CTA adds #157 & #52/94 Bus Pilots.

[strictures]

3 hours ago, TransitQueen22 said:

The *new* 52 Kedzie route should operate from 63rd to Logan Square Blue Line station, at least during rush periods, since terminating at Chicago doesn't even give a connection to nearby Metra trains! Is it really that hard to have buses run on Kedzie's boulevard section? Is that why the 89 route failed? Someone said it would be too close to the 82, while that is true, the 52 in itself is close to Kimball for a majority of the route, this even makes me question why it has been called Kedzie/California in the first place, considering it barely runs on California. 

Also, California Blue Line station is always crowded, so I really hope people will be willing to use the Green Line instead, though the gap is kind of big. This also makes me wonder why Humboldt Park (and many many other Chicago neighborhoods) lack rapid transit. Oh well, it's not like the city can afford to extend any lines anytime soon. 

Someone also said that 52 & 52A should be merged into one route, while I agree, it'd be too long but we do have Ashland so it might work. If that were to happen maybe CTA can finally have Pulaski run from Devon to at least the Orange Line. This is one thing in the system that really frustrates me because, why have 53 terminate at 31st (not serving Orange Line) while 52A duplicates 52 and serves the Orange Line? This THEN ALSO makes me think about how Cicero terminates at Montrose & not Devon. CTA really needs to reevaluate their routes. A lot of routes go too beyond the city limits, and some terminate to far away from the city limits. 

Oh, and the 157 should be renamed Ogden/Taylor. Why name a route after a neighborhood? And it should be extended to Cicero, I said what I said! Lol

The sole reason the 53 Pulaski doesn't go north of Peterson were the grade crossings at Granville/Pulaski & at Devon/Springfield of the C&NW's Evanston/Mayfair cutoff.  Those two grade crossings have been gone for almost 25 years & yet the CTA has apparently never even though of extending the 53 to Devon/Kedzie, to at least give part of Devon from McCormick west to Pulaski service, since they long ago canceled the 155A.  Even doing every other 53 to Devon/Kedzie would be a vast improvement!

And I totally agree with extending the 54 Cicero to Devon.

[TransitQueen22]

4 hours ago, strictures said:

And I totally agree with extending the 54 Cicero to Devon.

Speaking of Cicero, is the 54A still being discontinued? I'd hate to see the only way to Old Orchard being taken away. ?

[chicagocubs6323]

1 hour ago, TransitQueen22 said:

Speaking of Cicero, is the 54A still being discontinued? I'd hate to see the only way to Old Orchard being taken away. ?

54A is being replaced with a new Pace route, I think.  But they're still waiting on that.

[CircleSeven]

3 hours ago, TransitQueen22 said:

Speaking of Cicero, is the 54A still being discontinued? I'd hate to see the only way to Old Orchard being taken away. ?

1 hour ago, chicagocubs6323 said:

54A is being replaced with a new Pace route, I think.  But they're still waiting on that.

Pace #641 & the #54A cut was posted in the original proposal, but not on the updated Phase 2 proposal.

Not sure if they'll follow through with the #641 proposal in the future (post-Phase 2).

[Sam92]

13 hours ago, TransitQueen22 said:

The *new* 52 Kedzie route should operate from 63rd to Logan Square Blue Line station, at least during rush periods, since terminating at Chicago doesn't even give a connection to nearby Metra trains! Is it really that hard to have buses run on Kedzie's boulevard section? Is that why the 89 route failed? Someone said it would be too close to the 82, while that is true, the 52 in itself is close to Kimball for a majority of the route, this even makes me question why it has been called Kedzie/California in the first place, considering it barely runs on California. 

Also, California Blue Line station is always crowded, so I really hope people will be willing to use the Green Line instead, though the gap is kind of big. This also makes me wonder why Humboldt Park (and many many other Chicago neighborhoods) lack rapid transit. Oh well, it's not like the city can afford to extend any lines anytime soon. 

Someone also said that 52 & 52A should be merged into one route, while I agree, it'd be too long but we do have Ashland so it might work. If that were to happen maybe CTA can finally have Pulaski run from Devon to at least the Orange Line. This is one thing in the system that really frustrates me because, why have 53 terminate at 31st (not serving Orange Line) while 52A duplicates 52 and serves the Orange Line? This THEN ALSO makes me think about how Cicero terminates at Montrose & not Devon. CTA really needs to reevaluate their routes. A lot of routes go too beyond the city limits, and some terminate to far away from the city limits. 

Oh, and the 157 should be renamed Ogden/Taylor. Why name a route after a neighborhood? And it should be extended to Cicero, I said what I said! Lol

52 isnt misnamed as a significant portion is on California. The difference between 52/52a overlap is orange line is the only connection for people on that side compared to pulaski which hits 3 rail stations and is therefore duplicative. The whole reason for route splits is to keep service tailored to the specific local market rather than confuse people with a short turn on everyroute not to mention the longer the route the more the driver gets the $#!t end of the stick so to speak. Not to mention union rules. Think of it this way, the routes with letters are local feeders while the parent routes are trunk lines.

[NewFlyerMCI]

12 hours ago, TransitQueen22 said:

The *new* 52 Kedzie route should operate from 63rd to Logan Square Blue Line station, at least during rush periods, since terminating at Chicago doesn't even give a connection to nearby Metra trains! Is it really that hard to have buses run on Kedzie's boulevard section? Is that why the 89 route failed? Someone said it would be too close to the 82, while that is true, the 52 in itself is close to Kimball for a majority of the route, this even makes me question why it has been called Kedzie/California in the first place, considering it barely runs on California. 

Also, California Blue Line station is always crowded, so I really hope people will be willing to use the Green Line instead, though the gap is kind of big. This also makes me wonder why Humboldt Park (and many many other Chicago neighborhoods) lack rapid transit. Oh well, it's not like the city can afford to extend any lines anytime soon. 

Someone also said that 52 & 52A should be merged into one route, while I agree, it'd be too long but we do have Ashland so it might work. If that were to happen maybe CTA can finally have Pulaski run from Devon to at least the Orange Line. This is one thing in the system that really frustrates me because, why have 53 terminate at 31st (not serving Orange Line) while 52A duplicates 52 and serves the Orange Line? This THEN ALSO makes me think about how Cicero terminates at Montrose & not Devon. CTA really needs to reevaluate their routes. A lot of routes go too beyond the city limits, and some terminate to far away from the city limits. 

Oh, and the 157 should be renamed Ogden/Taylor. Why name a route after a neighborhood? And it should be extended to Cicero, I said what I said! Lol

• The 89 failed because it took over the southern portion of the 93 (from Kedzie/Kimball to Logan Square) which presumably experienced low ridership, hence why it only lasted about 3 years
• Chicago to Addison is not an insignificant distance, which is why the 52 was called the Kedzie/California, since the route was almost evenly split btwn Kedzie & California
• The 9 is not an example to be copied, its a 16 mile long bus route, and I'm not sure people would use a combined 52/52A in the same way the do the 9 (N/S link/transfer btwn 2 E/W routes).
• I don't actually know why the 52 doesn't end at the Orange Line. I have to assume it has something to do with transfers and the fact that the 52 is the farthest west you can go and still get a bus to the north side (since the 53A & 54B don't go past 31st & 22nd respectively)
• @artthouwill is right, the 53 doesn't need to go to the Orange Line. Not many people are going to ride SW to take a bus back up north and there's a lack of passenger generators btwn 31st & 43rd. It serves the Pink, Green & Blue in rapid succession, that's good enough. I do believe the 53 should go to Devon/Kedzie, however with the 2.5 buses ending there, we run into the same issue as the Cicero/24th terminal with a lack of space (although I agree the 157 should go there)
• While I don't think the 54 adequately serves the CTA station at Montrose, extending it to Devon is a non-starter. The 54A has been peak-only for years for a reason
• CTA is actually very good about not leaving the city limits, and trying to limit when it does so (such as the North Shore restructuring). Usually it only happens because of a street being the border. Remember the 17? In fact, the only real times CTA consistently runs into the suburbs outside of Evanston (or a border street) is the 21, 53B  and the 81W (which can't really be helped as Norridge & Harwood Heights are exclaves).
• The 157 used to just be the "157 Streeterville" before the extension and subsequent renaming, since it was the bus route for the Streeterville neighborhood. Also, it's not unusual for CTA to name a route after a neighborhood (see the 1, 2, N5, 6, 26*, 71*, 100, 111A, 115, 120, 121, 124, 125, 157, 206)
  • * I count South Shore as both the street & the neighborhood

[NewFlyerMCI]

17 minutes ago, Sam92 said:

52 isnt misnamed as a significant portion is on California. The difference between 52/52a overlap is orange line is the only connection for people on that side compared to pulaski which hits 3 rail stations and is therefore duplicative. The whole reason for route splits is to keep service tailored to the specific local market rather than confuse people with a short turn on everyroute not to mention the longer the route the more the driver gets the $#!t end of the stick so to speak. Not to mention union rules. Think of it this way, the routes with letters are local feeders while the parent routes are trunk lines.

Kedzie & Pulaski both have 3 stations on the P/B/G so the reason you gave can't be why the 52 goes to 63rd instead of ending at 36th Pl or Orange Line, no? Or am I reading this wrong?

[NewFlyerMCI]

10 hours ago, strictures said:

The sole reason the 53 Pulaski doesn't go north of Peterson were the grade crossings at Granville/Pulaski & at Devon/Springfield of the C&NW's Evanston/Mayfair cutoff.  Those two grade crossings have been gone for almost 25 years & yet the CTA has apparently never even though of extending the 53 to Devon/Kedzie, to at least give part of Devon from McCormick west to Pulaski service, since they long ago canceled the 155A.  Even doing every other 53 to Devon/Kedzie would be a vast improvement!

And I totally agree with extending the 54 Cicero to Devon.

How does extending the 54 to Devon help when the 54A doesn't even carry that many passengers. Not to mention, the 54A is designed for passengers heading to Skokie moreso than passengers headed to the Blue Line (also, if the 54 were to be extended along that stretch while the 54A is still in service, people would still take the 54A since it goes directly to a CTA station compared to the 54). Also, where would it turnaround? It'd be more realistic to go to Caldwell/Central.

[Sam92]

8 minutes ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

Kedzie & Pulaski both have 3 stations on the P/B/G so the reason you gave can't be why the 52 goes to 63rd instead of ending at 36th Pl or Orange Line, no? Or am I reading this wrong?

The pink line restructuring found that there was enough demand between 63rd and 49th to get the orange line that a frequency boost was needed at which point it was either short turn the 52A and piss off the outer ends of the route with excessively long wait times (which the 52A already doesnt run too frequently) or overlap to provide service while still keeping enough frequency to keep up on the two separate routes. What Im getting at is routes with splits such as these are either a situation of the extended sections having a demand for service but no where near the demand of the main route so short turning doesnt help OR just to breakdown and already long route into something more manageable for all involved

[NewFlyerMCI]

25 minutes ago, Sam92 said:

The pink line restructuring found that there was enough demand between 63rd and 49th to get the orange line that a frequency boost was needed at which point it was either short turn the 52A and piss off the outer ends of the route with excessively long wait times (which the 52A already doesnt run too frequently) or overlap to provide service while still keeping enough frequency to keep up on the two separate routes. What Im getting at is routes with splits such as these are either a situation of the extended sections having a demand for service but no where near the demand of the main route so short turning doesnt help OR just to breakdown and already long route into something more manageable for all involved

That's interesting, thanks for the clarification

[rvwnsd]

13 hours ago, artthouwill said:

Years ago Humboldt Park had an L toutw.  It encompassed part of the Blue Line but after Damen it ran south on Paulina over to Van Buren,  then into the Loop.  I believe that was shut down when the Congress/Douglas/Milwaukee  subway to Logan Square and Kimball was built.  If you ride the Green or Pink Line  you will see a standalone bridge over the UP/MD tracks.  That bridge is the last remnant of the Humboldt Park route.  There used to be pillars you could see when the Blue Line descended into the subway between Damen and Division,  but those are gone.

Like I said before,  CTA missed an opportunity to somewhat bring back Humboldt Park service by building a route on what is now the 606 trail...

I agree with you. That would have solved a lot of issues.

On the other hand, given the advocacy for more open space I wonder how much support this would have had.

[artthouwill]

7 hours ago, Sam92 said:

The pink line restructuring found that there was enough demand between 63rd and 49th to get the orange line that a frequency boost was needed at which point it was either short turn the 52A and piss off the outer ends of the route with excessively long wait times (which the 52A already doesnt run too frequently) or overlap to provide service while still keeping enough frequency to keep up on the two separate routes. What Im getting at is routes with splits such as these are either a situation of the extended sections having a demand for service but no where near the demand of the main route so short turning doesnt help OR just to breakdown and already long route into something more manageable for all involved

Actually that was an Orange Line restructuring seeing that the when the Orange Line first opened. the Pink Line wasn't in existence (it was the 54/Cermak branch of the Blue Line).  You are correct in that. when the Orange Line opened,  the 52 was cut back to the Orange Line station.   However. the 52A couldn't handle the demand between 63rd and the Orange Line due to its low frequency so the 52 service to 63rd was restored to help handle the demand.

Remember that the 53 was extended to the Orange Line station and the 53A was cut to the Orange Line station as well.  The 53A ridership complained because people lost their one seat ride to jobs north of the Orange Line but South of 31st.   The Pulaski corridor was restored to its original routings.

[Sam92]

6 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

Actually that was an Orange Line restructuring seeing that the when the Orange Line first opened. the Pink Line wasn't in existence (it was the 54/Cermak branch of the Blue Line).  You are correct in that. when the Orange Line opened,  the 52 was cut back to the Orange Line station.   However. the 52A couldn't handle the demand between 63rd and the Orange Line due to its low frequency so the 52 service to 63rd was restored to help handle the demand.

Remember that the 53 was extended to the Orange Line station and the 53A was cut to the Orange Line station as well.  The 53A ridership complained because people lost their one seat ride to jobs north of the Orange Line but South of 31st.   The Pulaski corridor was restored to its original routings.

Yeah i remember that much but the 52 extension happened in the 2006 pink line restructuring 52 ended at the Orange line till then which is what I was pointing out

[Javi78]

Why is the 54 Cicero such a short route but has a 54A and 54B? I understand the 54A but it would be more logical to have the 54 Cicero go from Montrose and Cicero to Ford City Mall. Even the 50 Damen is longer than the 54 Cicero. Chicago Garage can manage a long bus route. Look at 74th managing the 9/x9 and the 49/x49

[artthouwill]

29 minutes ago, Javi78 said:

Why is the 54 Cicero such a short route but has a 54A and 54B? I understand the 54A but it would be more logical to have the 54 Cicero go from Montrose and Cicero to Ford City Mall. Even the 50 Damen is longer than the 54 Cicero. Chicago Garage can manage a long bus route. Look at 74th managing the 9/x9 and the 49/x49

Part of the reason probably predates CTA.  A lot of CTA'S routes were once ran by streetcars.   When CTA switched to buses,  they kept the routes intact.   The A and B routes don't have the ridership of the main route, thus the A and B routes have less frequency.   However,  the X54 did run from Jefferson Park to Midway Orange Line  and the original  X49 ran from Berwyn to Evergreen Plaza.  

As it stands now,  the 54A is a rush only route.  The 54B covers primarily industrial with very little residential service area.  There's a shopping area on each end of the route.   There are no CTA connections between 31st and 47th  on Cicero. 

[TransitQueen22]

54 really is too short, and it doesn't terminate close enough to the Montrose Blue station (as the terminal is at Pensacola) but I don't see a solution to that since there's no streets to use to turnaround. But, nonetheless it's not the longest walk (during winter tho, yikes.) The 54 should go to Midway, since you have to take 54 & 54B to get to the airport, (taking the Blue to the Loop, then the Orange to Midway wastes too much time.) Speaking of Damen, why does the 48 South Damen exist? It's also short, why not just run the 50 to 87th (I know the street doesn't exist between Pershing & 47th). 

[Sam92]

8 minutes ago, TransitQueen22 said:

54 really is too short, and it doesn't terminate close enough to the Montrose Blue station (as the terminal is at Pensacola) but I don't see a solution to that since there's no streets to use to turnaround. But, nonetheless it's not the longest walk (during winter tho, yikes.) The 54 should go to Midway, since you have to take 54 & 54B to get to the airport, (taking the Blue to the Loop, then the Orange to Midway wastes too much time.) Speaking of Damen, why does the 48 South Damen exist? It's also short, why not just run the 50 to 87th (I know the street doesn't exist between Pershing & 47th). 

At this point this is becoming pretty repetitive... As with the other route splits discussed, this is either a hold over from streetcar days that cta determined was better left as is or due to completely different demands between the different route segments that necessitate a whole different schedule that short turning alone wouldn't suffice thus a whole separate route and schedule is needed to prevent over serving the light side or under serving the main trunk. Any further questions about "why aren't these routes combined" will pretty much be always be met with this reason so it's a waste of forum space to ask about every single route that has an A or B extension at this point. 

[YoungBusLover]

2 hours ago, TransitQueen22 said:

54 really is too short, and it doesn't terminate close enough to the Montrose Blue station (as the terminal is at Pensacola) but I don't see a solution to that since there's no streets to use to turnaround. But, nonetheless it's not the longest walk (during winter tho, yikes.) The 54 should go to Midway, since you have to take 54 & 54B to get to the airport, (taking the Blue to the Loop, then the Orange to Midway wastes too much time.) Speaking of Damen, why does the 48 South Damen exist? It's also short, why not just run the 50 to 87th (I know the street doesn't exist between Pershing & 47th). 

The old 48 use to go the 35th Orange Line station in the late 90s if i'm not mistaken but was shortened to accommodate 49th and Western station which was quicker to get to rather than going all the way towards 35th and Archer. Running the 50 from Ashland/Clark all the way to 87th would just be another Halsted 8 in my opinion because the further south you go on Damen the amount of ridership decreases especially after Peak rush periods.

[artthouwill]

5 hours ago, YoungBusLover said:

The old 48 use to go the 35th Orange Line station in the late 90s if i'm not mistaken but was shortened to accommodate 49th and Western station which was quicker to get to rather than going all the way towards 35th and Archer. Running the 50 from Ashland/Clark all the way to 87th would just be another Halsted 8 in my opinion because the further south you go on Damen the amount of ridership decreases especially after Peak rush periods.

The original 48 short turned at 47th with weekday day service extended to 35th and Archer (before the Orange Line was even built).  At that time,  Damen had a bridge that ran from 47th to 37th.  It crossed over 43rd, railyards    and Pershing.   I forget what year ( it was sometime after the Orange Line was opened), the city determined that the Damen bridge was no longer structurally sound and said it would be too expensive to rebuild.   The city closed the bridge and eventually tore it down.   Because of this decision,  the 48 was initially rerouted via 47th, Western Blvd,and Archer to serve the 35th and Archer station that it was already serving.   Due to traffic congestion,  it was determined that Western Orange Line was closer and would better keep service consistent. 

Actually the 48 was originally numbered 50A South Damen before being remembered 48 in the 1970s ( along with the 22A to 24 and the 36A to 29). 

[YoungBusLover]

2 hours ago, artthouwill said:

The original 48 short turned at 47th with weekday day service extended to 35th and Archer (before the Orange Line was even built).  At that time,  Damen had a bridge that ran from 47th to 37th.  It crossed over 43rd, railyards    and Pershing.   I forget what year ( it was sometime after the Orange Line was opened), the city determined that the Damen bridge was no longer structurally sound and said it would be too expensive to rebuild.   The city closed the bridge and eventually tore it down.   Because of this decision,  the 48 was initially rerouted via 47th, Western Blvd,and Archer to serve the 35th and Archer station that it was already serving.   Due to traffic congestion,  it was determined that Western Orange Line was closer and would better keep service consistent. 

Actually the 48 was originally numbered 50A South Damen before being remembered 48 in the 1970s ( along with the 22A to 24 and the 36A to 29). 

Thank you for the clarification.

[TransitQueen22]

On 2/6/2020 at 12:47 AM, Sam92 said:

 

 

On 2/6/2020 at 12:47 AM, Sam92 said:

At this point this is becoming pretty repetitive... Any further questions about "why aren't these routes combined" will pretty much be always be met with this reason so it's a waste of forum space to ask about every single route that has an A or B extension at this point. 

what's wrong with asking questions? lol i'll take those questions to a different thread tho my apologies.?? 

back to the topic, would the new 94 have good ridership or low? wondering if the change will affect anything, what is 52 & 94 ridership before the revision? 

[NewFlyerMCI]

4 hours ago, TransitQueen22 said:

 

what's wrong with asking questions? lol i'll take those questions to a different thread tho my apologies.?? 

back to the topic, would the new 94 have good ridership or low? wondering if the change will affect anything, what is 52 & 94 ridership before the revision? 

The 52 is actually #17 out of the top 20 performing bus routes based on ridership and usually hovers around there. Most recent metric is about an average 12.1k passengers carried in June 2019 on a weekday. The 94 is less busy, carrying about an average of 8.2k passengers during that same time frame. Not sure why both routes are classes as support though, 52 could definitely be key. 

In regards to your question, I (and I think a few others) speculated that there won't be any major change in ridership. I personally believe this because I'm pretty sure the majority of the 52's ridership is concentrated in its southern end, and the loss of California service isn't going to harm it too much. In that same vein, the 94 isn't going to gain that many new riders with it's new extension, although I do believe the pilot will become permanent. I'll be surprised if each route loses (52) and gains (94) more 1k-2k riders/month.

[artthouwill]

6 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

The 52 is actually #17 out of the top 20 performing bus routes based on ridership and usually hovers around there. Most recent metric is about an average 12.1k passengers carried in June 2019 on a weekday. The 94 is less busy, carrying about an average of 8.2k passengers during that same time frame. Not sure why both routes are classes as support though, 52 could definitely be key. 

In regards to your question, I (and I think a few others) speculated that there won't be any major change in ridership. I personally believe this because I'm pretty sure the majority of the 52's ridership is concentrated in its southern end, and the loss of California service isn't going to harm it too much. In that same vein, the 94 isn't going to gain that many new riders with it's new extension, although I do believe the pilot will become permanent. I'll be surprised if each route loses (52) and gains (94) more 1k-2k riders/month.

I agree. It's about better serving the busier Kedzie corridor.  While ridership on California is lower. traffic on North California is heavy., not to mention the many stop signs.  Side note:  the California Blue Line station has a lot of passengers that WALK  to that station.   The frequency of the current 94 should be a better match for the California portion of the current 52.  Btw, when is this pilot coming?

[TaylorTank1229]

44 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

I agree. It's about better serving the busier Kedzie corridor.  While ridership on California is lower. traffic on North California is heavy., not to mention the many stop signs.  Side note:  the California Blue Line station has a lot of passengers that WALK  to that station.   The frequency of the current 94 should be a better match for the California portion of the current 52.  Btw, when is this pilot coming?

Sunday, April 19th.

[andrethebusman]

On 1/27/2020 at 2:29 AM, artthouwill said:

Actually that was an Orange Line restructuring seeing that the when the Orange Line first opened. the Pink Line wasn't in existence (it was the 54/Cermak branch of the Blue Line).  You are correct in that. when the Orange Line opened,  the 52 was cut back to the Orange Line station.   However. the 52A couldn't handle the demand between 63rd and the Orange Line due to its low frequency so the 52 service to 63rd was restored to help handle the demand.

Remember that the 53 was extended to the Orange Line station and the 53A was cut to the Orange Line station as well.  The 53A ridership complained because people lost their one seat ride to jobs north of the Orange Line but South of 31st.   The Pulaski corridor was restored to its original routings.

53 never ran south of 31st. 52 was cut to Orange from 51st/St Louis and 52A from 43rd. The squawk was to service from south of 49th to Archer, so 52 got extended to 63rd to replace the alternate 52A 49th to 63rd trips. When Orange opened there were many totally unnecessary changes made because of Lipinski that were not fixed until the 19 90s cutbacks.