Take Over In Pace Territory

[Guest metralink]

What does everyone thing about the CTA taking putting in service ontop of Pace along Harlem and Cermak.

Pace has said both corridors are part of their plan for ART network for the suburbs. Then why is CTA putting service on top of theirs?

I see it as political clout to name the suburbs they are serving, they don't give damn about what is right in terms of regional equity. CTA should focus on their own service and leave Pace alone. Let Pace do their job right.

CTA should focus on how to move people in the city especially downtown from the train stations , their service sticks to no end.

What do you all think?

[cta_44499_FG]

What does everyone thing about the CTA taking putting in service ontop of Pace along Harlem and Cermak.

Pace has said both corridors are part of their plan for ART network for the suburbs. Then why is CTA putting service on top of theirs?

I see it as political clout to name the suburbs they are serving, they don't give damn about what is right in terms of regional equity. CTA should focus on their own service and leave Pace alone. Let Pace do their job right.

CTA should focus on how to move people in the city especially downtown from the train stations , their service sticks to no end.

What do you all think?

I overhead a "rumor" at the garage of the possibility of some route changes again, one being an even FURTHER extension of the #90 Harlem to the Congress Blue Line station at the Eisenhower Xpy.

Weather this is true or not who knows. Secondly, how would we turn around up there anyway??

[Busjack]

By now, you know that I am against it. I previously noted that I had complained about the lack of regional cooperation on Ask Carole, and at that time got a response. The Auditor General, in effect, later made the same finding that I did.

The reasons I am against it include:

• Political. The CTA Board has proven that it is a bunch of sheep, beholden to Mayor Daley. Any Board would at least take the initiative in appointing its own chief executive officer, but the CTA accedes to the Mayor's recommendation. No one in the suburbs voted for Daley (at least legally).
  
• Attitude toward suburban service. What is the first thing cut in any Doomsday plan? Suburban service because "it doesn't run on Sunday." Is it a mere coincidence that many of the cuts are also in Julie Hamos's district, and she is the chair of the Mass Transit committee? Many think not.
  
• Effect on outlying service. As I previously mentioned, I do not buy the philosophy that CTA should expand and Pace back off, as that results in worse service in the outlying areas. That happened when Pace "eliminated" route 212 because CTA ran route 205 over the portion from Evanston to Old Orchard. The outer portion of 212 was made part of 422, but that results in either a 15 minute longer ride to the Purple Line or another transfer. Given that and the already cutback of service on the Purple Express, it isn't worth it anymore, and I take Metra if I go to the Loop, even if it costs more. (Is CTA willing to extend 205 to Northbrook Court? Wait, no we don't want that; they'll just cut it in the Doomsday plan.)
  
• Competence. Those of you keeping up with my posts know that while I think Pace has some flaws, that is nothing compared to the posturing incompetence of CTA management, now adding its inability to deal with bus bunching, because it is so stuck on antiquated operating rules. CTA was well run in its first 30 or so years, but is a mess now.
  

I had previously written to my state legislators about the waste to the taxpayers of expecting them to subsidize duplicate service. I also wrote Julie Hamos that the first draft of HB 1841 was too weak, because it did not repeal the ineffective mediation provision in Section 2.12a of the RTA Act. I now fully support the rewrite of Section 2.12a in SB 572, because it gives the RTA Executive Director the authority to arbitrate these disputes, and the ED's decision can be overturned only by the votes of 9 RTA members. If I were running Pace, the first thing I would do after SB 572 passes (assuming that it passes in this form) is to demand arbitration in Oak Park, Evanston, and Skokie.

I also suggest that the following factors be used to determine what service board runs what service:

• The low cost carrier (in accordance with the Auditor General's recommendation), and that isn't the CTA.
  
• Which board represents the residential area in which the passengers are collected. That supports Pace pulling back north of the southern city limit, as indicated in the South Cook-Will plan, but clearly does not support allowing the extensions of 21 and 90 to stand. If any duplication is allowed and any agency forced to run limited stop service, it should be CTA (as CTA did when the 25 was the 21B, there only because the Douglas L was cut back from Oak Park Ave. to 54th). Hence, I have no problem with the 56A/270 schedule, but do with the two I mentioned.
  
• If there is a choice between bus and rail, rail should be chosen if there is passenger demand and a right of way for it.
  

And a civics lesson for all of you (especially the students out there). Unlike some bloggers who ruminate about this, and think they'll get some attention, I wrote my legislators (a real letter, not just a form letter on the Pace or Coppoletta sites). I thought SB 572 was a good response, but we'll have to see if it actually passes, or whether the CTA will just get its bailout without real reform.

[RIPTA42]

Whatever the motivation behind implementing overlapping service, I'm for it if travel patterns support it. Why shouldn't someone at Cermak and Kostner have a one-seat ride to North Riverside Plaza, or someone at Harlem and Belmont have the option of taking the Green Line downtown without taking two buses to get there?

[Busjack]

Whatever the motivation behind implementing overlapping service, I'm for it if travel patterns support it. Why shouldn't someone at Cermak and Kostner have a one-seat ride to North Riverside Plaza, or someone at Harlem and Belmont have the option of taking the Green Line downtown without taking two buses to get there?

If the alternative is taxes going up with us subsidizing two partially filled buses, that is it. The search for the one seat ride seems to only have become important after cash bus transfers were eliminated. The other reason mentioned is that expansion has forced Pace to retrench, making the outer portions of the routes less viable, as indicated in its Doomsday plan. Now, if CTA wants to replace the 422 with an extension of 205, that would be a different story, but the combined Doomsday plans eliminate both routes. Maybe one route would have been viable without the competition.

Also, if you think that the contingency plans are real, it makes no sense (as trainman indicated) for both CTA and Pace to be running on Harlem Avenue, while CTA is withdrawing service elsewhere, with no direct substitute available on the north, northwest, and southwest parts of the current CTA operation.

[RIPTA42]

If the alternative is taxes going up with us subsidizing two partially filled buses, that is it.

If the alternative is raising taxes to support a lightly used service, then ridership doesn't support the extension.

The search for the one seat ride seems to only have become important after cash bus transfers were eliminated.

Even without the cash transfer issue, a one seat ride is important for short trips on the outskirts of town, where your connecting bus might be running every twenty minutes at peak hours.

The other reason mentioned is that expansion has forced Pace to retrench, making the outer portions of the routes less viable, as indicated in its Doomsday plan.

If Pace is losing customers to CTA because of CTA's expansion, it could simply mean that riders in those areas want to travel further into CTA territory and are not satisfactorily served by Pace. Also, to use an example, the land use along Cermak Road in Berwyn is more akin to Cermak Road in Chicago than to Oak Brook. Wouldn't you say the 21 is better suited to serve that area than the 322?

Now, if CTA wants to replace the 422 with an extension of 205, that would be a different story, but the combined Doomsday plans eliminate both routes. Maybe one route would have been viable without the competition.

Also, if you think that the contingency plans are real, it makes no sense (as trainman indicated) for both CTA and Pace to be running on Harlem Avenue, while CTA is withdrawing service elsewhere, with no direct substitute available on the north, northwest, and southwest parts of the current CTA operation.

I don't believe the contingency plans, and redundant service should obviously be first to go in a budget crisis. However, basing the decision of which routes to cut on city lines is about as intelligent as basing it on which routes run on Sunday.

[Busjack]

It still seems to be that under your plan some people get two competing buses, while others get no bus, and you don't have any problem with that. I'm sure that the people in Rogers Park (near routes 93 and 96) would rather have a connection every 20 minutes than no bus at all, but operating funds CTA could use to serve them are instead used to compete with Pace in the west suburbs. In the meantime, you want to protect the ones on Cermak from having to wait for a transfer. Since the West Side Restructuring was implemented in June 2006, it is not like those people didn't have to transfer in the recent past or have any vested right not to do so now, given that there are not the resources to support that experiment.

As I previously have noted, for political reasons I do not support CTA making into incursions into areas not represented by the members of its handpicked board (they proved, through their repeated doomsday plans, that they have no interest in their passengers in Evanston and Skokie, and are apparently willing to sacrifice the considerable federal investment in the Skokie Swift). If the result of competition such as this is the loss of Pace bus service in my area, I feel no need to answer the calls that the suburbs somehow owe the CTA something. One must realize that there are limited resources, and the Auditor General has recommended a way to avoid wasting them.

I'm glad we agree that the contingency plan is not intelligent.

[RIPTA42]

It still seems to be that under your plan some people get two competing buses, while others get no bus, and you don't have any problem with that. I'm sure that the people in Rogers Park (near routes 93 and 96) would rather have a connection every 20 minutes than no bus at all, but operating funds CTA could use to serve them are instead used to compete with Pace in the west suburbs. In the meantime, you want to protect the ones on Cermak from having to wait for a transfer. Since the West Side Restructuring was implemented in June 2006, it is not like those people didn't have to transfer in the recent past or have any vested right not to do so now, given that there are not the resources to support that experiment.

I never recommended what routes to cut; I only said that routes that provide a valuable service shouldn't be cut simply because they overlap another route. If there isn't enough through ridership to justify the 21 extension, then it should be cut back. If most of the passengers on the 322 between North Riverside and 54th are coming from east of 54th, then the 322 should be cut back to North Riverside. I don't have the O-D data to make that decision.

I wouldn't touch the 93; that route could even use increased service. The 96, on the other hand, just makes the bottom ten for productivity in the March ridership report and is never more than two blocks away from another route. Lunt also isn't well-suited to bus operations, and the locals would probably prefer to have more parking spaces. I'd also consider the downtown circulators (120-125) expendable, too, since they mostly overlap with both existing routes and CDOT's free trolleys (though most of these would be covered by the Sunday plan).

As I previously have noted, for political reasons I do not support CTA making into incursions into areas not represented by the members of its handpicked board (they proved, through their repeated doomsday plans, that they have no interest in their passengers in Evanston and Skokie, and are apparently willing to sacrifice the considerable federal investment in the Skokie Swift). If the result of competition such as this is the loss of Pace bus service in my area, I feel no need to answer the calls that the suburbs somehow owe the CTA something. One must realize that there are limited resources, and the Auditor General has recommended a way to avoid wasting them.

I think you're giving the CTA board too much credit by assuming the Sunday plan is designed to cut service to the Evanston. It may be naïve of me, but I feel that the needs of the customers should outweigh political posturing. If CTA extensions mean that Pace is losing business on those routes, let Pace cut back and use the resources elsewhere, like increasing service on the 352.

Of course, what's really needed is for the RTA to act like a real coordinating agency instead of existing solely to make the service boards fight over funding like the last dress at a 90% off sale at Neiman's. It isn't just the CTA's hand-picked board that's at fault.

[Busjack]

I think you're giving the CTA board too much credit by assuming the Sunday plan is designed to cut service to the Evanston. It may be naïve of me, but I feel that the needs of the customers should outweigh political posturing. If CTA extensions mean that Pace is losing business on those routes, let Pace cut back and use the resources elsewhere.

Of course, what's really needed is for the RTA to act like a real coordinating agency instead of existing solely to make the service boards fight over funding like the last dress at a 90% off sale at Neiman's. It isn't just the CTA's hand-picked board that's at fault.

I agree with the last point, and supported SB 572, until I saw that someone gutted the arbitration section (2.12b) by making the Executive Director's intervention depend on 7 directors authorizing it. Pace has announced its support for SB 572, CTA has not (just that Ron and Carole have gone to Springfield to talk to the gov, who apparently flew down there to meet them).

With regard to the first point, rest assured that Carole Brown was aware of the effect of the 2005 plan on Evanston (back when she acknowledged comments on her blog), and that part of the plan has been resurrected. Also I look only to the effect. Like I previously said, if the CTA Board is willing to follow the staff recommendation to kill the Skokie Swift despite the federal money invested in it, so much for getting any federal money for new projects. Even if the staff is not intelligent instead of malicious, one can see the effect of their recommendation in the far north, northwest, and southwest areas of the city (how are people west of Midway Airport supposed to get to the Orange Line?) as well as Evanston, while wasting resources competing in the western suburbs. If the doomsday plans are not real, but just political posturing, they at least show something about the thinking of each agency's staff.

I also don't agree that it has been established that the Pace routes are weak per se and that service should be denied to some areas so that Pace can refocus its resources; they are being damaged by the CTA competition, and Pace said so at the restructuring hearings. At least in the old days (when there were some private companies), there were restrictions on where carriers could pick up in overlapping territory. You seem to agree somewhat with that point by saying that the decision should be made on where the riders are boarding.

Now, if the legislature would do something bold, such as abolish the 3 service boards as currently constructed, and, say, develop a bus and L board, a paratransit board, and a train board, such as the MTA intends to do, with the composition of each board based on the region wide population, these things wouldn't happen. But you know that Daley won't give up political control of the CTA. SB 572 turned out to be a weak substitute for that, but better than nothing. As trainman suggests, it looks like we'll get the increased taxes in any event, but only in a stop gap measure.

Update: If this isn't political, why is Emil Jones reviving for Todd Stroger part of Stroger the 1st's plan to get appointment power over the RTA Board, according to the Sun-Times?

[Nabi 7702]

I for one think that CTA by operating routes in an area operated by PACE is not doing such a bad thing because PACE buses operate usually every 30 to 60 minutes on the routes near Chicago and CTA buses operates usually every 7 to 15 minutes in the surrounding suburbs. This means the buses will not be operating at the same time most of the time and this "take over in PACE territory" by the CTA only causes more frequent service in the nearby suburbs.

[Busjack]

....because PACE buses operate usually every 30 to 60 minutes on the routes near Chicago...

Why don't you look at the schedules for the two routes with the most controversy, 307 and 322 and tell me if that is true.

And if you believe that, why don't you contact your state legislator and ask for funding for the duplicative service. CTA and Pace can't afford to provide it now. Or are you like others in this forum that believe that the west suburbs are entitled to more service, while the far north, northwest and southwest sides and near north suburbs get none under the CTA contingency plan?

[Nabi 7702]

Why don't you look at the schedules for the two routes with the most controversy, 307 and 322 and tell me if that is true.

And if you believe that, why don't you contact your state legislator and ask for funding for the duplicative service. CTA and Pace can't afford to provide it now. Or are you like others in this forum that believe that the west suburbs are entitled to more service, while the far north, northwest and southwest sides and near north suburbs get none under the CTA contingency plan?

The CTA serves the third largest city in the USA, they should be able to get funding from somewhere.

[Buslover88]

The CTA serves the third largest city in the USA, they should be able to get funding from somewhere.

But they're not getting no money so far, the general assembly is being really stubborn about it, so they can't. Not even the largest transit agency can always get funding, that's the way life goes...

[Busjack]

The CTA serves the third largest city in the USA, they should be able to get funding from somewhere.

What taxes are you paying that you are willing to have increased to be the somewhere from which the CTA gets funding? The State of Illinois can't print money. One thing I learned in U of C Economics--there are limited resources. Why don't you belly up to the bar and tell us how much you are willing to spend to support the CTA (including its wasteful habits, like duplicating service, identified by the Auditor General)? Or are you one of those children who do not pay taxes now, but will have to fund my Social Security (according to 60 Minutes on CBS tonight)?

Buslover is correct about what he said. And one of the reasons that it can't get funding is that until Huberman took over, it made no effort to address the issues raised by the Auditor General. The other reason is that your governor has said he would veto the sales tax increase that is in the current bill. Write your governor and tell him you want your sales tax increased. You accused Carole Brown of just blogging and not getting the job done (in connection with fixing the NABIs); do you do any more to help civic life in Illinois?