CTA Tattler

One should probably also note that all of the listed routes except King Drive are 24-hour.

I think I see how this error occurred. The Trib looked at only Page 8 of the bus ridership reports. Those three bus routes are indeed the top bus routes...on Page 8. The North/South Side bias is related to the fact that route numbers tend to increase going south to north, and Page 8, containing routes 135 to 206, has a lot of high numbered routes.

Sloppy reporting? Yes. North Side bias? Probably not. Take a look: http://www.transitchicago.com/downloads/ridershipreports/132346200703bus.pdf

OH! The south side! People actually...live there?!? And use public transit?!? But they aren't rich. Many aren't white. Many don't read the Trib. They don't count... /snark

As a North Sider who rides both the 22/Clark & the 4/Cottage Grove on a regular basis, if the #4 is the ninth busiest route, then it's also the single worst route on the CTA!
Many times I've been waiting for a #4 to go south from a downtown Michigan Ave. stop & have 6 #3's pass by before a #4. Occasionally the Jackson/Michigan supervisor has had a #3 changed into a #4, it's so bad. And northbound isn't much better.
I would put the 22 & 36 as the worst on the North Side, but with a special mention in Hell for the 155/Devon. That bus is a total disaster, all because of the double parking & bus stop parking along Devon from Leavitt to Sacramento.
The worst problem with the 22 is after a Cub game, when that traffic & increased passenger load wreaks havoc on the schedule.

I also have to say something is definitely wrong with the CTA's statistics if they don't show the 147 & 151 in the top ten. Since almost every 147 run is an articulated bus & they're supposed run at five minute intervals during rush hour [I've watched them leave Howard that often while waiting for a 22] then somebody isn't properly counting passengers!

that cta ridership report is kind of sloppy to start out with. I think the "X" line ridership numbers should be combined with the non express numbers to show true ridership along a given route. As an example, the 9/Ashland is listed as a route with one of the largest decreases in ridership -- but this is due to the X9 being added last year -- if you add X9 to 9 there was an increase in total number of passengers riding on buses on ashland. Also, I'm not sure that passengers/bus/hour is as useful a number as passengers/bus/mile. X9 shows a smaller per hour productivity than the 9 but since it moves faster might be just as efficient on a per mile basis.

As I frequently wait for a bus along State St. (the #6), I have come to the conclusion that the #36 must be the most bunched-up route in the entire system -- indeed, in the world. I almost never see just one at a time, and I tend to be there at all different times of the day, too.

Another factor leading to south-side routes having higher ridership -- by their very nature, they're longer routes. (Look at a map. The south side is INCREDIBLY HUGE. You'd almost think they should have a higher density of trains, etc.)

The funny thing with 151 and 147 at the top of the list is that the #147 buses are the most mismanaged or unmanaged route in the CTA. You can expect a 30-40 wait most days between 147 buses before a "tag team" of buses arrives with a second 147 bus immediately behind and about 75% empty. Meanwhile during your wait for the 147 bus downtown, you can expect to see at least 3 151 buses roll by, some just a few minutes apart. The CTA just can't realize that the 147 bus is the most popular on the North Side and the WORST managed. Ask anyone who takes that bus.

How many of those real top 10 routes have articulated buses? I know 22/Clark doesn't (I loathe the 22, and 36 as well) and I don't think 77/Belmont does either.

blueaura:
Of the top ten, only the 3&4 regularly have articulated buses.
The 4 has then only in the rush hour & most of those are on the X4.
Most articulateds are on express routes, but I did see one on a Damen, on Saturday afternoon on Foster Ave.
Occasionally Clark will get one.
I have a funny feeling that the CTA's ridership numbers are totally wrong!
I remember the old reports from years ago & 147 & 151 were always at the top of the list. I can't believe that Belmont or Chicago have more riders.

Sorry to be late to the party but as a former journalist, I have to say that the Tribune's handling of this story is completely inexcusable. Do they have no BS detector at all? Do they have no basic understanding of statistics? Didn't they get a tad suspicioius when they saw the "10th" busiest route had something like one-fifth the ridership of the busiest one? Didn't they get just a little leery of their numbers when they saw the often-threatened-with-closure 157 on the top ten list?

What about the story they ran themselves a while back, that pointed out the gentrification-driven ten-fold increase in the 66/Chicago's ridership over the past several years to close to SEVEN MILLION -- more than many cities' LIGHT RAIL routes? I suppose their attention span is too limited to remember accurate stuff they've run in the past. When I saw the 66 missing and the 157 there on the graphic I knew right away something was catastrophically wrong in the general vicinity of their transportation writers' desks.