Return of the 11 & 31 Bus

[BusHunter]

2 hours ago, jajuan said:

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.

Yeah, the #11 seems to be focused on the seniors, but take into account they are probably a focus group due to their mobility which would not be great enough to walk to alternate service. (I believe this aspect is over hyped, but that's just my opinion) When I rode the #11 a younger crowd was riding my buses especially through the Ashland/Belmont area. Plus you have those who could use it for access to Lincoln Park, which the Red line puts you a staggering 3/4 mile away. But i agree running an imbalanced route will hurt it. How can riders get in the rhythm of using it if they can't use it in the morning?

as far as #31, they at least list the hourly ridership, (246 riders an hour) that it had long ago, so it would appear from the article they are acknowledging the hour headways hurt it's ridership. But the bus don't go anywhere. I think not running it to the beach is a mistake and not letting it run as a summer experiment will hurt it as the most riders on CTA are generally in the summer months or cold winter, but the cold winter would basically just have occupational ridership versus recreational ridership it would experience in the summer, but maybe Sox park can help it out. Maybe housing has changed in Bronzeville since the 90's and that could help it also, but it needs a western draw.

[jajuan]

3 minutes ago, Busjack said:

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).

Basically Pawar got smart in that Emanuel's more visible displays than Daley at treating CTA as an arm of City of Chicago government rather than the independent (relative to Chicago political machinations anyway) municipal corporation that it's supposed to be by Illinois law and Emanuel's constant wooing among the south side more than he does other areas outside of downtown pretty much ensures a lot of this stuff is more successful if it's attached in some way to the south side where Emanuel's always trying to get his name in front of something to say he did something for that part of the city. So I agree with you there.

3 minutes ago, Busjack said:

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

I noticed that one of the commenting readers was rather irritated at the apparent downplay of this being Daley II's nephew and Daley I's grandson.

3 minutes ago, Busjack said:

II'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.

I basically mentioned that part to reference that the article didn't really make it clear that CTA restoring West 31st (which was a part of the #35 during rush periods in the days prior to the Orange Line and became the #32 after the Orange Line's opening) stemmed from Little Village, which wanted the 32 back, and the groups from Chinatown and Bridgeport, which wanted back the 31 east of Ashland combining their advocacy efforts around the time of that study because the study's look into the feasibility one contiguous route serving both E and W 31st was seen by those communities at the time as a possible means of getting back their respective 31st Street routes. And of course at the time only W 31st was restored.

[jajuan]

25 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

Yeah, the #11 seems to be focused on the seniors, but take into account they are probably a focus group due to their mobility which would not be great enough to walk to alternate service. (I believe this aspect is over hyped, but that's just my opinion) When I rode the #11 a younger crowd was riding my buses especially through the Ashland/Belmont area. Plus you have those who could use it for access to Lincoln Park, which the Red line puts you a staggering 3/4 mile away. But i agree running an imbalanced route will hurt it. How can riders get in the rhythm of using it if they can't use it in the morning?

as far as #31, they at least list the hourly ridership, (246 riders an hour) that it had long ago, so it would appear from the article they are acknowledging the hour headways hurt it's ridership. But the bus don't go anywhere. I think not running it to the beach is a mistake and not letting it run as a summer experiment will hurt it as the most riders on CTA are generally in the summer months or cold winter, but the cold winter would basically just have occupational ridership versus recreational ridership it would experience in the summer, but maybe Sox park can help it out. Maybe housing has changed in Bronzeville since the 90's and that could help it also, but it needs a western draw.

The senior element may seem overhyped, but that's how Pawar and other north side advocates played their hand all these years and CTA basically responded in kind. As for the 31 not starting in summer too, the article states that that part is on both CTA and the local aldermen along that part of 31st because both sides didn't come to an agreement about bus stop placement in time for the 31 to get a summer start like the 11. 

[orionbuslover]

34 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

But the bus don't go anywhere. I think not running it to the beach is a mistake and not letting it run as a summer experiment will hurt it as the most riders on CTA are generally in the summer months or cold winter, but the cold winter would basically just have occupational ridership versus recreational ridership it would experience in the summer, but maybe Sox park can help it out. Maybe housing has changed in Bronzeville since the 90's and that could help it also, but it needs a western draw.

Actually, ridership drops way off in the summer and winter, especially. During the cold winter months, people really consolidate their trips on the system. Summer ridership, even with all the concerts, festivals, and tourists, is still behind Fall and Spring ridership. CPS students and staff, and all the universities students and staff add a lot of ridership to the system. I'm not privy to all the logistical reasons the route can't be reinstated in time for the summer pick. But, I think it's reasonable to not want to include summer ridership to the beach as ridership is being evaluated on the route so that the numbers aren't skewed.

[Busjack]

8 hours ago, orionbuslover said:

But, I think it's reasonable to not want to include summer ridership to the beach as ridership is being evaluated on the route so that the numbers aren't skewed.

Also, the proposed 31 does not go to the beach but only Lake Meadows. Beach riders would have to transfer to 35, presumably at one of the L stations.

The argument in the consultant's report was basically whether there was any ridership east of the Dan Ryan/Red Line. You don't see the 3rd and 4th ward aldermen being mentioned in any of the articles, just 11th Ward alderman Patrick Daley Thompson and references to Bridgeport and the Chinese community.

[Juniorz]

It's unfortunate the 31 won't start until Fall, which means that it was setup to fail from the beginning. The concept is doomed on arrival as the route will duplicate everything currently available and with Route 35 acting as an "undercover Route 31", this maybe the last time (at least in this generation) that Route 31 will see the light of day. I would say just support the route and hope for the best?

Call the Route 11 extension "The comeback kid that never left" as I would bet my dollars on the Route 11 extension pilot becoming successful, it's going to exceed expectations and i see another 180-day extension before becoming official. 

[Busjack]

28 minutes ago, Juniorz said:

The concept is doomed on arrival as the route will duplicate everything currently available and with Route 35 acting as an "undercover Route 31", this maybe the last time (at least in this generation) that Route 31 will see the light of day.

I'm not quite as quick to write it off, as the only alternative is 35 (certainly nothing north until Cermak) and the justification given is someone in Bridgeport wants it. Hopefully, that someone is more than P.D.T. But, by definition, one can't assess an experiment until you try it.

In both cases it was recognized that each would have to hit the 50 percentile of passengers per service hour. That hits me as kind of a high threshold, as the usual Pace metric on a test route (such as 714 on a CMAQ grant) was that if the system wide recovery ratio was 40%, the route had to earn 20%. Essentially, these two routes have to earn the full recovery ratio. Obviously, some CTA routes don't do this now, as certainly routes with packed articulated buses are offsetting the passenger count on the northwest side, resulting in the current passenger count average. The test for the 35 extension was basically if it did as well as other routes west of Kedzie, not whether it did the system average.

[BusHunter]

So you think the #31 will get more riders now that it's going to run on 30 minute headways? What's wrong with #31 is why would you use it? To go to the Cell, IIT or police station on 31st/Halsted? There's really not a draw to reel someone in. There's not even a school that I know of. I think Juniorz is right the #11 will pass just simply because of all the opposition it's had against the closure. Someone wants to ride it and the area is congested enough with bars, retail and housing to justify it. But like he says I believe it will get an extended trial. Lincoln PK. high is not far away either and Depaul should help it some.

[Busjack]

48 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

There's really not a draw to reel someone in. There's not even a school that I know of.

If there were a school, it would already have a bus.

The only issue is if there are enough residents who want to go E-W. Again, the justification in the consultant's report resulting in the 35 extension for not on this segment was that there were enough NB buses to downtown.

51 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

I think Juniorz is right the #11 will pass just simply because of all the opposition it's had against the closure.

Probably it sticks around if it hits, say, the 47th percentile. But if it only does the 24th, bye bye.

Again the question is let the experiment run its course, and my point was that it started with a big hurdle of 50th percentile.

[jajuan]

7 hours ago, Juniorz said:

It's unfortunate the 31 won't start until Fall, which means that it was setup to fail from the beginning. The concept is doomed on arrival as the route will duplicate everything currently available and with Route 35 acting as an "undercover Route 31", this maybe the last time (at least in this generation) that Route 31 will see the light of day. I would say just support the route and hope for the best?

Call the Route 11 extension "The comeback kid that never left" as I would bet my dollars on the Route 11 extension pilot becoming successful, it's going to exceed expectations and i see another 180-day extension before becoming official. 

Blame Daley's nephew on the part of it not starting in the summer since he's the alderman  and the article says that CTA has to negotiate with local aldermen about bus stop placement and that he and CTA didn't get an agreement together in time for a summer start. As for the 35 being an undercover 31, I don't know about that since (1) the portion of 31st Street the 35 operates on is two miles west of what the 31 covered and will cover again in the fall, and (2) said portion was in fact a rush hour only leg of the 35 back in the days of the Archer and Stevenson Express routes and what existed as a standalone route after the Orange Line opened was actually the 32, not the 31. The only place 31 and 35 duplicated each other was north of Lake Meadows when both terminated at Michael Reese (which no longer exists) and Mercy Hospitals. The 35 only comes up to 31st Street during the summer for the summertime "Bus to the Beach" services. All other times of the year it ends at 35th/Cottage Grove. It stopped going to Mercy Hospital about the same time as the 31 got eliminated, and the 21 now handles east-west bus services directly to that hospital these days. So by the time the 31 starts its test run, there will be no incentive for the 35 to even come up to East 31st Street. So again what essentially killed the 31 19 years ago, as the article states and what the rest of us remember, is it having run only once an hour each way. The only question for 2016 is whether cutting the headway in half will be enough to get folks to ride and thus have a bus surviving on 31st Street east of Ashland as buses now do on West 31st Street.

[sw4400]

They're getting ready for June 20th. I spotted #1793 heading NB on Lincoln approaching Irving Park as a "Instruction Bus". The run number was covered except the letter, which was a "P".

[artthouwill]

On 5/30/2016 at 5:07 PM, jajuan said:

Blame Daley's nephew on the part of it not starting in the summer since he's the alderman  and the article says that CTA has to negotiate with local aldermen about bus stop placement and that he and CTA didn't get an agreement together in time for a summer start. As for the 35 being an undercover 31, I don't know about that since (1) the portion of 31st Street the 35 operates on is two miles west of what the 31 covered and will cover again in the fall, and (2) said portion was in fact a rush hour only leg of the 35 back in the days of the Archer and Stevenson Express routes and what existed as a standalone route after the Orange Line opened was actually the 32, not the 31. The only place 31 and 35 duplicated each other was north of Lake Meadows when both terminated at Michael Reese (which no longer exists) and Mercy Hospitals. The 35 only comes up to 31st Street during the summer for the summertime "Bus to the Beach" services. All other times of the year it ends at 35th/Cottage Grove. It stopped going to Mercy Hospital about the same time as the 31 got eliminated, and the 21 now handles east-west bus services directly to that hospital these days. So by the time the 31 starts its test run, there will be no incentive for the 35 to even come up to East 31st Street. So again what essentially killed the 31 19 years ago, as the article states and what the rest of us remember, is it having run only once an hour each way. The only question for 2016 is whether cutting the headway in half will be enough to get folks to ride and thus have a bus surviving on 31st Street east of Ashland as buses now do on West 31st Street.

Actually the 35 ended at Cottage Grove (where it now ends) and only the 31st street bus served Michael Reese and Mercy Hospitals.   When the 31 was eliminated,  the 35 was extended to serve both Hospitals.   Upon the closing of Michael Reese,  it no longer made sense for the 35th bus to serve that hospital,  thus the 35th returned to its original terminal and the 21 was extended. 

[Busjack]

5 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

Actually the 35 ended at Cottage Grove (where it now ends) and only the 31st street bus served Michael Reese and Mercy Hospitals.   When the 31 was eliminated,  the 35 was extended to serve both Hospitals.   Upon the closing of Michael Reese,  it no longer made sense for the 35th bus to serve that hospital,  thus the 35th returned to its original terminal and the 21 was extended. 

I have the 1996 Green Line reopening map, which has both 31 and 35 to Michael Reese  and Mercy hospitals.

[artthouwill]

13 minutes ago, Busjack said:

I have the 1996 Green Line reopening map, which has both 31 and 35 to Michael Reese  and Mercy hospitals.

When the Green Line closed for rebuild,  did the 31 serve the 35th Red line?   I also recall 35 having school trippers that served Dunbar High school with that routing. 

[Busjack]

38 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

When the Green Line closed for rebuild,  did the 31 serve the 35th Red line?   I also recall 35 having school trippers that served Dunbar High school with that routing. 

I don't have that map. However, since chicago-l,org has the 31st St. station closed in 1949, providing alternative service was not an issue in 1994.

[TaylorTank1229]

Lincoln bus extension alert on the CTA website. 

 

http://www.transitchicago.com/travel_information/alert_detail.aspx?AlertId=34890

[jajuan]

2 hours ago, TaylorTank1229 said:

Lincoln bus extension alert on the CTA website. 

 

http://www.transitchicago.com/travel_information/alert_detail.aspx?AlertId=34890

Now I'm confused. The alert page says that service between Howard/McCormick and the Western Brown Line station is unaffected and that the extension will operate weekdays between 10 AM and 7 PM, while before that it was implied that the route as a whole would be operating under those new hours. So which one is it? Is it the extension or the entire route that has the weekday only 10 AM-7 PM approximate service hours?  I want to take the alert at it's word that it's apparently clearing up that the 10 AM-7 PM  previously reported service times applied to the extension south of Western Brown Line and not the entire route. But the alert page and the project page seem to have conflicting language. 

[sw4400]

22 minutes ago, jajuan said:

Now I'm confused. The alert page says that service between Howard/McCormick and the Western Brown Line station is unaffected and that the extension will operate weekdays between 10 AM and 7 PM, while before that it was implied that the route as a whole would be operating under those new hours. So which one is it? Is it the extension or the entire route that has the weekday only 10 AM-7 PM approximate service hours?  I want to take the alert at it's word that it's apparently clearing up that the 10 AM-7 PM  previously reported service times applied to the extension south of Western Brown Line and not the entire route. But the alert page and the project page seem to have conflicting language. 

It's the former of the two, @jajuan. It's like Ashland.... it runs to Irving Park until a about 12a-12:30a, then the rest only go to North/Clark. The buses will travel from Howard/McCormick to Fullerton/Halsted until about 7p, then travel from Howard/McCormick to Western until Lincoln's regular termination time(which I believe was between 7:30p-8p).

[Busjack]

18 minutes ago, jajuan said:

while before that it was implied that the route as a whole would be operating under those new hours

I don't think it was.

It is clear that both refer to an "extension."

Andre had mentioned that this required only 2 more buses, which formerly were pullins from 49B.

Also, weren't you the one who said riders would understand short lines? Well, they have one until 9:28 a.m.

[Busjack]

4 minutes ago, sw4400 said:

The buses will travel from Howard/McCormick to Fullerton/Halsted until about 7p, then travel from Howard/McCormick to Western until Lincoln's regular termination time(which I believe was between 7:30p-8p).

The issue is more 6 a,m. to 9:30 a.m., as I posted immediately after I got the message that you did. But it is still the same idea.

[jajuan]

3 minutes ago, Busjack said:

I don't think it was.

It is clear that both refer to an "extension."

Andre had mentioned that this required only 2 more buses, which formerly were pullins from 49B.

Also, weren't you the one who said riders would understand short lines? Well, they have one until 9:28 a.m.

Yes both refer to an extension, but before the actual alert there appeared to be ambiguity around what the service time applied to. There was no explicit statement of service north of the Western Brown Line being unaffected as given in the alert. And the newspapers didn't exactly help by putting it out there that service as a whole was 10 AM-7 PM weekdays only.

[Busjack]

3 minutes ago, jajuan said:

Yes both refer to an extension, but before the actual alert there appeared to be ambiguity around what the service time applied to. There was no explicit statement of service north of the Western Brown Line being unaffected as given in the alert. And the newspapers didn't exactly help by putting it out there that service as a whole was 10 AM-7 PM weekdays only.

Do you really expect they were going to cut 4 hours out of the existing 11 schedule, and sneak it by without the usual pretense of a public hearing?

[jajuan]

15 minutes ago, Busjack said:

Do you really expect they were going to cut 4 hours out of the existing 11 schedule, and sneak it by without the usual pretense of a public hearing?

Look before we turned this into some dragged out unnecessary debate, I'm actually glad to find I read that wrong and the papers screwed up on the details. But it still wouldn't be the first time they've shaved hours somewhere without going through one of their pretend hearings, or did we forget the 151 owl elimination dropped last minute, like maybe a week and half before the pick it was instituted went into effect through on board pick change notices, with no such hearing? At least not a hearing that I can recall. That would be about the time they also yanked #33 with no hearing.

[Busjack]

29 minutes ago, jajuan said:

 At least not a hearing that I can recall. That would be about the time they also yanked #33 with no hearing.

That wasn't the case, as there was a hearing on the whole Crowd Reduction Plan, and 33 was a contract route.Only complaints that seemed to come out of that hearing was on #11.

And I guess you assume Rahm would tee off 50th Ward Ald. Debra Silverstein, just to placate 47th Ward Ald. Pawar,

[jajuan]

2 minutes ago, Busjack said:

That wasn't the case, as there was a hearing on the whole Crowd Reduction Plan, and 33 was a contract route.Only complaints that seemed to come out of that hearing was on #11.

And I guess you assume Rahm would tee off 50th Ward Ald. Debra Silverstein, just to placate 47th Ward Ald. Pawar,

Oh for the love of.....dude I asked one question which answered got answered by sw's post, and also I acknowledged that I was in error on the details about earlier communications. So can we let this go already. Geez lol