New Bus Route Proposals- (with a funding solution)

[BusExpert32]

Hello everyone. I'm starting this thread to open ideas about new bus routes that really should be given some consideration (with a funding solution by January of course). After looking through some topics (from 1 year + ago) the demand for service on some streets is high, so here are some of my ideas.

- #133 Kedzie/Logan- This bus could run from Kimball Brown Line to Western/Diversey. The routing would be: Kedzie(N)- Wilson(W)- Kimball(N)- Lawrence(E)- Kedzie(S)- enter Logan Square Blue Line terminal- Logan(E)- Diversey(W)- Western(S)- Logan(W)- enter Logan Square Blue Line terminal- Kedzie(N). This route could resolve the demand of service on north Kedzie and Logan Blvd. In my opinion Forest Glen could run this route with its 6400s, 6000s, and 500s, but I could see how North Park would work- but not really because more artics could be misplaced and North park has had some kind of shortage of buses lately. For starters this route could run on weekdays only, but later evolve into a Saturday-Sunday service route as well.

- #155 Devon expansion- There has been no demand for the #155 Devon bus to be extended from Kedzie/Devon to Milwaukee/Devon, but it's just something that's been irritating me for years. The routing would be: Devon(W)- Milwaukee(N)-terminate at Imlay CTA trurnaround- Milwaukee(S)- Devon(E)- and so forth.

I don't know if my ideas are that great, but I am ready for some good constructive criticism.

[Busjack]

Various N. Kedzie buses (usually denominated as 82A or 89, or part of 93) have been repeatedly canceled due to low ridership. See the history on Chicago Transit and Railfan under Route 93. We've discussed elsewhere why 52 doesn't go straight up Kedzie. There was also the community group that wanted the Kedzie bus reinstated to Logan Square when the Brown Line Kedzie station was closed for rehabilitation, which we previously discussed. If it didn't happen then, it sure won't happen now.

The 14 N. Cicero-Devon bus used to run, as implied, on Cicero and Devon. Nortran 211 also used to run on Devon. Both were canceled, the 14 being substituted by the 54A. West of Central to Milwaukee, there are basically only forest preserves, which generate no ridership.

[jajuan]

Various N. Kedzie buses (usually denominated as 82A or 89, or part of 93) have been repeatedly canceled due to low ridership. See the history on Chicago Transit and Railfan under Route 93. We've discussed elsewhere why 52 doesn't go straight up Kedzie. There was also the community group that wanted the Kedzie bus reinstated to Logan Square when the Brown Line Kedzie station was closed for rehabilitation, which we previously discussed. If it didn't happen then, it sure won't happen now.

The 14 N. Cicero-Devon bus used to run, as implied, on Cicero and Devon. Nortran 211 also used to run on Devon. Both were canceled, the 14 being substituted by the 54A. West of Central to Milwaukee, there are basically only forest preserves, which generate no ridership.

Plus I really don't see the feasibility of a bus down Logan when folks can just walk up to Diversey.

[BusExpert32]

West of Central to Milwaukee, there are basically only forest preserves, which generate no ridership.

Yes, but the major portion of the extension would be betwen Kedzie and Central- and I know that area.

[qwantae]

Hello everyone. I'm starting this thread to open ideas about new bus routes that really should be given some consideration (with a funding solution by January of course). After looking through some topics (from 1 year + ago) the demand for service on some streets is high, so here are some of my ideas.

- #155 Devon expansion- There has been no demand for the #155 Devon bus to be extended from Kedzie/Devon to Milwaukee/Devon, but it's just something that's been irritating me for years. The routing would be: Devon(W)- Milwaukee(N)-terminate at Imlay CTA trurnaround- Milwaukee(S)- Devon(E)- and so forth.

I don't know if my ideas are that great, but I am ready for some good constructive criticism.

#155 expansion is a graet idea, I thought that route could be the second or third shortest route for CTA, but It could be a more idea for an expansion to Jefferson Park or Harlem/ Higgins Blue Line.

[Busjack]

See my prior post on this defying rational discussion without evidence of potential passenger generators not being served. Again, I fail to see how something like expanding 155 is a "graet [sic] idea" when prior bus routes on the mentioned street were canceled for lack of ridership. If you know something that CTA and the RTA did not when they canceled the routes, please disclose it.

Otherwise, in this time of tight resources (and if you ever took an economics class, you know that there will never be infinite ones), you are just playing the equivalent of fantasy football.

[Buslover88]

Well, i'll say that I like your idea about a #133 Kedzie (note I didn't include Logan). About the Logan situation, i'll agree with jajuan this time. I now think that Logan doesn't need a bus because #76 Diversey and #74 Fullerton are close.

My objective to a #155 expansion is that west of Kedzie, you enter the suburbs. Pace would have to take care of that, in my opinion.

[BusExpert32]

My objective to a #155 expansion is that west of Kedzie, you enter the suburbs. Pace would have to take care of that, in my opinion.

Well, technically you don't enter the suburbs on Devon until after Harlem. Between Kedzie and I94, Lincolnwood is on the northern side of the street, and the city of Chicago is on the southern side of the street, so you wouldn't be entering the suburbs because Devon is acting as a boundary for Chicago and Lincolnwood there, so the route would be 50% in Chicago. The rest of the extension between I94 and Imlay/Milwaukee is completely in the city of Chicago. While traveling on Devon, you wouldn't enter the suburbs until you pass Canfield/Ozanam going westbound (which isn't part of my proposal)- which would also be entering Park Ridge.

[jajuan]

Well, technically you don't enter the suburbs on Devon until after Harlem. Between Kedzie and I94, Lincolnwood is on the northern side of the street, and the city of Chicago is on the southern side of the street, so you wouldn't be entering the suburbs because Devon is acting as a boundary for Chicago and Lincolnwood there, so the route would be 50% in Chicago. The rest of the extension between I94 and Imlay/Milwaukee is completely in the city of Chicago. While traveling on Devon, you wouldn't enter the suburbs until you pass Canfield/Ozanam going westbound (which isn't part of my proposal)- which would also be entering Park Ridge.

That may be so, but I'll agree with the others above who noted that the former 211 route was cut by Pace through that stretch because of low ridership problems. So I'll also agree wtih Busjack when he says that unless it can be shown that there will be enough passengers brought in to justify there's really no reason to do it.

[Buslover88]

technically you don't enter the suburbs on Devon until after Harlem. Between Kedzie and I94, Lincolnwood is on the northern side of the street, and the city of Chicago is on the southern side of the street, so you wouldn't be entering the suburbs because Devon is acting as a boundary for Chicago and Lincolnwood there, so the route would be 50% in Chicago.

My bad. I thought Kedzie was the start of Lincolnwood -- on both sides of Devon. I now think your proposal for an extension is excellent.

[SusanSue]

- #155 Devon expansion- There has been no demand for the #155 Devon bus to be extended from Kedzie/Devon to Milwaukee/Devon, but it's just something that's been irritating me for years. The routing would be: Devon(W)- Milwaukee(N)-terminate at Imlay CTA trurnaround- Milwaukee(S)- Devon(E)- and so forth.

I don't know if my ideas are that great, but I am ready for some good constructive criticism.

If I'm not mistaken, when I was a young girl, the CTA did operate an extension of the #155. It was the #155A and it did run west of Central Avenue. We used it to get to Whelan Pool in the summers, but it was cancelled after only a few years.

[Busjack]

If I'm not mistaken, when I was a young girl, the CTA did operate an extension of the #155. It was the #155A and it did run west of Central Avenue. We used it to get to Whelan Pool in the summers, but it was cancelled after only a few years.

Now that you mention it, I do have a 1980 map that reflects that.

[Buslover88]

If I'm not mistaken, when I was a young girl, the CTA did operate an extension of the #155. It was the #155A and it did run west of Central Avenue. We used it to get to Whelan Pool in the summers, but it was cancelled after only a few years.

Thanks for bringing that up. Even though I wasn't born until the 90s, i'll say that I remember looking at a 1981 map of it.

[BusExpert32]

If I'm not mistaken, when I was a young girl, the CTA did operate an extension of the #155. It was the #155A and it did run west of Central Avenue. We used it to get to Whelan Pool in the summers, but it was cancelled after only a few years.

Well maybe the #155A was cut, but only because it was seperate to the #155. My proposal to extend it to Milwaukee/Imlay would have a better resolution instead of creating a whole new route in the area. Now I kind of see that creating a whole new route on Kedzie and Logan wouldn't be such a good idea, but extending the #155 wouldn't be as great of a risk because the #155 already has it's ridership, so the idea wouldn't be a total disappointment- but I still believe that the west portion of Devon needs bus service for a no transfer connection to the Lake Shore area.

[Danielsmusic]

Well maybe the #155A was cut, but only because it was seperate to the #155. My proposal to extend it to Milwaukee/Imlay would have a better resolution instead of creating a whole new route in the area. Now I kind of see that creating a whole new route on Kedzie and Logan wouldn't be such a good idea, but extending the #155 wouldn't be as great of a risk because the #155 already has it's ridership, so the idea wouldn't be a total disappointment- but I still believe that the west portion of Devon needs bus service for a no transfer connection to the Lake Shore area.

Yeah, but if approximately half of the route is unprofitable, it might be cut despite high ridership on the other part of the route (just like the 41)

[Danielsmusic]

Well maybe the #155A was cut, but only because it was seperate to the #155. My proposal to extend it to Milwaukee/Imlay would have a better resolution instead of creating a whole new route in the area. Now I kind of see that creating a whole new route on Kedzie and Logan wouldn't be such a good idea, but extending the #155 wouldn't be as great of a risk because the #155 already has it's ridership, so the idea wouldn't be a total disappointment- but I still believe that the west portion of Devon needs bus service for a no transfer connection to the Lake Shore area.

And if you say that there's no real demand for the bus, just that it's been irritating you that there's no service on west Devon, then there's no actual reason for the route extension. Even though I know this isn't always true, I'd like to believe that the CTA has more sense than to extend a route just because the extension's absence is "irritating"

[BusExpert32]

And if you say that there's no real demand for the bus, just that it's been irritating you that there's no service on west Devon, then there's no actual reason for the route extension. Even though I know this isn't always true, I'd like to believe that the CTA has more sense than to extend a route just because the extension's absence is "irritating"

Well, no. What's been irritating me is that there has been no service on west Devon, and I've always thought that there should be. And so what if there's no community petition going around demanding it; how will anyone know if the extension is appropriate if it hasn't been instated (and what happened 30 years ago on Devon really isn't that important to service today)? But obviously the CTA doesn't instate any improvements without the consent of possible riders. The CTA should really consider testing something like this for a couple of months instead of sitting there and saying- "no demand, then no need for service".

[Danielsmusic]

Well, no. What's been irritating me is that there has been no service on west Devon, and I've always thought that there should be. And so what if there's no community petition going around demanding it; how will anyone know if the extension is appropriate if it hasn't been instated (and what happened 30 years ago on Devon really isn't that important to service today)? But obviously the CTA doesn't instate any improvements without the consent of possible riders. The CTA should really consider testing something like this for a couple of months instead of sitting there and saying- "no demand, then no need for service".

I just realized something: Just because there's low ridership doesn't mean the CTA is smart enough to cancel the service right away. Take the 132; there is unbelievably low ridership because the route doesn't make convenient stops and parts of the route aren't residential (and going between two commercial districs is a fucking stupid idea). So, I'd think that, if the 155 was extended or something, it wouldn't be cancelled, but the route as a whole might be cancelled in a few years. And the 41 never was popular along Elston, but the CTA waited and ended up cutting the whole route, even though the Clybourn section had decent patronage.

[rmadisonwi]

Yeah, but if approximately half of the route is unprofitable, it might be cut despite high ridership on the other part of the route (just like the 41)

Well, technically everything is unprofitable (in the strict sense of the word profit). Some routes cover more of their costs than others.

In regards to the #132, that route is subsidized, so it really isn't up to CTA to cancel it (unless it was decided not to renew the contract when it expires).

[nextstopchicago]

Take the 132; there is unbelievably low ridership because the route doesn't make convenient stops and parts of the route aren't residential (and going between two commercial districs is a fucking stupid idea).

In addition to RMadison's comment, the other thing about the 132 is that it's less than a year old. It does indeed have low pph (passengers per platform hour, the best way to decide whether a route is worth the buses that are being devoted to it.) But routes like this take time to find their riders. When it was inaugurated, nobody knew about it, many people working along its route had already made a decision to buy a car, or to live in a transit-inconvenient location, thinking there would be no good way to use transit to get to work.

I'd say you need to give the 132 another year to see what it's worth. If it's still got 17 passengers per platform hour, my guess is that it's funders won't care to save it. But my guess is that a service that immediately attracted 17 passengers per platform hour will likely attract 30 within a couple years, putting it within the normal range for CTA. Maybe the route and schedule will need to be tweaked a little to make it work.

Ridership stats can be found through a link at the CTA's Reports page -- http://transitchicago.com/news/whatsnew2.wu

[Buslover88]

if approximately half of the route is unprofitable, it might be cut despite high ridership on the other part of the route.

Where is "half" of #155 "unprofitable"? Are you talking about the #155 expansion or #155 itself? Show me what you're talking about because i'm confused.

if you say that there's no real demand for the bus

When was that said? Again, show me.

Take the 132; there is unbelievably low ridership because the route doesn't make convenient stops and parts of the route aren't residential (and going between two commercial districts is a fucking stupid idea). And the 41 never was popular along Elston, but the CTA waited and ended up cutting the whole route, even though the Clybourn section had decent patronage.

If I remember correctly, ridership on Clybourn declined as well. I think #132 Goose Island Express is good -- for those who need to get between those "two commerical districts". Also, can you please watch your language?

In addition to RMadison's comment, the other thing about the 132 is that it's less than a year old. It does indeed have low pph (passengers per platform hour, the best way to decide whether a route is worth the buses that are being devoted to it.) But routes like this take time to find their riders. When it was inaugurated, nobody knew about it, many people working along its route had already made a decision to buy a car, or to live in a transit-inconvenient location, thinking there would be no good way to use transit to get to work.

I'd say you need to give the 132 another year to see what it's worth. If it's still got 17 passengers per platform hour, my guess is that it's funders won't care to save it. But my guess is that a service that immediately attracted 17 passengers per platform hour will likely attract 30 within a couple years, putting it within the normal range for CTA. Maybe the route and schedule will need to be tweaked a little to make it work.

I agree 100% with this.

[Busjack]

Well, no. What's been irritating me is that there has been no service on west Devon, and I've always thought that there should be. And so what if there's no community petition going around demanding it; how will anyone know if the extension is appropriate if it hasn't been instated (and what happened 30 years ago on Devon really isn't that important to service today)?

As others have pointed out, the issue isn't whether you are irritated; instead it is whether you can point to some traffic generator. If, for instance, CTA believes that people near California can walk to Western, then in a time of very scarce resources, you need to demonstrate who is not being served on Devon west of Kedzie, and why they can't walk to Peterson or Caldwell.

Also, your idea of extending 155 is unfeasible in an era when CTA can't even maintain present service; you are proposing to take a route with 65 productivity and continue it into territory of suburban characteristics, even if Chicago is to the south side. Even if there is a drop off in frequency, this sounds very inefficient.

As others note, an employer pays for 132. The burden of proof is on those that think there is untapped demand; hence, either collect the signatures or find someone who is willing to pay for it. As the legislature indicates, the taxpayers are not. Are you a taxpayer?

[Buslover88]

for instance, CTA believes that people near California can walk to Western

Which I think is stupid.

you need to demonstrate who is not being served on Devon west of Kedzie, and why they can't walk to Peterson or Caldwell.

Maybe because they're "lazy" (as some folks put it) and they don't want to?

[Danielsmusic]

Where is "half" of #155 "unprofitable"? Are you talking about the #155 expansion or #155 itself? Show me what you're talking about because i'm confused.

I'm talking about approximately half the route with the expansion. I'm not saying the current 155 doesn't have more than decent patronage.

When was that said? Again, show me.

Look at this:

#155 Devon expansion- There has been no demand for the #155 Devon bus to be extended from Kedzie/Devon to Milwaukee/Devon, but it's just something that's been irritating me for years.

If I remember correctly, ridership on Clybourn declined as well. I think #132 Goose Island Express is good -- for those who need to get between those "two commerical districts".

Yeah, but the ridership on Clybourn wouldn't necessarily have been low enough to cancel the route, had the Elston portion not existed.

Also, can you please watch your language?

Sure. I know certain people are ok with the language, but many aren't. Sorry. My bad.

[BusExpert32]

I'm talking about approximately half the route with the expansion. I'm not saying the current 155 doesn't have more than decent patronage.

Look at this:

Yeah, but the ridership on Clybourn wouldn't necessarily have been low enough to cancel the route, had the Elston portion not existed.

Sure. I know certain people are ok with the language, but many aren't. Sorry. My bad.

First off, with an extension to the #155, there would be no decline in its ridership so it wouldn't be cut. Secondly, I only said that this was irritating because the CTA never tests out new service without very high demands and funding. I thought it would be a good idea to just test something like this for two months or so, and then see whether or not ridership will increase to the overall total of the entire #155 route.

The #41 route was mainly cut because of the lack of funding in '97. It would've stayed for who knows how long, but the CTA needed to cut some kind of service to solve their financial dilema (the #41 went along with many other routes with lower ridership that would've stayed, but no funding resulted in their departure from CTA service).

Finally, I don't know why my member name is quoted in the above post with something that Buslover posted? [Misquotes corrected. -Kevin]