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

[Shannon CVPI]

5 hours ago, John7 said:

I know that 94 ends at damen & 74th. But will 94 be shared by both 74th and kedzie division's or will K take over the route? As for route 52 i doubt they'd run buses from 74th. Then again route 63 ends at kedzie on certain times. 63 can turn to route 52 and so on. This is just my thought on what could happen.

If anything happens if they actually do this I think K may take over 94 probably

[NewFlyerMCI]

12 hours ago, John7 said:

I know that 94 ends at damen & 74th. But will 94 be shared by both 74th and kedzie division's or will K take over the route? As for route 52 i doubt they'd run buses from 74th. Then again route 63 ends at kedzie on certain times. 63 can turn to route 52 and so on. This is just my thought on what could happen.

 

7 hours ago, Shannon CVPI said:

If anything happens if they actually do this I think K may take over 94 probably

Both routes are probably going to stay at their current garages during the pilot. The 52 is already scheduled to start/terminate runs at Van Buren during early mornings and late nights respectively, not to mention interlining the 63 and 52 makes for a long run.The 94 ends at 6, and doesn't have runs that don't travel the full route outside of school trips, so there's no point in really sharing it. The 85 isn't shared with Chicago, 93 isn't shared with North Park (although the 92 is, so point in your favor lol).

[Shannon CVPI]

2 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

 

Both routes are probably going to stay at their current garages during the pilot. The 52 is already scheduled to start/terminate runs at Van Buren during early mornings and late nights respectively, not to mention interlining the 63 and 52 makes for a long run.The 94 ends at 6, and doesn't have runs that don't travel the full route outside of school trips, so there's no point in really sharing it. The 85 isn't shared with Chicago, 93 isn't shared with North Park (although the 92 is, so point in your favor lol).

Naw I was just throwing out a idea

[Shannon CVPI]

2 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

 

Both routes are probably going to stay at their current garages during the pilot. The 52 is already scheduled to start/terminate runs at Van Buren during early mornings and late nights respectively, not to mention interlining the 63 and 52 makes for a long run.The 94 ends at 6, and doesn't have runs that don't travel the full route outside of school trips, so there's no point in really sharing it. The 85 isn't shared with Chicago, 93 isn't shared with North Park (although the 92 is, so point in your favor lol).

But you right they just may stay at their garages 

[John7]

6 hours ago, Shannon CVPI said:

But you right they just may stay at their garages 

I doubt 94 has enough buses to run the entire route. Im still thinking the route will be shared.

[YoungBusLover]

2 hours ago, John7 said:

I doubt 94 has enough buses to run the entire route. Im still thinking the route will be shared.

74th has enough buses to run the 94 i'm sure they can handle it. The new configuration is just about the same length as the 8 and back in the day 74th managed to handle the 8,9,X9,49 and X49 without much help so they'll figure it out. 

[Shannon CVPI]

9 hours ago, John7 said:

I doubt 94 has enough buses to run the entire route. Im still thinking the route will be shared.

Naw I think they have enough they run Western & Ashland with no issues 

[artthouwill]

On 1/16/2020 at 7:36 AM, NewFlyerMCI said:

From the article that was linked:

 

Who says that the Green Line is less crowded?  When you factor in frequency ( Green Line trains run every 7 to 8 minutes during the rush) and the fact that Green Line trains are only 6 cars long during rush periods,  riders that normally use the Blue Line won't find this a better option.   It could have been a great option IF the Green Line trains were 8 cars long.  However,  because Cottage Grove can't berth 8 car trains,  its stuck.  But I wondered why Ashland trains can't be 8 cars long and Cottage Grove trains remain 6 cars?  There's no law that says every train has to be equal length.  As it is, 6 and 8 car trains berth in the same location on the Green Line.   This will help give any former Blue Line riders a 50% better chance of finding a seat or ample standing room on a Green Line train.   As it is now,  inbound Green Line trains are packed in the a.m. rush.

[artthouwill]

On 1/16/2020 at 7:59 AM, BusHunter said:

Sounds like blue line overcrowding is the issue. Unfortunately that stop gets high foot traffic. That area is a hot spot for uber it rivals belmont/kimball and belmont/red line as other hot spots. That just goes to show the volume that is coming  through that stop. 

I think the city missed a golden opportunity to convert what is now the 606 trail into a CTA rail line.  It could have ran from Pulaski to the Blue Line and ran with the Blue Line to Racine,  then to 54/Cermak.   It could have been the new Pink Line.  It certainly could have relieved some congestion on the Blue Line.  Passengers at Western,  California would have a better option.   It would have needed 6 or 8 car trains though.  Personally I would have liked to have extended it West to Brickyard and on the Cermak branch extended to N Riverside Mall.

I think any idea of putting a new rail line on the 606 trail ( unless built underground) would be resisted.  

For now,  we will see what happens with the 52 and 94 swap.  I don't think it will steer people to the Green Line,  but I do think it's a good operational move and will eventually become permanent. 

 

[NewFlyerMCI]

37 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

I think the city missed a golden opportunity to convert what is now the 606 trail into a CTA rail line.  It could have ran from Pulaski to the Blue Line and ran with the Blue Line to Racine,  then to 54/Cermak.   It could have been the new Pink Line.  It certainly could have relieved some congestion on the Blue Line.  Passengers at Western,  California would have a better option.   It would have needed 6 or 8 car trains though.  Personally I would have liked to have extended it West to Brickyard and on the Cermak branch extended to N Riverside Mall.

I think any idea of putting a new rail line on the 606 trail ( unless built underground) would be resisted.  

For now,  we will see what happens with the 52 and 94 swap.  I don't think it will steer people to the Green Line,  but I do think it's a good operational move and will eventually become permanent. 

 

My sentiments exactly. It'll be interesting to see if they'll edit the 52 any further upon the pilot's completion. I know there were ideas to send it to Logan Square or combine the 52 & 52A

[CircleSeven]

On 1/16/2020 at 8:50 AM, NewFlyerMCI said:

Might be worth it to reroute it completely via 71st or 69th. I always wondered why it took those weird turns to 74th. 

 

On 1/16/2020 at 11:24 AM, Anthony Devera said:

I think CTA does that to avoid the railroad crossing on 71st. Honestly, I feel like the 94 doesn't need to terminate at 74th/Damen. It could just terminate at either Kedzie/71st or Western/71st and use local streets to turn around.

 

On 1/16/2020 at 11:32 AM, NewFlyerMCI said:

There's a railroad crossing either way. The 94 used to terminate at Marquette Park (71st/Kedzie) but was moved to 74th/Damen because that's where the 74th Garage is, making it easier for operator relief and bathroom breaks and the like (the 94 doesn't use the turnaround the 75 does).

I forgot to mention but in regards to that at-grade crossing at 71st east of Western. There are a plans in the works to make that crossing a viaduct (like the one on 69th), as a part of the 75th Corridor Improvement project. But that is still years out. But it would be a convienience for motorists to go straight on 71st without getting caught by those long frieght trains.

[artthouwill]

On 1/16/2020 at 7:36 AM, NewFlyerMCI said:

From the article that was linked:

 

Who says that the Green Line is less crowded?  When you factor in frequency ( Green Line trains run every 7 to 8 minutes during the rush) and the fact that Green Line trains are only 6 cars long during rush periods,  riders that normally use the Blue Line won't find this a better option.   It could have been a great option IF the Green Line trains were 8 cars long.  However,  because Cottage Grove can't berth 8 car trains,  its stuck.  But I wondered why Ashland trains can't be 8 cars long and Cottage Grove trains remain 6 cars?  There's no law that says every train has to be equal length.  As it is, 6 and 8 car trains berth in the same location on the Green Line.   This will help give any former Blue Line riders a 50% better chance of finding a seat or ample standing room on a Green Line train.   As it is now,  inbound Green Line trains are packed in the a.m. rush.

[artthouwill]

In the spirit of the 52 and 94 swapping  on their north Terminals, I propose the following,:

5 South Shore  operating between 69th Red Line and 112th and Torrance bis 69th, Keefe. Rhodes. 67th, South Shore Drive and over the current 71 routing south of 75th.  The N5 would remain unchanged. 

71 69,/71 would operate between 73rd and Exchange and Ford City running the current 71 between 73rd and the Red Line and the current 67 from the Red Line to Ford City.  My new 71 would match the hours of service on both ends of the current 71 and 67 west of the Red Line  and providing consistency east of the Red Line (and a 24 hrs route) along the current 67 .   The other minor change would be to rename the 95th portion of the N5  N95 95th.  The N5 and N95 would interline so it still would operate as one route. 103rd garage would operate the 5 and 74th would operate my 71 69/71.

[YoungBusLover]

1 hour ago, artthouwill said:

In the spirit of the 52 and 94 swapping  on their north Terminals, I propose the following,:

5 South Shore  operating between 69th Red Line and 112th and Torrance bis 69th, Keefe. Rhodes. 67th, South Shore Drive and over the current 71 routing south of 75th.  The N5 would remain unchanged. 

71 69,/71 would operate between 73rd and Exchange and Ford City running the current 71 between 73rd and the Red Line and the current 67 from the Red Line to Ford City.  My new 71 would match the hours of service on both ends of the current 71 and 67 west of the Red Line  and providing consistency east of the Red Line (and a 24 hrs route) along the current 67 .   The other minor change would be to rename the 95th portion of the N5  N95 95th.  The N5 and N95 would interline so it still would operate as one route. 103rd garage would operate the 5 and 74th would operate my 71 69/71.

That's not a bad idea in theory, I wonder if it were possible for 103rd to send a few artics over to the 69/71 during rush periods.

[Sam92]

2 hours ago, artthouwill said:

In the spirit of the 52 and 94 swapping  on their north Terminals, I propose the following,:

5 South Shore  operating between 69th Red Line and 112th and Torrance bis 69th, Keefe. Rhodes. 67th, South Shore Drive and over the current 71 routing south of 75th.  The N5 would remain unchanged. 

71 69,/71 would operate between 73rd and Exchange and Ford City running the current 71 between 73rd and the Red Line and the current 67 from the Red Line to Ford City.  My new 71 would match the hours of service on both ends of the current 71 and 67 west of the Red Line  and providing consistency east of the Red Line (and a 24 hrs route) along the current 67 .   The other minor change would be to rename the 95th portion of the N5  N95 95th.  The N5 and N95 would interline so it still would operate as one route. 103rd garage would operate the 5 and 74th would operate my 71 69/71.

So what would 67 do? Become the east 67th bus?

[artthouwill]

1 hour ago, Sam92 said:

So what would 67 do? Become the east 67th bus?

The portion of the 67 east of the Red Line would become the 5 (like the N5) except the 5 runs to the Lake (like the 77) but then proceeds south on South Shore Drive to 83rd, then over the current 71 to 112th.  The number 67 would no longer be needed.

The alternative is to make the 71 a 24 hrs route with owl service truncated to 92nd and interlining with an N95 with service from 92nd/Buffalo to 95th Red Line. 

[Sam92]

12 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

The portion of the 67 east of the Red Line would become the 5 (like the N5) except the 5 runs to the Lake (like the 77) but then proceeds south on South Shore Drive to 83rd, then over the current 71 to 112th.  The number 67 would no longer be needed.

The alternative is to make the 71 a 24 hrs route with owl service truncated to 92nd and interlining with an N95 with service from 92nd/Buffalo to 95th Red Line. 

Would you still alternate trips as well?

[artthouwill]

1 hour ago, Sam92 said:

Would you still alternate trips as well?

No.  You do know that currently all 71 trips run the full route.   That changed about 2 to 3 years ago.   Before then, trips alternated ending at 73rd and Exchange and 112th and Torrence.  

[NewFlyerMCI]

2 hours ago, artthouwill said:

The portion of the 67 east of the Red Line would become the 5 (like the N5) except the 5 runs to the Lake (like the 77) but then proceeds south on South Shore Drive to 83rd, then over the current 71 to 112th.  The number 67 would no longer be needed.

The alternative is to make the 71 a 24 hrs route with owl service truncated to 92nd and interlining with an N95 with service from 92nd/Buffalo to 95th Red Line. 

 

2 hours ago, Sam92 said:

Would you still alternate trips as well?

I'd rather see it be the 67 67th/South Shore rather than bring the 5 back, but that's semantics. I'm also interested in the alternating trips answer, although my guess is no. How would you handle LaRabida trips? Would your new route have certain trips run "via LaRabida" or would the new 71 have some trips extend north?

[NewFlyerMCI]

2 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

No.  You do know that currently all 71 trips run the full route.   That changed about 2 to 3 years ago.   Before then, trips alternated ending at 73rd and Exchange and 112th and Torrence.  

He meant with the 67, I'm pretty sure since a not insignificant portion of trips end at 69th/Western

[artthouwill]

11 minutes ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

 

I'd rather see it be the 67 67th/South Shore rather than bring the 5 back, but that's semantics. I'm also interested in the alternating trips answer, although my guess is no. How would you handle LaRabida trips? Would your new route have certain trips run "via LaRabida" or would the new 71 have some trips extend north?

I only chose the 5 because it matched the current N5.  67 South Shore/67th  works too.  I suppose certain trips can still serve LaRabida, but now it can be in both directions,  giving those South of 67th access to the hospital. 

[Sam92]

47 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

No.  You do know that currently all 71 trips run the full route.   That changed about 2 to 3 years ago.   Before then, trips alternated ending at 73rd and Exchange and 112th and Torrence.  

I meant 69th/western and ford city woth the new 71

[artthouwill]

8 hours ago, Sam92 said:

I meant 69th/western and ford city woth the new 71

I guess that would depend on the frequency 

  I'd imagine that the alternate trips to Ford City would continue .

[TransitQueen22]

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

[artthouwill]

1 hour 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

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 .

The current California portion of the 52 is 3/4 mile from Kimball  as opposed to  1/4 mile between Kedzie and Kimball.  By moving the California portion to Kedzie,  you create a 1 mile gap between Western and Kedzie.   California fills that gap. 

The 53 doesn't need to serve the Orange Line.   If serves Pink and Blue  .