA's initial squawking at the very beginning of the budget battle, along with the initial confusion in general about the state's funding of its various obligations, at the time about state funds outside of the RTA sales tax since the state does still contribute something to the RTA for the service boards' operating expenses in addition to the RTA being funded by the sales tax.

It appears that whatever money to which the RTA is entitled is appropriated under the  RTA Act, with specific directions to allocate it to specific funds (Sec. 4.09). There may be something marginal, but, in general, the usual rule that the comptroller is not allowed to dispense without an appropriation does not apply to the RTA, because sec. 4.09 has specific directions to the comptroller.

[jajuan]

11 minutes ago, Busjack said:

It appears that whatever money to which the RTA is entitled is appropriated under the  RTA Act, with specific directions to allocate it to specific funds (Sec. 4.09). There may be something marginal, but, in general, the usual rule that the comptroller is not allowed to dispense without an appropriation does not apply to the RTA, because sec. 4.09 has specific directions to the comptroller.

Which would be one of those items that the papers later mentioned that the state transfers money over to regardless of the being a budget or not, correct? So a lot of that initial confusion at the beginning of the impasse was due to it not being understood or known at the time that there are agencies and programs that get their monies without a state budget because of specific instructions to the comptroller, written in different relevant state laws, on how to dispense similar to the RTA Act's instructions in that regard for Chicago area transit.

[Busjack]

17 minutes ago, jajuan said:

Which would be one of those items that the papers later mentioned that the state transfers money over to regardless of the being a budget or not, correct? So a lot of that initial confusion at the beginning of the impasse was due to it not being understood or known at the time that there are agencies and programs that get their monies without a state budget because of specific instructions to the comptroller, written in different relevant state laws, on how to dispense similar to the RTA Act's instructions in that regard for Chicago area transit.

That's correct. Similarly in the "Pace is not going to get their CNGs" discussion, money from various taxes, such as the candy and soda taxes and video poker, was appropriated to the capital fund so that the state could issue bonds, and the bond money was appropriated all over the state, including specific appropriations to CTA, Pace and Metra.

[jajuan]

4 minutes ago, Busjack said:

That's correct. Similarly in the "Pace is not going to get their CNGs" discussion, money from various taxes, such as the candy and soda taxes and video poker, was appropriated to the capital fund so that the state could issue bonds, and the bond money was appropriated all over the state, including specific appropriations to CTA, Pace and Metra.

Ok thanks. A majority of it I already understood from your earlier posts. I just had memories of the earlier squawks and panic stemming from the papers not yet realizing or knowing what you had already mentioned in earlier months and just now clarified some of the finer details to earlier explanations.

[TaylorTank1229]

Honestly, I could see the #11 passing it's pilot test. #31 may not be so lucky. I'm sure 10am may not be the best starting time for buses on 31st street. What about people that get up in the morning for work, and students that may have morning classes for school. For that I think it's be a bit more reasonable to start service at least at 6:30 or 7am, otherwise #31's comeback could be cut short.

[jajuan]

1 hour ago, TaylorTank1229 said:

Honestly, I could see the #11 passing it's pilot test. #31 may not be so lucky. I'm sure 10am may not be the best starting time for buses on 31st street. What about people that get up in the morning for work, and students that may have morning classes for school. For that I think it's be a bit more reasonable to start service at least at 6:30 or 7am, otherwise #31's comeback could be cut short.

The 31's return faced the same set of circumstances as that for the 11. There were limited resources to work with, and the majority of folks advocating for its return were seniors. Because of that, the thought is that most of the target passenger base won't really be going anywhere until after the end of the AM rush, which the CTA counts as 10 AM. So that's why the 31's service time was structured the same as that of the 11. The bigger hurdle is whether anyone is willing to wait 30 minutes per bus. But again, we're talking about limited resources on top of a small passenger base. 

[jajuan]

I came across this May 25th story from the online edition of the Chicago Reader. They pose that question that some have asked here of whether the 10 AM-7 PM weekday only schedules for both and the planned headways set either one or both up for failure. One interesting detail I spotted in the article is that the 31's return is delayed until fall because CTA hit a snag with the alderman down there in the required negotiations over optimal placement of bus stops and minimize curbside parking removal for the stops. (How many of us knew that CTA had to negotiate with local alderman about bus stop placement when introducing a new bus route or route extension?) They also mention the West 31st extension of the #35 as a kind of compromise response to the 31st street question but didn't note that that came from requests for a #31 that operated from about King Drive through all the way to Cicero, and not the core protests for a return of the original #31.

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, jajuan said:

I came across this May 25th story from the online edition of the Chicago Reader.

Looks like most of the complaining is about 31, It seems counter intuitive that Pawar had to get south side support because "since north-siders are often viewed as squeaky wheels who get more than their fair share of resources,." As I argued earlier, Emanuel and Claypool figured they could stick it to the north side with impunity, and most of the "improvements" from the Crowd Reduction Plan were on the south side (such as dividing 111/115).

They also refer to Ald. Patrick D. Thompson, when we know it is Patrick Daley Thompson.

1 hour ago, jajuan said:

How many of us knew that CTA had to negotiate with local alderman about bus stop placement when introducing a new bus route or route extension?

I wouldn't have, but then again, it is the alderman (see above) who asked for the reinstatement.

1 hour ago, jajuan said:

They also mention the West 31st extension of the #35 as a kind of compromise response to the 31st street question but didn't note that that came from requests for a #31 that operated from about King Drive through all the way to Cicero, and not the core protests for a return of the original #31.

I'm not sure where you are going here. The consultant report covered all of 31, and while the contingent from Ashland to King Dr. came out to whatever planning forums there were, the consultant only recommended West 31st, which was tacked onto 35.