Route Changes To Save CTA money or Improve Service

[jajuan]

Buslover, I disssected your ideas, not to pick on you, but to show how in some situations they're just not feasible. And the suggestion that different bus routes should not share the same streets with other routes if that street name doesn't appear in the route name just isn't feasible or practical. The biggest reason being people wouldn't be able to adequately and efficiently make it downtown on the bus and the south and southwest side connections between bus and Red and Orange lines would not work very efficiently.

[Buslover88]

Buslover, I disssected your ideas, not to pick on you, but to show how in some situations they're just not feasible. And the suggestion that different bus routes should not share the same streets with other routes if that street name doesn't appear in the route name just isn't feasible or practical. The biggest reason being people wouldn't be able to adequately and efficiently make it downtown on the bus and the south and southwest side connections between bus and Red and Orange lines would not work very efficiently.

Well, I believe if a route saids a street name or neighborhood (for example: 145 Wilson/Michigan Express), it should stay near that area instead of going everywhere else. I know my idea/suggestions (or whatever you call it) may be dumb to you all, but it seems efficent to me and I think it would save some money.

[jajuan]

Well, I believe if a route saids a street name or neighborhood (for example: 145 Wilson/Michigan Express), it should stay near that area instead of going everywhere else. I know my idea/suggestions (or whatever you call it) may be dumb to you all, but it seems efficent to me and I think it would save some money.

Well I'll just say wait until you're older and you may have to work in one of those downtown office buildings and see how efficient you think it is then. Saving money is one thing, but you don't cut of your own foot doing so. And I'd say that restricting routes to the street or neighborhoods they're named for in a lot of cases is not efficient. Just the opposite. If that were the case you wouldn't have so many people on the north side or who need to travel to the north side as mad as they are that the 145 and other north side express routes are on the doomsday list.

For the CTA to survive it has to make adjustments in how some routes may be configured over time to more efficiently meet the demands of its customer base. Some of that may mean deviating a small distance from the main street that the route was originally named for to serve a new L or Metra connection or some other popular point of service. And the fact that they're testing out new changes over recent years to see what works is a step in the right direction. Some of us may not agree with some of the new adjustments, but if they work for the communities served that's the direction to move.

[Buslover88]

I'll just say wait until you're older and you may have to work in one of those downtown office buildings and see how efficient you think it is then. Saving money is one thing, but you don't cut of your own foot doing so. And I'd say that restricting routes to the street or neighborhoods they're named for in a lot of cases is not efficient in a lot of cases. Just the opposite. If that were the case you wouldn't have so many people on the north side or who need to travel the north side as mad as they are that the 145 and other north side express routes are on the doomsday list.

I'm not working in no Downtown office buliding, I plan on working for CTA. I know not to cut your own foot off saving money. Also, I don't think it's efficent anymore. I no longer care about anything regarding CTA besides getting a bus and traveling to where I have to go. I'm out.

EDIT: In one post recently, you say how "hostile" Busjack is. Well, no offense, but you just came off a little hostile.

[Danielsmusic]

I'm not working in no Downtown office buliding, I plan on working for CTA. I know not to cut your own foot off saving money. Also, I don't think it's efficent anymore. I no longer care about anything regarding CTA besides getting a bus and traveling to where I have to go. I'm out.

Hold on, you're a 5th grader? Then why would you make suggestions about bus routes only used by commuters? Have you actually taken the bus routes you comment on?

[Buslover88]

Hold on, you're a 5th grader? Then why would you make suggestions about bus routes only used by commuters? Have you actually taken the bus routes you comment on?

MY elementary school goes up to 8th grade, i'm in 8th grade. Yes, i've taken those bus routes, i'm not stupid and I have knowledge about CTA's routes.

EDIT: If you want to know more about me or want to say some insults, pm me, i'm not releasing everything on this board.

[Danielsmusic]

MY elementary school goes up to 8th grade, i'm in 8th grade. Yes, i've taken those bus routes, i'm not stupid and I have knowledge about CTA's routes.

EDIT: If you want to know more about me or want to say some insults, pm me, i'm not releasing everything on this board.

I'm not insulting you at all. I'm just surprised that someone your age knows so much. If anything, I'm impressed. I wasn't saying you were stupid, I was simply wondering if you had taken those routes because you're so young. When you're that age, how do you find the time?

[Buslover88]

When you're that age, how do you find the time?

Well, anytime when i'm not busy with school, I tend to go on trips on CTA routes. Anyway, I like everyone's suggestions they've made here. They're great, but I just don't agree with them all.

[jajuan]

I'm not working in no Downtown office buliding, I plan on working for CTA. I know not to cut your own foot off saving money. Also, I don't think it's efficent anymore. I no longer care about anything regarding CTA besides getting a bus and traveling to where I have to go. I'm out.

EDIT: In one post recently, you say how "hostile" Busjack is. Well, no offense, but you just came off a little hostile.

The intent wasn't to be hostile but to point out how some what you were proposing affects service for other people. If you felt any hostility I apologize. It's good you care about how transit works in the area. Keep on making suggestions. Some of the ones you gave in your original southside proposal were good. But be prepared that others may not agree with all of them and that they may see some flaws here and there that should be discussed. Like it or not, but not everyone will agree with you.

As for what I said to Busjack, he and I may not always agree and I may sometimes not like how he shows his disagreement for other's ideas. However, we've so far been able to go back and discuss our disagreements and come to an understanding. There have been areas, believe it or not, where we have agreed on things. That is the nature of this forum. Sometimes we agree on things. Sometimes we don't.

[exitzero]

My thoughts (limted to CTA routes only - very long. If a route isn't listed, it isn't scheduled for change):

1: Discontinue

2: Combine with 6

3: Extend to 95/Dan Ryan, add trips to SB terminus, eliminate Michael Reese Hospital deviation

X3: Eliminate stops at 26th, 33rd, 43rd, 61st, 69th, 75th, expand express service all the way to 95th with stops at 87th; start express service south of Roosevelt instead of 18th. I've never understood why CTA calls these routes express, they're limited stop.

4: Extend to 95/Dan Ryan Red

N5: Provide a complete loop around south side by extending service via 95th, Halsted, 69th to 69/Dan Ryan.

6: Combine with 2, extend peak hour service north to Navy Pier, route some trips via cancelled 2 to Hyde Park. Hyde Park trips would not route to 79th/S. Shore.

8: Extend southern terminus to 95th/Dan Ryan Red. Eliminate night-owl trips south of 69th (covered by rerouted N5)

8A: Reroute northern terminus to 95th/Dan Ryan Red. Eliminate service north of 95th and Halsted.

10: Discontinue (6 replaces)

11: Absorb some trips from discontinued 37. Interline with 155 at north end.

14: Retain service, eliminate stops on Jeffery to every 4th street (e.g. 67th, 71st, 75th, 79th, etc.) then local from 100th/Stony to terminus

15: Update timetable so that timed transfers can occur at 67th and Jeffery to northbound and southbound 14 buses (well, at least try to, anyway)

17: Discontinue

19: Discontinue

25: Combine some trips into 21 or X21, otherwise discontinue

X28: Discontinue, add some trips to 6, time transfers for peak direction trips at Lake Park/Hyde Park to/from 28

30: Eliminate non-peak service south of Lake Pointe Place

33: Discontinue (at best eliminate all service south of Erie)

36: Extend service to Howard Red Line via Clark

37: Discontinue, some trips absorbed by 11

38: Eliminate service east of Polk Blue/Pink

43: Eliminate service west of 47th Red (some segments covered by rerouted 44)

44: Reroute to 47th Red via Halsted, Root, Princeton, Wentworth. Eliminate service north of Wallace and Root. Extend service to 87th Red via 87th.

48: Discontinue. Portions of route would be covered by extended 50

49: Extend northern terminus to Devon; extend southern terminus to The Plaza

49A: Discontinue, service picked up by PACE 349

49B: Discontinue, service picked up by one-way northbound loop on 93

X49: Extend termini to match new 49 termini, limit stops to major east-west cross streets only

50: Extend southern terminus to Ashland/63rd Green to cover portions of discontinued 48. Express area on Western would remain

52: Extend northern terminus to Kimball Brown via California, Addison, Kimball.

53: Extend southern terminus to 95th. Slight service reduction to make room for new X53 service

53A: Eliminate all service north of Pulaski Orange, eliminate all weekend service

53AL: Discontinue, replace with new X53

X53: New route, with northern terminus of Peterson and southern terminus of 115th, with express stops at major east-west cross streets only.

54: Extend northern terminus to Howard & Skokie. Extend southern terminus to Ford City. Run every other trip to new termini both north and south, send remainder of trips to existing termini.

54A: Discontinue

54B: Discontinue

X54: Eliminate stops along route. Slightly earlier start times, slightly later end times. Add Saturday service at 20-30 min frequencies.

55: Interline 55 and 63 to create one-seat rides for those two corridors. Eastern terminus would be extended to 63rd via Hyde Park, 57th and Stony. Western terminus would be extended via 55th, Narragansett to 63rd. Short trips on the west side would continue to route via Midway. Frequencies in the new corridor would remain unchanged.

55A: Discontinue

55N: Discontinue, covered by extended 55

56: Extend route to Harlem Blue via Milwaukee, Devon, Canfield, Talcot, and Harlem. Short trips would end at Jefferson Park Blue.

56A: Discontinue, portions covered by extended 56

57: Interline 57 with 73 to create a one-seat ride between the west side and the near-north lakefront. Reduce Sunday frequencies from 15 to 20 min.

59: Eliminate service east of Garfield Red

62: Extend western terminus to 63rd and Archer. Run limited service to new western terminus on weekdays only.

62H: Discontinue, portions covered by extended 62.

63: Interline 63 and 55 to create one-seat rides for those two corridors. Eastern terminus would be joined with extended 55. Western terminus would be joined with extended 55 via 55th, Narragansett. Short trips would continue to route via Midway. Would replace portions of 63W.

63W: Discontinue, portions covered by extended 63 service

64: Combine 64 and 69 into one route (64) serving both areas. From Harlem Blue, new route would travel via Harlem, Foster, Cumberland, Lawrence, East River, Catalpa, Delphia, Bryn Mawr and Cumberland to Cumberland Blue. From there, route would travel via Cumberland, Higgins to Harlem Blue. Service on Canfield would be eliminated. Service would run on 20 minute headways on weekdays, and hourly on Saturdays. On Saturdays, routing via East River would be eliminated.

68: Discontinue

69: Combine 69 into revised 64, see above.

73: Interline 73 with 57 to create a one-seat ride between the west side and the near-north lakefront.

76: Interline 76 with 77 to create a one-seat ride in the Diversey and Belmont corridors.

77: Interline 77 with 76 to create a one-seat ride in the Belmont and Diversey corridors.

79: Interline 79 with 87 to create a one-seat ride in the 79th and 87th corridors. The eastern terminus would be extended to 87th and Commercial via South Shore, 833rd, Exchange, and Commercial. Route 87 would then begin with its normal routing via 87th, Buffalo, 91st and Commercial to 87th.

X80: Eliminate stops along route.

81: Extend western terminus to Cumberland Blue via 81W routing. Service frequencies slightly reduced from existing 81W levels.

81W: Discontinue, replace with extended 81

84: Eliminate Sunday service

87: Interline 87 with 79 to create a one seat ride in the 79th and 87th corridors. The western terminus would be extended to Ford City via Cicero.

88: Eliminate loop via Talcott and Avondale west of Harlem Blue.

90: Combine 90 and 90N service into one route (90). Short trips would continue to terminate at Harlem Blue. Eliminate Saturday service on extended portion.

93: Establish one way southbound routing via California and northbound on Western between Howard and Devon. Increase Saturday service frequency from 21 to 15 minutes, add Sunday/Holiday service at 30 minute frequencies.

95E, 95W: Combine into one route (95).

97: From Howard Red, reroute via Howard, Skokie, Niles Center, Dempster to Skokie Yellow. Then continue to Old Orchard via existing route. Increase weekend service frequencies slightly.

103, 106: Combine into one route (103).

120, 121: Combine into one route (120).

122, 123: Combine into one route (122). Route would operate via Union Station, then Ogilvie Station before going express via Upper Wacker.

125, 157: Combine 125 and 157 into one route. Northern portion of route would operate via Ohio, Fairbanks, Chicago, Mies Van Der Rohe, Delaware, De Witt, Chestnut, Pearson. Southbound, route would operate express on Ontario to existing 125 route.

127: Discontinue

129: Discontinue

130: Discontinue

135, 136: Combine into one route (136). Route would operate express from Wacker to Irving Park, then operate local via Irving Park, Clarendon, Wilson, Sheridan to remainder of existing route. Route would be extended to Howard Red. Service frequences would increase, however route would not operate outside of peak hours.

144: Discontinue, replace with modified 145 and additional 146 trips.

145: Eliminate service west of Inner Lake Shore and Irving Park.

146: Add trips from discontinued 144.

147: Operate limited stops on Sheridan from Foster to Devon, then local stops to terminus. Remove short-line trips to/from Devon during the peak hour.

148: Expand route to operate all day on weekdays to cover route segments of shortened 145.

149: New route operating from Congress Plaza to Howard Red over existing 147 route with the following deviations: Instead of exiting at Foster, exit at Hollywood. Then limited stops via Hollywood, Broadway, Sheridan to Howard Red. Route would operate peak hours only, 10-15 minute frequencies.

151: Extend N151 night owl service from Belmont/Halsted to Howard Red.

154: Discontinue

155: Interline 155 with 11 to create one-seat ride from far north lakeshore to north western city and west side.

157: Combine 125 and 157 into one route (see 125 above)

200: Discontinue

201, 205: Combine into loop route. Eliminate 205 routing via Grant and Grey. Extend 201 routing to Cook County Courts at Skokie. Most of existing routes would be retained. Balance schedules so that frequences average 15-20 minutes during midday and 10-15 minutes during peak.

206: Discontinue

[jesi2282]

25: Combine some trips into 21 or X21, otherwise discontinue

#X21 Cermak Express and #25 West Cermak have both been discontinued for some time now.

[Busjack]

My thoughts (limited to CTA routes only - very long. If a route isn't listed, it isn't scheduled for change):

2: Combine with 6

6: Combine with 2, extend peak hour service north to Navy Pier, route some trips via cancelled 2 to Hyde Park. Hyde Park trips would not route to 79th/S. Shore.

X28: Discontinue, add some trips to 6, time transfers for peak direction trips at Lake Park/Hyde Park to/from 28

I was going to say what will serve Hyde Park Blvd. and 60th St., but then you said make some 6 trips via Hyde Park. Thus, what is the point? You can still retain the route numbers by reducing frequency, if you think the frequency of one or the other is too high. However, this becomes too confusing to passengers, where the only commonality between routes 2 and 6 is between 47th and 51st (and that is because there isn't a northbound on ramp to LSD at 51st).

Also, this defeats the purpose of the South LSD restructuring that CTA doesn't want all of the express riders crowding onto one route.

11: Absorb some trips from discontinued 37. Interline with 155 at north end.

37: Discontinue, some trips absorbed by 11

37 has already been discontinued and absorbed by 11. What is the point of saying interline, since transit authorities can always interline? Are you saying to cut off service from North Kedzie? Also, 11 and 155 have radically different passenger load characteristics (11 is light, and 155 is short but very heavy).

25: Combine some trips into 21 or X21, otherwise discontinue

Jesi beat me to this. With this and other examples, are you playing with a 2 year old map?

30: Eliminate non-peak service south of Lake Pointe Place

I don't know where Lake Pointe Place is, but are you saying eliminate all bus service to Hegewisch? Let them ride the South Shore or eat cake? Not even Doomsday went that far.

36: Extend service to Howard Red Line via Clark

Why, is 22 that inadequate?

49: Extend northern terminus to Devon; extend southern terminus to The Plaza

X49: Extend termini to match new 49 termini, limit stops to major east-west cross streets only

You have no place to turn it near Devon, unless you are going to condemn Z Frank. On the other side, there is basically nothing between 83rd and 93rd but forest preserves, and Evergreen Plaza is served by X49.

55: Interline 55 and 63 to create one-seat rides for those two corridors. Eastern terminus would be extended to 63rd via Hyde Park, 57th and Stony. Western terminus would be extended via 55th, Narragansett to 63rd. Short trips on the west side would continue to route via Midway. Frequencies in the new corridor would remain unchanged.

Having lived in Hyde Park, this makes absolutely no sense. West of Midway you have barely enough ridership to keep those feeders going, and according to the Doomsday plans, not even that. Maybe the west sides of 55th and 63rd might want to be connected, but they can accomplish that at Midway station. Rest assured that unless there are great demographic changes (I'm talking economic class here, by the way), people on East 55th have no desire to go to 63rd. Also, this would cut off 63rd St. Beach service.

I previously mentioned the issue with regard to 10, 19, and, by extension 33.

Maybe buslover thought we were being mean, but I really don't see how any further analysis will save this flawed plan, so I pull out at this point.

[exitzero]

I know I've done right when I've pissed off everyone.

I acknowledge I may have had some old info, particularly with the Cermak routes. Sorry, my bad. But I think my plan combines the best in cost savings, service in new areas, and removing service where there clearly is no demand. You act like the CTA's current situation is so great...if that's the case, then why are we STILL facing Doomsday?

And re: interlining, yes, I mean putting it in the schedule. "If you ride the 11, it becomes the 155 and you ride through with no additional charge." Yes, buses can interline, so why isn't the CTA doing it? So what if the 11 and the 155 have disparate ridership numbers? Tie the two routes together and see if you don't get spill-over. What exactly is wrong with that?

I actually pulled back a lot of changes that I had originally put into my plan. Call it flawed if you like, but at least it's a first effort. Where's your plan...? That's what I thought.

The fact is, the CTA needs to be gutted and rebuilt from the bottom up. There is very little in the current system that really works. Which is why, combined with the funding snafu, the CTA is in the mess it's in.

I'll look over your input and make changes. But I'd sure like to see what you'd do.

[Busjack]

I know I've done right when I've pissed off everyone.

And re: interlining, yes, I mean putting it in the schedule. "If you ride the 11, it becomes the 155 and you ride through with no additional charge." Yes, buses can interline, so why isn't the CTA doing it? So what if the 11 and the 155 have disparate ridership numbers? Tie the two routes together and see if you don't get spill-over. What exactly is wrong with that?

I actually pulled back a lot of changes that I had originally put into my plan. Call it flawed if you like, but at least it's a first effort. Where's your plan...? That's what I thought.

The fact is, the CTA needs to be gutted and rebuilt from the bottom up. There is very little in the current system that really works. Which is why, combined with the funding snafu, the CTA is in the mess it's in.

Man, you have really gone over the top.

1. I don't believe that anyone at CTA has asked for our input, and thus nothing is going to be implemented even though someone posted it here.
   
   
2. While I don't believe that all of the CTA routes are where they should be (and have crusaded against further extensions into the suburbs), I don't believe that the system has to be blown up. The basic grid works well. CTA does have a planning and restructuring process.
   
   
3. Any plan has to have proof that it will reduce cost or increase ridership. You have provided no such proof, and unless you are a transit consultant with access to customer surveys and the Clever Devices rider statistics, you don't have it.
   
   
4. As I previously mentioned, any plan that interlines a light route with a heavy one is bound to increase costs without a corresponding benefit, unless most of the buses from the heavy route are short turned at the old terminal.
   
   
5. Since CTA makes money off of transferring (and a double fare if you pay cash on the bus), CTA has no incentive to give someone a one-seat ride from, say Devon and California to downtown (or even Lincoln-Jersey) via your 155-11 interlining, even if you had a customer survey proving the demand.
   
6. The way you have combined route numbers will only lead to customer confusion.
   

Thus:

1. I have no obligation to propose a plan for the total restructuring of the CTA, just because you say so, at least until such point as the CTA pays me a consulting fee.
   
   
2. I'm certainly not going to support a plan that appears unfeasible, and no doubt would increase operating costs, just because you provided it without any supporting data.
   

We're just doing Sim City again. And I wonder if CTA would be even in worse shape if some of you amateurs were running it. And if you are not an amateur, honestly state your credentials in the transit planning industry.

[BusHunter]

For me the solution is simple. Just add more express routes like X74,X72,possibly X66,and bring back the old Archer Express you know things like that.(I could list them all but I'd be here all day) These X routes to me are a smash hit. Also I heard somewhere that CTA takes a few buses off of the local routes like #49 for the #X49 because these express buses are essentially speeding up the street. This is a no- brainer to me. It puts the buses where they are most needed at intersections. It also makes the commute more pleasing because there is not so much stop-go stop-go (this can be aggravating). It also saves you time for other stuff (like being on here). :lol:

[exitzero]

Man, you have really gone over the top.

OLOLOL. Like you, with the aggro? How old are you, 14?

I don't believe that anyone at CTA has asked for our input, and thus nothing is going to be implemented even though someone posted it here.

Er, duh! I thought all of this was a fictional exercise. The CTA would never implement anything shown here, because they don't care! And why would they? This is an internet board, with no influence (at least that I know of) on CTA operations. So why would I care whether or not CTA asked for our input?

While I don't believe that all of the CTA routes are where they should be (and have crusaded against further extensions into the suburbs), I don't believe that the system has to be blown up. The basic grid works well. CTA does have a planning and restructuring process.

And my plan is not making big changes to the grid system. It's creating opportunities (should people wish to use them) while - at least in theory - pulling buses off of the street, thus saving in operations costs. Interlining saves money as well - again, fewer buses.

Any plan has to have proof that it will reduce cost or increase ridership. You have provided no such proof, and unless you are a transit consultant with access to customer surveys and the Clever Devices rider statistics, you don't have it.

Well of course I don't have any of this information...and why would I? I never suggested my plan was anything more than my idea of what should be changed. I can tell you that I used ridership reports for most of my planning. But I thought that this was all about. I must have missed the part where we were going to send this to the CTA.

As I previously mentioned, any plan that interlines a light route with a heavy one is bound to increase costs without a corresponding benefit, unless most of the buses from the heavy route are short turned at the old terminal.

Well, who said that some of these trips couldn't be turned at the old terminal? And what information do YOU have that proves your assertion that light-use and heavy-use routes can't be tied up for financial savings?

Since CTA makes money off of transferring (and a double fare if you pay cash on the bus), CTA has no incentive to give someone a one-seat ride from, say Devon and California to downtown (or even Lincoln-Jersey) via your 155-11 interlining, even if you had a customer survey proving the demand.

But, of course, they have plenty of incentive to provide service to the far reaches of southeastern Chicago with the Lake Pointe Place-Hegewisch segment of the 30? All the while slashing EVERY SINGLE North-side LSD express route? Proven money makers, at that? Let me see if I can quote you. "Let them ride the Red Line or eat cake?" Give me a break. This is what I'm talking about.

[*]The way you have combined route numbers will only lead to customer confusion.

This is about the only part of your argument that makes any sort of sense. And I happen to agree, I'm just not sure how to address the issue. Many agencies get past this by using route letters which I'm not a fan of, but can understand why they need to be used, particularly if a route has several branches.

Thus:

I have no obligation to propose a plan for the total restructuring of the CTA, just because you say so, at least until such point as the CTA pays me a consulting fee.

Well, neither do I, but I did, because this kind of stuff interests me, and only for that reason. I'm not a transit planner. I never suggested such a thing. I am frankly nonplussed by your accusation or inference that I should be one in order to offer an opinion on CTA's transit operations.

I'm certainly not going to support a plan that appears unfeasible, and no doubt would increase operating costs, just because you provided it without any supporting data.

I'm not asking you to support it. In fact, I'm hoping that holes are found, and points get raised that I may not have thought of (in particular, the 2-6-X28 configuration).

We're just doing Sim City again. And I wonder if CTA would be even in worse shape if some of you amateurs were running it. And if you are not an amateur, honestly state your credentials in the transit planning industry.

And? I thought this was the point. How could it be anything else? THIS IS A BUSFAN INTERNETS FORUM, WITH NO OFFICIAL LINK TO THE CTA. What about that is not being understood?

An amateur (such as myself) would probably be the best thing the CTA would ever hope to have at this point. It's this particular kind of tired-a**, inside-the-box, pet-project circle-jerk thinking that got the CTA into this mess in the first place. And if you think that whatever extortion going on in Springfield now is going to mean the end of CTA financial crises in the future, you've got another think coming. The CTA needs to make radical changes in its way of doing things, from top to bottom. And whether this thread is simply wishful thinking or not, you cannot deny that some of the things expressed here would do the agency a ton of good.

And finally, cut it with the hostile attitude, seriously. There's no reason why we can't discuss this like adults (assuming you are one.)

[Busjack]

Er, duh! I thought all of this was a fictional exercise. The CTA would never implement anything shown here, because they don't care! And why would they? This is an internet board, with no influence (at least that I know of) on CTA operations. So why would I care whether or not CTA asked for our input?

Since this is fictional, it isn't worth my time further reading it or commenting on it. It sure isn't worth my time to respond with a plan of my own to your fictional desires.

[exitzero]

Since this is fictional, it isn't worth my time further reading it or commenting on it. It sure isn't worth my time to respond with a plan of my own to your fictional desires.

Great, you arrived at a conclusion you should have arrived at, oh...3 posts ago? Congratulations.

[Busjack]

Then why did you ask for the following:

Where's your plan...? That's what I thought.

The fact is, the CTA needs to be gutted and rebuilt from the bottom up. There is very little in the current system that really works. Which is why, combined with the funding snafu, the CTA is in the mess it's in.

I'll look over your input and make changes. But I'd sure like to see what you'd do.

Obviously, you didn't mean it.

[Buslover88]

Maybe buslover thought we were being mean, but I really don't see how any further analysis will save this flawed plan, so I pull out at this point.

I wasn't talking about you being mean, Busjack.

How old are you, 14?

He's not, but I am.

But, of course, they have plenty of incentive to provide service to the far reaches of southeastern Chicago with the Lake Pointe Place-Hegewisch segment of the 30? All the while slashing EVERY SINGLE North-side LSD express route? Proven money makers, at that? Let me see if I can quote you. "Let them ride the Red Line or eat cake?" Give me a break. This is what I'm talking about.

Um, don't you think that Hegewisch needs a bus? I do. You know, there are still local buses on LSD.

76: Interline 76 with 77 to create a one-seat ride in the Diversey and Belmont corridors.

77: Interline 77 with 76 to create a one-seat ride in the Belmont and Diversey corridors.

Don't mess with #76, it's fine the way it is. I'm not willing to travel on Diversey AND Belmont, that'll take too long.

Also, can you guys chil out a little?

[exitzero]

He's not, but I am.

Maybe so, but he's sure acting like it. It's not like it really matters; you can have a passionate discussion about something without resorting to aggressive behavior and accusations.

I'm still quite puzzled at the acrimony here. I offered a plan; it, like any preliminary plan, has some holes. Fine, point out the holes, we'll change the plan. But don't expect me to hang my head in shame because you don't like the plan, and don't scold me and expect me to hold my tongue.

Um, don't you think that the Hegewisch needs a bus? I do.

Well sure, but the ridership numbers don't support it. And in my plan, Hegewisch still gets a bus - it's only during peak hours.

You know, there are still local buses on LSD.

Don't mess with #76, it's fine the way it is. I'm not willing to travel on Diversey AND Belmont, that'll take too long.

What is exactly changing on the 76? It simply interlines with the 77 at both ends of the route. Your ride would not be affected by this change.

Are you talking about the 145/146 when you say "local buses on LSD"?

[Buslover88]

Maybe so, but he's sure acting like it. It's not like it really matters; you can have a passionate discussion about something without resorting to aggressive behavior and accusations.

True.

I'm still quite puzzled at the acrimony here. I offered a plan; it, like any preliminary plan, has some holes. Fine, point out the holes, we'll change the plan. But don't expect me to hang my head in shame because you don't like the plan, and don't scold me and expect me to hold my tongue.

Honestly, I like most of your plan, but I disagree with some points. Also, I feel the same excat way about that.

Well sure, but the ridership numbers don't support it. And in my plan, Hegewisch still gets a bus - it's only during peak hours.

Oh okay, sounds better then no bus at all.

What is exactly changing on the 76? It simply interlines with the 77 at both ends of the route. Your ride would not be affected by this change.

Now that you mention the ends, I don't mind. I mostly ride #76 between Clark and Lawndale

Are you talking about the 145/146 when you say "local buses on LSD"?

I was reffering to #151 and those other local routes.

[exitzero]

True.

Thanks for acknowledging that. Really, it's appreciated.

Honestly, I like most of your plan, but I disagree with some points. Also, I feel the same excat way about that.

Right. Hell, after reading it over, I even disagree with some of the points I made. The 2-6-X28 suggestion is an absolute mess, for example. But that's why we go back and review and make adjustments. I don't mind spirited debate, but when people start making accusations and discrediting just because it's something they don't like, that's another thing entirely.

Also, it's important for me to keep things sane, because I have the ability to get nasty and make people feel really small, and that's not something I wanna do. So this is as much me keeping myself in check, as it is whoever I am debating with.

Oh okay, sounds better then no bus at all.

Now that you mention the ends, I don't mind. I mostly ride #76 between Clark and Lawndale

Yeah...the interlining is mainly for people who live near the ends of the routes and don't want to have to do multiple transfers.

I was reffering to #151 and those other local routes.

Lots of people want a quick way downtown from the North Side without dealing with the Slow Line or the even slower 151. That's why the 147 is doing as well as it is. I was shocked when they pushed service out to past midnight a while back, and was dubious that the route could support those kinds of hours, but the facts are, it does.

I thought about adding a limited-stop service on the 151 but figured that would cannibalize LSD express ridership and wouldn't necessarily be much faster.

[BusExpert32]

You guys really have to settle down. All I saw here was a plan that recieved constructive critism. Let's please not endure in another discussion about who's "mean" and who's not. This is a forum about transit discussion, which does not include arguing personally over how we feel about each other. The great inovation of a persoanl messenger was created for that type of discussion.

[Buslover88]

You guys really have to settle down. All I saw here was a plan that recieved constructive critism. Let's please not endure in another discussion about who's "mean" and who's not. This is a forum about transit discussion, which does not include arguing personally over how we feel about each other. The great inovation of a persoanl messenger was created for that type of discussion.

Well, it seems nobody likes to personally argue on personal message, so they do it here, and besides, personal message isn't really that great unless some members here REALLY have personal issues with each other.

Also, exitzero, I agree with your last post.