2016 South Side Service Changes

[andrethebusman]

Much simpler answer - somebody ran the simulations and decided that you could save a few payroll hours per day by having those routes at 103rd. 29 especially saved them payroll hours, since many State runs work a half on another route, particularly 111 and 115. Since these all end at 95th, you save money by not having to have drivers riding between relief points. 6 is less of a savings, but I imagine they save some by having drivers ride 28 to 67th to make reliefs instead of 79 to South Shore. Remember that in CTA's current thinking, since schedule making is strictly by computer, if they can tweak one run on a street and save 5 minutes payroll, they do it.

[jajuan]

56 minutes ago, andrethebusman said:

Much simpler answer - somebody ran the simulations and decided that you could save a few payroll hours per day by having those routes at 103rd. 29 especially saved them payroll hours, since many State runs work a half on another route, particularly 111 and 115. Since these all end at 95th, you save money by not having to have drivers riding between relief points. 6 is less of a savings, but I imagine they save some by having drivers ride 28 to 67th to make reliefs instead of 79 to South Shore. Remember that in CTA's current thinking, since schedule making is strictly by computer, if they can tweak one run on a street and save 5 minutes payroll, they do it.

Well we already know that the relief point wouldn't change after the extension to 115th if the 4 stayed at 77th. Also the service seems that it will probably be something like every other bus operating to 115th if one wanted to go into an exercise of translating CTA's "certain buses extended to 115th". So the question becomes given the latter, how would swapping 29 back to 77th for the 4 save any money on payroll in light of what you also said about the current set up that many of the runs on 29 also work on other routes that also terminate at 95th Red Line station, and all of which are also assigned to 103rd?

[MetroShadow]

On August 16, 2016 at 10:00 AM, andrethebusman said:

Much simpler answer - somebody ran the simulations and decided that you could save a few payroll hours per day by having those routes at 103rd. 29 especially saved them payroll hours, since many State runs work a half on another route, particularly 111 and 115. Since these all end at 95th, you save money by not having to have drivers riding between relief points. 6 is less of a savings, but I imagine they save some by having drivers ride 28 to 67th to make reliefs instead of 79 to South Shore. Remember that in CTA's current thinking, since schedule making is strictly by computer, if they can tweak one run on a street and save 5 minutes payroll, they do it.

Is there anything that HASTUS Can't do?!

[Busjack]

8 minutes ago, MetroShadow said:

Is there anything that HASTUS Can't do?!

Cure bus bunching.

I don't know if it can simulate it.

[MetroShadow]

22 hours ago, Busjack said:

Cure bus bunching.

I don't know if it can simulate it.

 

A resounding "hell no" would suffice. Sim City, maybe.

[Busjack]

23 minutes ago, MetroShadow said:

A resounding "hell no" would suffice. Sim City, maybe.

But somehow you would have to program that for a population explosion in Lakeview, Ukrainian Village, and Little Village, and a toxic dump on much of the south side. Of course, I haven't loaded it into a computer since about 2000.

The serious reason I brought it up is that Pace claims that it uses the ITS data when it tweaks schedules by 5 or 10 minutes or adds recovery time. Obviously, it is now using Trapeze for both scheduling and the ITS. I wonder if CTA has made a similar connection.

[MetroShadow]

19 hours ago, Busjack said:

But somehow you would have to program that for a population explosion in Lakeview, Ukrainian Village, and Little Village, and a toxic dump on much of the south side. Of course, I haven't loaded it into a computer since about 2000.

The serious reason I brought it up is that Pace claims that it uses the ITS data when it tweaks schedules by 5 or 10 minutes or adds recovery time. Obviously, it is now using Trapeze for both scheduling and the ITS. I wonder if CTA has made a similar connection.

 

CTA  and Pace use Hastus (and for Pace, they transfer the scheduling data into ITS), and in order to make schedule changes every pick, you'd have to run ATP (through ITS, Clever Devices, or whichever CAD program) to determine how well your service actually runs against the elements. If a route has terrible OTP, you'd have to run it to see if you can add a few minutes to that particular run. However, giving it too much time will either run into (1) a lot of dead time at a timepoint (since you can't be early), or (2) you'd have to stick another bus in between two runs to maintain frequency. It's a delicate balance (that even SimCity won't figure out).

[Busjack]

17 minutes ago, MetroShadow said:

CTA  and Pace use Hastus (and for Pace, they transfer the scheduling data into ITS), and in order to make schedule changes every pick,

Assuming that, accordingly, the scheduling information the RTA gets is from the same program (Hastus) used by CTA and Pace, why is the RTA planner site so messed up when Google Transit is dependable?

17 minutes ago, MetroShadow said:

However, giving it too much time will either run into (1) a lot of dead time at a timepoint (since you can't be early),

That's essentially how Pace operates. I've been on buses that, based on my calculation from the timetable and observation of when the run usually passes my point of departure, are 4 minutes late, but when they get to the next time point (such as a Metra station en route, but not where it is supposed to connect with a train) the bus still sits for 5 minutes. Usually there is a curbside niche where the bus waits, but I have also seen buses waiting in the middle of the street (where the center lane is marked off with double yellow lines) on several routes.

Of course, Pace is a different situation than CTA, in that basically only routes 270, 290, and 352 have a frequency that could result in routine bus bunching. All they can do is have an accurate schedule for buses that run on a 20,* 30 or 60 minute interval.

______

*Such as I mentioning that the travel time on the new 250 schedule stretches out west of Evanston in the p.m. rush.

[MetroShadow]

4 minutes ago, Busjack said:

Assuming that, accordingly, the scheduling information the RTA gets is from the same program (Hastus) used by CTA and Pace, why is the RTA planner site so messed up when Google Transit is dependable?

That's essentially how Pace operates. I've been on buses that, based on my calculation from the timetable and observation of how the run usually passes my point of departure, are 4 minutes late, but when they get to the next time point (such as a Metra station en route, but not where it is supposed to connect with a train) the bus still sits for 5 minutes. Usually there is a curbside niche where the bus waits, but I have also seen buses waiting in the middle of the street (where the center lane is marked off with double yellow lines) on several routes.

Of course, Pace is a different situation than CTA, in that basically only routes 270, 290, and 352 have a frequency that could result in routine bus bunching. All they can do is have an accurate schedule for buses that run on a 20,* 30 or 60 minute interval.

______

*Such as I mentioning that the travel time on the new 250 schedule stretches out west of Evanston.

 

To answer the first question, the RTA trip planner is a bit of a lost cause (still a work in progress).

The second statement (re: metra connections), it depends on the route, and it really depends if the holdover time is in the public timetable versus the HASTUS run sheet/supervisor guide. Yes, you could be four minutes late, but you could very well hold at Des Plaines (assuming that is your next point) until that time passes. Basically, any route that your frequency (peak or otherwise) is 15 minutes or less, you won't need a schedule (you'll also have bunching as a result). Agencies tend to look at a "frequent network" as one without a need or cause for a timetable (of course, the driver is still required to make their timepoints) and you know that a core network is supposed to give the impression that you don't need one.

Some cases, like Austin's Cap Metro, have express buses that (inbound) will hold to a schedule until it hits the freeway, or (outbound) hold a schedule until it hits the freeway. At that point, the buses are required to "make best time" meaning you could be ahead of the schedule by the end of your route. It is indicative of Pace, less so of CTA.

[andrethebusman]

Basically, crowding on CTA buses is rarely because of inadequate service. Mostly it is due to gaps caused by late buses. If you don't want to add a bus to a route, simply slow down the schedule and make the interval longer. CTA's problem is that they seem to have a problem recognizing that traffic congestion is getting worse and worse, and there is no way you will be able to do anything about that except to slow down the buses to what is actually possible. There was a major effort in the early 70's to "speed up" routes, as it was though at the time that since a 5307 was capable of faster acceleration and higher speed than a propane, you could have the buses run faster. However, since that time, congestion has probably increased exponentially. Maybe it is time to accept that acceleration and speed no longer have much to do with how long it actually takes to go from point A to point B.

[TaylorTank1229]

I saw this while downtown earlier, for #4.

[Busjack]

5 minutes ago, TaylorTank1229 said:

I saw this while downtown earlier, for #4.

I still had to blow it up to see the "and Cottage Grove/115."

Indicates alternate (unless successive) terminals, but not when for each.

[cta5658]

21 minutes ago, TaylorTank1229 said:

I saw this while downtown earlier, for #4.

I noticed the #26 says "South to 103rd/Stony Island" when Southbound buses usually terminates at 106th/Mackinaw Has CTA extended the #26 to Stony/103rd or was that inadvertent?

[TaylorTank1229]

17 minutes ago, Busjack said:

I still had to blow it up to see the "and Cottage Grove/115."

Indicates alternate (unless successive) terminals, but not when for each.

It may be a possibility that 115th trips could run during the same hours of 95th trips don't you think?

[garmon757]

23 minutes ago, Busjack said:

I still had to blow it up to see the "and Cottage Grove/115."

Indicates alternate (unless successive) terminals, but not when for each.

I don't like the fact that N4 terminates at 63rd. Why not extend it to 95th Red Line or something? I just don't get that at all.

[TaylorTank1229]

2 minutes ago, garmon757 said:

I don't like the fact that N4 terminates at 63rd. Why not extend it to 95th Red Line or something? I just don't get that at all.

I say they should either extended owl service to either 79th or 95th.

[Busjack]

23 minutes ago, TaylorTank1229 said:

I say they should either extended owl service to either 79th or 95th.

But as mentioned before, you need a justification for it. The apparent justification for the original route to 59th seems the U of C Hospitals. Because some people complained, it was extended to the Green Line.

[Busjack]

35 minutes ago, TaylorTank1229 said:

It may be a possibility that 115th trips could run during the same hours of 95th trips don't you think?

Undoubtedly, and maybe I was unjustified in thinking that the sign should say every 5-10 minutes to 95th/Cottage and 10-20 minutes to 115th or CSU.

[artthouwill]

52 minutes ago, Busjack said:

Undoubtedly, and maybe I was unjustified in thinking that the sign should say every 5-10 minutes to 95th/Cottage and 10-20 minutes to 115th or CSU.

We would need to see a  SB bus stop with only the 4 on it for better clarity

  Would probably need to see a bus stop for the 4 and the 115 south of 95th as  well. 

[andrethebusman]

26 will officially go to 103/Stony. 4 to 115 start 5am (6 Sat, 7 Sun), end 10pm. More or less alternate except 6PM-10PM when all to 115, Route via Cottage-115-Front (sit N of 115)-114-King-111-Cottage

[ChicagoNova]

13 hours ago, cta5658 said:

I noticed the #26 says "South to 103rd/Stony Island" when Southbound buses usually terminates at 106th/Mackinaw Has CTA extended the #26 to Stony/103rd or was that inadvertent?

Just a simple error. They may have been thinking about J14.

[Sam92]

3 hours ago, andrethebusman said:

26 will officially go to 103/Stony. 4 to 115 start 5am (6 Sat, 7 Sun), end 10pm. More or less alternate except 6PM-10PM when all to 115, Route via Cottage-115-Front (sit N of 115)-114-King-111-Cottage

Why the change to 103rd and how is it going to get there? 

[BusHunter]

You would think something east would serve that area. It must be they feel they are wasting the pullout time. So might as well put  it to good use.

[jajuan]

19 hours ago, cta5658 said:

I noticed the #26 says "South to 103rd/Stony Island" when Southbound buses usually terminates at 106th/Mackinaw Has CTA extended the #26 to Stony/103rd or was that inadvertent?

Good eye. I think someone who keyed in the info into the software that generates CTA's signs simply made an error. That person may have had the Jeffery Jump on their mind when keying in the #26 info. 

[Busjack]

4 minutes ago, jajuan said:

Good eye. I think someone who keyed in the info into the software that generates CTA's signs simply made an error. That person may have had the Jeffery Jump on their mind when keying in the #26 info. 

Probably similar to the 67/79/71st bus.

I had thought that someone here was citing off the schedule database in the CTA computer, but undoubtedly this is just another mess up.