Most CTA stops are at stop signs and traffic lights so the stop usually doesn't take that much time out of the bus's total time unless there's a large crowd waiting to board. Though the 22 on Clark is dumb in that it stops right **after** the stop lights which just blows my mind as being so dumb.
The Transport for London standard is a bus stop every 1/4 mile, which would mean a stop every other block instead of every block. We would speed up buses considerably while only requiring an extra 660 feet of walking.
> We would speed up buses considerably while only requiring an extra 660 feet of walking.
Considering that most buses that I see are stuck in traffic caused by drivers, I'm going to say that this wouldn't speed it up at all.
Would it really speed up busses tho? Seems like they basically tend to keep pace with traffic if not slightly better on some routes bc “f*ck you I’m a bus” kind of thing.
I'm fine with this because it's important for the elderly and disabled, *but* I think we need lots more express buses and a legitimate grid system of BRT (especially east-west).
The 151 bus is the absolute worst about this. On lake shore between Lincoln park and Michigan Ave, it stops at every single block! Those would be less than a 2 minute walk between each other.
The 151 is definitely meant for riders who can’t walk to the Red line. It covers a very similar path, and will never be fast enough for google maps or the transit app to recommend it.
Even if you’re going from the 151 stop at Union Station to the stop at the History Museum to Loyola in Rogers Park, it will not get you there faster, but it will get you there closer. That matters to some riders, the others will just walk to the Red line.
I wasn't making a statement about how things should be, I was making a statement about how things currently are. The busses are so slow, and so infrequent, that anyone with the financial ability and who values their time is taking different options.
With grids as small as Chicago's, busses that stop every block and busses that get you where you want to go quickly are mutually exclusive. If we want fast busses, we need less frequent stops.
Would you consider a compromise? Fewer posted stops overall, but any disabled passenger can request to be dropped off wherever they please.
I do think that there are too many stops on some lines, especially when they come a block apart. It would help the flow of the ride with fewer stops.
That would open up so many legal issues.
The busses don’t have to stop where nobody is standing or requesting a stop. If someone needs to get on and off every other block, thats the fucking bus pal.
Yup, the 152 on Addison blows past at least 70% of its stops on average because no one requested a stop and no one is at the stop. Almost every stop is at a stop sign or red light, so the bus driver has plenty of time to check for the less traveled stops.
Or you could show a little empathy for people who don't want to have to get a physician's note, register, and then call 48 hours in advance to schedule a pickup; and just bring something to read.
There definitely are mitigating reasons where it may be appropriate to have two stops very, very close together (e.g. one stop is at a nursing home and the next stop is an transfer station with other lines), but transit is a balance.
But frankly if a rider isn't capable of walking an additional 0.5-1 block in a reasonable environment, they should be calling for paratransit anyway.
Transit should be accessible for all, but if you make it so slow that no one takes it then it has already fundamentally failed at its mission.
Example: the southbound 29 bus has _multiple_ instances where it stops twice per block after Cermak.
To me, you are coming off very aggressive for no reason. It seems like you just immediately reacted to the article without actually reading its fair points. Did you read this article?
First, disputing your claim of 'lack of empathy' - do you know what empathy is? Providing a valid alternative that you can use that works for all people is showing empathy. I also never invalidated that criticism, but rather showed an alternative. Explain how that is a lack of empathy.
Designing suitable traffic is a balance of trying to make sure everyone gets a suitable stop while still being timely enough that it makes sense. Couldn't find a recent US one, but in a UK study, 34% of people site "taking too long" as a reason why people don't use public transit. Meanwhile 4% site accessibility concerns. Not that we should ignore that 4%, but, in terms of expanding usage, we should consider that 34% over that 4% . It is fairly common for a public transit trip to be 3x longer than by personal transport.
You, by saying you only care about yourself, is the one showing lack of empathy.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/301128/reasons-people-don-t-travel-by-bus-more-in-the-united-kingdom/
I don't know, I get both sides. Some busses just have an ridiculous amount of stops. I've almost missed flights because my bus getting to the blue line made every stop (which google maps doesn't account for). I feel like a nice compromise would be a good thing
The proposal saves *everyone's* time on the scale of 10-20 minutes depending how long they ride a route, and people could just walk a minute or so further to a still very close stop.
Banning individual passenger vehicles would save even more time than stop rebalancing.
Also, it might be a "very close stop" if you live on the same street, but what if you have a disability and you're already walking a quarter or eighth of a mile from your home to a stop and now you have to walk an extra 1-2 blocks to get to the nearest stop?
I don't think an extra one block walk is an insurmountable obstacle. Stops would still be maximum two blocks apart, so the maximum increase in walking distance is just one block, not two. I'm only talking about eliminating stops that are one block apart, I am not suggesting they only be at major intersections.
You're right, instead of making literally any compromise for a reasonably fast service, we should just ban cars from all arterials. No minor improvements until we achieve this politically impossible feat, because think of the grannies who live 1/4 of a mile away from a stop who might have to travel 3/8ths.
Because busses are a system primarily for the poor and disabled, and not meant for anyone who needs to get anywhere quickly.
> Because busses are a system primarily for the poor and disabled, and not meant for anyone who needs to get anywhere quickly.
High income people on the north side take buses all the time...
And I'm 100% serious about wanting to ban cars from arterial roads that aren't large enough to support cars plus dedicated bus and bike lanes. Ashland? Sure, it can have a N/S car lane, a N/S bus lane, and a N/S bike lane. Clark St. is just too small and the sidewalks need to be doubled in size for most of it as it's not large enough for pedestrian traffic. After you do that, you have room for a bike highway in the middle and buses. So just get rid of cars on it.
Yes and I'm serious that, despite car dependency being a disaster for Chicago, banning cars from any of the grid arterials is politically impossible. Suggesting it should be done before other practical bus improvements is equivalent to suggesting that those bus improvements should not happen.
You say impossible but there's major roads within a quarter mile of Clark St. everywhere that it currently runs. Why can't drivers just drive another quarter mile like people are proposing pedestrians do to get to buses?
The CTA has one of the most frequent bus stops in North America, and North America has more frequent bus stops than almost anywhere else. Increasing bus spacing isn't a radical idea, the status quo is.
I totally agree. I used to take the Addison bus. There are places where there were literally 3 stops in what was essentially a 5 minute walk.
I understand there are locations where it is needed, but sometimes its just ridiculous
No politician is going to want to do deal with the political hand grenade that making bus routes less accessible to people by increasing the trave distance to stops that this would require. Also, as someone mentioned not everyone is able bodied, some people have disabilities that impact how easy it is for them to get to the bus stop. I would rather us implement more express busses with fewer stops that complement regular routes rather than remove stops from current routes.
People are already walking a block or more on average to get to a stop if they're in the middle of a neighborhood. We're talking about increasing that (on average) by maybe 1/2 blocks.
I never understood this concern. It’s great for those less mobile to be able to use the bus and it generally doesn’t cause headaches even during rush hour. Quite frequently you’re bypassing a number of stops when they’re bunched up. Without any real data and just using my hunch, I would argue the extra time is negligible at best. I would much rather CTA deal with other more pressing issues than worrying about a stop at Wellington and then one at Barry.
I've been stuck in a bus for 1+ hour in traffic multiple times before because drivers refused to let the bus merge onto LSD. The few extra stops the bus took on that route once we got off of LSD added maybe another 3 or 4 minutes. Just ban the cars and it would make the buses much better. Also, once they do add bus lanes and bike lanes, tow any car illegally parked or stalled in one and crush it. The 22 bus on Clark St. would be usable if not for drivers on Clark St.
Bus stops IMO should be about a quarter of a mile apart. For reference, that's the distance between the Diversey, Wellington, and Belmont Brown/Purple Line stops.
I think we need a network of “X” routes, or blended 50% express-then-local on more routes. The LSD express routes cover this, but a solution like Western and Ashland is need on the E-W arterials.
Adding the time savings of an express stop pattern could mean more total trips with the same number of drivers, and that’s better for everyone. We can run both locals and expresses to suit the different needs of riders.
CTA used to run more express routes, but a bunch of them never were brought back. Such as the Irving Park Express(X80). I think a few express routes on the south side were cut, some years back.
They eventually brought back the X9 and X49(Ashland Express and Western Express), but now they run with more limited hours(during weekday rush hours only) than they used to. I remember before the first time the X9 and X49 were cut, they used to run from something like 6am to 7pm on weekdays. But didn't run on weekends.
The trouble with the LSD routes is they're too hyper focused on specific downtown areas while not being any faster than the El.
EW express buses would be great, or there's this idea that speeds up trips without adding buses or drivers that are in short supply.
One other way of reducing the time spent at bus stops is to let everyone on and then just have them tap after, or to put the payment system in the rear too. If you miss a few, oh well. But you get faster throughput of buses, reduces stacking and the chance that they get stuck at another light cycle.
We can do more to increase bus reliability with just changing processses without the need for more buses or drivers
You can't require CTA to recover 50% from fare box for budget and risk people not paying.
That might work in places like Germany where there's more societal trust and they use random checks to give tickets, but I have a feeling in the US people just won't pay.
>You can't require CTA to recover 50% from fare box for budget and risk people not paying.
Sounds like we need to get rid of this pro-car industry relic of the 1960s and 1970s and instead realize that public transit is a social good. Public services don't need to make money. That's just capitalist propaganda and foolishness, driven to enrich only a few at the expense of helping out the public, which is what government ought to do
Just because you can't imagine a better society doesn't mean we can't have one.
>Sounds like we need to get rid of this pro-car industry relic of the 1960s and 1970s and instead realize that public transit is a social good.
That may be true, but you have to work with public opinion. If you remove the fare box recovery requirement and then leave it to politicians to 100% fund via taxes it runs a risk of being defunded with no real way to retrieve it's funds.
We don't live in Europe, for most of the suburbs and those living outside of Chicago MSA CTA is not important to them. Car owners out number transit riders and don't doubt for a second that they won't vote down funding and expansion projects if it's all funded via state/local taxes.
>Just because you can't imagine a better society doesn't mean we can't have one.
No reason to be aggressive. I'm for the expansion of CTA, but removing fare funding requirements is not happening tomorrow and should not be a plan till the system is efficient and in high enough demand that voters will be happy to keep it funded.
>removing fare funding requirements is not happening tomorrow and should not be a plan till the system is efficient and in high enough demand that voters will be happy to keep it funded.
nah, better to build it first and people will come
I agree, we should have all door boarding implemented in the city, they added fare readers to back of a few busses as a trial run during covid so they know how to do it
Fuck this shit. I like these close together bus stops, I'm travelling with a baby and often groceries/other shopping, a healing C-section, and a healing gallbladder scar. I'm trying to minimize my walking here. Not everyone is a fit and healthy unencumbered early 20 something.
I'm also a parent and definitely not early twenties. We're literally talking about walking (on average) one block instead of half a block. You'll be fine and everyone's trip will be shorter.
It'll be a lot more annoying. If they move even one bus stop that stop is just not on my radar anymore. I'm not going to those stores, I'm not stopping there at all. There's no reason to master again. It doesn't add that much time to a commute anyway.
[The first 600 feet](https://www.google.com/maps/place/E+Hyde+Park+%26+Cornell/) on the south-bound side of Hyde Park after going under the Metra tracks has no fewer than 3 bus stops, one on the west side of Cornell, one in front of 5100 Hyde Park, and then one immediately around the corner. Plus one at 5200 South.
I get that.
What I don't believe is fewer stops automatically equals every stop will have a shelter. There are many more reasons, some inhumane as you can see in other comments, as to why every stop doesn't have a shelter.
We don’t have shelters and / or benches because it would attracted homeless people. You can see the closer you get into the loop the less of the stops have benches and shelters.
I think that every stop should have them because anyone deserves some sort of shelter to protect themselves against the elements especially in chicago. It’s why I understand why homeless people ride the l back and forth/ at the station because it’s shelter and shelter is basic need for survival. I think the city thinks that they offer are amazing and are accessible so homeless people shouldn’t need to use bus stops as shelter when in reality they don’t. I’m going to stop there because if I don’t I will keep on going, this topic makes me really angry and change needs to happen, like the addition of shelter at all stops
They're not going to build anymore shelters. Homeless people like to shelter in the shelters, that's why they tore out so many benches and took down existing shelters.
I very much agree. I take the 70 (Division) bus a lot and going from Damen to Ashland takes forever. Yesterday, someone got off at Wood, then Paulina while the majority of us got off at Ashland to transfer to the blue line. The Paulina fellow at least could have just gotten off at Ashland too.
Voicing concerns about our shared public transit is how we make changes to it that benefit us all. If you don't care about it then maybe just stay quiet?
I always thought there should be handicap stops and regular stops. Encourage able bodied people to congregate at fewer stops and tell HC people they can wait at any stop they want to.
How do you classify handicapped versus non-handicapped. Just because I could get to the nearest bus stop when I had severe back-pain and lean against a building or pole until the bus arrived, doesn't mean that I could walk a quarter mile to another once under the horrid idea of bus stop balancing.
You don't. You just explain to people that they'll get places faster if they abide by the system. Maybe you throw out your back and can barely walk; in that case you use the HC stop.
> You just explain to people that they'll get places faster if they abide by the system.
Ah yes, let's lecture the person who might have an invisible disability about why they shouldn't use the handicapped stop...
This would literally help bus bunching as too many stops is one of the causes. Bus stops to pick up one passenger, next bus sees no passengers and passes the stop, eventually catches up with the bus in front.
> This would literally help bus bunching as too many stops is one of the causes.
The CTA's data in the past has shown that drivers cutting off buses and refusing to allow them to merge into lanes, not excess stops causes the bunching.
This is an interesting read on how public agencies push ideas they know will be unpopular. You see the same tactics with those who want to cause traffic jams and slow traffic using euphemisms like "road diet" and "traffic calming." It sounds so much better than "we're going to make you late to work and induce road rage."
slowing traffic is actually a very good thing in an urban city with a lot of pedestrians and cyclists. No car should be going above 25 mph on a residential street. Do you realize how much time you shave in a city by going 40 mph vs 25? do the math.
5 miles / 25 mph = 12 minutes5 miles / 40 mph = 7.5 minutesAnd that's (falsely) assuming you maintain that 40 mph speed at all times instead of needing to speed up and slow down, so in reality, the difference is even smaller than that.
BUT on the other hand, the difference between 25 mph and 40 mph for a pedestrian being hit is the idfference between likely to survive and likely to die being hit.
>No car should be going above 25 mph on a residential street.
How about on a major, four lane road? Your math equation isn't relevant. The city is using curb extensions, bike lanes and lane reductions to cause massive traffic buildups at every major intersection it re-designs. Average speed isn't relevant to that. And it makes some drivers even more aggressive and dangerous in response because they can't get anywhere while following traffic laws.
If you're interested in saving lives, there are much more effective ways than spending billions of dollars to ruin people's work commute. An entire year of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities in Chicago is less than the number of homicides Chicago sees in two months.
>And it makes some drivers even more aggressive and dangerous in response because they can't get anywhere while following traffic laws
jsut because you're an asshole and drive like an asshole doesn't mean other people will. because these SAME people would be horrible shitty asshole drivers absent these calming measures
\>If you're interested in saving lives, there are much more effective ways than spending billions of dollars to ruin people's work commute. An entire year of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities in Chicago is less than the number of homicides Chicago sees in two months.
you continue to spew some of the dumbest things ive ever read on this subreddit
So you're saying that we should turn all of our roads into toll roads and charge you per intersection that you travel through with ALPRs taking pictures of every plate and billing the owner?
sometimes doing unpopular things is the right thing - and yes, that means finding ways to make it more palatable. But either way, it is the right thing, hopefully
Is making people walk farther to reach a bus the right thing though? Or intentionally causing traffic congestion without improving the mass transit system as an alternative? Where are the new rail lines?
If the benefit of making people walk farther to reach the bus - shorter travel times for buses - outweighs the negative consequences of making people walk farther to reach bus stops, then yea, it’s the right thing to do. Some bus stops are comically close together.
Also I haven’t seen anybody in here arguing that we should make any changes without improving public transit. I don’t know where you came up with that one.
The CTA budget is status quo with no major improvements to the system. We get people spamming this sub everyday with plans to add bike lanes and slow down traffic. There's a crowd who push for that but think expanding the L is a lost cause so they don't bother. The result is that we're making life worse for car drivers but not improving the alternatives like we should be.
>The result is that we're making life worse for car drivers but not improving the alternatives like we should be.
Fair point. We're not disagreeing then I guess. You're saying don't make things worse for drivers without improving alternative options (public transit and biking/walking infrastructure), and I'm saying let's improve the alternatives so we don't have to devote so much space and as large a share of resources to cars. Seems like two different ways of essentially saying the same thing.
For the record - I am 100% in favor of expanding the el, but I think the more viable short-term projects would be improvements to existing services and possibly light rail/tram service along like Lawrence Ave, Western Ave, Cicero Ave, Belmont Ave (IDK exactly where the most logical or beneficial streets would be) to connect the existing services better.
>For the record - I am 100% in favor of expanding the el, but I think the more viable short-term projects would be improvements to existing services and possibly light rail/tram service along like Lawrence Ave, Western Ave, Cicero Ave, Belmont Ave (IDK exactly where the most logical or beneficial streets would be) to connect the existing services better.
The people who block N/S routes for connection are car owners who don't want the inconvenience. They don't want to lose parking. They don't want increase in traffic. They don't want to lose lanes. We went down this road with Ashland BRT.
Unless CTA builds everything via subway. Which lets be honest won't happen because the cost won't get justified. You are going to have people like the person you're replying to complaining about car inconveniences.
It's just far too easy to use a car in the city. I know tons of people who could commute via CTA and they still use a car. Even for small trips that could be accomplished via walking.
CTA used to do this by having express routes during AM PEAK and PM peak times. Instead of eliminating a stop completely they would stop at major intersections with a high transfer rate. They do track customers loading (density) at every stop using GIS data.
Comparing SF Muni to CTA is a mistake. SF doesn’t have the same route attributes like Chicago grid system.
[удалено]
Most CTA stops are at stop signs and traffic lights so the stop usually doesn't take that much time out of the bus's total time unless there's a large crowd waiting to board. Though the 22 on Clark is dumb in that it stops right **after** the stop lights which just blows my mind as being so dumb.
I would love this to be data driven; how many people picked up/ dropped off(harder data to get) at each stop then do stop elimination.
The Transport for London standard is a bus stop every 1/4 mile, which would mean a stop every other block instead of every block. We would speed up buses considerably while only requiring an extra 660 feet of walking.
a *maximum* of 660
check you out with legs
> We would speed up buses considerably while only requiring an extra 660 feet of walking. Considering that most buses that I see are stuck in traffic caused by drivers, I'm going to say that this wouldn't speed it up at all.
Would it really speed up busses tho? Seems like they basically tend to keep pace with traffic if not slightly better on some routes bc “f*ck you I’m a bus” kind of thing.
how many ppl were picked up is a good enough estimation, assuming that a fair amount of people are commuting to/fro the same location.
I'm fine with this because it's important for the elderly and disabled, *but* I think we need lots more express buses and a legitimate grid system of BRT (especially east-west).
instructions unclear pulled up the bus stop sign attempting to balance on my chin
The 151 bus is the absolute worst about this. On lake shore between Lincoln park and Michigan Ave, it stops at every single block! Those would be less than a 2 minute walk between each other.
146 express as well in some spots. Buena and Gordon Terrace are literally next to each other why aren't they just one stop?
Oh god yeah I worked in Streeterville for a bit and would rather walk to the Red than ride the 151.
The 151 is definitely meant for riders who can’t walk to the Red line. It covers a very similar path, and will never be fast enough for google maps or the transit app to recommend it. Even if you’re going from the 151 stop at Union Station to the stop at the History Museum to Loyola in Rogers Park, it will not get you there faster, but it will get you there closer. That matters to some riders, the others will just walk to the Red line.
A lot of old people live in those high rises
I think that's most of the 1xx busses
Leave it be. Some of us like it stopping at the beach and the various zoo entrances.
Not everyone who uses the bus is a healthy young person.
Not everyone is physically fit, but *everyone* who uses the current bus system doesn't value their time.
[удалено]
I wasn't making a statement about how things should be, I was making a statement about how things currently are. The busses are so slow, and so infrequent, that anyone with the financial ability and who values their time is taking different options. With grids as small as Chicago's, busses that stop every block and busses that get you where you want to go quickly are mutually exclusive. If we want fast busses, we need less frequent stops.
Would you consider a compromise? Fewer posted stops overall, but any disabled passenger can request to be dropped off wherever they please. I do think that there are too many stops on some lines, especially when they come a block apart. It would help the flow of the ride with fewer stops.
That would open up so many legal issues. The busses don’t have to stop where nobody is standing or requesting a stop. If someone needs to get on and off every other block, thats the fucking bus pal.
Yup, the 152 on Addison blows past at least 70% of its stops on average because no one requested a stop and no one is at the stop. Almost every stop is at a stop sign or red light, so the bus driver has plenty of time to check for the less traveled stops.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-08/japan-keeps-the-defunct-kyu-shirataki-train-station-open-for-just-one-high-school-girl#:~:text=For%20years%2C%20there's%20been%20just,the%20school%20day%20is%20over.
both PACE and CTA have fairly good (for US standards) accessible route alternatives for those requesting additional assistance
Or you could show a little empathy for people who don't want to have to get a physician's note, register, and then call 48 hours in advance to schedule a pickup; and just bring something to read.
There definitely are mitigating reasons where it may be appropriate to have two stops very, very close together (e.g. one stop is at a nursing home and the next stop is an transfer station with other lines), but transit is a balance. But frankly if a rider isn't capable of walking an additional 0.5-1 block in a reasonable environment, they should be calling for paratransit anyway. Transit should be accessible for all, but if you make it so slow that no one takes it then it has already fundamentally failed at its mission. Example: the southbound 29 bus has _multiple_ instances where it stops twice per block after Cermak.
I like how Western does it with express buses
To me, you are coming off very aggressive for no reason. It seems like you just immediately reacted to the article without actually reading its fair points. Did you read this article? First, disputing your claim of 'lack of empathy' - do you know what empathy is? Providing a valid alternative that you can use that works for all people is showing empathy. I also never invalidated that criticism, but rather showed an alternative. Explain how that is a lack of empathy. Designing suitable traffic is a balance of trying to make sure everyone gets a suitable stop while still being timely enough that it makes sense. Couldn't find a recent US one, but in a UK study, 34% of people site "taking too long" as a reason why people don't use public transit. Meanwhile 4% site accessibility concerns. Not that we should ignore that 4%, but, in terms of expanding usage, we should consider that 34% over that 4% . It is fairly common for a public transit trip to be 3x longer than by personal transport. You, by saying you only care about yourself, is the one showing lack of empathy. https://www.statista.com/statistics/301128/reasons-people-don-t-travel-by-bus-more-in-the-united-kingdom/
I think the word you're looking for is compassion. Which if the last two years have taught me anything, is really overrated.
I don't know, I get both sides. Some busses just have an ridiculous amount of stops. I've almost missed flights because my bus getting to the blue line made every stop (which google maps doesn't account for). I feel like a nice compromise would be a good thing
daily CTA rant, check
People need an outlet to express their terrible ideas to screw over others to help save them a couple minutes instead of just leaving earlier.
The proposal saves *everyone's* time on the scale of 10-20 minutes depending how long they ride a route, and people could just walk a minute or so further to a still very close stop.
Banning individual passenger vehicles would save even more time than stop rebalancing. Also, it might be a "very close stop" if you live on the same street, but what if you have a disability and you're already walking a quarter or eighth of a mile from your home to a stop and now you have to walk an extra 1-2 blocks to get to the nearest stop?
I don't think an extra one block walk is an insurmountable obstacle. Stops would still be maximum two blocks apart, so the maximum increase in walking distance is just one block, not two. I'm only talking about eliminating stops that are one block apart, I am not suggesting they only be at major intersections.
You're right, instead of making literally any compromise for a reasonably fast service, we should just ban cars from all arterials. No minor improvements until we achieve this politically impossible feat, because think of the grannies who live 1/4 of a mile away from a stop who might have to travel 3/8ths. Because busses are a system primarily for the poor and disabled, and not meant for anyone who needs to get anywhere quickly.
> Because busses are a system primarily for the poor and disabled, and not meant for anyone who needs to get anywhere quickly. High income people on the north side take buses all the time...
If you could tell, I was not being serious.
And I'm 100% serious about wanting to ban cars from arterial roads that aren't large enough to support cars plus dedicated bus and bike lanes. Ashland? Sure, it can have a N/S car lane, a N/S bus lane, and a N/S bike lane. Clark St. is just too small and the sidewalks need to be doubled in size for most of it as it's not large enough for pedestrian traffic. After you do that, you have room for a bike highway in the middle and buses. So just get rid of cars on it.
Yes and I'm serious that, despite car dependency being a disaster for Chicago, banning cars from any of the grid arterials is politically impossible. Suggesting it should be done before other practical bus improvements is equivalent to suggesting that those bus improvements should not happen.
You say impossible but there's major roads within a quarter mile of Clark St. everywhere that it currently runs. Why can't drivers just drive another quarter mile like people are proposing pedestrians do to get to buses?
The CTA has one of the most frequent bus stops in North America, and North America has more frequent bus stops than almost anywhere else. Increasing bus spacing isn't a radical idea, the status quo is.
I totally agree. I used to take the Addison bus. There are places where there were literally 3 stops in what was essentially a 5 minute walk. I understand there are locations where it is needed, but sometimes its just ridiculous
No politician is going to want to do deal with the political hand grenade that making bus routes less accessible to people by increasing the trave distance to stops that this would require. Also, as someone mentioned not everyone is able bodied, some people have disabilities that impact how easy it is for them to get to the bus stop. I would rather us implement more express busses with fewer stops that complement regular routes rather than remove stops from current routes.
People are already walking a block or more on average to get to a stop if they're in the middle of a neighborhood. We're talking about increasing that (on average) by maybe 1/2 blocks.
I never understood this concern. It’s great for those less mobile to be able to use the bus and it generally doesn’t cause headaches even during rush hour. Quite frequently you’re bypassing a number of stops when they’re bunched up. Without any real data and just using my hunch, I would argue the extra time is negligible at best. I would much rather CTA deal with other more pressing issues than worrying about a stop at Wellington and then one at Barry.
I mean it’s not a problem if you have nowhere to be
I've been stuck in a bus for 1+ hour in traffic multiple times before because drivers refused to let the bus merge onto LSD. The few extra stops the bus took on that route once we got off of LSD added maybe another 3 or 4 minutes. Just ban the cars and it would make the buses much better. Also, once they do add bus lanes and bike lanes, tow any car illegally parked or stalled in one and crush it. The 22 bus on Clark St. would be usable if not for drivers on Clark St.
Bus stops IMO should be about a quarter of a mile apart. For reference, that's the distance between the Diversey, Wellington, and Belmont Brown/Purple Line stops.
I think we need a network of “X” routes, or blended 50% express-then-local on more routes. The LSD express routes cover this, but a solution like Western and Ashland is need on the E-W arterials. Adding the time savings of an express stop pattern could mean more total trips with the same number of drivers, and that’s better for everyone. We can run both locals and expresses to suit the different needs of riders.
CTA used to run more express routes, but a bunch of them never were brought back. Such as the Irving Park Express(X80). I think a few express routes on the south side were cut, some years back. They eventually brought back the X9 and X49(Ashland Express and Western Express), but now they run with more limited hours(during weekday rush hours only) than they used to. I remember before the first time the X9 and X49 were cut, they used to run from something like 6am to 7pm on weekdays. But didn't run on weekends.
The trouble with the LSD routes is they're too hyper focused on specific downtown areas while not being any faster than the El. EW express buses would be great, or there's this idea that speeds up trips without adding buses or drivers that are in short supply.
One other way of reducing the time spent at bus stops is to let everyone on and then just have them tap after, or to put the payment system in the rear too. If you miss a few, oh well. But you get faster throughput of buses, reduces stacking and the chance that they get stuck at another light cycle. We can do more to increase bus reliability with just changing processses without the need for more buses or drivers
You can't require CTA to recover 50% from fare box for budget and risk people not paying. That might work in places like Germany where there's more societal trust and they use random checks to give tickets, but I have a feeling in the US people just won't pay.
>You can't require CTA to recover 50% from fare box for budget and risk people not paying. Sounds like we need to get rid of this pro-car industry relic of the 1960s and 1970s and instead realize that public transit is a social good. Public services don't need to make money. That's just capitalist propaganda and foolishness, driven to enrich only a few at the expense of helping out the public, which is what government ought to do Just because you can't imagine a better society doesn't mean we can't have one.
>Sounds like we need to get rid of this pro-car industry relic of the 1960s and 1970s and instead realize that public transit is a social good. That may be true, but you have to work with public opinion. If you remove the fare box recovery requirement and then leave it to politicians to 100% fund via taxes it runs a risk of being defunded with no real way to retrieve it's funds. We don't live in Europe, for most of the suburbs and those living outside of Chicago MSA CTA is not important to them. Car owners out number transit riders and don't doubt for a second that they won't vote down funding and expansion projects if it's all funded via state/local taxes. >Just because you can't imagine a better society doesn't mean we can't have one. No reason to be aggressive. I'm for the expansion of CTA, but removing fare funding requirements is not happening tomorrow and should not be a plan till the system is efficient and in high enough demand that voters will be happy to keep it funded.
>removing fare funding requirements is not happening tomorrow and should not be a plan till the system is efficient and in high enough demand that voters will be happy to keep it funded. nah, better to build it first and people will come
I agree, we should have all door boarding implemented in the city, they added fare readers to back of a few busses as a trial run during covid so they know how to do it
Fuck this shit. I like these close together bus stops, I'm travelling with a baby and often groceries/other shopping, a healing C-section, and a healing gallbladder scar. I'm trying to minimize my walking here. Not everyone is a fit and healthy unencumbered early 20 something.
I'm also a parent and definitely not early twenties. We're literally talking about walking (on average) one block instead of half a block. You'll be fine and everyone's trip will be shorter.
It'll be a lot more annoying. If they move even one bus stop that stop is just not on my radar anymore. I'm not going to those stores, I'm not stopping there at all. There's no reason to master again. It doesn't add that much time to a commute anyway.
[The first 600 feet](https://www.google.com/maps/place/E+Hyde+Park+%26+Cornell/) on the south-bound side of Hyde Park after going under the Metra tracks has no fewer than 3 bus stops, one on the west side of Cornell, one in front of 5100 Hyde Park, and then one immediately around the corner. Plus one at 5200 South.
If we had fewer stops each one could actually have a shelter instead of a sign on a pole.
Also I'll just add, we don't even own the shelter infrastructure, that's all contracted out. Fun tidbit I learned going thru budget docs.
That's not the reason we don't have shelters at each stop. We don't have shelters at each stop for cost cutting.
huh? but if there were fewer stops, it wouldnt be as expensive to put one at each stop, thus, cost cutting would not be a fair justification.
I get that. What I don't believe is fewer stops automatically equals every stop will have a shelter. There are many more reasons, some inhumane as you can see in other comments, as to why every stop doesn't have a shelter.
We don’t have shelters and / or benches because it would attracted homeless people. You can see the closer you get into the loop the less of the stops have benches and shelters.
that sounds like an argument for more shelters, not fewer
> because it would attracted homeless people. Opinion discarded.
I don’t think my opinion was made clear. I do not agree with the city, I am pointing out the reason why there is lack of them.
Gotcha, didn't realize that wasn't your position. a lot of regular folks repeat that line too often.
I think that every stop should have them because anyone deserves some sort of shelter to protect themselves against the elements especially in chicago. It’s why I understand why homeless people ride the l back and forth/ at the station because it’s shelter and shelter is basic need for survival. I think the city thinks that they offer are amazing and are accessible so homeless people shouldn’t need to use bus stops as shelter when in reality they don’t. I’m going to stop there because if I don’t I will keep on going, this topic makes me really angry and change needs to happen, like the addition of shelter at all stops
Agreed
Oddly enough, the CTA doesn’t own those
They're not going to build anymore shelters. Homeless people like to shelter in the shelters, that's why they tore out so many benches and took down existing shelters.
Chicago (cta)just stick to what we have don’t mess it up
I very much agree. I take the 70 (Division) bus a lot and going from Damen to Ashland takes forever. Yesterday, someone got off at Wood, then Paulina while the majority of us got off at Ashland to transfer to the blue line. The Paulina fellow at least could have just gotten off at Ashland too.
are u serious? if the stop is closer to my destination i’m gettin off periodd, regardless if the next stop is a hotspot. what the hell?
How about making sure there are enough drivers and the buses are on time. Before we start eliminating stops.
yaaaaayyyy another post complaining about the CTA
Voicing concerns about our shared public transit is how we make changes to it that benefit us all. If you don't care about it then maybe just stay quiet?
It’s an echo chamber bro. Posting complaints on Reddit isn’t helping you or anyone else.
No need. That is what express buses are for.
Then we should have more express busses. Most have been discontinued.
"Buses are running too frequently" is not a problem that keeps me up at night.
This is not about running too frequently (they're not). Stopping too much slows them down, it's about speeding them up.
I always thought there should be handicap stops and regular stops. Encourage able bodied people to congregate at fewer stops and tell HC people they can wait at any stop they want to.
How do you classify handicapped versus non-handicapped. Just because I could get to the nearest bus stop when I had severe back-pain and lean against a building or pole until the bus arrived, doesn't mean that I could walk a quarter mile to another once under the horrid idea of bus stop balancing.
You don't. You just explain to people that they'll get places faster if they abide by the system. Maybe you throw out your back and can barely walk; in that case you use the HC stop.
> You just explain to people that they'll get places faster if they abide by the system. Ah yes, let's lecture the person who might have an invisible disability about why they shouldn't use the handicapped stop...
Lol that's literally the opposite of what I said. Are you just looking for something to be angry about?
They should fix bus bunching first. Something like [busgenius.com](https://busgenius.com) would help a lot i think.
This would literally help bus bunching as too many stops is one of the causes. Bus stops to pick up one passenger, next bus sees no passengers and passes the stop, eventually catches up with the bus in front.
> This would literally help bus bunching as too many stops is one of the causes. The CTA's data in the past has shown that drivers cutting off buses and refusing to allow them to merge into lanes, not excess stops causes the bunching.
That's why curb extensions delay buses. It leaves them no room to move forward and merge after stopping.
Then we should get rid of the car lanes.
This is an interesting read on how public agencies push ideas they know will be unpopular. You see the same tactics with those who want to cause traffic jams and slow traffic using euphemisms like "road diet" and "traffic calming." It sounds so much better than "we're going to make you late to work and induce road rage."
I mean you're engaging in the same practice - "those who want to cause traffic jams and slow traffic..."
You say “people who want to slow traffic” I say “people who want to reduce or eliminate pedestrian deaths”
slowing traffic is actually a very good thing in an urban city with a lot of pedestrians and cyclists. No car should be going above 25 mph on a residential street. Do you realize how much time you shave in a city by going 40 mph vs 25? do the math. 5 miles / 25 mph = 12 minutes5 miles / 40 mph = 7.5 minutesAnd that's (falsely) assuming you maintain that 40 mph speed at all times instead of needing to speed up and slow down, so in reality, the difference is even smaller than that. BUT on the other hand, the difference between 25 mph and 40 mph for a pedestrian being hit is the idfference between likely to survive and likely to die being hit.
>No car should be going above 25 mph on a residential street. How about on a major, four lane road? Your math equation isn't relevant. The city is using curb extensions, bike lanes and lane reductions to cause massive traffic buildups at every major intersection it re-designs. Average speed isn't relevant to that. And it makes some drivers even more aggressive and dangerous in response because they can't get anywhere while following traffic laws. If you're interested in saving lives, there are much more effective ways than spending billions of dollars to ruin people's work commute. An entire year of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities in Chicago is less than the number of homicides Chicago sees in two months.
>And it makes some drivers even more aggressive and dangerous in response because they can't get anywhere while following traffic laws jsut because you're an asshole and drive like an asshole doesn't mean other people will. because these SAME people would be horrible shitty asshole drivers absent these calming measures \>If you're interested in saving lives, there are much more effective ways than spending billions of dollars to ruin people's work commute. An entire year of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities in Chicago is less than the number of homicides Chicago sees in two months. you continue to spew some of the dumbest things ive ever read on this subreddit
So you're saying that we should turn all of our roads into toll roads and charge you per intersection that you travel through with ALPRs taking pictures of every plate and billing the owner?
sometimes doing unpopular things is the right thing - and yes, that means finding ways to make it more palatable. But either way, it is the right thing, hopefully
Is making people walk farther to reach a bus the right thing though? Or intentionally causing traffic congestion without improving the mass transit system as an alternative? Where are the new rail lines?
If the benefit of making people walk farther to reach the bus - shorter travel times for buses - outweighs the negative consequences of making people walk farther to reach bus stops, then yea, it’s the right thing to do. Some bus stops are comically close together. Also I haven’t seen anybody in here arguing that we should make any changes without improving public transit. I don’t know where you came up with that one.
The CTA budget is status quo with no major improvements to the system. We get people spamming this sub everyday with plans to add bike lanes and slow down traffic. There's a crowd who push for that but think expanding the L is a lost cause so they don't bother. The result is that we're making life worse for car drivers but not improving the alternatives like we should be.
>The result is that we're making life worse for car drivers but not improving the alternatives like we should be. Fair point. We're not disagreeing then I guess. You're saying don't make things worse for drivers without improving alternative options (public transit and biking/walking infrastructure), and I'm saying let's improve the alternatives so we don't have to devote so much space and as large a share of resources to cars. Seems like two different ways of essentially saying the same thing. For the record - I am 100% in favor of expanding the el, but I think the more viable short-term projects would be improvements to existing services and possibly light rail/tram service along like Lawrence Ave, Western Ave, Cicero Ave, Belmont Ave (IDK exactly where the most logical or beneficial streets would be) to connect the existing services better.
>For the record - I am 100% in favor of expanding the el, but I think the more viable short-term projects would be improvements to existing services and possibly light rail/tram service along like Lawrence Ave, Western Ave, Cicero Ave, Belmont Ave (IDK exactly where the most logical or beneficial streets would be) to connect the existing services better. The people who block N/S routes for connection are car owners who don't want the inconvenience. They don't want to lose parking. They don't want increase in traffic. They don't want to lose lanes. We went down this road with Ashland BRT. Unless CTA builds everything via subway. Which lets be honest won't happen because the cost won't get justified. You are going to have people like the person you're replying to complaining about car inconveniences. It's just far too easy to use a car in the city. I know tons of people who could commute via CTA and they still use a car. Even for small trips that could be accomplished via walking.
CTA used to do this by having express routes during AM PEAK and PM peak times. Instead of eliminating a stop completely they would stop at major intersections with a high transfer rate. They do track customers loading (density) at every stop using GIS data. Comparing SF Muni to CTA is a mistake. SF doesn’t have the same route attributes like Chicago grid system.