TaylorTank1229 Posted January 26 Report Posted January 26 (edited) Any words on possible service changes/restructuring for the Spring 2026 bus picks? Edited March 25 by MetroShadow Edited to reflect CY26 bus changes, with or without NITA
Busjack Posted January 26 Report Posted January 26 3 hours ago, TaylorTank1229 said: Any words on possible service changes/restructuring for the Spring 2026 bus picks? Wouldn't be NITA (this topic). Try again.
renardo870 Posted February 12 Report Posted February 12 Good afternoon. Is there any information on upcoming routes that will be added to the Frequency Bus Network this year? I heard that between 10 and 20 bus routes will be added.
Sam92 Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 On 2/12/2026 at 12:39 PM, renardo870 said: Good afternoon. Is there any information on upcoming routes that will be added to the Frequency Bus Network this year? I heard that between 10 and 20 bus routes will be added. No details but they basically want to fill in gaps and slowly at some point have a frequent bus every mile give or take going by the budget. So 74, 80, and 8 sound like solid candidates. Maybe 155 to fill in the gap north of Lawrence. 49B might eventually make it because west of Clark there'd be a gap in frequent bus service all the way to McCormick. I want to say 87 but west of Western seems too weak ridership wise to support every bus going through. Then we have the gap between 12 and 47. 60 is close enough to Cermak to not need 21 added so I think 62 might get picked to fill in the gap. 71 and 85 also fill in gaps 🤷. Maybe 111 for south of 95th? 1 1
renardo870 Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 13 hours ago, Sam92 said: No details but they basically want to fill in gaps and slowly at some point have a frequent bus every mile give or take going by the budget. So 74, 80, and 8 sound like solid candidates. Maybe 155 to fill in the gap north of Lawrence. 49B might eventually make it because west of Clark there'd be a gap in frequent bus service all the way to McCormick. I want to say 87 but west of Western seems too weak ridership wise to support every bus going through. Then we have the gap between 12 and 47. 60 is close enough to Cermak to not need 21 added so I think 62 might get picked to fill in the gap. 71 and 85 also fill in gaps 🤷. Maybe 111 for south of 95th? I agree some of those routes. I also think 3, 6, 22, 35, 36, 52, 67, 94, 146, 147 and 151 may be considered as well. I think 21 could be in play as well. 87 may be a better draw if it were to be extended to Ford City Terminal to connect with 53, 54B, 67 and 79. I guess we will get more information before the Spring '26 Bus Pick 1
Elkmn Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 This is a long shot, but maybe the 119 or 111, to give roseland a frequent east-west route?
Sam92 Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 3 hours ago, Elkmn said: This is a long shot, but maybe the 119 or 111, to give roseland a frequent east-west route? 111. It would give better coverage until they can do others in the area. 1 1
renardo870 Posted February 18 Report Posted February 18 On 2/17/2026 at 10:27 AM, Elkmn said: This is a long shot, but maybe the 119 or 111, to give roseland a frequent east-west route? 119, unfortunately wouldn't have a lot of ridership along 119th St for frequent service unless service is restructured/ expanded/extended elsewhere (Western from 119th to 79th for instance) and the Michigan portion is well covered by the 34. 111 would be be better. 1
Elkmn Posted February 18 Report Posted February 18 36 minutes ago, renardo870 said: 111 would be be better. It'd also be good for king drive to bolster north-south service in east roseland 1
artthouwill Posted February 19 Report Posted February 19 1 hour ago, Elkmn said: It'd also be good for king drive to bolster north-south service in east roseland Why when Michigan King Drive and Cottage Grove is within 3/4 mile of either at 103rd and 1/2 at 111th?
Elkmn Posted February 19 Report Posted February 19 More service is always good, and roseland is incredibly reliant on transit.
Sam92 Posted February 19 Report Posted February 19 2 minutes ago, Elkmn said: More service is always good, and roseland is incredibly reliant on transit. Yes but you gotta remember most of that is gonna be a realignment of service to the extension stations. Right now the main issue in Roseland and south of 95th in general is the long ride just to get to the train plus the traffic from all the buses that terminate. Now how is south King Drive gonna be handled is a different story. Maybe 3 gets an extension
Busjack Posted February 19 Report Posted February 19 1 hour ago, Elkmn said: More service is always good, and roseland is incredibly reliant on transit. Neither is necessarily true, as shown by today's Pace planning video. If you extend service to somewhere that can't support it, it means you can't afford to provide it elsewhere as frequently as demand requires. People in Roseland may be transit-dependent, but how much of Roseland is wasteland?
YoungBusLover Posted February 19 Report Posted February 19 1 hour ago, Sam92 said: Yes but you gotta remember most of that is gonna be a realignment of service to the extension stations. Right now the main issue in Roseland and south of 95th in general is the long ride just to get to the train plus the traffic from all the buses that terminate. Now how is south King Drive gonna be handled is a different story. Maybe 3 gets an extension At the very least have every other #3 terminate at 95th/Red Line - 115th and Cottage Grove as both streets end there at the Metra Electric Station. There is enough space to have a max of 3 buses layover there at one time at 115th/Cottage Grove and then 2 buses on the opposite side at Front Street.
Busjack Posted February 19 Report Posted February 19 1 minute ago, YoungBusLover said: At the very least have the 3 terminate at 115th and Cottage Grove as both streets end there at the Metra Electric Station. There is enough space to have a max of 3 buses layover there at one time at 115th/Cottage Grove and then 2 buses on the opposite side at Front Street. Also, CTA has an intergovernmental agreement to use the Metra washroom. Anything along these lines would have to take into account that 111 and 115 are interlined at the former Target at 117th, and any bus changes here would be temporary (if 2030 or later is temporary). 1
Sam92 Posted February 19 Report Posted February 19 52 minutes ago, Busjack said: Also, CTA has an intergovernmental agreement to use the Metra washroom. Anything along these lines would have to take into account that 111 and 115 are interlined at the former Target at 117th, and any bus changes here would be temporary (if 2030 or later is temporary). On 2/17/2026 at 10:27 AM, Elkmn said: This is a long shot, but maybe the 119 or 111, to give roseland a frequent east-west route? They could work around the interline issue like with 34 becoming FBN. I'm pretty sure frequency changes would stick even after 2030 considering the route would feed the new Red Line extension. Plus 111 looks like it's one of the busier streets south of 95th. The hypothetical #3 extension was to cover King Drive when 111 becomes the 111th bus.
Sam92 Posted February 19 Report Posted February 19 On 2/17/2026 at 9:53 AM, renardo870 said: I agree some of those routes. I also think 3, 6, 22, 35, 36, 52, 67, 94, 146, 147 and 151 may be considered as well. I think 21 could be in play as well. 87 may be a better draw if it were to be extended to Ford City Terminal to connect with 53, 54B, 67 and 79. I guess we will get more information before the Spring '26 Bus Pick #147 is the north side's J14 (which got added) so I can see that especially cause it's been getting expansions over the years. #22 I don't know if it's currently a good idea to make that investment into Clark until service issues get resolved. FBN for Clark would mean Frequently Bunched Network. Also that area has a lot of service options. I skipped Cermak because the #60 is basically next to it for most of the route and is already a frequent bus. #35 - for coverage sake maybe but I went with 62 over that but maybe both could work
strictures Posted February 19 Report Posted February 19 11 hours ago, Sam92 said: #147 is the north side's J14 (which got added) so I can see that especially cause it's been getting expansions over the years. #22 I don't know if it's currently a good idea to make that investment into Clark until service issues get resolved. FBN for Clark would mean Frequently Bunched Network. Also that area has a lot of service options. The main reason for bunching on Clark is the lack of buses, not too many buses! Mid-day 147 service can really be bad, often 20 minute waits on Michigan for a NB 147. All mid-day 151s should go to Devon/Clark, not Belmont/Halsted, as almost no one rides west of LSD then. That gets rid of the 20 minute gaps in service north of Belmont mid-days.
NewFlyerMCI Posted February 19 Report Posted February 19 1 hour ago, strictures said: The main reason for bunching on Clark is the lack of buses, not too many buses! That’s not how that works, or else you’d be seeing conga lines on routes like the 88 and 96
NewFlyerMCI Posted February 19 Report Posted February 19 Continuing the trend of impressive (to me, at least) service changes CTA’s done in the last year, I see the 75 has been extended to 79th/Western. Tbh, I’m mostly amazed they managed to fit it in there, but I appreciate the connection nonetheless, especially as a long time 75 rider. Ironically, I feel like this exacerbates the near miss that is the 349/94, but this really only affects people who need the transfer + live west of California
strictures Posted February 20 Report Posted February 20 8 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said: That’s not how that works, or else you’d be seeing conga lines on routes like the 88 and 96 Obviously, you never ride Clark. It's too few buses that make it a mess, causing extreme crowding, which delays that bus & causes the rest to catch up, but then they're empty!
NewFlyerMCI Posted February 20 Report Posted February 20 5 hours ago, strictures said: Obviously, you never ride Clark. It's too few buses that make it a mess, causing extreme crowding, which delays that bus & causes the rest to catch up, but then they're empty! I’ve taken the 22 many times. I also could’ve never rode it and still told you that “too few” buses doesn’t cause bunching. You’re actually mostly correct about your background reasoning, you just reached the wrong conclusion. Higher-frequency routes (like the 22, which runs close to 11-13 bph at peak) are more prone to bunching because the headway between buses has much less room to suffer all the various delays (traffic, signal, dwells, etc). Compared to something like the 96, which runs 3 bph at peak and can more easily absorb something like a 3 min dwell, followed by 90 secs at a red light (in this same 4.5 mins, another 22 would be probably a block away from the 22 ahead of it) 3
Sam92 Posted February 20 Report Posted February 20 11 hours ago, strictures said: Obviously, you never ride Clark. It's too few buses that make it a mess, causing extreme crowding, which delays that bus & causes the rest to catch up, but then they're empty! 5 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said: I’ve taken the 22 many times. I also could’ve never rode it and still told you that “too few” buses doesn’t cause bunching. You’re actually mostly correct about your background reasoning, you just reached the wrong conclusion. Anyone that's been on this forum since Chicagobus days KNOWS Clark has had VARIOUS ATTEMPTS to address the issue along with being one of the first Local routes to use artics. Clark is a long narrow diagonal street. So like 11 and 41 that adds extra lights and intersections; going by Busvision the run times make the issue worth so it might be time to look at changing how Clark is ran. I don't know what else to tell you 🤷
Sam92 Posted February 20 Report Posted February 20 19 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said: Continuing the trend of impressive (to me, at least) service changes CTA’s done in the last year, I see the 75 has been extended to 79th/Western. Tbh, I’m mostly amazed they managed to fit it in there, but I appreciate the connection nonetheless, especially as a long time 75 rider. Ironically, I feel like this exacerbates the near miss that is the 349/94, but this really only affects people who need the transfer + live west of California Eh since 75's were already Frequently turning into 49's that's a bonus. Im sure a 75/94 connection (which exists) would happen more than 349 to 94. Someone somewhere else suggested extending 94 to 87th; if the terminal wasn't so small that might be something cause someone on 87th/95th that aren't close to Ashland and want to go north are kinda SOL. You have to get one 349 then get off a mile later and transfer to 49 just to get to say 73rd. The 94 extension would help a lot of people on that note. 1
strictures Posted February 20 Report Posted February 20 1 hour ago, Sam92 said: Anyone that's been on this forum since Chicagobus days KNOWS Clark has had VARIOUS ATTEMPTS to address the issue along with being one of the first Local routes to use artics. Clark is a long narrow diagonal street. So like 11 and 41 that adds extra lights and intersections; going by Busvision the run times make the issue worth so it might be time to look at changing how Clark is ran. I don't know what else to tell you Bus signal priority would definitely help. But the city has no idea of how to correctly time the traffic lights. NB buses at Devon almost always hit the red light one block north at Schrieber/Ashland, now why Ashland gets priority over Clark is just baffling here. There are rarely six or more SB vehicles on Ashland & always a long line NB on Clark. That Ashland green light is insanely long for no sensible reason. But that's just one bit of traffic engineering incompetence in this city, which has the world's most incompetent traffic engineers! A Tribune Tempo section article at least 20 years ago had an interview with one of them & he was quoted as saying, "We don't believe in left turns, we want traffic to go straight". that statement is utterly insane, traffic must turn at sometime or another, or people couldn't get anywhere at all! I've never, ever forgotten that bizarre quote! I can also tell you, Chicago refuses to use the vehicle sensing loops in the streets to turn on the left turn signals, if that intersection even has left turn signals. Clark/Devon does have the vehicle sensing loops & they worked for a few weeks after the intersection was last rebuilt, but then they were turned off & have never been used again. But in the burbs, where the state installs & has total control over all traffic lights, every single intersection is fully controlled by the vehicle sensing loops under the pavement. 1
Recommended Posts