2016 South Side Service Changes

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, Mr.cta85 said:

So for the "new" 95th street route apparerantly the new signs dont work cause I saw 2 buses with the 90N signs at the red line. You would think since they knew the 95 route would start Sept 4th that they would have the proper display signs installed and ready to go lol. I'm sure they'll fix this problem though.

Between that and the BusTracker errors, looks like someone failed to program the various Clever Device systems, and maybe the Luminator, too.

[jajuan]

On 9/4/2016 at 3:46 PM, Juniorz said:

Here's a quick refresher, Green Line ( and Rail picks) begin October 3rd!

Wouldn't that be October 2nd this time around since that's a Sunday?

[artthouwill]

1 hour ago, jajuan said:

Wouldn't that be October 2nd this time around since that's a Sunday?

October 3rd begins the new improvements on the Green Line.  Only rush hour frequency is affected.   I thought rail picks started on Sundays as well. 

[jajuan]

57 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

October 3rd begins the new improvements on the Green Line.  Only rush hour frequency is affected.   I thought rail picks started on Sundays as well. 

Oh yeah October 3rd for the Green Line. But for the other rail lines shouldn't it be the 2nd? And I just noticed from the map above that the extension of the 26 was announced. It was a two phase improvement for that route. We just didn't talk about the extension all that much. So that made it easy for a lot of us to forget and mistakenly conclude initially that those bus stop signs were errors. 

[Sam92]

1 hour ago, jajuan said:

Oh yeah October 3rd for the Green Line. But for the other rail lines shouldn't it be the 2nd? And I just noticed from the map above that the extension of the 26 was announced. It was a two phase improvement for that route. We just didn't talk about the extension all that much. So that made it easy for a lot of us to forget and mistakenly conclude initially that those bus stop signs were errors. 

The 26 extension to stony wasn't announced at first.  Nobody forgot.  That map is different from the one that got posted back in may or whenever we first found out all of this was happening 

[Busjack]

At first, I thought they had brought back the 95 83rd-95th, but,as jajuan indicated with respect to N5s becoming 95s, BusTracker must have combined the routes:

[andrethebusman]

Major, major coding errors on 95. If you log on, you get 90N to Touhy WB, 90N to Blue Line EB, 95 to Red Line on trips being relieved at the Ryan, 95E to Stony Island/95th on pullin trips. Plus something major wrong with Ventra on 95. Drops out (goes to "incorrect route info, please force log in" whenever doors are opened or closed (can't even begin to explain that one...)

Expect lot of "ghosts" on 95.

[Busjack]

11 minutes ago, andrethebusman said:

...

Expect lot of "ghosts" on 95.

However, as illustrated above, the BusTracker map shows an adequate number of buses. Apparently a half adzed programming job was done (or an 1/8th adzed).

[Busjack]

Finally, someone exercised some editorial discretion. Congrats.

[jajuan]

4 hours ago, Busjack said:

At first, I thought they had brought back the 95 83rd-95th, but,as jajuan indicated with respect to N5s becoming 95s, BusTracker must have combined the routes:

In regards to that and what Andre mentioned of coding errors, Bus Tracker was identifying some buses north of 92nd/Commercial as 95s. Either '95 to Red Line' or '95 to 92nd/Commercial' depending on direction. I'm guessing destination signs weren't making the relevant change at 92nd/Commercial. N5 buses not tied to the 95 were appearing as N5s.

[Busjack]

45 minutes ago, jajuan said:

N5 buses not tied to the 95 were appearing as N5s.

There still is a separate map line for N5. Of course, nothing on it this time of day. I guess one would have to be up overnight to see it, as well as in South Chicago whether an N5 95th Red Line sign changed to 95 87-Damen, but given that Andre said the destination signs are all messed up, one won't be able to verify that for a while. The most expected thing, given angst over "terminals" is that buses would leave 69th as 95 87-Damen, but the thing that should be done is not show that sign until the bus reaches 92nd.

Come to think about it, I don't recall a comparable instance of a bus changing route numbers en route. For instance, 71 isn't interlined with N5.

[Busjack]

7 hours ago, andrethebusman said:

90N to Touhy WB, 90N to Blue Line

Thinking this over, since 90N has been canceled for several years now, someone must have thought that those addresses had been cleared from the Luminator box program, but obviously they were not.

[Sam92]

2 minutes ago, Busjack said:

Thinking this over, since 90N has been canceled for several years now, someone must have thought that those addresses had been cleared from the Luminator box program, but obviously they were not.

Told y'all this in another post lol.  There are still Jumps going around with the old 14 Jeffery express sign 

[jajuan]

4 hours ago, Busjack said:

There still is a separate map line for N5. Of course, nothing on it this time of day. I guess one would have to be up overnight to see it, as well as in South Chicago whether an N5 95th Red Line sign changed to 95 87-Damen, but given that Andre said the destination signs are all messed up, one won't be able to verify that for a while. The most expected thing, given angst over "terminals" is that buses would leave 69th as 95 87-Damen, but the thing that should be done is not show that sign until the bus reaches 92nd.

Come to think about it, I don't recall a comparable instance of a bus changing route numbers en route. For instance, 71 isn't interlined with N5.

Well I happened to be up late due to my work schedule which is why I was able to state that some of the apparent N5s were still marked as 95s as far as the Bus Tracker was concerned. At any rate, the 95's schedule hints that the signs are supposed to change at 92nd/Commercial. Hence all the N notations at that time point referencing the N5. All the Bus Tracker kinks from Sunday and yesterday appear to have been worked out by the way with routes working correctly now. So it may be the related coding bugs with all the buses' Clever Devices have been worked out.

[Busjack]

7 minutes ago, jajuan said:

Well I happened to be up late due to my work schedule which is why I was able to state that some of the apparent N5s were still marked as 95s as far as the Bus Tracker was concerned. At any rate, the 95's schedule hints that the signs are supposed to change at 92nd/Commercial. Hence all the N notations at that time point referencing the N5. 

That much is given. However, the N5 schedule has those trips as N5, with both schedules having arrivals at 95th/Red Line at 4:05, 4:37, 5:08, 5:37. While the 95 schedule says they come from N5, the N5 schedule doesn't say that they continue to 87-Damen.

The paper isn't conclusive, and given my mention of terminals* and the N5s showing up as 95 on BusTracker, the inference is that they leave as 95s from 69 (unless you are saying you saw them as 95s only south of 92nd at 4 a.m.).

In any event it is sure going to be confusing to passengers unless they actually do flip from N5 to 95 at 92nd.

____________

*B.S. about how the 127 Circulator couldn't flip signs, and about Pace 410/411 terminal having to be moved to the food court entrance because the signs didn't flip at Penny's.

[jajuan]

6 minutes ago, Busjack said:

That much is given. However, the N5 schedule has those trips as N5, with both schedules having arrivals at 95th/Red Line at 4:05, 4:37, 5:08, 5:37. While the 95 schedule says they come from N5, the N5 schedule doesn't say that they continue to 87-Damen.

The paper isn't conclusive, and given my mention of terminals* and the N5s showing up as 95 on BusTracker, the inference is that they leave as 95s from 69 (unless you are saying you saw them as 95s only south of 92nd at 4 a.m.).

In any event it is sure going to be confusing to passengers unless they actually do flip from N5 to 95 at 92nd.

____________

*B.S. about how the 127 Circulator couldn't flip signs, and about Pace 410/411 terminal having to be moved to the food court entrance because the signs didn't flip at Penny's.

I think I said that from the very beginning when I specified BOTH directions in my first post on this sir. My point of bringing up the schedule was to relate the inference that buses coming from 87th/Damen on those final trips of the 95 that buses apparently change from 95 to N5 at 92nd/Commercial and should flip from 95 to N5 accordingly. Those buses displaying as '95 to 92nd/Commercial' instead of '95 to 92nd/Buffalo' seem to lend evidence to that. It would then be the opposite for later trips of N5s that should become the first trips of the 95 to 87th/Damen, a flip from N5 to 95.  The N notices are worded "N - N5 buses arrive/leave at time shown after all. The whole point was the buses apparently might have been showing as 95s at say Jeffery/75th for example because of apparent destination and Clever device coding errors that Andre mentioned and causing the confusion to passengers that I was getting at as you finally got the gist of where I was going. And since we were on the same page, how did this become a back and forth exchange?

[Busjack]

28 minutes ago, jajuan said:

I think I said that from the very beginning when I specified BOTH directions in my first post on this sir. My point of bringing up the schedule was to relate the inference that buses coming from 87th/Damen on those final trips of the 95 that buses apparently change from 95 to N5 at 92nd/Commercial and should flip from 95 to N5 accordingly.

I hadn't gone that far down the timetable, but NB appears only to be the ones that arrive at 92nd at 12:10, 12:40, and 1:10. However, since they are also on the N5 schedule, they should swap at 95th Red Line, not 92-Commercial, or riders at the Red Line won't know that that is the bus that goes to, say, 89th and Commercial.

Basically, I figure what happened is that N5 was always interlined with 95E, but while the current N legends on the 95 schedule make sense to the scheduling dept., whatever the implementation on the Clever Devices and Luminator systems is doesn't seem to make sense to the passengers.

Maybe they can do something on the signs like the Pace 877/888 combo.

[geneking7320]

13 hours ago, andrethebusman said:

Major, major coding errors on 95. If you log on, you get 90N to Touhy WB, 90N to Blue Line EB, 95 to Red Line on trips being relieved at the Ryan, 95E to Stony Island/95th on pullin trips. Plus something major wrong with Ventra on 95. Drops out (goes to "incorrect route info, please force log in" whenever doors are opened or closed (can't even begin to explain that one...)

Expect lot of "ghosts" on 95.

Rode the 95 from 93rd and Jeffery to 95th and Normal this morning. Saw a few buses with the 90N signs in both directions [including the bus I was on].  This afternoon I did see an eastbound 95 with the proper sign. I almost forgot I think that bus was a 79xx Nova.

Edited September 7, 2016 by geneking7320
include

[Sam92]

2 hours ago, Busjack said:

I hadn't gone that far down the timetable, but NB appears only to be the ones that arrive at 92nd at 12:10, 12:40, and 1:10. However, since they are also on the N5 schedule, they should swap at 95th Red Line, not 92-Commercial, or riders at the Red Line won't know that that is the bus that goes to, say, 89th and Commercial.

Basically, I figure what happened is that N5 was always interlined with 95E, but while the current N legends on the 95 schedule make sense to the scheduling dept., whatever the implementation on the Clever Devices and Luminator systems is doesn't seem to make sense to the passengers.

Maybe they can do something on the signs like the Pace 877/888 combo.

Yeah N5/95E were always interlined although there was a 29 state run that would interline at the Dan Ryan as well.  They are also counted together in ridership reports. 

[garmon757]

On September 4, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Mr.cta85 said:

So for the "new" 95th street route apparerantly the new signs dont work cause I saw 2 buses with the 90N signs at the red line. You would think since they knew the 95 route would start Sept 4th that they would have the proper display signs installed and ready to go lol. I'm sure they'll fix this problem though.

 

20 hours ago, andrethebusman said:

Major, major coding errors on 95. If you log on, you get 90N to Touhy WB, 90N to Blue Line EB, 95 to Red Line on trips being relieved at the Ryan, 95E to Stony Island/95th on pullin trips. Plus something major wrong with Ventra on 95. Drops out (goes to "incorrect route info, please force log in" whenever doors are opened or closed (can't even begin to explain that one...)

Expect lot of "ghosts" on 95.

 

20 hours ago, Busjack said:

However, as illustrated above, the BusTracker map shows an adequate number of buses. Apparently a half adzed programming job was done (or an 1/8th adzed).

This is how they're rectifying the issue by coding "3A0" in the system. Also, they haven't changed the bus stop signs on the eastern end of 93rd-95th Streets. 

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, garmon757 said:

This is how they're rectifying the issue by coding "3A0" in the system.

I still think they should clean up the system like Pace, i.e. correct signs for 95 would be something like 0951, 0952, etc. From what you are saying, the correct signs are in the Luminator, but the Clever Device isn't finding it.

From what Andre said about the Ventra reader, anyone get a free ride?

[garmon757]

2 hours ago, Busjack said:

I still think they should clean up the system like Pace, i.e. correct signs for 95 would be something like 0951, 0952, etc. From what you are saying, the correct signs are in the Luminator, but the Clever Device isn't finding it.

From what Andre said about the Ventra reader, anyone get a free ride?

Unless you want CTA to have their routes destinations abbreviated! 

You're correct about the Luminator but yes, they should fix the system. 

I indeed got a free ride yesterday on that route. 

[BusHunter]

This is a wreck on the tracker apps. Transit tracks wasn't even displaying a #31 and #95 was not a route only #95W and #95E. All least they were diplaying correct destinations but I bet the times got all fouled up at the ryan because the bus is doing something the app doesnt understand. Whenever buses turn off the route the trackers lose the bus. I dont know why a bus cant be tracked off route? This is something that Pace is better at.You can sometimes see a #270 for instance at the garage.

[Busjack]

26 minutes ago, garmon757 said:

Unless you want CTA to have their routes destinations abbreviated!

I only referred to the 4 hex digit code, not the sign to which it points.

Since this allows 16 entries per route, if that isn't sufficient, they could use A091 and A092 for X9 for instance, instead of putting them in the 009- group.

I suppose the reason CTA has not cleaned it up is that the Clever Device selects the destination by entering the code, instead of the driver having to scan through a list on a card, but here the Clever Device wasn't selecting the correct destination code.

[Busjack]

9 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

This is a wreck on the tracker apps. Transit tracks wasn't even displaying a #31 and #95 was not a route only #95W and #95E. All least they were diplaying correct destinations but I bet the times got all fouled up at the ryan because the bus is doing something the app doesnt understand. Whenever buses turn off the route the trackers lose the bus. I dont know why a bus cant be tracked off route? This is something that Pace is better at.You can sometimes see a #270 for instance at the garage.

Are you talking about the unofficial trackers? If so, it is the same problem as when maths22's tracker wasn't picking up buses over 8199--if the app doesn't request the correct information in the correct format, it doesn't get it. Just like when we told maths22 to query up to 8324, someone has to tell those developers to update their apps. In that the BusTracker map showed 31 and 95, the problem is not on CTA's end.