CTA Bus Vision Project

[Tcmetro]

Perhaps JWA will be putting together the 2025 doomsday plan to show the state what's going to happen. Although CTA could just republish the old one where if the route doesn't run on Sundays its eliminated.

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, Tcmetro said:

Perhaps JWA will be putting together the 2025 doomsday plan to show the state what's going to happen. Although CTA could just republish the old one where if the route doesn't run on Sundays its eliminated.

I certainly don't think that is for what it is being paid. Given that JWC says that weekend frequency should be increased, and said that the 2010 16% cutback was a mistake, I also don't see that.

CTA is certainly capable of threatening something like that on its own. Given various reports of Carter telling the City Club that he wants $1 billion of the mythical $1.5 billion promised for the MMA with absolutely no governance reform, I could see him pulling that.

[Tcmetro]

One of the outcomes of the Vision Study is the creation of the "frequent service network" which basically means the route will have 10 minutes or better frequency from 6 am to 9 pm on weekdays and 9 am to 9 pm on weekends. CTA is targeting 20 routes for improvement in 2025.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/03/03/cta-frequent-buses/

https://www.transitchicago.com/cta-launches-new-frequent-network-for-buses/

https://www.transitchicago.com/frequent/

[Busjack]

10 minutes ago, Tcmetro said:

One of the outcomes of the Vision Study is the creation of the "frequent service network" which basically means the route will have 10 minutes or better frequency from 6 am to 9 pm on weekdays and 9 am to 9 pm on weekends. CTA is targeting 20 routes for improvement in 2025.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/03/03/cta-frequent-buses/

https://www.transitchicago.com/cta-launches-new-frequent-network-for-buses/

https://www.transitchicago.com/frequent/

Might be significant compared to after 2010, but certainly not before

 Most of what was then considered the "core" network (those with 10 minute or better and Owl service) are Fall and Winter.

[Sam92]

22 minutes ago, Busjack said:

Might be significant compared to after 2010, but certainly not before

 Most of what was then considered the "core" network (those with 10 minute or better and Owl service) are Fall and Winter.

 Outside of 60 being in the first phase looks like the initial phase is to spread the coverage to routes that either don't have a parallel rail line nor frequent route on both sides of it. J14 (10 min headways before the 2010 cuts) does have a lot of heavy lifting to do over east and after 2010 the reverse direction service is too iffy. Stuff like 4, 12, 20 I'm assuming they figured "they have the green or blue nearby to fall back on in the meantime. I've always interpreted"core" back in those times as anything that wasn't in danger of the doomsday cuts of 2007-09. At one point 6 was counted as a "key route" and 14 as "support" but later they switched (J14 is now a key route). Also does 71st/ South Shore get a #27 route number since North Ave is the new #71? 🤭

[jajuan]

36 minutes ago, Tcmetro said:

One of the outcomes of the Vision Study is the creation of the "frequent service network" which basically means the route will have 10 minutes or better frequency from 6 am to 9 pm on weekdays and 9 am to 9 pm on weekends. CTA is targeting 20 routes for improvement in 2025.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/03/03/cta-frequent-buses/

https://www.transitchicago.com/cta-launches-new-frequent-network-for-buses/

https://www.transitchicago.com/frequent/

It's going to be interesting to see how this looks on Western and Ashland after each of those corridors gets implemented later in the year with the beef up on the locals. Hopefully it visibly reverses the PO perception that local buses got cut in favor of the express, given on both corridors currently there are points where riders see two or three express buses coming before they see a local one.

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, Sam92 said:

Also does 71st/ South Shore get a #27 route number since North Ave is the new #71? 🤭

On the official list, North Ave. is 72. BTW, 22 Clark isn't on the list, so @strictures doesn't get any relief..

[Sam92]

12 minutes ago, Busjack said:

On the official list, North Ave. is 72. BTW, 22 Clark isn't on the list, so @strictures doesn't get any relief..

Ahh they caught it quick. Earlier I was teasing cause they put 71 North by mistake 

[strictures]

20 hours ago, Busjack said:

On the official list, North Ave. is 72. BTW, 22 Clark isn't on the list, so @strictures doesn't get any relief..

Of course Clark isn't on the list, it's the most abused route the CTA has. It's seems like the management at 567 hates it!

[Sam92]

1 hour ago, strictures said:

Of course Clark isn't on the list, it's the most abused route the CTA has. It's seems like the management at 567 hates it!

 

21 hours ago, Busjack said:

On the official list, North Ave. is 72. BTW, 22 Clark isn't on the list, so @strictures doesn't get any relief..

Clark is starting to look like one of those streets where unless the city itself gets involved and changes the layouts, stops adding bike lanes on arterials, makes better decisions during cubs games cta can only do so much. To be fair cta has done a lot with Clark between adding artics, moving artics from other routes, stuff like that. Only other thing I can think of that would help is to either 

1: add PM buses starting at Grand or 

2: Split Clark service at Diversey into 2 routes which would give inbound riders from that point empty buses to relieve crowds and hopefully make the service a bit more manageable for cta with it being 2 shorter routes vs one long route having to contend with downtown traffic, then LP, then Wrigley and all that. 

 

 

 

[Sam92]

4 minutes ago, Sam92 said:

 

Clark is starting to look like one of those streets where unless the city itself gets involved and changes the layouts, stops adding bike lanes on arterials, makes better decisions during cubs games cta can only do so much. To be fair cta has done a lot with Clark between adding artics, moving artics from other routes, stuff like that. Only other thing I can think of that would help is to either 

1: add PM buses starting at Grand or 

2: Split Clark service at Diversey into 2 routes which would give inbound riders from that point empty buses to relieve crowds and hopefully make the service a bit more manageable for cta with it being 2 shorter routes vs one long route having to contend with downtown traffic, then LP, then Wrigley and all that. 

 

 

 

Adding a 3rd more simpler option: since Belmont and Halsted isn't used by 151 any more try 22's between downtown and Belmont 🤷

[artthouwill]

5 minutes ago, Sam92 said:

Adding a 3rd more simpler option: since Belmont and Halsted isn't used by 151 any more try 22's between downtown and Belmont 🤷

Perhaps this is where K comes in.  Rather than running artics on routes like 21, K could run these short turns on 22,  effectively trading in the 151 shorts it used to do for the 22 shorts.  This could be an all day every day service.   It relieves crowding south of Belmont and the folks north of Belmont don't lose any buses.   Perhaps CTA could also reinstate the 36 Broadway short turns to Waveland/Halsted and run those out of K as well.  

Best case scenario,  the extras help the full length 22s reduce travel time South of Belmont.  However it may not solve crowding and service gaps north of Belmont.   I can't think of any route extensions that could help the 22 without hurting the original route. 

[TaylorTank1229]

It appears that March 22nd is the effect date for spring changes on the CTA bus system.

CTA has announced the launching of a new “Frequent Network” initiative to improve frequency on select bus routes & operating on a “10-minute or less” frequency scale during certain times on all days of the week. The article confirms 20 bus routes will be part of this initiative, taking effect throughout 2025. The 8 listed below are the ones set for added service later this month:

#J14 Jeffery Jump  

#34 South Michigan  

#47 47th Street  

#54 Cicero 

#60 Blue Island/26th  

#63 63rd Street 

#79 79th Street 

#95 95th Street 

No other service changes to these or any other bus routes have yet to been announced at this time.

For more information on the CTA “Frequent Network” initiative, here’s the link to the press release:

https://www.transitchicago.com/cta-launches-new-frequent-network-for-buses/

[Sam92]

7 hours ago, artthouwill said:

  I can't think of any route extensions that could help the 22 without hurting the original route. 

Rerouting via Ashland between Ridge and Irving as @Busjack suggested looks like it would make those delays more tolerable. They're right next to each other and Ashland is wider. 

[strictures]

15 hours ago, Sam92 said:

Rerouting via Ashland between Ridge and Irving as @Busjack suggested looks like it would make those delays more tolerable. They're right next to each other and Ashland is wider. 

No, Clark is a quarter mile from Ashland between Montrose & Irving Park.  Much too far for the elderly to walk.

[NewFlyerMCI]

On 3/5/2025 at 9:27 AM, strictures said:

No, Clark is a quarter mile from Ashland between Montrose & Irving Park.  Much too far for the elderly to walk.

It's only a quarter mile from Berteau to Irving Park, not Montrose. Besides, would buses not serve the existing stops at Southport & Greenview? Half the ridership between Montrose & Irving Park are literal bones, and the other half likely will need to walk the same distance they do now, just in the opposite direction

[strictures]

9 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

It's only a quarter mile from Berteau to Irving Park, not Montrose. Besides, would buses not serve the existing stops at Southport & Greenview? Half the ridership between Montrose & Irving Park are literal bones, and the other half likely will need to walk the same distance they do now, just in the opposite direction

Again, you're not old with a heart condition! I am!  It's too far to walk when you do get old & have heart & breathing problems. Plus plenty of people live west of Clark there, lots of homes & apartment buildings on all the side streets in that area!

[artthouwill]

37 minutes ago, strictures said:

Again, you're not old with a heart condition! I am!  It's too far to walk when you do get old & have heart & breathing problems. Plus plenty of people live west of Clark there, lots of homes & apartment buildings on all the side streets in that area!

West of Clark but east of Ashland.   Unless you live just steps from Clark,  it's not a long walk.   While we can appreciate your particular ailments,  CTA service doesn't revolve totally around you.  Suppose someone with a similar condition lives steps from Ashland and Bertram.  They either have to make that walk to Clark or use paratransit  .  The Ashland reroute is a suggestion to speed up service on the portion of the route that you live on which is further north.   I would think you would be in favor of something that would reduce your wait times up in Rogers Park.

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, strictures said:

Again, you're not old with a heart condition! I am!  It's too far to walk when you do get old & have heart & breathing problems. Plus plenty of people live west of Clark there, lots of homes & apartment buildings on all the side streets in that area!

There's paratransit for that. Current CTA service standard approved by the FTA is 1/2 mile. You complain about massive delays but also complain about a suggestion to alleviate them.

[strictures]

8 hours ago, Busjack said:

There's paratransit for that. Current CTA service standard approved by the FTA is 1/2 mile. You complain about massive delays but also complain about a suggestion to alleviate them.

It won't speed it up, because it's a detour!  That means waiting at traffic lights to turn left in a city that doesn't believe cars should ever turn left.  That was a quote from a city traffic engineer in the tribune over 30 years ago, stating they always want traffic to go straight, which of course makes no sense!

And BTW, it's a lot more than half a mile from Clark to Western north of Edgewater Ave to Howard!

[Sam92]

4 minutes ago, strictures said:

It won't speed it up, because it's a detour!  That means waiting at traffic lights to turn left in a city that doesn't believe cars should ever turn left.  That was a quote from a city traffic engineer in the tribune over 30 years ago, stating they always want traffic to go straight, which of course makes no sense!

And BTW, it's a lot more than half a mile from Clark to Western north of Edgewater Ave to Howard!

Well by Edgewater the 22 would be back on Clark so that point is moot. Even with the turns that 17 blocks of being on a wider street where traffic flows better and allows buses can leapfrog and pass each other can make a pretty big difference now outside of all of that you made complaints we offered solutions which aren't too outlandish and those aren't satisfactory so outside of take the train if it's that torturous I don't know what else to tell you 🤷

[Busjack]

57 minutes ago, strictures said:

It won't speed it up, because it's a detour!  That means waiting at traffic lights to turn left in a city that doesn't believe cars should ever turn left.  That was a quote from a city traffic engineer in the tribune over 30 years ago, stating they always want traffic to go straight, which of course makes no sense!

 

Man, you're really old if you are relying on a 30-year-ago traffic engineer. I remember about 20 years ago, Chicago said TSP was not possible because the wiring was too old, but somehow it got installed. I suppose that the new 9 left turn onto Wilson to get to Ravenswood Metra is also impossible. Maybe your new aldercreature can get a left turn arrow.

I also remember when Pace, in cancelling 210 to downtown said that it couldn't make time on angular streets because of all the traffic lights at weird intersections. Now nothing runs on Lincoln south of the Brown Line. Maybe you want that for Clark, too.

Or maybe you just want to vent and end every sentence with an exclamation point!

53 minutes ago, Sam92 said:

 so outside of take the train if it's that torturous I don't know what else to tell you 🤷

Yet he was the on that said nobody would use the Peterson-Ridge station because it adjoins Rosehill Cemetery, but the portion of Clark we suggested be bypassed using  Ashland adjoins Graceland. Maybe Inez Clarke, the girl who reputedly leaves her grave every time there is a thunderstorm rides the 22 bus, but I believe Geoff Baer debunked that myth.

[strictures]

13 hours ago, Busjack said:

Yet he was the on that said nobody would use the Peterson-Ridge station because it adjoins Rosehill Cemetery, but the portion of Clark we suggested be bypassed using  Ashland adjoins Graceland. Maybe Inez Clarke, the girl who reputedly leaves her grave every time there is a thunderstorm rides the 22 bus, but I believe Geoff Baer debunked that myth.

Clark does not adjoin Rosehill, it's a quarter mile away at it's closest!

[Sam92]

12 minutes ago, strictures said:

Clark does not adjoin Rosehill, it's a quarter mile away at it's closest!

1 we said graceland 2: Again the point was that the detour both meets service standards and wouldn't be too inconvenient considering by your own logic with Peterson being close to Rose Hill. 3: Clark was the one of the first non LSD routes to get artics, had artics diverted from other routes during peak periods, various service pattern changes were made so your claims of 22 being such an unwanted neglected step child are HIGHLY exaggerated.   😐

[artthouwill]

30 minutes ago, strictures said:

Clark does not adjoin Rosehill, it's a quarter mile away at it's closest!

Did you read @Busjack's post that YOU QOUTED?  He clearly said Graceland.