Fall Pick 2016

[jajuan]

Looks like at least one of the glitches I reported about Bus Tracker not showing routes with notable route changes has been fixed. 95E and 95W now removed from the route pull down menu with 95 now shown as an option. It does appear on the map with N5 routing north of 92nd Street attached (from when late night 95s become N5s). Examination shows that it's glitched though with WB stops saying no service is scheduled and no WB buses appearing. The EB side works though. 4, 124 and 151 are still totally glitched up with the errors of this morning by still not having route maps showing up on the Tracker map. Tracker still has the only the buses appearing with no routes or stops appearing for those three. 

[andrethebusman]

There are still two major issues with 95. Most buses are showing 90N to Touhy and 90N to Blue Line destination signs. Apparently a coding error because the new 95 readings were supposed to replace these, but the Luminators were not updated. Much more serious is a Ventra problem. When one logs in on a run that works 95, while the Clever Device shows all the correct info as far as terminal , location, schedule adherence, etc. the Ventra MV shows "invalid route - please use force logon" If you push the button, it does log on, with a "unknown route" code. However, and I can't even conceive how this is possible, as soon as you open a door, it immediately logs off back to the "Invalid route" screen. If you force logon again, it works again, until you close the door, then we are right back to "Invalid route". But this only happens while on 95, works normally while pulling in or out, or if you go to another route. How the Ventra got mixed up with the door controls, I can't even imagine, because otherwise, if there is a Ventra problem and you have to force logon, the logon stays until you log on with another run number. Result is buses running with 90N signs and unable to collect fares. Hopefully this will get corrected at some point...

[Busjack]

7 minutes ago, andrethebusman said:

But this only happens while on 95, works normally while pulling in or out, or if you go to another route. How the Ventra got mixed up with the door controls, I can't even imagine, because otherwise, if there is a Ventra problem and you have to force logon, the logon stays until you log on with another run number.

It seems to get down to that the Ventra has to be connected to the Clever Device to be able to log boarding information into the user's Ventra account, and somehow the Clever Device, not being properly programmed, is resetting the Ventra reader. However, why the door would affect the system is a mystery.

Also, a week has gone by since you last reported this, but it seems like nothing has happened, even though you indicated it shouldn't take too long to recode this.

[Sam92]

19 minutes ago, Busjack said:

It seems to get down to that the Ventra has to be connected to the Clever Device to be able to log boarding information into the user's Ventra account, and somehow the Clever Device, not being properly programmed, is resetting the Ventra reader. However, why the door would affect the system is a mystery.

Also, a week has gone by since you last reported this, but it seems like nothing has happened, even though you indicated it shouldn't take too long to recode this.

I guess programmers really have their hands full because all the updated schedules still aren't posted like they should be

[andrethebusman]

1 hour ago, Busjack said:

It seems to get down to that the Ventra has to be connected to the Clever Device to be able to log boarding information into the user's Ventra account, and somehow the Clever Device, not being properly programmed, is resetting the Ventra reader. However, why the door would affect the system is a mystery.

Also, a week has gone by since you last reported this, but it seems like nothing has happened, even though you indicated it shouldn't take too long to recode this.

I was surprised yesterday, too. CTA is losing money with this Ventra issue. But I guess CTA really does not care. Word at the garage is make sure to register all warm bodies, fare beaters, cheaters, etc. Body count matters for subsidy purposes, not what fares they collect.

[Busjack]

17 minutes ago, andrethebusman said:

I was surprised yesterday, too. CTA is losing money with this Ventra issue. But I guess CTA really does not care. Word at the garage is make sure to register all warm bodies, fare beaters, cheaters, etc. Body count matters for subsidy purposes, not what fares they collect.

It also doesn't seem like the issue is (as when Ventra was first installed), that it is Cubic's fault, so make them pay for it.

The passenger counter equipment in the door wells should register the "warm bodies," but since that is part of the Clever Devices system, may be fouled up, too.

[andrethebusman]

As of 9/15, most buses on 95 now showing proper signs, and Ventra working. I say most, as one still had 90N up, and one was running 95W to Damen/87 WB and 95E to 92/Buffalo EB. Problem was that somebody forgot to program new route 95 into Cubic system (Signs-Ventra), so computer had no idea what was going on...

[Busjack]

2 minutes ago, andrethebusman said:

Problem was that somebody forgot to program new route 95 into Cubic system (Signs-Ventra), so computer had no idea what was going on...

Cubic has next to nothing to do with it. Signs are Luminator, and anything related to the GPS is Clever Devices. Ventra is Cubic,but as I mentioned earlier, the reason it was coming up Invalid Route was again the Clever Devices.

[andrethebusman]

As was explained to me by people who are familiar with how these things work, what happened was that when the new route scheme for 95 was written and uploaded to the Clever Device, it also had to be uploaded to Ventra, and this was not done when it was supposed to be. As a result, the Ventra system would nor recognize a route "95". Why this would cause the system to essentially crash every time when a door was opened, was apparently because Clever Device would be trying to send a route scheme to Ventra saying "I am at such and such a location on such and such a route" and Ventra could not recognize it. So it would default to "please force login". Then when door was closed, Ventra would again get the same message from Clever Device and again default to please force login. Signs problem appears to be much simpler - sign codes were not properly updated, since CTA does reuse sign codes. As time goes on, it becomes more and more apparent just how complex this whole Clever Device/Cubic thing really is.

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, andrethebusman said:

As was explained to me by people who are familiar with how these things work, what happened was that when the new route scheme for 95 was written and uploaded to the Clever Device, it also had to be uploaded to Ventra, and this was not done when it was supposed to be. As a result, the Ventra system would nor recognize a route "95". Why this would cause the system to essentially crash every time when a door was opened, was apparently because Clever Device would be trying to send a route scheme to Ventra saying "I am at such and such a location on such and such a route" and Ventra could not recognize it. So it would default to "please force login". Then when door was closed, Ventra would again get the same message from Clever Device and again default to please force login. Signs problem appears to be much simpler - sign codes were not properly updated, since CTA does reuse sign codes. As time goes on, it becomes more and more apparent just how complex this whole Clever Device/Cubic thing really is.

That does get to it. It sounds similar to the reports (back about 10 years) that even if a driver punched a sign code into the Luminator ODK, the Clever Device would eventually override it.

Of course, the Clever Device incrementally added functions--stop announcement, passenger counters, sending sign codes, Bus Tracker, Ventra, TSP, and most recently the communications system and computerized dispatch.

[Sam92]

On 9/15/2016 at 0:27 AM, andrethebusman said:

As of 9/15, most buses on 95 now showing proper signs, and Ventra working. I say most, as one still had 90N up, and one was running 95W to Damen/87 WB and 95E to 92/Buffalo EB. Problem was that somebody forgot to program new route 95 into Cubic system (Signs-Ventra), so computer had no idea what was going on...

So now that that's solved do you have any idea of how the signs work as far as the last 95's turning into N5's.  Where do they change? 

[andrethebusman]

The way it is SUPPOSED to work, leave Damen/87 with a 95 to 92/Commercial sign, change there to N5 to 69/Red Line sign.

[Sam92]

12 minutes ago, andrethebusman said:

The way it is SUPPOSED to work, leave Damen/87 with a 95 to 92/Commercial sign, change there to N5 to 69/Red Line sign.

Mystery solved!! Do the stop for a sec or keep going? 

[MetroShadow]

2 hours ago, Sam92 said:

Mystery solved!! Do the stop for a sec or keep going? 

They normally flip over at the end of the route, when the bus reaches its terminal (or "not in service" if there's a layover or deadhead). 

Basically the foul up as confirmed is what the CD gives you: planners/bus ops are supposed to upload the codes prior to the start of the pick/run; and the errors occur if your input is listed incorrectly. GIGO.

PACE has roughly the same process, except they rarely make adjustments. 

[Busjack]

8 minutes ago, MetroShadow said:

They normally flip over at the end of the route, when the bus reaches its terminal (or "not in service" if there's a layover or deadhead). 

Basically the foul up as confirmed is what the CD gives you: planners/bus ops are supposed to upload the codes prior to the start of the pick/run; and the errors occur if your input is listed incorrectly. GIGO.

PACE has roughly the same process, except they rarely make adjustments. 

There's that error, but also the problem previously discussed that N5, according to its schedule, starts at 95/Red Line, and also that BusTracker has the 95 very light blue line to 69th, and the bus does not flip to N5 on BusTracler until it starts the southbound trip.

As I indicated above, one way would be to split N5 into N95 between 95-Red Line and 92-Commercial and leave N5 (or N71) between 69-Red Line and 92 Commercial, thereby preserving the 92-Commercial  terminal, and noting on each schedule that one is interlined with the other.

[jajuan]

20 hours ago, andrethebusman said:

The way it is SUPPOSED to work, leave Damen/87 with a 95 to 92/Commercial sign, change there to N5 to 69/Red Line sign.

Pretty much as I hypothesized based on my own BusTracker observations despite the coding foul ups. 

[jajuan]

17 hours ago, Busjack said:

There's that error, but also the problem previously discussed that N5, according to its schedule, starts at 95/Red Line, and also that BusTracker has the 95 very light blue line to 69th, and the bus does not flip to N5 on BusTracler until it starts the southbound trip.

As I indicated above, one way would be to split N5 into N95 between 95-Red Line and 92-Commercial and leave N5 (or N71) between 69-Red Line and 92 Commercial, thereby preserving the 92-Commercial  terminal, and noting on each schedule that one is interlined with the other.

That may be so about the N5, but with the way CTA presented the 95 in addition to the notations about N5 trips on the 95's schedule, they'd want the switch over from those final 95 trips of the night to be 92nd/Commercial rather than 95th/Red Line since the 95 was presented as its final full* trip beyond the Red Line to be at 12:30.

*Full in this case being near the vicinity of the day/evening 92nd/Buffalo terminal since Commecial and Buffalo are only a few blocks apart. 

[Busjack]

10 minutes ago, jajuan said:

That may be so about the N5, but with the way CTA presented the 95 in addition to the notations about N5 trips on the 95's schedule, they'd want the switch over from those final 95 trips of the night to be 92nd/Commercial rather than 95th/Red Line since the 95 was presented as its final full* trip beyond the Red Line to be at 12:30.

*Full in this case being near the vicinity of the day/evening 92nd/Buffalo terminal since Commecial and Buffalo are only a few blocks apart. 

Thus indicating the ambiguity, and the basis of my suggestion to split the route designation between N95 and N5.

[jajuan]

2 minutes ago, Busjack said:

Thus indicating the ambiguity, and the basis of my suggestion to split the route designation between N95 and N5.

It might seem ambiguous, but the thinking is really much more basic if you think about it in terms of passenger behavior. Doing the flip at Commercial on those final 95 trips tells the passenger they can stay on the bus if going past the Red Line, while having the buses signed as ;95 to Red Line' for a sign flip to 'N5 to 69th/Red Line" leaves the impression they have to leave the bus. Granted it's not a perfect solution, but it's the only logical one that comes to mind to help explain why they planned it so that sign changes are done at 92nd/Commercial instead of the Red Line.

[Busjack]

28 minutes ago, jajuan said:

It might seem ambiguous, but the thinking is really much more basic if you think about it in terms of passenger behavior.

But doesn't do any good if a passenger is waiting for the N5 on 95th.

While the 95 schedule says what trips continue as N5, there is nothing on the N5 schedule to tell riders on 95th to board a 95 bus, which will continue as a N5.

I think you are still dwelling too much on the 95 schedule, and not noting the deficiency on the N5 schedule.

[Sam92]

If it was up to me those 95 that turn into N5's would display a sign similar to N62 or N9  which would be 95 to 69th/Red Line via Lakefront. 

[Busjack]

1 minute ago, Sam92 said:

If it was up to me those 95 that turn into N5's would display a sign similar to N62 or N9  which would be 95 to 69th/Red Line via Lakefront. 

I'll go with that, although the notation should still be on the N5 schedule.

[jajuan]

On 9/20/2016 at 5:56 PM, Busjack said:

But doesn't do any good if a passenger is waiting for the N5 on 95th.

While the 95 schedule says what trips continue as N5, there is nothing on the N5 schedule to tell riders on 95th to board a 95 bus, which will continue as a N5.

I think you are still dwelling too much on the 95 schedule, and not noting the deficiency on the N5 schedule.

Actually no. I wasn't thinking of either schedule in my last post beyond the fact that we know both routes are interlined at night and in the early mornings. I was speaking strictly on possible perception of passenger behavior by CTA as one of a number possible explanations for why they decided to have bus destination readings wait until Commercial to flip route readings instead of doing so at the Red Line. So your assumption about dwelling on any schedules would be incorrect sir. But if we do want to speak on schedules in detail. yes granted the N5 schedule side of things got overlooked as far as telling riders that the first few N5 buses departing 95th Red Line are no longer marked as N5s along 93rd and 95th Streets but are instead marked as 95s with the flip side true of the last few approaching 95th Red Line. But with the 95's schedule indicating that being the case, it ultimately ends up not mattering from either side of the debate in the sense that south side riders along the 93rd and 95th leg still having a bus in service at the same times that they've been able to get them before the recombining of 95E and 95W especially if one considers that it's probably fair to say that fewer riders who board closer to the Red Line are staying on the bus for a destination north of 92nd Street. 

[Busjack]

32 minutes ago, jajuan said:

it ultimately ends up not mattering from either side of the debate in the sense that south side riders along the 93rd and 95th leg still having a bus in service at the same times that they've been able to get them before the recombining of 95E and 95W especially if one considers that it's probably fair to say that fewer riders who board closer to the Red Line are staying on the bus for a destination north of 92nd Street. 

It only matters if riders are in fact confused.

One thing that does help is that the map (in a Pace notice) indicates that 95 EB and N5 use the same stop, so if some bus shows up there at 11:50, a prospective passenger can ask if that is it.

[Busjack]

Re: stuff being solved, BusTracker apparently hasn't: only 2 WB and 4 EB on 95.

However, the light blue line no longer goes north of 91st  and Buffalo.