Random CTA

[YoungBusLover]

1 hour ago, cta5658 said:

Question, when do you think things will be set in stone for sure?

More than likely the fall pick.

[YoungBusLover]

Can't make this stuff up....

https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/man-arrested-after-trying-to-steal-cta-bus-on-the-northwest-side?fbclid=IwAR0TAaICptNbX9GZ71IIAogrk60atKk7VOv4NffZe0iKZXAv5xzQd8L_cFc

[cityguy426]

When the CTA was planning the construction of the O’Hare branch of the Blue Line, did they ever consider placing a station at Nagle?

[Mr.NewFlyer1051]

10 hours ago, cityguy426 said:

When the CTA was planning the construction of the O’Hare branch of the Blue Line, did they ever consider placing a station at Nagle?

as far as i know no they didn’t but don’t take my word for it i could be wrong but if they did ever make a station there it would be a nice addition to the neighborhood especially since Taft H.S is right there 

[Busjack]

2 hours ago, Mr.NewFlyer1051 said:

as far as i know no they didn’t

My recollection of those times was that rapid transit was suppoed to be rapid, but times have changed,

[artthouwill]

On 7/8/2022 at 7:32 PM, YoungBusLover said:

Yeah we voted to have our relief point moved from 79th to 71st and with some recent developments CSU may kick us out of the 95th Street terminal and both the 3 and 4 may end up going to the 95th Red line.

I can understand CSU wanting CTA out of the 95th and St Lawrence turnaround.   That is the front entrance and the front lawn if Chicago State University.   The school is trying to reinvent its reputation as a commuter school and a low rate college.   While public transit to the university is important, the image of multiple CTA buses at its front door doesn't help their image.  It's not that the school is against public transit as evidence of a new 95th CSU Metra Electric station attests to, , but having a bus turnaround at the front door hurts its image.

For reference. NiU has all of its buses terminate at the Holmes Student Crnter.  At one time, the town routes used the east side of the building and the campus and off campus Student routes used the west side of the HSC.  Then the University closed  Carroll Ave and constructed a turnaround for all of the Huskie Line routes to serve HSC on the west side of HSC, leaving the east side more picturesque.

I don't know if CSU had a plan for incorporating a bus turnaround for CTA in the scheme of the new Metra station bur the only other reasonable places to build is CTA bus turnaround are either at 97th and King Drive or just north of the Secretary of State at 99th and King Drive.   The question is who would pay for it?

The 95th turnaround was closed before because the weight of the buses sunk the pavement and it had to be reinforced.   Is the pavement sinking again?  If so, does CSU want CTA to fool the bill?  Is CTA saying no?

[Busjack]

52 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

I can understand CSU wanting CTA out of the 95th and St Lawrence turnaround.   That is the front entrance and the front lawn if Chicago State University.   The school is trying to reinvent its reputation as a commuter school and a low rate college.   While public transit to the university is important, the image of multiple CTA buses at its front door doesn't help their image.  It's not that the school is against public transit as evidence of a new 95th CSU Metra Electric station attests to, , but having a bus turnaround at the front door hurts its image.

For reference. NiU has all of its buses terminate at the Holmes Student Crnter.  At one time, the town routes used the east side of the building and the campus and off campus Student routes used the west side of the HSC.  Then the University closed  Carroll Ave and constructed a turnaround for all of the Huskie Line routes to serve HSC on the west side of HSC, leaving the east side more picturesque.

I don't know if CSU had a plan for incorporating a bus turnaround for CTA in the scheme of the new Metra station bur the only other reasonable places to build is CTA bus turnaround are either at 97th and King Drive or just north of the Secretary of State at 99th and King Drive.   The question is who would pay for it?

The 95th turnaround was closed before because the weight of the buses sunk the pavement and it had to be reinforced.   Is the pavement sinking again?  If so, does CSU want CTA to fool the bill?  Is CTA saying no?

You had a whole lot of stuff here, but it comes down to the same reasons Yorktown kicked Pace out, and then compromised by building a concrete pad at the bus stop and Pace moving the layover to off the property. The  only alternatives I see that would take into account into account the students' concerns are to build a bus TC at the Metra station, or pull in and immediately out of CSU and then lay over at 94th.

[artthouwill]

5 hours ago, Busjack said:

You had a whole lot of stuff here, but it comes down to the same reasons Yorktown kicked Pace out, and then compromised by building a concrete pad at the bus stop and Pace moving the layover to off the property. The  only alternatives I see that would take into account into account the students' concerns are to build a bus TC at the Metra station, or pull in and immediately out of CSU and then lay over at 94th.

To @YoungBusLover's point, the drivers are trying to avoid laying over at 94th and Cottage Grove for safely reasons which is why 95th Red Line is being floated as a new terminal for the 3 and the 4. I would guess that there would be an alternate proposal for the X4 but I haven't heard it yet.

I certainly agree that incorporating a bus turnaround at the new 95th CSU Metra Station makes the most sense.  Can the school, CTA, and Metra figure out how to get it done?

[rvwnsd]

On 7/16/2022 at 7:50 PM, cityguy426 said:

When the CTA was planning the construction of the O’Hare branch of the Blue Line, did they ever consider placing a station at Nagle?

 

16 hours ago, Mr.NewFlyer1051 said:

as far as i know no they didn’t but don’t take my word for it i could be wrong but if they did ever make a station there it would be a nice addition to the neighborhood especially since Taft H.S is right there 

I grew up near Nagle and the Kennedy Expressway in the 1970's and 1980's. The neighborhood did not want a station because they were afraid it would bring crime to the area. Apparently, criminals couldn't walk or take a bus from Harlem Avenue.

According to this article on dna info a station was planned there, but I don't recall that being the case.

[Busjack]

8 hours ago, rvwnsd said:

 

I grew up near Nagle and the Kennedy Expressway in the 1970's and 1980's. The neighborhood did not want a station because they were afraid it would bring crime to the area. Apparently, criminals couldn't walk or take a bus from Harlem Avenue.

According to this article on dna info a station was planned there, but I don't recall that being the case.

The article is usual transit advocate stuff. Only thing different, with which I agree, is "We need concrete data and statistics." And it definitely "could" not "be modeled on the stop at Montrose Avenue, which features an escalator and staircase from street level to the platform," because it would have to be ADA accessible.

[NewFlyerMCI]

13 hours ago, artthouwill said:

To @YoungBusLover's point, the drivers are trying to avoid laying over at 94th and Cottage Grove for safely reasons which is why 95th Red Line is being floated as a new terminal for the 3 and the 4. I would guess that there would be an alternate proposal for the X4 but I haven't heard it yet.

I certainly agree that incorporating a bus turnaround at the new 95th CSU Metra Station makes the most sense.  Can the school, CTA, and Metra figure out how to get it done?

I don’t imagine they would get it done at all. Metra rarely cooperates anyway (was very surprised to see all three service boards so the $100 regional pass without RTA prompting) but I’d rather CTA just do the obvious thing and send the 3 & 4 to 95th which is the best solution for all parties involved. You have a dedicated layover facility for drivers, the school is still served and the worst issue of space constraints won’t be a problem within the decade (an admittedly long time)

[Busjack]

4 minutes ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

I don’t imagine they would get it done at all. Metra rarely cooperates anyway

They are cooperating on redoing the Harvey TC, but it's always an issue of money. If the state capital plan comes through with it.....

[artthouwill]

2 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

I don’t imagine they would get it done at all. Metra rarely cooperates anyway (was very surprised to see all three service boards so the $100 regional pass without RTA prompting) but I’d rather CTA just do the obvious thing and send the 3 & 4 to 95th which is the best solution for all parties involved. You have a dedicated layover facility for drivers, the school is still served and the worst issue of space constraints won’t be a problem within the decade (an admittedly long time)

I think the space constraints are the problem,  especially if you are going to put three additional routes at 95th.  I have maintained the 3 may fit, but if they have to include the 4 and X4, then CTA might have to stage those buses on State.  While that gives drivers a short walk to access the facilities, I don't know how much safety there would be along State St and the buses themselves providing cover for crime to be committed there.

[NewFlyerMCI]

16 hours ago, artthouwill said:

I think the space constraints are the problem,  especially if you are going to put three additional routes at 95th.  I have maintained the 3 may fit, but if they have to include the 4 and X4, then CTA might have to stage those buses on State.  While that gives drivers a short walk to access the facilities, I don't know how much safety there would be along State St and the buses themselves providing cover for crime to be committed there.

Well, CTA doesn’t really utilize the existing space the best.

• The 352 has two bus bays, which at every 15 mins, at best, isn’t really necessary.
• Same for the 34/119 to have three, even with a departure every 6 mins at peak btwn both routes, is 3 bays necessary?
• The 29 has the entire north access rd since Greyhound moved
• The 395, with a grand total of 13 departures on weekdays, has its own bus bay for reasons that are beyond me, there’s no reason it can’t stop on the street.
• The 100 & 108 have their own bays instead of being consolidated with another route (WB 95 and 352 respectively)
• The 103/106 have the entire south access road, and again, not sure 3 "bays" is necessary with a combined departure every 8 mins during peak.

Now, I understand some of that is due to layover space, but considering some buses already do stage on State, I'm not sure it's the biggest deal. All that would do is prevent sightlines from the facility, but there's still a wide open field that anyone coming from the east can see. 

The way I see it, the big one is the 3. More than half of 4 trips go to 115th, and if you sent all X4 trips to 115th, it'd be even less of an issue. But even if you didn't, there should still be space to accommodate all routes if you do a bit of shuffling. At the very least, if you had the 111 & 115 share a bay & move the 100, 108 & 395 to pick up on 95th, you can move a couple of things around to make space for 2.5 new routes

[artthouwill]

18 minutes ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

Well, CTA doesn’t really utilize the existing space the best.

• The 352 has two bus bays, which at every 15 mins, at best, isn’t really necessary.
• Same for the 34/119 to have three, even with a departure every 6 mins at peak btwn both routes, is 3 bays necessary?
• The 29 has the entire north access rd since Greyhound moved
• The 395, with a grand total of 13 departures on weekdays, has its own bus bay for reasons that are beyond me, there’s no reason it can’t stop on the street.
• The 100 & 108 have their own bays instead of being consolidated with another route (WB 95 and 352 respectively)
• The 103/106 have the entire south access road, and again, not sure 3 "bays" is necessary with a combined departure every 8 mins during peak.

Now, I understand some of that is due to layover space, but considering some buses already do stage on State, I'm not sure it's the biggest deal. All that would do is prevent sightlines from the facility, but there's still a wide open field that anyone coming from the east can see. 

The way I see it, the big one is the 3. More than half of 4 trips go to 115th, and if you sent all X4 trips to 115th, it'd be even less of an issue. But even if you didn't, there should still be space to accommodate all routes if you do a bit of shuffling. At the very least, if you had the 111 & 115 share a bay & move the 100, 108 & 395 to pick up on 95th, you can move a couple of things around to make space for 2.5 new routes

I hear you.  For sure 111 and 115 can share a bay.  Maybe 108 and 352 can share a bay IF the rush hour schedules could be coordinating with departures every 7.5 minutes, alternating between the two routes.  395 could either load on street with 95 or With 381.  I still think 34/119 needs 3 bays. 

With that room can be made for the 3, which may need more than one bay because its a high frequency route.  I still think adding the 4 and X4 is stretching it  a it, even if it is just for the neat 6 years * at a minimum).

[NewFlyerMCI]

3 hours ago, artthouwill said:

I hear you.  For sure 111 and 115 can share a bay.  Maybe 108 and 352 can share a bay IF the rush hour schedules could be coordinating with departures every 7.5 minutes, alternating between the two routes.  395 could either load on street with 95 or With 381.  I still think 34/119 needs 3 bays. 

With that room can be made for the 3, which may need more than one bay because its a high frequency route.  I still think adding the 4 and X4 is stretching it  a it, even if it is just for the neat 6 years * at a minimum).

I think that with this, if you then moved the 353 to share with the 359, then moved the 103/106 to west side south terminal (Bay Y & Z), you can let the 4 & X4 have the south access road. That said, I acknowledge that that would be stretching it for a not insignificant period of time. The 4 would probably have to see 75/25 of trips go to 115th over the current 60/40 it is now

[artthouwill]

7 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

I think that with this, if you then moved the 353 to share with the 359, then moved the 103/106 to west side south terminal (Bay Y & Z), you can let the 4 & X4 have the south access road. That said, I acknowledge that that would be stretching it for a not insignificant period of time. The 4 would probably have to see 75/25 of trips go to 115th over the current 60/40 it is now

6 years is insignificant?  That's assuming the RED Line extension is completed on time     

[Busjack]

2 hours ago, artthouwill said:

6 years is insignificant?  That's assuming the RED Line extension is completed on time     

He said "a not insignificant period of time."

[artthouwill]

46 minutes ago, Busjack said:

He said "a not insignificant period of time."

I stand corrected with my piece of humble pie. 

Now bring on NASCAR Lightfoot Style.  

[YoungBusLover]

5 hours ago, artthouwill said:

I stand corrected with my piece of humble pie. 

Now bring on NASCAR Lightfoot Style.  

Of all the layouts they could of done for that street course for next year we will have a traffic nightmare among other things going on with the one they chose.

[NewFlyerMCI]

It says something that the streets are wide enough, particularly in Grant Park, that this is possible

[NewFlyerMCI]

https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/zlup/Planning_and_Policy/Agendas/cpc_materials/01_2021/255 E 63rd St_CPC PD ppt -DRAFT.pdf

CTA’s rebuilding the work facility at 61st/Lower 63rd yard

[artthouwill]

1 hour ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/zlup/Planning_and_Policy/Agendas/cpc_materials/01_2021/255 E 63rd St_CPC PD ppt -DRAFT.pdf

CTA’s rebuilding the work facility at 61st/Lower 63rd yard

Considering how close the Lower 63rd Yard is to "O Block ", I'm surprised safety concerns haven't come up.   

[Busjack]

2 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/zlup/Planning_and_Policy/Agendas/cpc_materials/01_2021/255 E 63rd St_CPC PD ppt -DRAFT.pdf

CTA’s rebuilding the work facility at 61st/Lower 63rd yard

The construction reports (e.g. July) say that this is the "Non-Revenue Rail Vehicle Facility," to maintain rail maintenance equipment. The planning dept. document you cited has more detail, but construction is well underway.

[NewFlyerMCI]

18 hours ago, artthouwill said:

Considering how close the Lower 63rd Yard is to "O Block ", I'm surprised safety concerns haven't come up.   

Considering how there are no issues now, at least nothing publicly reported, I don’t see how that’d change. I’m sure any trespassing concerns can be mostly solved via a Hercules fence