MetroShadow Posted November 16, 2024 Report Share Posted November 16, 2024 The high-level concepts and survey are now available for review. Moderator note: these are not the final designs - only illustrations of the redesigns based on the services (and funding) available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted November 23, 2024 Report Share Posted November 23, 2024 On 11/10/2024 at 9:49 AM, Busjack said: .... Eric Llewellyn's presentation on theoretical possibilities for Harlem Ave. also left the following impressions: ... On 11/15/2024 at 7:31 PM, MetroShadow said: The high-level concepts and survey are now available for review. Moderator note: these are not the final designs - only illustrations of the redesigns based on the services (and funding) available. Although Llewellyn did the Route 423 presentation to the Board, the pages were in the high-level presentation, so they probably were the consultants' work. Although not being a service plan, the pdf allowed me to magnify it, and one of the things I found interesting was that Dundee Road was considered a Ridership corridor, "Route 260," from Palatine to Highland Park via Dundee Rd., Waukegan Rd., and Deerfield Rd., incorporating Route 471. Currently, parts of the route are covered by 234 and 604, which serve other purposes (604 being an I-90 feeder and 234 being primarily a N-S route to Mt. Prospect and Des Plaines) . But, thinking about it, Highland Park makes more sense to go to Highland Park than, say, straight Dundee Rd. to Glencoe. Going back to the meeting, Dir. Marcucci from DuPage County also expressed skepticism, saying that these concepts ask for more money, but take away what little transit DuPage has (the trunk corridors are about the same). This time the response was that the Board may have to customize service for different communities, but considering that there was pushback from 3 of the 6 counties, I continue to think that Pace didn't get much "bang for its buck," especially when DAR and On Demand were essentially not considered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted February 19 Report Share Posted February 19 Presentation at the Feb meeting was mostly process: feedeback was basically 50-50 with regard to more frequency or more coverage, with a greater demand for On Demand in the collar counties. More next month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetroShadow Posted Thursday at 10:41 PM Report Share Posted Thursday at 10:41 PM On 2/19/2025 at 1:27 PM, Busjack said: Presentation at the Feb meeting was mostly process: feedeback was basically 50-50 with regard to more frequency or more coverage, with a greater demand for On Demand in the collar counties. More next month. March meeting (and accompanying press release) gives feedback on the short-term "streamline" concept but a framework of growth (and somewhat favoring coverage). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted Friday at 01:03 AM Report Share Posted Friday at 01:03 AM 1 hour ago, MetroShadow said: March meeting (and accompanying press release) gives feedback on the short-term "streamline" concept but a framework of growth (and somewhat favoring coverage). I haven't found a video of the March Board meeting, but I'm sure this video of the Planning Committee is consistent with it. The lasting point is that the board members were asked, if you got extra funds, what proportion would go into ridership and what percentage would go into coverage, and the conclusion was 60/40 or 70/30 coverage over ridership, coverage being appropriate in the collar counties and far north and far south Cook County (far north defined as north of Golf Road, far south apparently defined as the Lansing On Demand.. Constatino indicated what he didn't like: Circular routes, especially unidirectional ones (picking on 541), saying that while it may provide coverage. people don't want to take the long way around. Routes with deviations only on some trips (although I bet most of those are school rips). On Demand, at least as reflected by comments hat it can only carry 5 or 6 passengers an hour, and thus isn't scalable. He got some pushback from Director Smith, who noted (1) the Round Lake one does get students to College of Lake County, and (2) if you improve coverage, Pace could spend less subsidizing Dial-a-Ride projects. Director Canning apparently learned something from the North Shore Coordination fiasco: starting around here :"I had flashbacks to the Library in Northbrook where we had a very unhappy crowd. We had a route in Northbrook with very infrequent service and proposed cutting it." The rest of it was that the special needs students used the bus to learn how to get to the mall.{IMO, Pace made other mistakes that resulted in the backslash over the proposal to cut 422.] After Constentio's remark that the same amount of people would be with a 1/4 or 1/2 mile of a bus, "we had this situation in Evanston at the high school, where band members would have to carry their instruments" [which led to the 213-H trips]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted Friday at 06:21 PM Report Share Posted Friday at 06:21 PM 17 hours ago, Busjack said: I haven't found a video of the March Board meeting, It's finally posted here.The presentation was a little more tailored to the feedback at the Planning Committee meeting that there is a sliding scale and something like 70/30 coverage/ridership was preferred. Also a good amount was mentioned about population growth in the collar counties and how it is difficult to assess interest if there is no current public transportation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.