Service beyond SP2025 (was: March 25 System Pick)

[Busjack]

8 hours ago, EasyMoney said:

All I Know Is 77th Needs Artics    

3KingDrive

4CottageGrove

79th

These The Routes That Could use Them

They had them, and they didn't work, especially two times on 79 (NABIs and 4300s). Too much bus bunching, especially behind 40 ft. buses.

[Tcmetro]

Yates could be a reroute of the 15, especially since the J14 recently received better frequency and service hours. 

I thought that the Jeff Park stop on the 92 was pretty busy. The Blue Line connection would be at Harlem, but would lose connections to a few routes, namely the 56, extended 57, 81W, and 91. 

With the 88/92 combination, looks like the Norwood Park service would be gone?

55A/N/62H - looks like Austin and Narragansett service would be gone and the route would just go 55th to Harlem to 63rd?

90 extension to Forest Park duplicates the 318 and the future North/Harlem Pulse Line. IMO, it would be more useful for CTA and Pace to partner, and extend the 307 by 4 miles up to the Harlem Blue Line. 

For the 143 - I would instead eliminate the 134, as the 156 takes the same amount of time to get to LaSalle St and the 143 would still service Michigan & Lake (Illinois Center). There's a lot of overlap on these routes though, so I'd imagine the 143 recommendation comes from a more detailed review of the travel patterns. 

[Busjack]

2 hours ago, Sam92 said:

Only way I can see Yates being an option is as an extension of 75 to 87th cause that would be the only strip of Yates that is far enough from other routes to not be considered repetitive and I doubt they'd pull 71 from South Shore/Commercial to cover that

It looks like some planner likes every half mile, no matter what. There used to be a 5B Yates-Colfax, but it was for Chicago Vocational School trips. I don't know if CVS has sufficient enrollment to support that today.

[Sam92]

11 hours ago, Busjack said:

1.  
2. When I lived on that part of Ridge, I thought about a boulevard CTA route, but in addition to Ridge being congested in Chicago, I'm not sure how it would get under the railroad at Ravenswood and Peterson or Ridge, but I suppose something can be worked out.

I was thinking via Ridge to Devon or Pratt, Sheridan/Broadway to Bryn mawr if they do this. It gets people from Evanston to Loyola and addresses the numerous complaints of people riding from north of Bryn mawr into Evanston not liking the transfer at Howard with all the random boarding changes resulting in a missed train (and there's a LOT)

[Busjack]

3 minutes ago, Tcmetro said:

With the 88/92 combination, looks like the Norwood Park service would be gone?

55A/N/62H - looks like Austin and Narragansett service would be gone and the route would just go 55th to Harlem to 63rd?

90 extension to Forest Park duplicates the 318 and the future North/Harlem Pulse Line. IMO, it would be more useful for CTA and Pace to partner, and extend the 307 by 4 miles up to the Harlem Blue Line. 

88/92 looks to me something like bringing back the old 64 Foster-Lawrence circulator, except not connect then on the west end. When that ended, and the Blue Line was built without a station between Jefferson Park and Harlem, the only local service is on Higgins. Again inferring that some planner likes routes every  1/2 mile (California, Pratt, Yates), put it on Foster. But I guess Higgins splits the difference. 

59W: Based on the prior proposal to have a bus via 55th, Austin, 59th, Naragansettand back, and again the 1/2 mile rule, I would think something straight on 59th to the extent possible. No sense on 55th, as Archer is 55th west of Naragansett.

90: I considered the extension to the Green Line poaching, resulting in half of 307s being cut back to the Green Line. This is one case where we need NITA.

[Busjack]

3 minutes ago, Sam92 said:

I was thinking via Ridge to Devon or Pratt, Sheridan/Broadway to Bryn mawr if they do this. It gets people from Evanston to Loyola and addresses the numerous complaints of people riding from north of Bryn mawr into Evanston not liking the transfer at Howard with all the random boarding changes resulting in a missed train (and there's a LOT)

That doesn't work. The Northwestern Intercampus Shuttle provides a direct ride to Loyola. When I said I lived around there, the ONLY way downtown was 155 to Loyola L, which was an awful slow and crowded ride.  Your routing doesn't cure that. That's also why I said I favored the Peterson-Ridge station.  

The last sentence makes me think that it should be possible to serve that station and make a right turn onto Ravenswood.

In my days of "if I ran transit," I would have a 142 Ridge to Downtown via Hollywood and LSD, but that's not gonna happen. But CTA's proposal takes care of that there's nothing between Clark and Western.

[Sam92]

42 minutes ago, Tcmetro said:

Yates could be a reroute of the 15, especially since the J14 recently received better frequency and service hours. 

55A/N/62H - looks like Austin and Narragansett service would be gone and the route would just go 55th to Harlem to 63rd?

 

I'm with you on 15 cause like I said earlier I don't see Yates being a standalone route but someone on Jeffery might complain cause 15 is to replace 6 service to Hyde Park that 2003 changes took away which is why I suggested 75.

55W: the idea at the time was to consolidate 55A/N into a loop that avoided the railroad south of 59th. This time CTA appears to be telling people west of Narragansett to transfer at Pulaski instead of Midway by consolidating 62H into 62 which is essentially the same (62H apparently exists cause people insisted on getting on at midway instead for some reason)

[Busjack]

3 minutes ago, Sam92 said:

This time CTA appears to be telling people west of Narragansett to transfer at Pulaski instead of Midway by consolidating 62H into 62 which is essentially the same (62H apparently exists cause people insisted on getting on at midway instead for some reason)

As I indicated while you were typing, I don't think that's the intent because other than Harlem between Archer and 63rd, it would be totally redundant of 62.

[Sam92]

2 minutes ago, Busjack said:

As I indicated while you were typing, I don't think that's the intent because other than Harlem between Archer and 63rd, it would be totally redundant of 62.

That's what I meant. 62 is redundant but just drops people off at Pulaski, 62H was made to please Lipinski or whoever has some type of influence when the orange changes were made and cta is telling them use 62 and you'll still get to the orange line. 

 

9 minutes ago, Busjack said:

That doesn't work. The Northwestern Intercampus Shuttle provides a direct ride to Loyola. When I said I lived around there, the ONLY way downtown was 155 to Loyola L, which was an awful slow and crowded ride.  Your routing doesn't cure that. That's also why I said I favored the Peterson-Ridge station.  

The last sentence makes me think that it should be possible to serve that station and make a right turn onto Ravenswood.

In my days of "if I ran transit," I would have a 142 Ridge to Downtown via Hollywood and LSD, but that's not gonna happen. But CTA's proposal takes care of that there's nothing between Clark and Western.

It's not perfect but it addresses your concern about getting under the viaduct plus Clark is pretty close until north of Pratt. 84 goes via Ridge close to that area. 

[BusOps]

13 hours ago, TaylorTank1229 said:

Looking at the route assignment notice here, seems CTA has some more potential route change/restructuring between this year’s end and next year or further (some that’s already known/coming):

Winter 2025:

•75: Extended to 79th/Western

•81W: Eliminate weekend service along  Cumberland Avenue to operate on East River Road on all days.

•93: Extended to Logan Square Blue Line Station

2026 (or later):

•2-3 new OWL routes/extension

 

It not 2-3 New Owl Service. It’s Extension, Consolidation or Eliminate the current ones 

 

[MetroShadow]

14 hours ago, YoungBusLover said:

Well one thing is for sure and two things are for certain, I do not approve of 77th getting the #39 back from Kedzie. 😂😂😂😂

Sheesh. What a find, and thanks for sharing this (as Jack said: Let the speculation begin!)

Could someone explain (because I can't) what "rationalization" is in ops context? 

[Sam92]

19 minutes ago, MetroShadow said:

Sheesh. What a find, and thanks for sharing this (as Jack said: Let the speculation begin!)

Could someone explain (because I can't) what "rationalization" is in ops context? 

I'm guessing using extended/rerouted segments of nearby routes to replace an eliminated route is "rationalization" like 92 to Harlem. Or 148 being rerouted to replace 144. 

[MetroShadow]

1 hour ago, Busjack said:

That doesn't work. The Northwestern Intercampus Shuttle provides a direct ride to Loyola. When I said I lived around there, the ONLY way downtown was 155 to Loyola L, which was an awful slow and crowded ride.  Your routing doesn't cure that. That's also why I said I favored the Peterson-Ridge station.  

The last sentence makes me think that it should be possible to serve that station and make a right turn onto Ravenswood.

In my days of "if I ran transit," I would have a 142 Ridge to Downtown via Hollywood and LSD, but that's not gonna happen. But CTA's proposal takes care of that there's nothing between Clark and Western.

Just dawned on me: Back when I was a student at Decatur (Mid-90's), I was bussed from Lakeview to West Ridge, and we had to take Ridge to get there. Our bus (at the time) was a 37-foot bus (larger than the one pictured), which took those turns better than I thought, and maybe the CTA can confirm that those turns are doable. I'd come up with an alternate plan if that doesn't work out.

 

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, Sam92 said:

1. ...
2. 55W: the idea at the time was to consolidate 55A/N into a loop that avoided the railroad south of 59th. This time CTA appears to be telling people west of Narragansett to transfer at Pulaski instead of Midway by consolidating 62H into 62 which is essentially the same (62H apparently exists cause people insisted on getting on at midway instead for some reason)

1 hour ago, Sam92 said:

That's what I meant. 62 is redundant but just drops people off at Pulaski, 62H was made to please Lipinski or whoever has some type of influence when the orange changes were made and cta is telling them use 62 and you'll still get to the orange line. 

 

It's not perfect but it addresses your concern about getting under the viaduct plus Clark is pretty close until north of Pratt. 84 goes via Ridge close to that area. 

I may have misinterpreted your first comment. If you meant that 62H shouldn't run from Midway via Archer, I see that point, but I think the intent is to run 59W from Midway via Austin, 59th to Harlem.

On 201, @MetroShadow and I aren't too concerned about the viaduct, and admittedly it would overlap 84, but it has to go somewhere, and your suggestions would overlap 155 on Devon and 96 and 155 on Pratt/Morse.

[Busjack]

3 hours ago, Tcmetro said:

..

90 extension to Forest Park duplicates the 318 and the future North/Harlem Pulse Line. IMO, it would be more useful for CTA and Pace to partner, and extend the 307 by 4 miles up to the Harlem Blue Line. 

... 

 

2 hours ago, Busjack said:

..

90: I considered the extension to the Green Line poaching, resulting in half of 307s being cut back to the Green Line. This is one case where we need NITA.

Thinking more about this (PLEASE TELL ME NOT TO DO THAT!) maybe someone thinks 318 should stay on North Ave, and end at North/Harlem or the North/Naragansett turnaround. But that would take a finding that riders on North Ave. don't want to go to the Green or Blue Line.

Still a reason for NITA.

[Sam92]

7 minutes ago, Busjack said:

 

Thinking more about this (PLEASE TELL ME NOT TO DO THAT!) maybe someone thinks 318 should stay on North Ave, and end at North/Harlem or the North/Naragansett turnaround. But that would take a finding that riders on North Ave. don't want to go to the Green or Blue Line.

Still a reason for NITA.

That and finishing Evanston is probably gonna be a priority for NITA. If I'm not mistaken, I think North Ave. Is supposed to be part of Pulse network at some point. 

Edit: after further thought it's probably less of a headache to get rid of 90. Let Pulse or 307 extend to the O'Hare branch station. I'm curious would NITA be able to help CTA and pace sell each other equipment for situations like these to cover the service if pace says they don't have the resources to take over a switch like this, Evanston and (to a lesser extent) 108?

 

[Sam92]

2 hours ago, BusOps said:

It not 2-3 New Owl Service. It’s Extension, Consolidation or Eliminate the current ones 

 

Hmm.... I got a few guesses:

N9 extended to Sheridan Red line or even Ravenswood. (I think Damen has bar crowd demand and isn't too far from Ashland); knowing they considered N151 parallel to the red line, 22 crosses the red line and is close to Ashland in a lot of areas so this consolidates north side service while also filling a gap on Ashland north of North Ave. 

I want to say N87 to commercial.

A wild guess:

A split of N5 somehow? Maybe send it straight south on Jeffery as N15 and N95 can do 95th red to 67th/South Shore

N20 back to Harlem?

[MetroShadow]

1 hour ago, Busjack said:

 

Thinking more about this (PLEASE TELL ME NOT TO DO THAT!) maybe someone thinks 318 should stay on North Ave, and end at North/Harlem or the North/Naragansett turnaround. But that would take a finding that riders on North Ave. don't want to go to the Green or Blue Line.

Still a reason for NITA.

Considering the 757 used to operate shortcut through Circle Blvd., why not take the 90 or 318 through it (If Forest Park is willing)?

[Javi75]

10 hours ago, Sam92 said:

 

X49 to Howard makes sense cause 49B isn't exactly a slouch plus X49 at some point had an extra 2 miles anyway but no point going back there.

62H being included in the 55W restructuring makes sense with 62 being there for most of the route. 

201: I think that's a case of Evanston students wanting to get to Loyola on one seat and being tired of the purple/red teansfer (seen a LOT of complaints about people making that type of ride about the switch at Howard). Bryn Mawr probably is just the only place they can turn back.

1: extend via what that wouldn't be redundant? Are they going all the way back to 79th?

143: I'm sure there wasn't too big of a time difference to begin with so if rush hour isn't as bad then 151 can handle it. I'm surprised 134 isn't being considered. 

54A: I wonder if pace still plans on 641

The 134 is the only bus route that goes from Sheridan & Stockton to Wacker Drive, a huge chunk of the 134/135/136 ridership is on Wacker Drive. 

[YoungBusLover]

2 hours ago, Sam92 said:

Hmm.... I got a few guesses:

N9 extended to Sheridan Red line or even Ravenswood. (I think Damen has bar crowd demand and isn't too far from Ashland); knowing they considered N151 parallel to the red line, 22 crosses the red line and is close to Ashland in a lot of areas so this consolidates north side service while also filling a gap on Ashland north of North Ave. 

I want to say N87 to commercial.

A wild guess:

A split of N5 somehow? Maybe send it straight south on Jeffery as N15 and N95 can do 95th red to 67th/South Shore

N20 back to Harlem?

Anything's is possible with this company.

[strictures]

6 hours ago, MetroShadow said:

Just dawned on me: Back when I was a student at Decatur (Mid-90's), I was bussed from Lakeview to West Ridge, and we had to take Ridge to get there. Our bus (at the time) was a 37-foot bus (larger than the one pictured), which took those turns better than I thought, and maybe the CTA can confirm that those turns are doable. I'd come up with an alternate plan if that doesn't work out.

 

No way a CTA bus can make the turn NB on Ridge there at Ravenswood/Norwood. 

Eventually Metra will replace that 108 year old bridge with a skewed one & maybe then a bus could make the turn.  But with no service between Clark & Western North of Rosehill Cemetery, have the 50 Damen go north on Clark to Devon & then west to Ridge & end at the Howard/Birchwood terminal.

[artthouwill]

3 hours ago, MetroShadow said:

Considering the 757 used to operate shortcut through Circle Blvd., why not take the 90 or 318 through it (If Forest Park is willing)?

The 757 only used Circle to pick up passengers to start the route.  Pace never used South Blvd for picking up passengers except for a detour from Lake Street.  The standard route for the 757, 318, and at one time the 305, was Harlem,  Madison, and Desplaines .  The reverse routing was true for all 3 routes and the 757 dropped off on Harlem at South Blvd to end the route.   

[Busjack]

4 hours ago, Sam92 said:

A split of N5 somehow? Maybe send it straight south on Jeffery as N15 and N95 can do 95th red to 67th/South Shore

Considering the mess it looked like on the tracker when 95E and 95W were combined and the last 95 trip was shown as going to 69th, it would make more sense to say N95 between 95-Red Line to 92-Commercial, and N71 or something else from 69th-Red Line to Commercial-92, with a note that the 2 lines are interlined.*

If you are saying to have N15 in addition to N5, I don't see it, as Jeffrey is not an industrial street, nor has a major hospital. 4 am to midnight is sufficient.

------------

*Signs never worked properly on circular routes or those like N5 that double back; splitting Niles 410 from 411 shows that this method works better.

[Busjack]

12 minutes ago, strictures said:

No way a CTA bus can make the turn NB on Ridge there at Ravenswood/Norwood.

But can it make it at Peterson-Ravenswood?

[Sam92]

56 minutes ago, Busjack said:

Considering the mess it looked like on the tracker when 95E and 95W were combined and the last 95 trip was shown as going to 69th, it would make more sense to say N95 between 95-Red Line to 92-Commercial, and N71 or something else from 69th-Red Line to Commercial-92, with a note that the 2 lines are interlined.*

If you are saying to have N15 in addition to N5, I don't see it, as Jeffrey is not an industrial street, nor has a major hospital. 4 am to midnight is sufficient.

------------

*Signs never worked properly on circular routes or those like N5 that double back; splitting Niles 410 from 411 shows that this method works better.

I honestly retained N95 to 67th cause I figured someone on Commercial/South shore would whine about my first thought to terminate N95 and N15 at Trinity. This was piggybacking on my N87 idea. if all the main routes go to their ends at the lakefront you can just stay on  the red line till whatever stop and take the bus straight east from there instead of the N5 going around to cover the east side. By realigning the N5 to continue south on Jeffery and terminate at Trinity the gap in owl service east of Cottage isn't as wide.