Are the Limited/Expresses a better ROI? [From: The Service Planning Topic]

[BossBiggity]

With the X54 returning and the 9 having surpassed over 20,000 weekday riders (even if barely) in the most recent ridership report for May, is there any chance they might expand the X9 or any of the other limited-stop express routes to run on middays or even weekends?

[Busjack]

50 minutes ago, BossBiggity said:

With the X54 returning and the 9 having surpassed over 20,000 weekday riders (even if barely) in the most recent ridership report for May, is there any chance they might expand the X9 or any of the other limited-stop express routes to run on middays or even weekends?

What you're saying makes sense, but I'm not privy to inside planning.

I was surprised when the X4 was made all day and 4's frequency was not cut (as was done with X9 and X49), but that's what happened.

As Pace said with regard to Dempster, you have to use the corridor, meaning that you have to add 9 and X9. That's now 26,000 average weekday boardings.

That's BETTER than 2019 pre-Covid of about 24,000.

So, you're on the right track. 

[Sam92]

9 hours ago, Busjack said:

What you're saying makes sense, but I'm not privy to inside planning.

I was surprised when the X4 was made all day and 4's frequency was not cut (as was done with X9 and X49), but that's what happened.

 

That's BETTER than 2019 pre-Covid of about 24,000.

So, you're on the right track. 

Imo only reason the #4 didn't get reduced compared to Ashland and Western is because X4 was revived after COVID (peak frequency post COVID is 8-10 min vs pre-covid of 5-11 north of 93rd). Since Ashland and Western express got revived when the peak was more heavy it probably made more sense to turn a few locals back into express to move larger groups of riders. 

[Busjack]

6 hours ago, Sam92 said:

Imo only reason the #4 didn't get reduced compared to Ashland and Western is because X4 was revived after COVID (peak frequency post COVID is 8-10 min vs pre-covid of 5-11 north of 93rd). Since Ashland and Western express got revived when the peak was more heavy it probably made more sense to turn a few locals back into express to move larger groups of riders. 

That basically doesn't make much sense unless the peak demand was twice as high as the locals at those times. Anyway, the Ashland and Western corridors didn't get more buses, while Cottage Grove did.

Naybe something will be done to increase X49 frequency in connection with the posted planning document to extend it to Howard (technically Birchwood).

[NewFlyerMCI]

18 hours ago, Sam92 said:

Since Ashland and Western express got revived when the peak was more heavy it probably made more sense to turn a few locals back into express to move larger groups of riders. 

When DC did it's redesign, for a couple of routes that had a local/limited split, they shifted the bulk of service (60/40, 65/35) to the limited, from the local. This is also not uncommon with NYC, where demand can be so great that there's even a 2:1 limited/local split at times. I wonder if a similar philosophy could also work here, especially with CTA's stop spacing (although this applies less to Western & Ashland)

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

When DC did it's redesign, for a couple of routes that had a local/limited split, they shifted the bulk of service (60/40, 65/35) to the limited, from the local. This is also not uncommon with NYC, where demand can be so great that there's even a 2:1 limited/local split at times. I wonder if a similar philosophy could also work here, especially with CTA's stop spacing (although this applies less to Western & Ashland)

Pace Pulse is essentially the same system. Dempster went from every 20 minutes to Pulse every 10 minutes and 250 every 30 minutes. Milwaukee Pulse was originally every 10 minutes, but with Covid was cut to 15, but when that Pulse started, 270 went from 20 to 60. At a recent Pace board meeting, they said that 381 will now be at near Pulse frequency, but 381 will be similarly cut back when Pulse is implemented. 

The question with regard to X9 and X49 is how many passengers board or depart at the 1/2 mile streets, compared to the side streets. The headways are comparable to the locals. On 9, you would have to figure how much service on Beverly would be affected.

[artthouwill]

54 minutes ago, Busjack said:

Pace Pulse is essentially the same system. Dempster went from every 20 minutes to Pulse every 10 minutes and 250 every 30 minutes. Milwaukee Pulse was originally every 10 minutes, but with Covid was cut to 15, but when that Pulse started, 270 went from 20 to 60. At a recent Pace board meeting, they said that 381 will now be at near Pulse frequency, but 381 will be similarly cut back when Pulse is implemented. 

The question with regard to X9 and X49 is how many passengers board or depart at the 1/2 mile streets, compared to the side streets. The headways are comparable to the locals. On 9, you would have to figure how much service on Beverly would be affected.

My last ride on the Ashland Corridor seemed like passengers boarded whatever came first.  If it was an X, then fine.  If it was a local, that gave them an opportunity to exit at a side street.  Most noardings however were at the 1/2 marks.  This pattern also plays out on Pulse Milwaukee where most boarding ( on the local 270) were at the 1/2 mile markers ( Pulse stations).  Obviously  there are some places like 14th and Ashland  ( where Costco is located)  where people will board the local and not walj to Roosevelt for the opportunity to catch an X9.   It seems like I'm one of the few people who will let a local pass and wait for the X.  

[NewFlyerMCI]

33 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

My last ride on the Ashland Corridor seemed like passengers boarded whatever came first.  If it was an X, then fine.  If it was a local, that gave them an opportunity to exit at a side street.  Most noardings however were at the 1/2 marks.  This pattern also plays out on Pulse Milwaukee where most boarding ( on the local 270) were at the 1/2 mile markers ( Pulse stations).  Obviously  there are some places like 14th and Ashland  ( where Costco is located)  where people will board the local and not walj to Roosevelt for the opportunity to catch an X9.   It seems like I'm one of the few people who will let a local pass and wait for the X.  

Your first and last sentences make me feel like X service is still in the stage where it's psychologically faster, but in actual measured time, the difference is small, and grows smaller based on both the gap between X# and regular # and how far you're travelling. Like if I'm standing at 79th/Jeffery and I'm going to 67th/Jeffery, I don't have a real incentive to let any 15 pass in favor of a J14. I remember when I was younger, this was more prevalent on the X3 compared to the X4 b/c even with all the stops where the 3 needed to pull over, it was harder for an X3 to pass a 3 until 51st (going NB) vs the X4 not having that same limitation.

Swinging back to 2026 and beyond, I wouldn't be surprised if the X54 returning is the last bit of the X route legacy, and none of the 4 routes ever see anything beyond peak service. Potentially the X20 & X55 could be exceptions to this since both routes are part of the FSN, whereas the 3 & 80 are not (although of the 3 routes, the 3 & 20 are the ridership titans). Even between early 2007 and late 2009, the X80 was the only full-time X routes (I wonder why this was the case?) everything else was weekday only, peak only or peak direction only

[Busjack]

9 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

Your first and last sentences make me feel like X service is still in the stage where it's psychologically faster, but in actual measured time, the difference is small, and grows smaller based on both the gap between X# and regular # and how far you're travelling. Like if I'm standing at 79th/Jeffery and I'm going to 67th/Jeffery, I don't have a real incentive to let any 15 pass in favor of a J14. I remember when I was younger, this was more prevalent on the X3 compared to the X4 b/c even with all the stops where the 3 needed to pull over, it was harder for an X3 to pass a 3 until 51st (going NB) vs the X4 not having that same limitation.

Swinging back to 2026 and beyond, I wouldn't be surprised if the X54 returning is the last bit of the X route legacy, and none of the 4 routes ever see anything beyond peak service. Potentially the X20 & X55 could be exceptions to this since both routes are part of the FSN, whereas the 3 & 80 are not (although of the 3 routes, the 3 & 20 are the ridership titans). Even between early 2007 and late 2009, the X80 was the only full-time X routes (I wonder why this was the case?) everything else was weekday only, peak only or peak direction only

J14 isn't comparable, because it only skips every other stop, and is for people going downtown, while 15 is for people going to Hyde Park and Kenwood, the only overlap being south of 67th.

X54 is on the planning document.

[NewFlyerMCI]

27 minutes ago, Busjack said:

J14 isn't comparable, because it only skips every other stop, and is for people going downtown, while 15 is for people going to Hyde Park and Kenwood, the only overlap being south of 67th.

X54 is on the planning document.

Sure, south of 87th, stop spacing is tighter than it would be for an X route— if you read it again, you’ll notice that I said from 79th. On this stretch, that’s 12 stops for the 15 (because it stops every block) and 4 for the J14 (b/c it generally has half-mile stop spacing on this segment, similar to the X routes). Where each bus ends also doesn’t matter, because, if you’ll read it again, you’ll notice I said to 67th, where both buses go. The exact same stops and spacing are also present on Cottage Grove, and a similar spacing (improved for the local) is present on Western & Ashland, all between the same bookends.

Not sure what your point is about the X54, I’m aware it’s on the planning document. My response is clearly continuing the convo that spun up from @BossBiggity’s question about service span investment on the X9 & other X routes. To be more clear, I’m saying I won’t be surprised if the X54 comes back, as a peak-only service and nothing more is done with any X route, based on what’s in that document, what service was like in 2009 pre-doomsday and what service is like today.

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

Sure, south of 87th, stop spacing is tighter than it would be for an X route— if you read it again, you’ll notice that I said from 79th. On this stretch, that’s 12 stops for the 15 (because it stops every block) and 4 for the J14 (b/c it generally has half-mile stop spacing on this segment, similar to the X routes). Where each bus ends also doesn’t matter, because, if you’ll read it again, you’ll notice I said to 67th, where both buses go. The exact same stops and spacing are also present on Cottage Grove, and a similar spacing (improved for the local) is present on Western & Ashland, all between the same bookends.

Not sure what your point is about the X54, I’m aware it’s on the planning document. My response is clearly continuing the convo that spun up from @BossBiggity’s question about service span investment on the X9 & other X routes. To be more clear, I’m saying I won’t be surprised if the X54 comes back, as a peak-only service and nothing more is done with any X route, based on what’s in that document, what service was like in 2009 pre-doomsday and what service is like today.

Your view of J14 is too narrow. The stop list has 1/2 mile only between 67th and 75th. It stops at every odd numbered street from 75th to 97th, or 1/4 mile.  So, your "Sure, south of 87th" is incorrect by 1-1/2 miles.

Besides that, the comparison is better to 146 and 151 (which were established on the same theory). Someone can take either in a segment north of Belmont, but they don't serve the same ridership.

On the other hand, X4, X9, and X49, with a few exceptions (such as Beverly and Pullman) overly each other. If someone is going from 79th to Cermak, the only considerations are (1) which comes first (2) which is fastest, and (3) do you want to walk up to 1/4 mile to or from a stop.

[NewFlyerMCI]

4 hours ago, Busjack said:

Your view of J14 is too narrow. The stop list has 1/2 mile only between 67th and 75th. It stops at every odd numbered street from 75th to 97th, or 1/4 mile.  So, your "Sure, south of 87th" is incorrect by 1-1/2 miles.

Besides that, the comparison is better to 146 and 151 (which were established on the same theory). Someone can take either in a segment north of Belmont, but they don't serve the same ridership.

On the other hand, X4, X9, and X49, with a few exceptions (such as Beverly and Pullman) overly each other. If someone is going from 79th to Cermak, the only considerations are (1) which comes first (2) which is fastest, and (3) do you want to walk up to 1/4 mile to or from a stop.

I don't really care that you think it's too narrow 😂, my example fulfilled the conditions that I was looking for and the opinion expressed in response is just an exercise in pedantry. I'm happy to be incorrect about the spacing changing south of 87th, but it doesn't change that my example was 79th to 67th. It's still a (roughly, since Jeff/77th is a stop) 0.5mi limited overlaid onto a 0.25/0.125mi local.

The 146 & 151 would only be a better example along the shared section between Sheridan/Belmont & Sheridan/Lake Shore. Even then, it's still a bad comparison, because they share the same stops in this section.

The considerations of (1) which comes first (2) which is fastest, and (3) do you want to walk up to 1/4 mile to or from a stop, apply regardless of whether or not someone is boarding at 79th and going to 67th, Cermak, or wherever else. The distance being travelled influences how much weight each of these considerations are given. If your trip is shorter rather than longer, and/or the wait time between the limited and the local too excessive, then the X route (or J as well) is more likely to only be psychologically faster, because it's an express route, rather than actually providing notable time savings. 

For today, 3:35p CT, when I put in 79th to 67th on each corridor, here's what I get:

• Jeffery: 9 mins, both routes
• Cottage:
  • X4: 11 mins
  • 4: 13 mins
• Ashland: see above
• Western:
  • X49: 12 mins
  • 49: 13 mins

Let's do 79th to Cermak:

• Cottage:
  • X4, 43-44 mins
  • 4, 54-55 mins
• Ashland:
  • X9, 41 mins
  • 9, 52-55 mins
• Western:
  • X49, 31-32 mins
  • 49, 35 mins

I'll even go back to Jeffery, but longer, for consistency. Lets do 67th/Jeffery to 100th/Yates:

• NB J14: 20 mins
• NB 15: 25 mins
• SB J14: 25-26 mins
• SB 15: 23-24 mins

[Busjack]

9 minutes ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

I don't really care that you think it's too narrow 😂, my example fulfilled the conditions that I was looking for and the opinion expressed in response is just an exercise in pedantry. I'm happy to be incorrect about the spacing changing south of 87th, but it doesn't change that my example was 79th to 67th. It's still a (roughly, since Jeff/77th is a stop) 0.5mi limited overlaid onto a 0.25/0.125mi local.

The 146 & 151 would only be a better example along the shared section between Sheridan/Belmont & Sheridan/Lake Shore. Even then, it's still a bad comparison, because they share the same stops in this section.

The considerations of (1) which comes first (2) which is fastest, and (3) do you want to walk up to 1/4 mile to or from a stop, apply regardless of whether or not someone is boarding at 79th and going to 67th, Cermak, or wherever else. The distance being travelled influences how much weight each of these considerations are given. If your trip is shorter rather than longer, and/or the wait time between the limited and the local too excessive, then the X route (or J as well) is more likely to only be psychologically faster, because it's an express route, rather than actually providing notable time savings. 

For today, 3:35p CT, when I put in 79th to 67th on each corridor, here's what I get:

• Jeffery: 9 mins, both routes
• Cottage:
  • X4: 11 mins
  • 4: 13 mins
• Ashland: see above
• Western:
  • X49: 12 mins
  • 49: 13 mins

Let's do 79th to Cermak:

• Cottage:
  • X4, 43-44 mins
  • 4, 54-55 mins
• Ashland:
  • X9, 41 mins
  • 9, 52-55 mins
• Western:
  • X49, 31-32 mins
  • 49, 35 mins

I'll even go back to Jeffery, but longer, for consistency. Lets do 67th/Jeffery to 100th/Yates:

• NB J14: 20 mins
• NB 15: 25 mins
• SB J14: 25-26 mins
• SB 15: 23-24 mins

I don't know what you're trying to prove. (Like @79th to lakefront 1302 you didn't ride any of the buses.) The only thing you seemed to prove is that on a short trip, it doesn't make any difference, but on a longer one it does. So my #2 wins on any corridor if the rider is rational.

[MetroShadow]

You both have points, and as @NewFlyerMCI mentioned, it does speak a little more to the value of the X routes and whether the waits are worth it. There's some savings, but some of the corridors need better treatment to get a better cost return, especially if the local and the limited are in the same path of travel are some savings, but some of the corridors need better treatment to get a better cost return, especially if the local and the limited are on the same travel path. 

I believe that LA Metro tried this in the 2010's (more Rapid buses, less locals) and eventually got rid of them with NextGen (save the 754 and 720). 

[Busjack]

29 minutes ago, MetroShadow said:

You both have points, and as @NewFlyerMCI mentioned, it does speak a little more to the value of the X routes and whether the waits are worth it. There's some savings, but some of the corridors need better treatment to get a better cost return, especially if the local and the limited are in the same path of travel are some savings, but some of the corridors need better treatment to get a better cost return, especially if the local and the limited are on the same travel path. 

I believe that LA Metro tried this in the 2010's (more Rapid buses, less locals) and eventually got rid of them with NextGen (save the 754 and 720). 

Your last point gets back to when (Huberman, if I remember correctly) got rid of all the X routes, but later they came back.

As to some corridors need improvement, Ashland and Western are generally wide enough for X buses to make some time. Pulse requires infrastructure, but it certainly can't make up time in Evanston. Better Streets for Buses might do something in Chicago, and the NY Daily News has an article on a similar bus speed-up plan in New York, which points out: "While the buses ... are operated by the state through the MTA, the streets on which the buses drive — and any bus-specific infrastructure like bus stops or bus-only lanes — are the city’s purview. "

[NewFlyerMCI]

3 hours ago, MetroShadow said:

You both have points, and as @NewFlyerMCI mentioned, it does speak a little more to the value of the X routes and whether the waits are worth it. There's some savings, but some of the corridors need better treatment to get a better cost return, especially if the local and the limited are in the same path of travel are some savings, but some of the corridors need better treatment to get a better cost return, especially if the local and the limited are on the same travel path. 

I believe that LA Metro tried this in the 2010's (more Rapid buses, less locals) and eventually got rid of them with NextGen (save the 754 and 720). 

I saw a presentation on this at APTA a couple of years back. I honestly believed this was the route CTA would go with instead of bringing the X buses back, but then again, I don't see the same appetite for stop consolidation here that I have in NYC or Philly (the latter of whom is Chicago's peer when it comes to bad spacing)

3 hours ago, Busjack said:

Your last point gets back to when (Huberman, if I remember correctly) got rid of all the X routes, but later they came back.

As to some corridors need improvement, Ashland and Western are generally wide enough for X buses to make some time. Pulse requires infrastructure, but it certainly can't make up time in Evanston. Better Streets for Buses might do something in Chicago, and the NY Daily News has an article on a similar bus speed-up plan in New York, which points out: "While the buses ... are operated by the state through the MTA, the streets on which the buses drive — and any bus-specific infrastructure like bus stops or bus-only lanes — are the city’s purview. "

We are cautiously optimistic about what this means for being able to improve bus service. Many routes are functionally already at the point where just adding buses will do next to nothing

[Busjack]

11 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

We are cautiously optimistic about what this means for being able to improve bus service. Many routes are functionally already at the point where just adding buses will do next to nothing

But the whole start of this discussion was whether the proportion of express buses to local should be 2/1 or 3/2 instead of CTA's 1/1. It was not necessarily adding more buses. As was noted with Pace Pulse, the locals were and will be cut back.

[NewFlyerMCI]

13 hours ago, Busjack said:

But the whole start of this discussion was whether the proportion of express buses to local should be 2/1 or 3/2 instead of CTA's 1/1. It was not necessarily adding more buses. As was noted with Pace Pulse, the locals were and will be cut back.

Sorry, I wasn't clear here, that's my bad, I was talking about NYC. A number of corridors are basically operating at capacity, where shifting service from the limited to local or adding more limited won't meaningfully move the needle on actually improving service, we need physical treatments to the roadways. We've got some stuff that'll make how bad the 22 can get look like it's the 359.

Ashland and Western can get bad, but there's probably still room for operations/planning decisions to still make a difference, before changing roadway features. To your points here

On 7/28/2026 at 10:25 PM, Busjack said:

The question with regard to X9 and X49 is how many passengers board or depart at the 1/2 mile streets, compared to the side streets. The headways are comparable to the locals. On 9, you would have to figure how much service on Beverly would be affected.

On 7/29/2026 at 5:37 PM, Busjack said:

The only thing you seemed to prove is that on a short trip, it doesn't make any difference, but on a longer one it does.

I'm sure there's a way to calculate at which point a journey becomes worth waiting for an express over a local, and then using that to determine if a shifting of resources is required, along with knowing if the bulk of riders are making short trips or long trips, and what's the average ridership of the minor stops vs the arterials. My concern is if there are more short journeys, well, riders are often not rational, and will do things like wait for the express over the local when they shouldn't, which would somewhat hamper any positive benefits to shifting service

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

Sorry, I wasn't clear here, that's my bad, I was talking about NYC. A number of corridors are basically operating at capacity, where shifting service from the limited to local or adding more limited won't meaningfully move the needle on actually improving service, we need physical treatments to the roadways.  ...

That's why I said Chicago needs Better Streets for buses, Pulse can't make up time in Evanston (but does in Skokie and west), and cited the New York Daily News article that it's up to NYC to upgrade infrastructure like bus lanes, even though MTA is a state agency. Go back and read those posts. Mamdani isn't sitting there saying "we can't do nothing."

1 hour ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

I'm sure there's a way to calculate at which point a journey becomes worth waiting for an express over a local, and then using that to determine if a shifting of resources is required, along with knowing if the bulk of riders are making short trips or long trips, and what's the average ridership of the minor stops vs the arterials. My concern is if there are more short journeys, well, riders are often not rational, and will do things like wait for the express over the local when they shouldn't, which would somewhat hamper any positive benefits to shifting service.

Again, that's why I said J14 was not a good reference, because it stops every two blocks south of 75th, which appears to be the usual interval for the local 9. as discussed with respect to X9, one would have to figure out whether the maybe 5 minute wait for the X9 plus the 3 block walk to or from the stop is worth it. That would be up to the CTA planners to figure out. But what Pace ays, there is growth on the two corridors even though the local 250s and 270s are relegated to essentially "coverage" service (30 or 60 minute intervals).