YoungBusLover Posted June 17 Report Posted June 17 On 6/15/2026 at 5:37 PM, YoungBusLover said: Well it's official the X54 will be returning in 2027, while the 54 gets extended to Midway. Among other changes coming that have already been discussed. Outside of Cicero I'm still curious about the #1 extension along with the 95 getting consolidated. The 7, 59 & 157 getting weekend service will be interesting to see how that all works out. List Courtesy of @Mr.NewFlyer1279 for 2026/2027 from the recent updated 2026 Summer System Pick board. **103rd** 34: Extend south to serve beaubien forest preserve 2027 95: partial elimination/consolidate 2027 108: consolidation/elimination 2027 **Kedzie** 7: Add weekend service 2027 60: Extend west to 54th Pink 2027 **74th** 55A/55N: eliminate/consolidate 2027 55W: Add new route 2027 59: add sunday service 2027 62: extend west/south route 2027 62H/63W: eliminate/consolidate 2027 **Chicago Ave** 54: extend south to midway 2027 54B: eliminate/consolidate 2027 X54: new route 2027 57: extend north to jefferson park and change south end terminal Winter 2026 157: add weekend service 2027 **77th** 1: extend south along lakefront 2027 **North Park** 49B: extend east to howard RPY 2027 X49: extend north to howard street 2027 96: reroute via pratt between western and kedzie 2027 201: extend south to bryn mawr red line and add sunday service 2027 **Forest Glen** 54A: eliminate/consolidate 2027 88: partial elimination/consolidation 2027 90: extend north/south terminals 2027 91: extend south to 54th Pink 2027 92: extend west to harlem blue 2027 Just to add some more context to the overall changes coming.
Busjack Posted June 17 Report Posted June 17 1 hour ago, YoungBusLover said: Just to add some more context to the overall changes coming. As I mentioned above, is this any different than what was posted before?
YoungBusLover Posted June 17 Report Posted June 17 51 minutes ago, Busjack said: As I mentioned above, is this any different than what was posted before? Outside of the Yates corridor no. I doubt the X54 will be anything new as they claim it to be.
Sam92 Posted June 17 Report Posted June 17 2 hours ago, YoungBusLover said: Just to add some more context to the overall changes coming. 108: consolidate or eliminate: to me that pretty much means give the service to 352 which in the past said it couldn't take over like 49A, 56A etc due to ridership volume... Maybe the coming pulse upgrades/South Halsted study gives pace the capacity to do so and now 108 can be expendable?
Sam92 Posted June 17 Report Posted June 17 1 hour ago, Busjack said: As I mentioned above, is this any different than what was posted before? The 55W is changed compared to the first sheet in this topic. Originally it was 55W west 55th/Harlem implying that they wanted to consolidate 62H with the 55A/N changes thus West 55th would have went to 63rd/Harlem. This time its just "West 55th" so possibly back to the 2009 plan. 62H is still slated to be eliminated but 62 says "extend west and south" so I'm guessing 62H gets combined into an extended 62. Interestingly enough I noted that cta undid the coordination between 63W and 386 resulting in a lot of 386s leaving within 2-7 min behind a 63W instead of being staggered. Now 63W is added to the list of consolidation. Also system wide it went from "eliminate/consolidate 2-3 owl routes" to "5 routes: extend/eliminate/consolidate" So this along with "108 consolidate/eliminate" and the 54/54B changes looks like they're really focused on streamlining SW feeders along with trying to figure out South Halsted
Sam92 Posted June 17 Report Posted June 17 On 6/15/2026 at 10:25 PM, YoungBusLover said: As far as 95th is concerned your guess is as good as mine. I never understood the 381 schedules when the 95W/95E was still a thing. Ridership west of the Ryan has always been high for either CTA/PACE. The only thing that would be more beneficial is consistent headways from 92nd/Buffalo to Chicago Ridge. I never understood why 87th gets the nod to go to Cicero in Pace territory so to speak whereas 95th gets short turned to 87th/Damen. 95th is the busiest corridor compared to 79th/87th west of the Dan/Ryan with some of the worst frequencies among the 95/381. Maybe Pulse can help with that. I can't wait to see where they go with this along with the resurrection of Yates. On 6/15/2026 at 10:33 PM, Busjack said: See my comment about Pulse above. The question would be that if either Pace's planned immediate implementation of frequency increases on 381 or eventual implementation of Pulse would result in basically a split between 95E and 381. What's weird is they just combined 95E/95W to allow seemlessly cross Dan Ryan travel plus add 95 to FBN. 🧐. I don't see them going back to 95E and 95W unless pulse extends further east. Maybe 95 east of state maintains 10 min headways but west of state a few buses turn back to reduce over serving the corridor where pulse/381 starts.
Busjack Posted June 17 Report Posted June 17 40 minutes ago, Sam92 said: 108: consolidate or eliminate: to me that pretty much means give the service to 352 which in the past said it couldn't take over like 49A, 56A etc due to ridership volume... Maybe the coming pulse upgrades/South Halsted study gives pace the capacity to do so and now 108 can be expendable? That's exactly to what I was referring. Going back to the South Halsted documents, the Bus Operations one says that the original plan was to leave CTA routes as is, "However, CTA is currently exploring potential changes to the routes on South Halsted. In pursuit of improved service on the corridor, CTA Planning has developed a proposal for updates to local service on the South Halsted corridor. ... In the proposed scenario, CTA service changes would include the discontinuation of Route 108, which currently serves the 95th Red Line station via South Halsted to 127th Street in the AM peak and afternoon to early evening on weekdays only. As a replacement, additional service would be added to Route 8A, which serves the 79th Red Line station via South Halsted. ... Approximately 219 Route 108 customers who transfer to the Red Line at 95th would either need to take a Pace service (Pulse Halsted Line or Route 352) to reach the 95th Red Line station or take Route 8A to the 79th Red Line station." 1 hour ago, Sam92 said: The 55W is changed compared to the first sheet in this topic. Originally it was 55W west 55th/Harlem implying that they wanted to consolidate 62H with the 55A/N changes thus West 55th would have went to 63rd/Harlem. This time its just "West 55th" so possibly back to the 2009 plan. 62H is still slated to be eliminated but 62 says "extend west and south" so I'm guessing 62H gets combined into an extended 62.... CTA said that, but (pretty much in all cases) didn't say how. What hits me as being "speculative" is that CTA said it was 55W instead of 59W. You are correct that CTA Planning intends to do something on the SW side, but it isn't clear what. Another observation is that CTA says 90 further north, but that seems a reversal of first dividing 90 and 90N, and then eliminating 90N in favor of 423, not to mention that various Jarrett-Walker drafts suggest several different replacements for 423.
Sam92 Posted June 17 Report Posted June 17 6 hours ago, Busjack said: CTA said that, but (pretty much in all cases) didn't say how. What hits me as being "speculative" is that CTA said it was 55W instead of 59W. You are correct that CTA Planning intends to do something on the SW side, but it isn't clear what. I remember the original rationale (2009) was 55A/N got repeatedly trained at 59th so the 55W would have looped via 59th, Austin, Narragansett and back via 55th to avoid that. As far as it returning in this topic the first time I get your logic of the 59th routing (after west 55th becomes Archer the 55W would go to 59th and take that the rest of the way to Harlem to avoid duplicating the 62?). But considering the push back about direct midway service and the fact that the name wasn't "west 55th-59th" gave me the assumption that it was going to take 55th/Archer all the way to maintain the 62H's job. NOW it's back to 55W, 62 might "extend west and south".... Sounds like some back and forth is going on between whoever insists on holding on to direct Archer service to Midway (62H) while cta is looking to get rid of the duplication while not piss off the locals.
Elkmn Posted June 18 Report Posted June 18 On 6/15/2026 at 5:37 PM, YoungBusLover said: 34: Extend south to serve beaubien forest preserve 2027 Can someone from that area explain why they're doing this? Anything to do with RLE?
Busjack Posted June 18 Report Posted June 18 1 hour ago, Elkmn said: Can someone from that area explain why they're doing this? Anything to do with RLE? Probably not. There used to be runs to Mt. Trashmore waste management facilities near there.
artthouwill Posted June 18 Report Posted June 18 2 hours ago, Elkmn said: Can someone from that area explain why they're doing this? Anything to do with RLE? Could be serving Carver H.S. More than likely a safer and quieter place to layover as opposed to 131st/Ellis. There might be a portr There might vw a portapotty available too.
Busjack Posted June 18 Report Posted June 18 44 minutes ago, artthouwill said: Could be serving Carver H.S. More than likely a safer and quieter place to layover as opposed to 131st/Ellis. There might be a portr There might vw a portapotty available too. Maybe John Stroger left one of his custom outhouses in the forest preserve 1
NewFlyerMCI Posted June 18 Report Posted June 18 On 6/17/2026 at 8:34 AM, YoungBusLover said: Just to add some more context to the overall changes coming. It was hilarious to see this document on Reddit and then come here and lo & behold, it was here first lol. Overall, a lot of these feel like good changes. I will say I'm surprised that the 7 is getting weekend service. Also feel like breaking the 95 again will cause some consternation for east of ryan folks looking to get to Evergreen Park, but also, it's not like there aren't alternatives Edit: I am curious about the 201 as well. I'm sure S&C will appreciate the new service, but I do wonder about layover near Bryn Mawr 1
Busjack Posted June 18 Report Posted June 18 1 hour ago, NewFlyerMCI said: Edit: I am curious about the 201 as well. I'm sure S&C will appreciate the new service, but I do wonder about layover near Bryn Mawr That was debated when the first list was posted. As you realized, this was to get bus service on Ridge Blvd. in Chicago, and while it got testy around Ravenswood Ave., clearly the intent is to get it to an L station, and the new stations on the RPM have bus operator facilities, so the bus will clearly lay over there. At least there was more clarity than "1 to the South Lakefront."
Elkmn Posted June 19 Report Posted June 19 18 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said: I will say I'm surprised that the 7 is getting weekend service. Might be preparations for if/when they rebuild the FP branch
Javi75 Posted June 19 Report Posted June 19 On 6/17/2026 at 7:34 AM, YoungBusLover said: Just to add some more context to the overall changes coming. For the extension of the 57 to Jefferson Park station would it make more sense to transfer to it FG? Every route that terminates or stops at Jefferson Park station is a FG route which makes sense operations wise it’s down the street from the garage.
artthouwill Posted June 19 Report Posted June 19 3 minutes ago, Javi75 said: For the extension of the 57 to Jefferson Park station would it make more sense to transfer to it FG? Every route that terminates or stops at Jefferson Park station is a FG route which makes sense operations wise it’s down the street from the garage. Certainly a possibility but not necessarily required.
Sam92 Posted June 19 Report Posted June 19 35 minutes ago, Javi75 said: For the extension of the 57 to Jefferson Park station would it make more sense to transfer to it FG? Every route that terminates or stops at Jefferson Park station is a FG route which makes sense operations wise it’s down the street from the garage. It's not always as cut and dry or strictly garage proximity. In this example 57 interlines with 73 to shorten the required layover time thus allowing more time in service. The scheduling system may determine its best to keep it at C because of that. Once you take into factors such as work load, AM/PM balance etc another garage might be a better option (29 and 92 go pass NP and 77th BUT are assigned to 103rd and FG because the ability to interline with some many routes at the terminals provides more efficiency). I was able to fish for what's hopefully a very detailed explanation of garage assignments in these screenshots. 1 1
NewFlyerMCI Posted June 19 Report Posted June 19 23 hours ago, Busjack said: At least there was more clarity than "1 to the South Lakefront Where’s the Kalshi/Polymarket/(insert betting site here) on whether this means 83rd/South Shore, 79th/South Shore, 67th/South Shore, 63rd/Stony Island or perhaps even 47th/Lake Park 😂 2
NewFlyerMCI Posted June 19 Report Posted June 19 5 hours ago, Sam92 said: It's not always as cut and dry or strictly garage proximity. In this example 57 interlines with 73 to shorten the required layover time thus allowing more time in service. The scheduling system may determine its best to keep it at C because of that. Once you take into factors such as work load, AM/PM balance etc another garage might be a better option (29 and 92 go pass NP and 77th BUT are assigned to 103rd and FG because the ability to interline with some many routes at the terminals provides more efficiency). I was able to fish for what's hopefully a very detailed explanation of garage assignments in these screenshots. I am extremely envious of CTA only having one union for all its drivers. Trying to move work around here in NYC is much, much more fraught depending on where it’s coming from and where it’s going. As whoever explained effectively said, it’s not as simple as it lolms
Busjack Posted June 20 Report Posted June 20 9 hours ago, Sam92 said: It's not always as cut and dry or strictly garage proximity. In this example 57 interlines with 73 to shorten the required layover time thus allowing more time in service. ... After this proposed change, it won't because the current route ends at Grand, a block north of Armitage, and the proposed route will end 3-1/2 miles north of there. But C is closer for street relief, as well as to the south terminal. 4 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said: Where’s the Kalshi/Polymarket/(insert betting site here) on whether this means 83rd/South Shore, 79th/South Shore, 67th/South Shore, 63rd/Stony Island or perhaps even 47th/Lake Park 😂 My bet is on 47th/Lake Park, FWIW. But any of the other choices would be duplicative.
BusOps Posted June 21 Report Posted June 21 On 6/17/2026 at 11:41 AM, Busjack said: Another observation is that CTA says 90 further north, but that seems a reversal of first dividing 90 and 90N, and then eliminating 90N in favor of 423, not to mention that various Jarrett-Walker drafts suggest several different replacements for 423. I would imagine with the elimination of the 88 that the 92 extended to Harlem Blue Line will take over that part of 88’s route and then extending 90 north will take over the rest of the 88’s route so that the Ascension Hospital/Medical Center on Talcott Ave can get serviced along with Resurrection College Prep High School, Amazing Grace Senior Living, and Ascension Living Resurrection Village Life Center.
Busjack Posted June 21 Report Posted June 21 3 hours ago, BusOps said: I would imagine with the elimination of the 88 that the 92 extended to Harlem Blue Line will take over that part of 88’s route and then extending 90 north will take over the rest of the 88’s route so that the Ascension Hospital/Medical Center on Talcott Ave can get serviced along with Resurrection College Prep High School, Amazing Grace Senior Living, and Ascension Living Resurrection Village Life Center. Could be. I also wonder if Pace 209 not going back to Harlem and instead using Cumberland Blue Line has anything to do with this (Alert). The schedule has the following legend, but the construction is complete, as reflected in the alert. Note that the detour avoids Chicago, including the destinations listed above. .
Sam92 Posted June 21 Report Posted June 21 1 hour ago, Busjack said: Could be. I also wonder if Pace 209 not going back to Harlem and instead using Cumberland Blue Line has anything to do with this (Alert). The schedule has the following legend, but the construction is complete, as reflected in the alert. Note that the detour avoids Chicago, including the destinations listed above. . "Avoids Chicago" as in the route looks to stay in the burbs as a pace route? This NITA isn't really being too consistent as we would have suggested it should be in prior discussions
pudgym29 Posted June 22 Report Posted June 22 As well, since the Authority has proclaimed the return of the #X54 route: Since its original run was from Jefferson Park Transit Center to Midway Orange Line, the reinstatment of the route should probably be from Chicago garage. This would also allow the route to be partially served by electric buses. The southerly lane at the south portal @ Jeff. Pk. would get the charging equipment, as Midway has the equipment for the #63 route. 1
Recommended Posts