Principled Discussion of Transit Restructuring

[Busjack]

You will note that I characterized various proposals on this front as Sim City (leading to an interesting side discussion on transit simulation games), and one poster admitted that his unfeasible plan was fiction.

I still believe that discussing bus restructuring is useful, even among amateurs, but there must be principles on which any plan is based (for the discussion to be more than name calling). Some of these are based on transit books, like Krambles and Peterson; others are based on the Auditor General's report. I'll state a few, with illustrations:

• A proposal for new service must show that there is a new or unserved source of significant ridership. For instance, 74 Fullerton quit stopping at the Brickyard when the mall was demolished. An argument could be made that since the mall was replaced with another form of shopping center, the bus should enter it, but it might also be argued that shoppers at Target and Lowes don't ride the bus (although the Niles Free Bus does stop at 2 Wal-Marts and Costco).
  
• Bus routes tend to stay on schedule better if the route is not unduly extended. That was the original justification for cutting Western into 3 routes, because service on the outer ends (currently 49A and 49B) was too undependable. Thus, I have questioned some features of the Pace South Cook Restructuring, such as the 386 Midway Airport-Harlem-Tinley Park-Homewood-Harvey route. Where is the driver supposed to stop to use the can?
  
• If a transfer is required, it should be at a timed, protected point. To provide an example from the Pace restructuring, the original plan for 422 and 423 (to replace 212) was that 423 would run north of Willow Road and 422 would double back to the Glen and Harlem. Noting that this would cut off the north end of the old 212 route from Glenview and Old Orchard, I asked the consultant if there would be a transfer point, or someone would have to wait on the Willow-Lehigh bridge for 50 minutes until the connecting bus arrived. This undoubtedly resulted in the current configuration.
  
• If you are going to interline routes, the only way that it saves money is if the routes have similar frequency, and actually connect. In the cases such as 85/85A, the reason why they are separate routes is that 85 runs every 5-12 minutes and 85A runs every 20-30 minutes, and has very low productivity. An additional flaw with the misguided attempt to connect 55 and 63 is that one half of the 55 buses short turn at St. Louis.
  
  Now, you may argue that the 85 bus is already there. However, it normally would reach its time point at Forest Glen and head back. If it has to go on to Touhy, there is no bus to go back south, and one has to be added. So, either way, there is a cost.

  
  

• Competition from overlapping lines should be reduced if there is not the ridership to support it; the service boards should not be competing for a limited number of riders on the taxpayer's dime. I have proposed the principle that the service board that serves the residential area where the passengers live should get the route. The Auditor General suggested the lower cost carrier. The idea that connections should be encouraged is also important, thus, despite the idea that Pace should only serve the suburbs, its riders still need a way to get to the Red Line, and cutting off route 353 at 136th doesn't accomplish that.
  
• It is necessary to have some sort of service standard. For instance, CTA has a standard:

  CTA’s service coverage standard is to provide a maximum walk distance of ½ mile to the nearest route during most time periods.

  Another one is:

  For key routes, services are offered seven days a week, generally a minimum of 16 hours. Support routes are market-driven.

  CTA admitted that the doomsday plan did not meet its service standards. But if you are proposing cutting service in the absence of doomsday, you must show what service standard you are meeting.
  
• It makes more sense to use bus to feed rail, rather than compete with it. People who need to transfer frequently should get Chicago Cards, saving them money, as well as boarding time and the cost of new fareboxes (according to CTA).
  
• In the city, if you are changing a terminal, you need a place to turn the bus. You don't just abandon an existing turnaround, and then force the bus to turn on narrow residential streets somewhere else.
  
• Finally, if you are suggesting rail service, you must have a right of way. I was serious when I said here (based on a remark on another board from someone in Buffalo Grove suggesting an L on South Michigan Ave.) that you do not suggest an L over a street unless you are willing to live next to one.
  

I am open to considering other standards; please suggest them below. I am also open to the argument that the application of some of these standards (connectivity vs. the low cost carrier) might be inconsistent under the circumstances of a particular case.

However, I am not being hostile when I say that someone's creative writing exercise shows that the person does not understand the current system or is not based on sound principles that would either save money or provide better service. I am sorry that your pride of authorship is wounded, but fiction is not worth a serious discussion. Nothing offensive about that.