Jump to content
CircleSeven

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

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, BusHunter said:

That would be my concern. #52 has a busier corridor. How will the #94 keep up with the demand on the north side. Usually #94"s get pretty scarce into the evenings. That will be a problem up north. Then in the rush around the jail it gets painfully slow there are pockets that get pretty heavy with traffic even down on 47th. California is a narrow street compared to kedzie. I see lots of bus bunching just like on the #9 maybe worse. 

 

9 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

https://www.transitchicago.com/travel-information/alert-detail/?AlertId=68284

https://www.transitchicago.com/travel-information/alert-detail/?AlertId=68285

I see they've once again stressed that Green Line connection, but I'm not certain how many people are going to trade a quicker trip for less crowding. Then there's the fact that the Green & Blue lines serve different parts of the Loop (and that the Blue Line is more centrally located)

Didn't realize we had 2 Western ave.'s 🥴🥴

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, John7 said:

Oh trust me. Its gonna be a PAIN IN THE BUTT! I take the 52 to Milwaukee quite frequently and its an easy walk from where im at to kedzie. Now that its being cut i have to take a bus down to California.

I'm not quite understanding.   You pick up the current 52 at California and Milwaukee and ride to where?  How does that compare to taking the new extended 94?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, TaylorTank1229 said:

The new signs for #52 & #94.

29908ADB-F948-43C9-BE68-88804446277B.jpeg

41CFD125-1B39-42A9-949C-16FBF5767457.jpeg

Just my thoughts that it seems a waste of time money, storage and material to design a sign for each direction. Back in the 50`s when i did the route description for the green signs the key two words were "operates between". Than via etc. Maybe i`m too ancient

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, sht6131 said:

Just my thoughts that it seems a waste of time money, storage and material to design a sign for each direction. Back in the 50`s when i did the route description for the green signs the key two words were "operates between". Than via etc. Maybe i`m too ancient

I remember still seeing sign like that around when I was younger, in the early-mid 00’s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that whenever a route change happens CTA just puts a sticker over the old information. That's what it looks like to me, but I could be wrong. 

A lot of cities have bus stop signs that have almost no information (a lot of times they just say "Bus Stop"). I'm glad CTA puts so much effort into communicating service to riders.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right. I did the same. Usually it was for adjusting AM & PM times. Large route changes usually required new signs like this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TaylorTank1229 said:

The new signs for #52 & #94.

29908ADB-F948-43C9-BE68-88804446277B.jpeg

41CFD125-1B39-42A9-949C-16FBF5767457.jpeg

I’ll most likely be doing this new 94 route lol it’s1 of the reasons I came back to 74th 😊👍🏽.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard many people here saying they're afraid the new 94 will not be a very reliable route, considering it is about 16 miles long and has many turns. I have some ideas that might help solve reliability issues:

  • Remove little used bus stops, especially those that are not at arterials. On some stretches of the route, stop spacing can be increased from 1/8 miles to 1/4 miles.
  • Change the southern terminal to the 79th/Western turnaround. This would shave off about a half mile from the route, as well as eliminate some turns. To make room for it, the westbound 79 will no longer use the turnaround, and instead just continue straight on 79th.
  • Change the southern terminal to 71st/Western or 71st/Kedzie (like before the 74th extension). But, as others have pointed out, this would make reliefs much harder.
  • Introduce TSP along California. But I'm not sure the ridership justifies this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that could have a detrimental effect on the north side is, because all those buses run out of 74th they will all be relieving at 74th so if they are late, guess where all the short turns will be? I dont know how you can short turn too many buses before it has an effect on the schedule up north. I would share the route with kedzie. I know out south California has an amazing number of stop signs. The #94 might now be the route with the most stop signs. I dont see how this route will be successful. The fastest stretch on the whole route will be Fulton to chicago. Ashland has alot of open areas where the buses can travel pretty freely that's not a luxury the #94 has.

Share this post


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

I've heard many people here saying they're afraid the new 94 will not be a very reliable route, considering it is about 16 miles long and has many turns. I have some ideas that might help solve reliability issues:

  • Remove little used bus stops, especially those that are not at arterials. On some stretches of the route, stop spacing can be increased from 1/8 miles to 1/4 miles.
  • Change the southern terminal to the 79th/Western turnaround. This would shave off about a half mile from the route, as well as eliminate some turns. To make room for it, the westbound 79 will no longer use the turnaround, and instead just continue straight on 79th.
  • Change the southern terminal to 71st/Western or 71st/Kedzie (like before the 74th extension). But, as others have pointed out, this would make reliefs much harder.
  • Introduce TSP along California. But I'm not sure the ridership justifies this.

There's already enough chaos at the western terminal so I'd hope they wouldn't do that, they honestly should terminate at 71st and Kedzie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2020 at 6:52 PM, Anthony Devera said:

I've heard many people here saying they're afraid the new 94 will not be a very reliable route, considering it is about 16 miles long and has many turns. I have some ideas that might help solve reliability issues:

  • Remove little used bus stops, especially those that are not at arterials. On some stretches of the route, stop spacing can be increased from 1/8 miles to 1/4 miles.
  • Change the southern terminal to the 79th/Western turnaround. This would shave off about a half mile from the route, as well as eliminate some turns. To make room for it, the westbound 79 will no longer use the turnaround, and instead just continue straight on 79th.
  • Change the southern terminal to 71st/Western or 71st/Kedzie (like before the 74th extension). But, as others have pointed out, this would make reliefs much harder.
  • Introduce TSP along California. But I'm not sure the ridership justifies this.

This won't work. There will be no space to hold buses because the 49 takes up 3-5 (6 if you count the street) slots, the 79 uses the Lakefront lane for it's turnaround/layover, and the 349 uses the farthest lane for its layover (and some times the 49 as well). The terminal isn't big enough for buses to line up behind each other like at Midway either. Lastly (even though the distance is short), there would be a lot of people irate that the WB 79 would no longer come to the terminal. You should hear them complain about why the 349 and 79 won't make a left onto Western. Furthermore, there's no advantage to ending there instead of the garage.

Share this post


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

This won't work. There will be no space to hold buses because the 49 takes up 3-5 (6 if you count the street) slots, the 79 uses the Lakefront lane for it's turnaround/layover, and the 349 uses the farthest lane for its layover (and some times the 49 as well). The terminal isn't big enough for buses to line up behind each other like at Midway either. Lastly (even though the distance is short), there would be a lot of people irate that the WB 79 would no longer come to the terminal. You should hear them complain about why the 349 and 79 won't make a left onto Western. Furthermore, there's no advantage to ending there instead of the garage.

I don’t understand why buses can’t just operate on 71st between Western and Damen, instead of have to do all those turns onto Western, then on 69th up to Damen. Just seems like a bit much...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TaylorTank1229 said:

I don’t understand why buses can’t just operate on 71st between Western and Damen, instead of have to do all those turns onto Western, then on 69th up to Damen. Just seems like a bit much...

There's an at-grade freight train crossing at 71st, east of Bell. There is a plan to make that a viaduct, but that's years away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TaylorTank1229 said:

I don’t understand why buses can’t just operate on 71st between Western and Damen, instead of have to do all those turns onto Western, then on 69th up to Damen. Just seems like a bit much...

Trust me no one wants to wait 5 to 10 minutes each time a long freight train leaves one of the intermodal yards north and southwest of that grade crossing. Sometimes trains even stop there and sit waiting for signal clearance which creates a traffic nightmare for anyone going E/W on 71st.  

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, YoungBusLover said:

Trust me no one wants to wait 5 to 10 minutes each time a long freight train leaves one of the intermodal yards north and southwest of that grade crossing. Sometimes trains even stop there and sit waiting for signal clearance which creates a traffic nightmare for anyone going E/W on 71st.  

My EB 79 got stuck just east of Pulaski the other day cause the train stopped while on the crossing. We were there for ~20 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, YoungBusLover said:

Trust me no one wants to wait 5 to 10 minutes each time a long freight train leaves one of the intermodal yards north and southwest of that grade crossing. Sometimes trains even stop there and sit waiting for signal clearance which creates a traffic nightmare for anyone going E/W on 71st.  

 

3 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

My EB 79 got stuck just east of Pulaski the other day cause the train stopped while on the crossing. We were there for ~20 minutes.

At least 69th is an alternate that bypasses the at grade crossing at 71st.  I believe most of those trains turn at 75th

In regards to the 79th and Central Park crossing, every crossing north and south if there is at grade.  You have a Yard 1/2 mile to the north and another at grade crossing that crosses those tracks 1/2 mile to the south.  There's no escaping that one. I think you have to go all the way to 31st before you go over a bridge to avoid trains.  I think every crossing north of 26th is a viaduct that the streets go under.  From 47th southward,  every east west crossing is at grade.

On 5/13/2020 at 9:32 AM, John7 said:

They changed the bus signs. This is @ kedzie and 58th st. 

20200513_092630.jpg

On 5/13/2020 at 4:47 PM, John7 said:

Oh trust me. Its gonna be a PAIN IN THE BUTT! I take the 52 to Milwaukee quite frequently and its an easy walk from where im at to kedzie. Now that its being cut i have to take a bus down to California.

I'm not quite understanding.   You pick up the current 52 at California and Milwaukee and ride to where?  How does that compare to taking the new extended 94?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the new extended 94, I don’t think that route would workout at 74th considering that the 9 Ashland and most 49 western runs are out of that garage. Those are the two longest routes and the 94 wouldn’t be that far behind the 9 and 49. That garage also runs the 62 Archer and that’s no short route either. What other garage would be able to pick up 94, send it to Chicago or Forest Glen or maybe North park. Or transfer the 49 western to north park full time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Javi78 said:

With the new extended 94, I don’t think that route would workout at 74th considering that the 9 Ashland and most 49 western runs are out of that garage. Those are the two longest routes and the 94 wouldn’t be that far behind the 9 and 49. That garage also runs the 62 Archer and that’s no short route either. What other garage would be able to pick up 94, send it to Chicago or Forest Glen or maybe North park. Or transfer the 49 western to north park full time. 

Honestly I don't see why the extension 94 can't run out of 74th.  The current route runs out of 74th.  The frequency wint change.  The extension is is only 3 1/2 to 4 miles, which would only require an extra 3 buses at the most.  I expect 74th to keep the 94.  If anything,  I would expect K to lose 3 buses since the truncated 52 won't require as many buses.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

Honestly I don't see why the extension 94 can't run out of 74th.  The current route runs out of 74th.  The frequency wint change.  The extension is is only 3 1/2 to 4 miles, which would only require an extra 3 buses at the most.  I expect 74th to keep the 94.  If anything,  I would expect K to lose 3 buses since the truncated 52 won't require as many buses.

I wonder why they wouldn’t increase service on the 94, that would make the most sense, the 52 is heavy north of Chicago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Javi78 said:

I wonder why they wouldn’t increase service on the 94, that would make the most sense, the 52 is heavy north of Chicago.

My guess is that the southern end of the line would have too much service. Then there's a lack of places to short-turn the bus which could increase frequency on the northern end without necessarily adding that many new buses. 35th/Archer and Western on the Orange Line are pretty much the only places, but the first has no space and short-turning at the latter wouldn't really make it any different from ending at 74th

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Javi78 said:

I wonder why they wouldn’t increase service on the 94, that would make the most sense, the 52 is heavy north of Chicago.

The 52 is heavier on Kedzie than on California.  That's part of the reason for swap.  CTA claims the switch is to entice riders who normally ride from California Blue Line station and points south to ride to the California Green Line and take the less crowded Green Line.  We all know people aren't going to do that.  First, the Blue  Line has a rush hour frequency of 3 minutes compared to  7.5 minutes on the Green Line.   Second,  when you consider the Green Line only run 6 car consists during rush periods,  it really isn't going to be less crowded than the Blue Line. 

Third,the Green Line has a reputation of being dangerous.  Finally,  the pandemic has eased the crowds to the point where it's no longer an issue.   So with that in mind, why go through with the pilot unless the real reason for the switch is to align the California frequencies.

Share this post


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

The 52 is heavier on Kedzie than on California.  That's part of the reason for swap.  CTA claims the switch is to entice riders who normally ride from California Blue Line station and points south to ride to the California Green Line and take the less crowded Green Line.  We all know people aren't going to do that.  First, the Blue  Line has a rush hour frequency of 3 minutes compared to  7.5 minutes on the Green Line.   Second,  when you consider the Green Line only run 6 car consists during rush periods,  it really isn't going to be less crowded than the Blue Line. 

Third,the Green Line has a reputation of being dangerous.  Finally,  the pandemic has eased the crowds to the point where it's no longer an issue.   So with that in mind, why go through with the pilot unless the real reason for the switch is to align the California frequencies.

As if the blue line has a reputation for being any less dangerous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

As if the blue line has a reputation for being any less dangerous

Some people's perception of dangerous is colored. if you understand. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Honestly I don't see why the extension 94 can't run out of 74th.  The current route runs out of 74th.  The frequency wint change.  The extension is is only 3 1/2 to 4 miles, which would only require an extra 3 buses at the most.  I expect 74th to keep the 94.  If anything,  I would expect K to lose 3 buses since the truncated 52 won't require as many buses.

If you look at the run time of the 52 between Chicago and the north terminal it is approximately 60 minutes both directions including layover. Under the current schedule that would be about 7 to 8 bus`s. Why can`t Kedzie just send those bus`s to 74th.  If that weakens kedzie`s bus assignments than a few other like C or 77 could pitch in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...