Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Anthony Devera

two-way buses on narrow streets

Recommended Posts

I have heard many people complain about Route 96 on Lunt because Lunt is a very narrow street. The best alternative to Lunt appears to be Pratt, which would be advantageous because not only is it much wider than Lunt, but the route would be much better spaced, as it would be farther from Touhy (290) while not being too close to Devon (155). I definitely agree that moving Route 96 to Pratt would be a good move, but unfortunately it does not seem like CTA wants to do anything like that, as it keeps Route 96 the same in the North Shore Coordination Plan.

I also notice that Route 2 going in both directions on E 60th St is a similar situation. Although Route 2 runs peak-only, in the morning peak it goes in the opposite direction on 60th St as routes 171 and 172. I have seen two buses trying to pass each other on 60th, and it seems like the drivers have a hard time. I think the morning peak Route 2 should run westbound via E 59th St rather than 60th. 59th is not too far from 60th, and it already has existing bus stops currently used by the 171, 172, and 192.

If there are any other examples of two-way buses on narrow streets, feel free to post them below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anthony Devera said:

I have heard many people complain about Route 96 on Lunt because Lunt is a very narrow street. The best alternative to Lunt appears to be Pratt, which would be advantageous because not only is it much wider than Lunt, but the route would be much better spaced, as it would be farther from Touhy (290) while not being too close to Devon (155). I definitely agree that moving Route 96 to Pratt would be a good move, but unfortunately it does not seem like CTA wants to do anything like that, as it keeps Route 96 the same in the North Shore Coordination Plan.

I also notice that Route 2 going in both directions on E 60th St is a similar situation. Although Route 2 runs peak-only, in the morning peak it goes in the opposite direction on 60th St as routes 171 and 172. I have seen two buses trying to pass each other on 60th, and it seems like the drivers have a hard time. I think the morning peak Route 2 should run westbound via E 59th St rather than 60th. 59th is not too far from 60th, and it already has existing bus stops currently used by the 171, 172, and 192.

If there are any other examples of two-way buses on narrow streets, feel free to post them below.

I wouldn't  say the buses on 60th have a hard time passing each other.  Granted 60th is narrow.  It's just a slowing down to make sure there is clearance.  Perhaps the city should designate 60th as a one way EB as 59th is a one way WB.  Then the 59 would have to go west from Stony Island  either on Midwy Plaisance or on 59th between  Stony Island and Woodlawn. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A similar issue came up in the early 2000s with regard to the U of C routes (171, 172) and Evanston (205 when it was on Ridge before it was swapped with 201). Originally, the U of C routes were run with Pace 96" buses that were sold to CTA. Next, the solicitation was for 96" wide low floor buses, which apparently weren't available, so CTA purchased the Optimas, which were 99" buses, and apparently disasters. In that CTA operates standard buses on 171, 172, and 201 indicates that it can be done.

14 hours ago, artthouwill said:

Perhaps the city should designate 60th as a one way EB as 59th is a one way WB.  Then the 59 would have to go west from Stony Island  either on Midwy Plaisance or on 59th between  Stony Island and Woodlawn. 

EB and WB Midway Plaisance are already one way, so that would only clog traffic worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Anthony Devera said:

I have heard many people complain about Route 96 on Lunt because Lunt is a very narrow street. The best alternative to Lunt appears to be Pratt, which would be advantageous because not only is it much wider than Lunt, but the route would be much better spaced, as it would be farther from Touhy (290) while not being too close to Devon (155). I definitely agree that moving Route 96 to Pratt would be a good move, but unfortunately it does not seem like CTA wants to do anything like that, as it keeps Route 96 the same in the North Shore Coordination Plan.

I also notice that Route 2 going in both directions on E 60th St is a similar situation. Although Route 2 runs peak-only, in the morning peak it goes in the opposite direction on 60th St as routes 171 and 172. I have seen two buses trying to pass each other on 60th, and it seems like the drivers have a hard time. I think the morning peak Route 2 should run westbound via E 59th St rather than 60th. 59th is not too far from 60th, and it already has existing bus stops currently used by the 171, 172, and 192.

If there are any other examples of two-way buses on narrow streets, feel free to post them below.

On your Route #96 point. That was already discussed and the reasons for that one is the folks living along Pratt west of primarily Clark but possibly more primarily Ridge Blvd historically did not want transit buses running along the street and still don't today. This is why whenever the 155 has had to do a detour either due to construction or some type of festival, the buses from the #155 travel all the way to Lunt instead of running along Pratt which is of course wider and closer to Devon than Lunt is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Busjack said:

A similar issue came up in the early 2000s with regard to the U of C routes (171, 172) and Evanston (205 when it was on Ridge before it was swapped with 201). Originally, the U of C routes were run with Pace 96" buses that were sold to CTA. Next, the solicitation was for 96" wide low floor buses, which apparently weren't available, so CTA purchased the Optimas, which were 99" buses, and apparently disasters. In that CTA operates standard buses on 171, 172, and 201 indicates that it can be done.

EB and WB Midway Plaisance are already one way, so that would only clog traffic worse.

Not really.  The 59 only operates at on the Miway with no stops.  Cerainlycould stage and rate WB on 59th,though I think 60th is just fine. Nothing wrong it making 50th one way EB only though.  I dont recommend buses stopping on the Medway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, artthouwill said:

 Then the 59 would have to go west from Stony Island  either on Midwy Plaisance or on 59th between  Stony Island and Woodlawn. 

@jajuan's comment immediately above reminds me that 59 is is a similar situation. 59 is on 61st Street east of State since the streetcar days. undoubtedly because 59th-Midway-60th were boulevards.I don't know how much business it picks up on 61st now that that part of Woodlawn has been redeveloped, but it was never intended to serve the Midway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

Not really.  The 59 only operates at on the Miway with no stops.  Cerainlycould stage and rate WB on 59th,though I think 60th is just fine. Nothing wrong it making 50th one way EB only though.  I dont recommend buses stopping on the Medway. 

As I just indicated above, you are wrong (except to turn around east of Dorchester). Schedule brochure. Stop list.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×