Route Changes To Save CTA money or Improve Service

[cta_44499_FG]

Can we spare the arguments and discuss the topic I brought up, which was "route changes" not "who's mean and who's not"?

Thanks.

[jajuan]

Can we spare the arguments and discuss the topic I brought up, which was "route changes" not "who's mean and who's not"?

Thanks.

Yes so true. I thought we were about thoughtful discussion here regardless of if we disagree sometimes. Disagreement helps keep the discussion interesting.

[Tamir4317]

Yes so true. I thought we were about thoughtful discussion here regardless of if we disagree sometimes. Disagreement helps keep the discussion interesting.

True. I have a few ideas of my own. And some may not agree, but here it goes.

I agree with the #17 Westchester idea. Just let Pace #317 operate more frequently during rush periods.

3 & X3 buses should end at 94th/Burnside or extend it to 95th/Red Line. If there's not enough room in the 95th terminal, then extend it to 103rd & Michigan.

Combine the 95E/95W buses. Together, it can become the 95-93rd-95th. Buses would from run 92nd & Buffalo to the Red Line like the 95E, then continue to 95th & Western after a short break at the Red Line. Heck, I'd like to see buses extended to the strip mall at 95th & Pulaski.

Yes, cut the 1 Indiana/Hyde Park or Combine it with the 2 Hyde Park and run express with very limited stops down Indiana/Michigan. Come to think of it, cutting the #1 & #2 wouldn't be a bad idea.

I want the #6 Jeffery back. But since that route ran through Hyde Park, call it the #6 Jeffery/Hyde Park Express. It would run from 103rd Stony Island to Navy Pier. I dunno, I just miss riding through HP while on my way downtown. I guess I can dream right?

Keep the 14, but during weekday rush periods only. Last morning bus at 9:30am, last evening bus at 6:35pm.

Cut the #10 Museum of Science and Industry. For people who use it, just adjust travel times and use the #55 or the updated #6 Jeffery/Hyde Park.

Keep the Jackson Park Exp, but rename it the #10 Jackson Park Express. During rush periods, this can run in areas near 60th & Cottage, thus eliminating the #2.

Bring the 44 Wallace/Racine back downtown. For the people who live near that route, this would eliminate the need for them to transfer to the Orange Line.

Combine the 90 & 90N. For drivers on the 90, an extra few minutes to Touhy/Overhill won't hurt.

And lastly, I have a new route idea that I want to share with you guys.

The 149 Clybourn/Michigan Express. It would run from the Ogilvie/Union Stations to Elston & Armitage. After Ogilvie/Union Stations, it would run to Monroe, Michigan, Lake Shore Dr, Division to Clybourn, Webster, Ashland to Clybourn Metra Station, Cortland, Elston to Armitage, layover on Elston, and begin it's trip back downtown. For people downtown who go to the Webster Place Theater/Depaul area, this would eliminate the need for them to get on the red line & transfer to the Fullerton bus. And this would help people like me, because I like going to Webster Place, but hate riding the #9/X9 Ashland to do it.

[kendo26]

I use the 44 everyday and I think it really needs to become two routes

1) 87th and Racine to 47th, then to Halsted and Halsted to the Orange Line.

2) A new Wallace-Canal Route. Starts at Halsted & Root East to Wallace then to 26th. East to Canal to Archer. West on Archer to the Orange Line. It then heads east on Archer back to Canal. North on Canal to Union Station.

This allows all current ridership on the 44 to transfer to the Orange Line as well as picking up new riders to the shopping area around Roosevelt and Canal and Service to the West Loop area.

[Busjack]

And lastly, I have a new route idea that I want to share with you guys.

The 149 Clybourn/Michigan Express. It would run from the Ogilvie/Union Stations to Elston & Armitage. After Ogilvie/Union Stations, it would run to Monroe, Michigan, Lake Shore Dr, Division to Clybourn, Webster, Ashland to Clybourn Metra Station, Cortland, Elston to Armitage, layover on Elston, and begin it's trip back downtown. For people downtown who go to the Webster Place Theater/Depaul area, this would eliminate the need for them to get on the red line & transfer to the Fullerton bus. And this would help people like me, because I like going to Webster Place, but hate riding the #9/X9 Ashland to do it.

This would bring back the long dead 41, in certain respects, although it usually went straight north from Union Station.

However, applying the rules of Principled Discussion, a new traffic generator was mentioned. Development in the Clybourn Elston corridor might justify this. However, others have commented that the development is not transit oriented, in that it involves a lot of big boxes not oriented to the street. I would be interested in the comments of those who live near there, who would have a better idea whether it would generate bus passenger traffic.

[exitzero]

I wasn't going to even participate in this discussion any more (are we sending these requests to the CTA?) but I have to make a few edits to my plan:

2 remains discontinued, replace with X28

6: Add trips, otherwise keep route as is

14: Retain eliminated stops from previous plan. Additionally, retain weekday service only with the first inbound at 4:30am and the last outbound at 7:30pm. Weekend and holiday service would be discontinued.

X28: Reroute northern terminus to Navy Pier via Michigan, bypassing rail stations. Southbound, reroute off LSD via 47th, Lake Park, Hyde Park, Cottage Grove, 60th, to Stony Island and remainder of existing route. Some short trips would end at 63rd and Stony. All remaining trips would continue to the southern terminus.

49: Extend northern terminus to Howard Red, establish 20-30 minute weekday midday frequencies north of Berwyn

49B remains discontinued

X49: Extend northern terminus to Howard Red

93 retains two-way service on California

96: Reroute start of eastbound service via Kedzie to Touhy, then regular route.

True. I have a few ideas of my own. And some may not agree, but here it goes.

I agree with the #17 Westchester idea. Just let Pace #317 operate more frequently during rush periods.

3 & X3 buses should end at 94th/Burnside or extend it to 95th/Red Line. If there's not enough room in the 95th terminal, then extend it to 103rd & Michigan.

Combine the 95E/95W buses. Together, it can become the 95-93rd-95th. Buses would from run 92nd & Buffalo to the Red Line like the 95E, then continue to 95th & Western after a short break at the Red Line. Heck, I'd like to see buses extended to the strip mall at 95th & Pulaski.

Yes, cut the 1 Indiana/Hyde Park or Combine it with the 2 Hyde Park and run express with very limited stops down Indiana/Michigan. Come to think of it, cutting the #1 & #2 wouldn't be a bad idea.

I want the #6 Jeffery back. But since that route ran through Hyde Park, call it the #6 Jeffery/Hyde Park Express. It would run from 103rd Stony Island to Navy Pier. I dunno, I just miss riding through HP while on my way downtown. I guess I can dream right?

Keep the 14, but during weekday rush periods only. Last morning bus at 9:30am, last evening bus at 6:35pm.

Cut the #10 Museum of Science and Industry. For people who use it, just adjust travel times and use the #55 or the updated #6 Jeffery/Hyde Park.

Keep the Jackson Park Exp, but rename it the #10 Jackson Park Express. During rush periods, this can run in areas near 60th & Cottage, thus eliminating the #2.

Bring the 44 Wallace/Racine back downtown. For the people who live near that route, this would eliminate the need for them to transfer to the Orange Line.

Combine the 90 & 90N. For drivers on the 90, an extra few minutes to Touhy/Overhill won't hurt.

And lastly, I have a new route idea that I want to share with you guys.

The 149 Clybourn/Michigan Express. It would run from the Ogilvie/Union Stations to Elston & Armitage. After Ogilvie/Union Stations, it would run to Monroe, Michigan, Lake Shore Dr, Division to Clybourn, Webster, Ashland to Clybourn Metra Station, Cortland, Elston to Armitage, layover on Elston, and begin it's trip back downtown. For people downtown who go to the Webster Place Theater/Depaul area, this would eliminate the need for them to get on the red line & transfer to the Fullerton bus. And this would help people like me, because I like going to Webster Place, but hate riding the #9/X9 Ashland to do it.

The only issues I have with your plan:

The 44 - that route doesn't have the numbers to bring it downtown, not with so many other options in the area (8, 24, 62, Orange).

Couldn't your 149 be covered by a slightly modified 33, at least on the north end?

[Danielsmusic]

I live right by the Clybourn Metra station, and I don't think the 149 would be a good idea. I mean, if the ridership was there, it would be great. But, sadly, this route would see pretty much no patronage. I mean, in the situation of going to Webster Theater, it's a good idea; in the case of commuters, not so. The 33 and 132 see almost no ridership as it is. If you look at the schedules, the 132 doesn't go all the way there most of the time, and the 33 was cut back to just AM because no evening commuters got seats on the Metra when they met it at Clybourn. The connection to the Metra for commuters would be the only point of this route. However, I take the 33 four days a week and the 132 one day a week, and I know that there is no ridership in these areas. The connection to downtown is made by approximately 30 people each AM (33 to 125, 125 to stations). Other than those 30 people, no one would ride this bus. If there was ridership, it would show in the number of people who transfer from the 73 to go downtown. While this is a good idea, about 2% of the seats on buses would be filled. There aren't enough residential "centers"/mini-neighborhoods along the route of the proposed 149 to provide patronage. I'm not convinced the 132 is a good idea, so we don't need a third bus serving the Metra station at Clybourn. Plus if the connection is being created to the downtown stations, why couldn't people just take the Metra downtown from Clybourn?

[Guest ctafan630]

I have looked at the suggestions made by some for the NW side of the city. I agree with some.

56A - this can be eliminated since Pace 270 serves most of the route and duplicates service

64 - eliminated. I think the Tribune showed this route as only having 200 riders a day

69 - eliminated - another route that doesn't have many riders

85A - elminate and have 84 Peterson run to Jeff Park

I dont think it would be wise combining 90 and 90N. Harlem 90 used to run Grand to Touhy and Overhill but the route was split because the current 90N had lower ridership. If you wanted to do anything with 90 Harlem eliminate the duplicate service between Grand and the Green Line.

I dont think it is wise combining 81 and 81W. The Lawrence 81 bus has to many issues with bus bunching that would not make this work. There are also different levels of ridership on the two segments.

I also liked the suggestion of combining the 120 with 122 and the 121 with the 123.

When I see the buses on these routes they are less than half full the majority of the time.

[Danielsmusic]

85A - elminate and have 84 Peterson run to Jeff Park

I don't agree. Because the 85A doesn't run very frequently, buses are always full. Whenever I take the 85A, the buses are 80% full. When Optimas run, there are usually people standing. The people I see on this route are either commuters or elderly people who need to get somewhere in an affordable fashion. I think this could be run every 45 minutes during the day, and every 15 during rush hour. Also, CTA won't abandon this route now if they haven't before; the ridership hasn't decreased, so why discontinue it now after keeping it around so long? Plus, CTA wouldn't give up a perfectly good turnaround for the 84 just to move it to an already-overcrowded terminal.

[nextstopchicago]

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).

Just curious, do you ride the X49, or another of the X routes, very often?

I'm psyched about them in theory, and it seems the 49 routes crossed a major mile-mark recently when the Express outperformed the local in productivity (riders per 'platform hour', meaning all the hours of all the of buses on the route.) Since the Express only operates during high ridership hours, and the local operates all night, I think the local is still carrying more riders/platform hour during daylight hours. But I think there are other benefits. When you say that it 'speeds up the street', I wonder if you're considering the way it encourages riders to go to major intersections rather than waiting at smaller corners. This should tend to speed up locals, too, since they're less likely to see riders at the smaller corners. This is one reason that I think the Expresses need a bigger profile. Most people don't really understand Express service, and so behavior isn't as modified as it would be. If many major arteries had Expresses, most riders would be aware of them.

[nextstopchicago]

This would bring back the long dead 41, in certain respects, although it usually went straight north from Union Station.

However, applying the rules of Principled Discussion, a new traffic generator was mentioned. Development in the Clybourn Elston corridor might justify this. However, others have commented that the development is not transit oriented, in that it involves a lot of big boxes not oriented to the street. I would be interested in the comments of those who live near there, who would have a better idea whether it would generate bus passenger traffic.

Clybourn south of Fullerton is quite pedestrian friendly. About half the stores between North and Armitage are on street, while the rest are behind small strip-mall style parking lots. It's really only when you get to Menards, Costco and the Dominick's that's part of the Fullerton "River Plaza" or whatever it's called that you get ped-unfriendly stuff, and even then, you've got those stores on-street up at Damen/Diversey, though admittedly you probably won't get a lot of people buying golf clubs and then hopping a bus home. The parking lot for Webster Place is pay-to-play (you can park free with validation, but that discourages people from driving to the book store to look for a book that they may or may not buy, for instance) and often the movie side of the lot is full or at least crowded enough to create a hassle getting in or out. I think the theater itself would be a decent traffic generator.

My suggested route change is this:

-- 52 -- extend the northern terminus slightly, by turning left onto Elston, right onto a side-street (Whipple?) and then right onto Addison. Lay over on Addison in front of the Target mall, which definitely has a bus-friendly patronage, turn back south on California.

The 2nd lane on Addison right in front of the mall isn't that useful as a thru lane anyway, since just when you think you can speed up, you have to slow down for someone turning into the mall, so laying over there wouldn't be the problem some might think it. After all, Addison is one lane between Elston/Kedzie and the mall.

This would give the 52 a traffic generator at the north end.

[nextstopchicago]

One other suggestion, spurred by riding the 49 the other night, and seeing five or six couples get on at the City North theater (just south of Diversey). How in hell did City North avoid getting a bus shelter. I'm sure somebody clouted it, so the theater's own posters would have pride of place over the advertising on the shelters. But jeezuus. That's a big traffic generator that screws up the street in a major way because of people turning left into their giant, no doubt subsidized, parking lot. And you've got people who want to take the bus there waiting out in the wind and rain after their movies???

Why not put a shelter there? If I track down the alderman, would anyone join me in calling him to say we think there should be a shelter there?

[jesi2282]

I don't the CTA should put a shelter there, I suprised that bus sign is still standing. I don't think that corner deserves a shelter because of the type of people that go into the theater (I'm not saying this a race thing) but there are alot of wild kids that go into City North, trust me I've been in there, and every time I come out kids are kicking, shaking, and climbing the pole like a bunch of wild animals, just imagine what they will do with a shelter.

[jajuan]

I don't the CTA should put a shelter there, I suprised that bus sign is still standing. I don't think that corner deserves a shelter because of the type of people that go into the theater (I'm not saying this a race thing) but there are alot of wild kids that go into City North, trust me I've been in there, and every time I come out kids are kicking, shaking, and climbing the pole like a bunch of wild animals, just imagine what they will do with a shelter.

I understand the concern about a shelter being wreck by a bunch of wild kids, but why keep from making improvements for everyone because of the behavior of one immature group of people. We can't let ourselves get into that mode of thinking because nothing gets improved anywhere by that standard. There are immature teens and other groups of immature people all over the city. Not just at popular attractions such as a movie theater.

[nextstopchicago]

I understand the concern about a shelter being wreck by a bunch of wild kids, but why keep from making improvements for everyone because of the behavior of one immature group of people. We can't let ourselves get into that mode of thinking because nothing gets improved anywhere by that standard. There are immature teens and other groups of immature people all over the city. Not just at popular attractions such as a movie theater.

Yeah, instead, I say we don't put a shelter up at stops where Jesi catches the bus, because I've seen kids at those stops who sometimes do wild things.

I mean, among other things, I pass the corner by City North about 700 times a year, at least twice/day, and I've never seen any particular disturbance there. However much Jesi may deny it, I think it's racism.

[Danielsmusic]

Clybourn south of Fullerton is quite pedestrian friendly. About half the stores between North and Armitage are on street, while the rest are behind small strip-mall style parking lots. It's really only when you get to Menards, Costco and the Dominick's that's part of the Fullerton "River Plaza" or whatever it's called that you get ped-unfriendly stuff, and even then, you've got those stores on-street up at Damen/Diversey, though admittedly you probably won't get a lot of people buying golf clubs and then hopping a bus home. The parking lot for Webster Place is pay-to-play (you can park free with validation, but that discourages people from driving to the book store to look for a book that they may or may not buy, for instance) and often the movie side of the lot is full or at least crowded enough to create a hassle getting in or out. I think the theater itself would be a decent traffic generator.

Um, no. I live right there, and you're wrong. I mean, there are stores, but I've talked to a lot of store owners about this, and they said they have no memory of a bus ever being there. Also, the consensus among store owners and workers (the 45-or-so I talked to) was that most customers come either during the day or on the weekends, thus a weekday or express route wouldn't be helpful. The theater's customers are about 30% walkers, 50% parkers, and 20% other (cabs or CTA), and are not enough to warrant a bus route. When certain movies get out, there would be healthy patronage, but the theater would not warrant a bus route. Before I moved (and before the 41 was discontinued) I used to take the 41 ten times a week. While I miss that route, I don't think Clybourn service will ever be brought back. Plus, like the 132, this would go between a few primarily commercial areas, meaning that people wouldn't ever take this route directly from their house to get somewhere. Plus, the section of Clybourn with the highest patronage on the 41 is now covered by the 132. Notice the 132 doesn't have very much service extending all the way there, perhaps implying that service really is not needed.

[jesi2282]

First of all don't call me a racist, I'm just saying it hurts me to see CTA waste so much of its money putting up these shelters and fixing them while you have people who don't like to take care of them.

[Busjack]

First of all don't call me a racist, I'm just saying it hurts me to see CTA waste so much of its money putting up these shelters and fixing them while you have people who don't like to take care of them.

Again, you folks are all off base. The shelters with the ads on them are based on a contract between the French advertising company JC Decaux, who provides the shelters, maintains them, and pays the city for the rights. Basically the CTA has nothing to do with them, except Mayor Daley trotted out Frank Kruesi to threaten merchants on Michigan Avenue who didn't want them outside their buildings (although they do have Decaux rolling ad displays inside them).

See, for instance, this story, and this blog entry, which is essentially correct on the Decaux facts, although expectedly the opinions on the main topic were off.

[Busjack]

Plus, the section of Clybourn with the highest patronage on the 41 is now covered by the 132. Notice the 132 doesn't have very much service extending all the way there, perhaps implying that service really is not needed.

Another thing you amateur transit engineers fail to grasp is the concept of an employer paying for a route. As the CTA Board Minutes indicate, 132 is subsidized by the William Wrigley Co. (Maybe you heard about their gum.)

Thus, the question whether there is customer demand for other uses in the corridor is independent of whether some employer is willing to pay for a few rush hour runs. However, I would tend to agree that justification for any new service in an area where service (41) was withdrawn would have to be based on a showing of new passenger generators. The possibility of that was left open, but most of you seem to think the theatre, etc. isn't sufficient.

[nextstopchicago]

Again, you folks are all off base. The shelters with the ads on them are based on a contract between the French advertising company JC Decaux, who provides the shelters, maintains them, and pays the city for the rights. Basically the CTA has nothing to do with them, except Mayor Daley trotted out Frank Kruesi to threaten merchants on Michigan Avenue who didn't want them outside their buildings (although they do have Decaux rolling ad displays inside them).

See, for instance, this story, and this blog entry, which is essentially correct on the Decaux facts, although expectedly the opinions on the main topic were off.

If you're just saying the guy who complained about CTA costs was off base, then I think I understand. I do want to emphasize that the CTA and aldermen have a lot to do with the contract. CTA does have some control over which corners get shelters, and of course, aldermen have input into this, as they do with virtually anything happening in their wards in the CTA. It's not correct to say "Basically the CTA has nothing to do with them."

[Guest]

Yeah, instead, I say we don't put a shelter up at stops where Jesi catches the bus, because I've seen kids at those stops who sometimes do wild things.

I mean, among other things, I pass the corner by City North about 700 times a year, at least twice/day, and I've never seen any particular disturbance there. However much Jesi may deny it, I think it's racism.

Please spare us the racism comment!

[Buslover88]

Please spare us the racism comment!

Agreed.

[Danielsmusic]

Please spare us the racism comment!

Definitely.

[nextstopchicago]

Please spare us the racism comment!

All right. I take it back. I think it was motivated by "wild-animalism" -- meaning the kind of thinking that leads someone to describe a group of people as "behaving like wild animals" (as Jesi did) because they don't happen to ... ummmm ... they don't happen to dress exactly as the kids in his own neighborhood.

Nothing at all to do with race, I'm sure. Just a matter of seeing kids who behave like kids elsewhere, but finding it reprehensible because they're dressed differently. He accuses them of [everyone shudder now] trying to climb a pole (presumably the pole the bus stop sign is posted on). I certainly remember doing similar things as a kid in a suburb of a downstate city. And again, I pass by this theater daily, and I don't see anything out of the ordinary.

By the way, thanks SO much to all of you for your concern. about the ugly head of racism appearing here, or rather, about the ugly word racism appearing here, because we all know that talking about racism is much worse than racism itself.

[Busjack]

This topic has taken a lot of wrong turns.