Service beyond SP2025 (was: March 25 System Pick)

[wayfaringrob]

1 hour ago, renardo870 said:

Bring back N72 North Ave Owl

This has always made a lot of sense to me. The last run of the night usually seems pretty full to me, but I don't have actual comparative data on that. Regardless, it's low hanging fruit for conversion. It's already only 4 runs away from being an Owl and would fill a large gap in the Owl network on the west side. Speaking of the west side, I could also see them moving Owl service on the Forest Park branch to Lake, Pink, or Orange (potentially eliminating N20, N60, or N62), at least as long as the slow zones exist.

[TaylorTank1229]

2 hours ago, renardo870 said:

1 Bronzeville/Union Station to South Lakefront area would depend on the route it takes. Either via the previous Indiana/Hyde Park route or the older Drexel/Hyde Park route with some new twists that would use a Michigan, 26th, King Drive, Pershing or Oakwood, Cottage Grove, 40th, Drexel, Hyde Park and follow the current 6 Jackson Park Express routing to the 79th/Lakefront Terminal. If the latter route is the preferred choice, that may make way to bring back the former 38 Indiana route that would go from Union or Oglivie to 63rd Indiana/Michigan.

49B Noth Western to the Howardminal has enough space to accommodate it as well.Terminal is a good idea as it should have been extended there as far back as 2003.

X49 Western Express to Western/ Howard is nice but Howard Terminal has enough space to accommodate this route as well. 

75 74th/75th to 79th/Western Terminal is a good idea.

90 Harlem to Forest Park Terminal is a good idea.

91 Austin to 54/Cermak Terminal is a good idea. I thought 85 Central could go there but maybe I'm not sure if Central is more industrial south of Harrison. 

A Yates route would be nice but aside from serving Yates, what would be the beginning and end points for this?

2-3 new Owl Route/Extensions 🦉 Bring back N72 North Ave Owl, Extend N87 87th east to 91st/Commercial and restore either the N54 Cicero Owl or N151 Sheridan Owl. 

 

Restoring OWL service on North Avenue would probably be one of the better options. I know a few people that have stated 24-hour bus service along the street would be quite beneficial. Plus there’s only like 2-2.5 hour gap when buses aren’t in service since they stop running around 1:30-2am and start back up again around 3:15-4am so wouldn’t be a big deal have service added between those times. Also it would help cover the gap of no east-west OWL service between Chicago Ave & Belmont Ave.

[Busjack]

4 hours ago, renardo870 said:

1 Bronzeville/Union Station to South Lakefront area would depend on the route it takes. Either via the previous Indiana/Hyde Park route or the older Drexel/Hyde Park route with some new twists that would use a Michigan, 26th, King Drive, Pershing or Oakwood, Cottage Grove, 40th, Drexel, Hyde Park and follow the current 6 Jackson Park Express routing to the 79th/Lakefront Terminal. If the latter route is the preferred choice, that may make way to bring back the former 38 Indiana route that would go from Union or Oglivie to 63rd Indiana/Michigan.

49B Noth Western to the Howardminal has enough space to accommodate it as well.Terminal is a good idea as it should have been extended there as far back as 2003.

X49 Western Express to Western/ Howard is nice but Howard Terminal has enough space to accommodate this route as well. 

...

 

 

3 hours ago, artthouwill said:

There's no need for extending the 1 and duplicating service  

..

...

 

Finally,  I really don't see a purpose for extending the 48/X49 [no it's 49B] to Howard Red Line station    There's existing east west service on Howard, Touhy,, Lunt, and Devon to serve the Red Line. 

 

I was around when 1 Drexel-Hyde Park was rerouted from from Michigan/Indiana > Oakwood > Drexel, to via Michael Reese and Lake Meadows, but not when it became 1 Indiana-Hyde Park.  I was around when E Hyde Park Blvd. went to 15 and 1 was cut to 35th.  I agree with @artthouwill that @renardo870 reinstating prior versions would be redundant; Indiana/Michigan are close enough to State and the Red and Green Lines; as mentioned, Hyde Park Blvd. is covered by 15, and the old South Shore Dr. section is covered by 6 and 71. That's why I said I didn't understand what CTA meant, but if the concern is that there is nothing east of Cottage Grove, something on Lake Park or Oakenwald from 35th to 47th might have been contemplated. I don't know if that area has been redeveloped.

49B to Howard L is easier to explain. If X49 is extended to Howard, the turnaround on the 7500 block of North Western is too small, so move 49B to Howard L, where 201  will be vacating its spot.

[jajuan]

On 6/13/2025 at 9:30 PM, 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. 😂😂😂😂

 

On 6/14/2025 at 7:26 AM, 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 X49 to Howard extension was also discussed among us during during the time of the push for traffic signal priority along Western between Howard and 79th. 

[jajuan]

On 6/14/2025 at 10:48 AM, 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.

 

On 6/14/2025 at 6:57 PM, strictures said:

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.

 

On 6/14/2025 at 7:12 PM, Busjack said:

But can it make it at Peterson-Ravenswood?

If a bus along the city portion of Ridge were in consideration, right turn from Peterson to Ravenswood would be possible, but it would need to likely turn from the right travel lane (overall middle lane) instead of the right turn lane because of Ravenswood only about as wide as Lunt. Plus North Park operators do have experience with tight right turns given those who drive the 136 and 147 northbound trips in 40 foot buses manage to negotiate the turn from Foster onto Sheridan, which is a turn comparable to this one in the hypothetical route alignment. 

[strictures]

16 hours ago, jajuan said:

 

 

If a bus along the city portion of Ridge were in consideration, right turn from Peterson to Ravenswood would be possible, but it would need to likely turn from the right travel lane (overall middle lane) instead of the right turn lane because of Ravenswood only about as wide as Lunt. Plus North Park operators do have experience with tight right turns given those who drive the 136 and 147 northbound trips in 40 foot buses manage to negotiate the turn from Foster onto Sheridan, which is a turn comparable to this one in the hypothetical route alignment. 

The problem at Peterson/Ravenswood is there's always SB traffic on Ravenswood there, making it even a tighter turn, where the bus would have to wait for the traffic to clear that corner, especially since the railroad embankment is right up to the street. 

[jajuan]

30 minutes ago, strictures said:

The problem at Peterson/Ravenswood is there's always SB traffic on Ravenswood there, making it even a tighter turn, where the bus would have to wait for the traffic to clear that corner, especially since the railroad embankment is right up to the street. 

Mainly during rush periods if we're talking traffic that can be a hindrance. Most of the time, what southbound traffic comes through is pretty light as most of that southbound traffic will have followed Ridge under the viaduct next to the Norwood Street intersection. I live a block north of that intersection, so I'm quite familiar with it. Foster onto Sheridan is just as tight because of because of the bulb out feature of the sidewalk created by Sheridan widening just beyond the crosswalk instead of right at the corner. Even with the curb along that turn being more rounded off than the Peterson/Ravenswood turn, the space for turning NB buses at Foster/Sheridan is pretty much the same as would be the case for a hypothetical bus at Peterson/Ravenswood. There's also the added complication of turning against the southbound left turn lane on Sheridan. Yet, buses, including the artics that operate the majority of 147 service, negotiate that turn everyday. That should make a hypothetical turn from Peterson to Ravenswood possible since, as I already stated, NP bus operators do have the experience with that type of tight right turn.

[Busjack]

3 hours ago, strictures said:

The problem at Peterson/Ravenswood is there's always SB traffic on Ravenswood there, making it even a tighter turn, where the bus would have to wait for the traffic to clear that corner, especially since the railroad embankment is right up to the street. 

@jajuan and I mentioned other places where CTA and Pace buses face the same problem, but I see I didn't obtain a response from a driver.

[strictures]

2 hours ago, jajuan said:

Mainly during rush periods if we're talking traffic that can be a hindrance. Most of the time, what southbound traffic comes through is pretty light as most of that southbound traffic will have followed Ridge under the viaduct next to the Norwood Street intersection. I live a block north of that intersection, so I'm quite familiar with it. Foster onto Sheridan is just as tight because of because of the bulb out feature of the sidewalk created by Sheridan widening just beyond the crosswalk instead of right at the corner. Even with the curb along that turn being more rounded off than the Peterson/Ravenswood turn, the space for turning NB buses at Foster/Sheridan is pretty much the same as would be the case for a hypothetical bus at Peterson/Ravenswood. There's also the added complication of turning against the southbound left turn lane on Sheridan. Yet, buses, including the artics that operate the majority of 147 service, negotiate that turn everyday. That should make a hypothetical turn from Peterson to Ravenswood possible since, as I already stated, NP bus operators do have the experience with that type of tight right turn.

Artics can make a shorter turn radius than a 40 foot bus.

[MetroShadow]

5 hours ago, strictures said:

The problem at Peterson/Ravenswood is there's always SB traffic on Ravenswood there, making it even a tighter turn, where the bus would have to wait for the traffic to clear that corner, especially since the railroad embankment is right up to the street. 

 

2 hours ago, strictures said:

Artics can make a shorter turn radius than a 40 foot bus.

Move the SB Stop line about 50-60 feet back, and this isn't so much of a problem. 

(I'd almost say the same with SB Clarendon at Irving Park, but that's a doable turn)

[jajuan]

2 hours ago, strictures said:

Artics can make a shorter turn radius than a 40 foot bus.

There are more than just artics that make the Foster/Sheridan turn. 40 foot buses sometimes operate on the 147, especially on the weekday afternoon and evening short turns as well as during some weekends. Plus the NB 136 is now overwhelmingly operated with 40 foot buses. North Park operators still manage to negotiate the 40 footers through that turn regularly as they do an artic. 

[jajuan]

Heck, I just remembered another location that tight right turn issue pops up is the Paulina/Polk intersection in the Medical District. Ever since the concrete barriers were placed along Polk to separate the bike lanes from traffic, the space available for the 7 Harrison buses to make that right turn has been like making a turn into a residential side street. Even before those barriers were placed, that turn was really tight because of Polk being narrow for a two lane roadway. Then there's the loop that buses at the Roosevelt Road terminus of the southbound 91. That involves making a right turn from one side street to another, both of which are the same width as Ravenswood. That's two more examples of CTA buses running into this issue. 

[Busjack]

48 minutes ago, jajuan said:

Then there's the loop that buses at the Roosevelt Road terminus of the southbound 91. That involves making a right turn from one side street to another, both of which are the same width as Ravenswood.

Which might be a reason for the proposal to extend 91 to the Pink Line, despite overlap with Pace.

As was brought out in the last CT Board meeting, part of the 53/53A alignment was getting the 82 layover off the street and into the 31st-Komensky terminal, and Dir. Requejo (I believe, and he appears intelligent) commended staff for working with the union on this type of stuff.

As I mentioned with respect to 49B to Howard L, some of these changes are not as hard to figure out as they appear. For instance the extension of  9 to Ravenswood Metra was not so much about regional connectivity as losing the layover at Clark-Berteau.

[artthouwill]

3 hours ago, strictures said:

Artics can make a shorter turn radius than a 40 foot bus.

The CTA operators can offer more insight,  but you still need to take into consideration the back end of the bus.  The rear wheels only follow the path of the front half of the  bus, so  the rear wheels of the front portion of the bus  have to clear enough that the rear wheels of the bus don't jump the curb..  

[Mr.NewFlyer1279]

11 hours ago, jajuan said:

Then there's the loop that buses at the Roosevelt Road terminus of the southbound 91

the 91 turn onto filmore isn’t bad……it’s bad when it reaches mason/filmore there’s cars parked illegally damn near all the time there 

[renardo870]

On 6/17/2025 at 11:08 AM, artthouwill said:

There's no need for extending the 1 and duplicating service  

There's absolutely no reason to extend the 90 to Forest Park Blue Line.   The 318 does that and the 307 serves the Harlem station on the Forest Park branch.     

Extending the 85 or the 81 to 54th/Cermak accomplishes nothing but wasted fuel .

I think the only reason for the 75 extension to 79th/Western is to provide a direct connection for driver reliefs for the 49 as well as XTA looking to sell the 74th/Damen bus turnaround property.

Apparently the ridership wasn't there which caused Sheridan to lose its OWL service.   It was justified by its proximity to the Red Line ( which provides 15 minute OWL service frequency).  

I wouldn't mind seeing N87 being extended east to at least Anthony but I think CTA feels like the N5 is within 3/4 of a mile  and is sufficient to cover 87th.  The restored N4 service to 95th also fills in the gap a bit so an N87 extension most likely will not ever happen. 

Finally,  I really don't see a purpose for extending the 48/X49 to Howard Red Line station    There's existing east west service on Howard, Touhy,, Lunt, and Devon to serve the Red Line. 

 

I'll wait to see what the proposed 1 Bronzeville/ Union Station extension to the South Lakefront looks like as I'm aware of the duplicate services in play.

The 49B North Western would a one seat ride ride between the Howard R-P-Y Terminal and the Western Brown Line and make new connections Red, Purple and Yellow Lines, the 22, 97, 147, 201, 206, 213, 215 and of course 290. Besides, a lot of the pull-ins and pull-outs uses Howard and Western to get to/from the North Park garage so why not use some of those buses in-service between Foster and Howard. This may be CTA Operations Planning rationale since it's on their list.

75th to 79th/Western makes sense.

Restoring N87 would connect the N4 and N5 on the east end and possibly extending it to 79th/Western would connect N49 and N79 on the west as well as the existing N9 Ashland Owl connection. Just my idea, though it could be CTA rationale as well.

The 90 Harlem extension proposal to Forest Park may be in part due to future Pulse Harlem and North Ave services which makes more limited stops along the corridor and less local service so the 90 service would fill in the gap. 

Extending the 91 Austin to 54th/Cermak Terminal gets them off the side streets, serving Austin and Cermak and gives the operators a good layover and proper bathroom facilities. Again, that may be Operations Planning rationale.

[EasyMoney]

The 

[MetroShadow]

20 hours ago, EasyMoney said:

The 

Without much context, this is likely the number of drivers (or picks) needed and used up...

[EasyMoney]

Yeah I Know Got In at 103 tired of NP