CTA Tattler

So what ever happened with that story about the CTA being affected by the financial crisis?

Hmm...Obama's hometown isn't Chicago, and his "Hero" presidency is already failing...

With the recent fare restructing, the cost of
riding CTA vehicles using a Chicago Card or a
Chicago Plus Card is equal to what one would
pay depositing cash into the farebox or
turnstile. The incentive to use these cards
are gone and the only advantage to using them
is not having to dig in pocket or purse for
cash when boarding. Thanks CTA for taking one
step backward and sticking it to the riding
public again.

So when the economy does come back, the CTA should see a flood of revenue - those tax revenues from the new state law will finally start to make their presence felt, but the CTA will also have this higher fare revenue too.

Is there any hope that when the financial pressure eases up the CTA will use the new revenue for service improvements (or, egad, save it to soften the blow of the next deficit) rather than simply easing up on whatever frugality its brought to bear on its budget in the last year or so?

Stillwaiting,

Forget it. If there is ever any surplus of revenue the general assembly or the city council will use it give free rides to whomever they think they can score political points with. Perhaps they'll give it to people who can show they rode a bicycle or recycled that week. Or they'll give it to members of labor unions. Or perhaps any minority group. Joe Moore will probably push for free rides for vegetarians, people who don't use plastic bags at the grocery store, and those who never shop at Wal-Mart. The city council and the general assembly are so clueless and irresponsible that instead of recognizing how much of a political blunder Blagojevich caused for himself with his free ride stunt they actually thought it was a good idea to copy his idiotic move. So they extended free rides to other groups. If nobody stops them they will continue to do so until the CTA is again in financial ruin. Using the extra revenue for service improvements? That isn't going to happen as long as everyone in this city continues to put up with the bizarre people they elected to the city council and the state assembly.

Blagojevich and the city council were both stupid to give away free rides, but that was in the context of trying to make a tax increase more palatable. Once the economy recovers, the CTA will automatically have more revenue without anyone having to raise taxes, so there will be no need for face-saving stunts. I doubt anyone will object to the CTA expanding service with the additional revenue if that's what they decide to do.

"I doubt anyone will object to the CTA expanding service with the additional revenue if that's what they decide to do."

They already have objected to that. Nobody may have said so explicitly. But they did so when they required free rides for senior citizans, disabled people, and people in the military. A balanced budget is required for the CTA every year. So by passing these measures, the general assembly and the city council were saying:

"We don't give a f--- if the CTA has money to provide the lowest fares possible and for any beneficial new service. We must kiss the asses of all the extra-special demographics who vote for us and who make other demographics feel gushy when we support legislation to help them. After all, a huge amount of voters are increadibly stupid and don't realize that there are costs and drawbacks to the votes we make. We live in a world where most people only care about soundbites and what people are for or against explicitly. After all, when the CTA threatened its doomsday sceneirio there were people who were clamering judging Daley by whether or not he was making enough soundbites about the issue, as if soundbites were what would solve the issue. People were stating this explicitly blogs. So, darn it, nobody is going to prevent us from taking advantage of the ignorance of the public. Don't you dare tell us to think about the long term effects of what we do. Nobody notices these effects. So we will continue to make decisions accordingly. We are politicians. We love to be loved. We need to be loved by voters even when the political machinery makes it essentually impossible for us not be be reelected. And people only love us when we provide gimmicks that make for nice sound bites."

But people don't love Blagojevich, for example, despite his gift for soundbites. And, again, no one is going to have to raise taxes to give the CTA additional revenue once the economy recovers. If the CTA announces expanded service, do you seriously think a major movement will emerge to say, "No, don't do those service increases -- give free rides to people with Netflix subscriptions instead." Or is anyone going to stick out their necks to give people free rides when they're not trying to make a controversial move like a tax hike more acceptable?

You're acting like "free rides" has become the single-minded focus of all our political elites, when really it was just Blagojevich blindsiding everyone, then the city council deciding that looked like a good way to provide political cover to themselves, too. State congressional leaders did not come up with the free ride programs and were willing to pass the necessary tax increases without them. And if I recall correctly, Daley didn't come up with the free ride idea and criticized Blago's move -- the council came up with it, perhaps out of resentment that both the state and Daley were trying to get them to sign off on something they didn't want to do. Presumably we'll be rid of Blagojevich sooner rather than later, and for the most part the city council isn't involved in funding the CTA -- and even if it is involved, it takes Daley's lead, and Daley's not a "free ride" fundamentalist. Plus doesn't increased CTA service fit well with his "green city" ambitions?

In short: the free ride thing was an exceptional situation. There's no evidence of an ongoing quest to cripple the CTA through demanding free rides. I wouldn't be surprised if the "seniors ride free" thing were either repealed or means-tested in coming years -- and if it were, everyone would be glad because it would mean undoing a stupid stunt by the widely hated Rod Blagojevich. Even the seniors themselves weren't in favor of free rides!

"But people don't love Blagojevich, for example, despite his gift for soundbites."

They did when he initually ran for governor and for his first four or five years in office. It was obvious to me at the time of the 2002 election that he was a sociopath. Yet people fell for all his slogans and soundbites and voted for him over someone who was probably the first person ever to create major reforms of an urban school system. And then in the general election, they voted for him over a well-respected and centrist candadate with no ethical blemishes. And he was very popular during his first term despite the fact that many his policies would obviously cause long term harm to the state. Only around a year or so ago did Blagojevich go so completely overboard with his pupulism and his rhetoric that many people finally turned him off. I think the voters are not quite as stupid as Blagojevich thought. But they are stupid enough.

" Or is anyone going to stick out their necks to give people free rides when they're not trying to make a controversial move like a tax hike more acceptable? You're acting like "free rides" has become the single-minded focus of all our political elites, when really it was just Blagojevich blindsiding everyone, then the city council deciding that looked like a good way to provide political cover to themselves, too. State congressional leaders did not come up with the free ride programs and were willing to pass the necessary tax increases without them. And if I recall correctly."

The state legislature decided on their own, several months after the tax increase and senior rides program were passed, to give low incoome disabled people the right to ride free. And with the senior citizans debacle, the state legislature is as much to blame as Blagojevich. Actually you are wrong that they were willing to pass the tax increases without them. It is on record that they didn't. They refused to pass (or even vote on) an amendatory veto which would have, with a simple three-fifths majority, elimanated the the free rides while leaving the rest of the bill intact. No, they didn't come up with the idea themselves. And obviously if somebody had went up to them while the legislation was being formed and suggested it, they would have rightly laughed in their face. But they didn't have the courage to simply vote it out of the bill, which they had the power to do very easilly(which I'm not sure most people realize).

I wasn't really being literal earlier when I stated that the politicians would keep on voting for free ride mandates(although it would not surprise me all that much if we do see more of them). I was just illustrating the point that they have caused there to be higher fares and less possibility for future service increases. As we know, more than half of the fare increase of 2009 was the result of the cost of these free rides.

Anyway, to get to the heart of the matter, if there ends up being a surplus at some point I would probably rather they be used for lower fares rather than service increases. There already is plenty of service. I certaintly can't think of where you would add bus routes. If anything, they should probably be ruducing them. (I, for example, think they should merge the #151 and the #36 and essentually have the 151 routing south of Belmont and the 36 routing north of it. North of Belmont, these two routes are within very quick walking distance of each other but those who would rather not walk could always transfer to the #146 or some other route. And south of Belmont, the people currently using the #36 could still easilly use the #22 or the el. You could even have these routes operate more frequently while using less buses overall.) There also doesn't seem to be very much benefit to extending the hours of some bus and train routes. Obviously, very few people use the CTA after 12:30 or 1:00 A.M. and if they do there is already service available in the most heavily travelled areas. The only possible useful way to increase service is to increase the frequency of some buses, mostly during off-peak times. But many buses already run very frequently and other areas many riders can easilly avoid these waiting times by walking to a rail line.

[I, for example, think they should merge the #151 and the #36 and essentually have the 151 routing south of Belmont and the 36 routing north of it.]

This is a fallacy, that two different routes are unnecessary just because they're close together. The right question to ask is, do ridership levels justify two different routes?

It's not like these bus routes are randomly assigned. As it happens, you've singled out two very busy bus routes, which travel through very densely populated areas. OF COURSE there's going to be a lot of transit in those neighborhoods - a lot of people live there!

Put another way, using "less buses overall" along these routes is not necessarily a desirable step to take. Many of the buses that are used now are full!

If you want to find two bus routes that have low ridership levels that are close together, you might have a point. But reducing service on busy routes is lunacy.

"If you want to find two bus routes that have low ridership levels that are close together, you might have a point. But reducing service on busy routes is lunacy"

Well, I guess a lot depends on what someone's defintion of "busy" and "low ridership" is. The #36 is not a busy route at all, not even at rush hour. It also is far from one of the lowest performing. Generally, at all times of the day, there are around twenty-five to to thirty-five people on each #36 bus, at least in one direction, at any given time. I have never had to stand on a #36 bus and I don't believe I have ever seen anyone else need to. But that is really beside the point. Again, merging the two routes would actually mean that the service frequency could be increased while at the same time using fewer buses. The #151, which is often very crowded in at least one direction for most of the day, could operate more often after this combination. And it currently competes more with other routes far more than it does with the #36. The riders who use the #36 overlap mostly with the #22, which also is never anywhere close to capacity. So there would not be an overwhelming surge of riders to the new route that would strain capacity.

It isn't even really correct to say that my suggestion would be "reducing service levels". It is just allocating them differently based on where people are going and levels of capacity. Of course it doesn't make sense to elimanate routes simply because some are close together. Obviously when two routes are almost completely full then that would be a stupid reason to elimanate one of them. In fact, I don't know if you read Carole's blog but around a year ago someone suggested there that they elimanate some north side express routes simply because there were other routes that these people could use instead (toward the end of this thread: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=12211207&postID=5400256163090140350 ). You might recall an anonymous poster then called this guy stupid and told him, in several paragraphs, how utterly idiotic his idea was. You should probably be able to tell from analyzing writing styles that that was me.

The idea that the Broadway bus is not a busy route is bizarre, MK. Rather than relying on your personal experiences, I would suggest that you find that part of the CTA's website that compares ridership levels for all of the bus routes, and compare the #36 with all of the other routes - it's in the top 20 of busiest routes out of 100+ routes. And in general, each bus doesn't have to be standing room only in order to be a busy route throughout the course of a whole day.

I'm not saying your points aren't valid - but the #36 and #151 aren't good examples to illustrate your point.

I'm not sure that getting a supermajority just to spite the governor was a realistic possibility.

"And in general, each bus doesn't have to be standing room only in order to be a busy route throughout the course of a whole day."

Kiel,

That is exactly what I am talking about. For some reason, you are defining "busy" by a bus's total ridership numbers throughout the day. I have no idea why you are using that as the measurement. It is not relevent to this discussion, which is about capacity levels and how perhaps to better allocute them to make the routes more efficiant. My definition of "busy" has to do with the amount of people who generally are on each bus. Total ridership has nothing to do with anything. It should not be a factor in these decisions and those who mention it obviously don't know how to think about these things. A Wal-Mart could be very busy. But they are never going to decide to open another Wal-Mart across the street simply because of this. If there is plenty of capacity at the first Wal-Mart there is nothing that would be gained from it. It would mean that it would cost around twice as much to serve roughly the same amount of customers.

Well, MK, if we can't even agree on the definition of "busy," then what's the point of arguing? By your own admission, you only experience 25-35 people on a typical Broadway bus at any given time, which is pretty fair given my experience as well. But that many people is NOT an empty bus, not if that's the case for every bus on a route with 8 minute headways. And so, the fact remains that a bus that consistently has 25-35 people riding on each bus all day long does NOT constitute a bus route that isn't busy and needs to be rerouted and/or combined with another route.

And also: "A Wal-Mart could be very busy. But they are never going to decide to open another Wal-Mart across the street simply because of this. If there is plenty of capacity at the first Wal-Mart there is nothing that would be gained from it. It would mean that it would cost around twice as much to serve roughly the same amount of customers."

Seriously? MK, If Wal-Mart could open two stores across the street from one another and both could make a profit, they absolutely would, no doubt about it. Starbucks has been known to do this (a famous example is in downtown Houston). But, you've committed the old fallacy of comparing for-profit businesses to a public service.

Lots of people live along Clark, Broadway, and Sheridan/Inner LSD - enough to justify that each street get its own bus route, despite the fact that those three streets are often very close together. That's just the way it is, and your arguments that it's somehow not good enough and needs to be changed aren't very compelling.

"Seriously? MK, If Wal-Mart could open two stores across the street from one another and both could make a profit, they absolutely would, no doubt about it. "

OK. Then give me an example of two Wal-Marts that are directly across the street from each other. There actually might be some reasons to do this. It may, for example, want to prevent a competitor from opening a store there(although I think in some cases that may be considered a violation of antitrust laws). Or, in theory, the original Wal-Mart might be so busy that it is at capacity, with no room to build new check-out lines, that a large number of customers avoid the store because of its crowds. Of course, if that were the case it is more likely they would just relocate across the street and make sure that location is larger and can handle the crowds. And I have never seen a case where a big box store was at capacity during a significant portion of the day anyway. So that scenerio is unlikely. Whether or not both locations are profitable doesn't matter. What matters it the whether there is a higher total profitabilty with one location or with two. And, of course, there is also the question of whether this is different in the long term vs. the short term and what benefits there might be from blocking a potential competitor across the street but that obviously gets us way off-topic.

"Starbucks has been known to do this."

So what? If I had thought Starbucks was a worthy analogy I would have mentioned it. After all, there are quite a few more Starbucks in the city than Wal-Marts. At Starbucks, there is a limited amount of capacity at each location. There is only a certain amount of room for brewing facilities and cash registers. So during the peak hours, there are usually long lines. And if you are consuming your drink in the store, it is often difficult to find a place to sit. This causes them to lose customers. So it often makes sense for them to open another location very close by (even across the street) in order to get these people. It is very different from Wal-Mart.

"Lots of people live along Clark, Broadway, and Sheridan/Inner LSD - enough to justify that each street get its own bus route, despite the fact that those three streets are often very close together. "

Well, first of all, I think I originally meant to say that the new route would use the current #151 routing south of Diversity and the current #36 north of that (rather than Belmont). So with that correction, each street would still have its own bus route for the entire run. Clark Street would still have the #22. And it could run more often than currently, just like the #151 (or whatever you call the new route). Heck, if you'd like, you can just ignore my statement that there could be a reduction in buses. Let's just say that that there is the same number of buses that just use slightly different routes. Would you still be against that? A person waiting for a #22 or a #151 would not have to wait as long. Isn't that good? If this were to occur I think roughly 85% of people using these buses would see their commutes improve, some relatively significantelly, and maybe 15% would be slightly inconveinced. And I think you can do this pretty easilly while also reducing the amount of total buses. Nobody would even notice that this was done. The CTA could allocute those resources elsewhere or they could just save the money for it long term fiscal health. I'm not sure why you would be against that. Can you think of any time a person taking a specific route would be majorilly inconveinced by this change? Or is the only thing that matter to you the total number of buses operating. I've seen some evidence that you may be connected with a labor union. I know a few months ago you stated one of the reasons you were against the conversion of the Metra Elecric line to the CTA (which you are right about) is that it might cause some Metra conductors to be laid off. That is sort of an odd factor to consider when deciding on transit policy. Perhaps that is your agenda. It is the best explanation I can think of.

MK, I don't need you to explain to me how Wal-Marts and Starbucks work. You were the one who compared Wal-Mart to the CTA, not me.

But what does it matter? Your original contention that the Clark and Broadway buses are not "busy" is patently false. They are among the busiest in the city by all measures and metrics. If you can produce statistics to the contrary, I'd love to see them. But you can't, of course. And so, any speculating about changing them or merging them with other routes is nonsense. There's nothing wrong with them.

And speaking of nonsense: me connected with a labor union??! Honestly.... MK, what I do for a living and how I choose to spend my spare time is not only irrelevant to this discussion, it's none of your business. We can't have a discussion, serious or otherwise, if you're gonna come at me personally. Good grief.

And to clarify (if I must): I remember that comment about Metra conductors. I was giving one reason why Metra itself (not necessarily me) would be dead-set against the idea, one of many in my contention that it was a non-stater. That's all.

MK, your reasoning is strange. For example:

1) You dismiss Starbucks as a relevant analogy, but then proceed to explain why Starbucks is a very good analogy - because capacity is often less than the demand. This is, of course, precisely the point that Kiel was trying to make.

2) You pull a stat (85%!) directly from your ass and then treat it like it's indisputable fact.

3) You then smear Kiel for being "against" making things convenient for customers even before he has a chance to respond to the stat you just made up.

4) You treat the concept of "major inconvenience" as if there's no room for debate about what constitutes 'major' versus 'minor'.

5) Then you question Kiel's motivation for arguing with you based on an assumption about labor unions that was apparently stored in your ass cavity along with the 85% stat.

And all of this while failing to offer any reason to make these changes other than some vague platitudes about efficiency based on your own personal anecdotal evidence.

I guess I don't get it.

"But what does it matter? Your original contention that the Clark and Broadway buses are not "busy" is patently false. They are among the busiest in the city by all measures and metrics."

Again, like I said earlier, it depends on how you define the word "busy". Yes, if you define it a certain way you could say that they are. How you use the word is a matter of opinion. It is not persuasive, in my view, to call someone's opinion "patently false" of how to relevently use the word in this context. I very politely explained to you why I believe that the Broadway and Clark buses are not really that busy. Perhaps I should have been more specific and stated they had "reletively medium ridership" or were "not all that busy" instead of stating they "were not busy at all" (although I was only referring to the #36 at that time). Again, I think the difference in our opinion of this (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong) stems largely because you are looking at the total ridership of the bus route while I am measuring based on individual buses. As I said, I think the latter is the better measurement when discussing if it might make sense to restructure some of the routes. If you have a different opinion, great. I would absolutely respect it. So feel free to mention why you believe that total ridership is what should be looked at more in this discussion. And honestly, if we had been discussing something else (say, if someone had suggested elimanating the #22 and the #36 because they said it wasn't busy enough, which obviously would be a stupid idea) then I might have stated the routes were busy. People usually define these words based on what they are talking about. The worst player in the NFL would likely be referred to as "good" if someone were assessing how he played in college but would be referred to as "bad" by the same person when discussing his time in the NFL. So I don't believe it is all that productive to argue the semantics over whether those two bus routes are busy.

"We can't have a discussion, serious or otherwise, if you're gonna come at me personally."

Oh please. Just a reminder that in your very first sentence on this thread, before I had stated anything to you, you called my opinion "bizarre". In fact, I can't find anything in my posts prior to that that can be construed as getting personal with anybody. If you don't want people to be rude with you then don't be rude with them.

"I was giving one reason why Metra itself (not necessarily me) would be dead-set against the idea, one of many in my contention that it was a non-stater. "

That is not how I remember the statement. I do recall that you wrote "sigh" after you suggested that may happen, which would certainly imply that my interpretation was correct. But I suppose it's possible that it was misinterpreted.

I will respond to Strannix shortly.

"1) You dismiss Starbucks as a relevant analogy, but then proceed to explain why Starbucks is a very good analogy - because capacity is often less than the demand. This is, of course, precisely the point that Kiel was trying to make. "

That's not my interpretation of what he or she was arguing. Like I stated, the #36 is generally not anywhere near capacity at any point in the day. And neither really is the #22. So that was the evidence I was providing to state that restructuring the routes the way I suggested would not cause a reduction of capacity on the whole system. The #151 often is close to or at capacity. But I don't believe that there is much overlap between the #36 and the #151 at the areas where the #151 is so busy (there is farther north). So the merging of the two routes, in my opinion, would not cause a strain on the system. Kiel has been arguing, it seems to me, that capacity issues should not be what decides these things. In his view, if a route is not underperforming then no changes should be made(or at least no changes except for increased service). That's what he said explicitly. I disagree.

"2) You pull a stat (85%!) directly from your ass and then treat it like it's indisputable fact."

Please look at that post again. I used the word "roughly". You can see it directly before the "85%". That was just an estimate based on my observations of the these routes, the people who use them, and the places they tend to go when using them. Obviously, an estimate is not exact. Heck, the actual number could be closer to 75%. But I am pretty confident in my opinon that more people will benefit from my suggestion than would not. If nobody can use estimates, based on common sense, without being told they are "pulling it from their ass" and acting as if it is an "induspitable fact" then it is more difficult to have these discussions. Not everything in life has been measured and has a statistic available.

"4) You treat the concept of "major inconvenience" as if there's no room for debate about what constitutes 'major' versus 'minor'. "

Huh? You got this from my question "Can you think of any time a person taking a specific route would be majorilly inconveinced by this change"? Is this question not worthwhile unless I define what my view of "major inconvenience" is? I think that would actually limit the discussion. Other people may have different definition of a "major inconveinence". And they are no less valid then mine. So if people give examples of scenerios that they believe are a major inconveinance that I don't then we can have a worthwhile conversation of what is and is not major.

"And all of this while failing to offer any reason to make these changes other than some vague platitudes about efficiency based on your own personal anecdotal evidence."

Like I stated, frequency of buses can be reduced on both the #22 and the new merged route. I always try to avoid the #22 and the #36 because of the fairly long wait times. I usually try to use the el or the #151 whenever possible. So it comes from my experience that this would be very beneficial. And I believe you can do this while also reducing the total amount of buses used. And the resources can be reallocated to other routes in the city where it might be worthwhile to increase service. Or the CTA could save the money in order to avoid the need for fare increases. The new route would operate slightly farther west on its northern portion of the route than on its southern part. That has some advantages (though admittedly small) by getting passengers closer to their destination if they are going farther west. I think most people who live between the #151 and the #36 would rather have fewer choices of routes if they ran more often even if it means they have to walk slightly farther.

I think it makes sense. But I could be wrong. If you disagree with me I think it makes more sense to argue with my opinions instead of making personal attacks. I have no idea why this issue has gotten people so angry. In my opinion, it would be a pretty minor change if it is implemented.

MK: rubbish, rubbish, rubbish. I saw a #36 yesterday at Waveland at 6:30pm that was standing-room-only, and at full capacity, as was the next bus that drove by five minutes later.

Strannix was correct in her contention that you are making things up and pulling numbers out of thin air based on personal observations. Most people, the CTA included, agree that these are busy bus routes. The burden of proof, then, is on you to produce some real statistics to the contrary. If you can't, then there's no arguing with deductions based on false premises, and this discussion can't go anywhere.

MK, when you ride the 36 or 22, where do you typically get on and off?

Most of the time, when someone says a bus is "not busy," they're actually saying that "the particular segment that I ride is not busy." The problem with this, of course, is that the bus may be packed full on other parts of the route.

Obviously, no one is saying that every 36 or 22 bus is packed to capacity. But at the same time, I feel that you're talking about changes based on your personal observations, which are inherently of very limited scope (as are everyone else's personal observations - I don't mean that as an insult).

[I think most people who live between the #151 and the #36 would rather have fewer choices of routes if they ran more often even if it means they have to walk slightly farther.]

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but I feel it's a logical paradox for both a) cutting the number of buses, and b) increasing the frequency of buses, to be true. Certainly it's possible that buses can run *at some points* more often if you reallocate resources. Obviously fewer buses overall means a reduction in overall service in the area, despite your earlier claim that "it isn't even really correct to say that my suggestion would be 'reducing service levels.'"

[Strannix was correct in her contention...]

strannix is not a 'her.' The character of Bill Brasky was based on strannix. Chuck Norris took one look at strannix and got a sex change on the spot.

Strannix: I'm so sorry! I meant nothing by it. I am not only unfamiliar with the word/name, I've been poisoned by a familiarity with Latin, where 'ix' is a feminine ending (e.g. mediator/mediatrix, dominator/dominatrix). So all apologies where apologies are due.

No offense taken, Kiel.

My fault, really. I confess I hadn't thought through the Latin implications of my pseudonym. Perhaps I should change it to "strannor" to avoid future confusion.

Kiel,

You already made clear that you and I have no disagreement as to the amount of people who use the #36. Yesterday, at your post at 2:59 you stated "By your own admission, you only experience 25-35 people on a typical Broadway bus at any given time, which is pretty fair given my experience as well.". Now that you have been unsuccessful in your original arguments, you are attempting to challenge my contention of how many people are generally on a bus. It's not going to work. You are already on record agreeing with me on that point. And to answer Strannix's question, my observation of these buses comes from just about everywhere. Throughout the day, at it's peak points downtonwn and on the near north side there are generally 25-35 people on each bus at one time in at least one direction.

Yes, MK, and then I said "But that many people is NOT an empty bus ... the fact remains that a bus that consistently has 25-35 people riding on each bus all day long does NOT constitute a bus route that isn't busy..."

I never agreed with you that that many people was a small number. 35 people is a pretty full bus in my (personal and subjective) opinion, especially when compared to buses that REALLY don't see a lot of riders, like the 43rd St bus or the Lunt bus. But you're stalling MK - pony up with the statistics that these routes aren't busy or let it go.

Alright, MK, I've found the statistics you couldn't be bothered with for you, though it required lots of elbow grease on my part.

You define 'busy' as how many people are on each individual bus, right? So, how does one figure our what that number actually is? Well, it's the total daily ridership in both directions divided by the total number of buses the CTA sends up and down the route in both directions in a given day, right? That gives us the average number of people who get on and off each individual bus from the beginning of the route to its end.

Well, I did that math using info from the CTA's website (Sept. 2008) for an 'average weekday,' and the average number of riders on each individual bus is:

For commonly-assumed to be busy routes:
#4 and #X4 Cottage Grove/CoGr Express: 113
#9 and #X9 Ashland/Ashland Express: 104
#8 Halsted: 124

For commonly assumed NOT to be busy routes:
#17 Westchester: 16
#43 43rd St.: 17
#96 Lunt: 12

The "routes in question:"
#22 Clark: 101
#36 Broadway: 92
#151 Sheridan: 103

Which is more people per bus than the averages for:
#50 Damen: 75
#56 Milwaukee: 74
#66 Chicago: 78

...despite the fact that the three "routes in question" are rarely more than a few blocks away from each other.

And so you're contention that 22, 36, and 151 aren't busy is shown to be false. Q.E.D.

"You define 'busy' as how many people are on each individual bus, right?"

For the purposes of this discussion, that is close. But it is not quite accurate. I'll get more specific shortly. And like I said earlier, I would define the word "busy" differently based on what we are talking about, just as most people do. Please see my NFL player analogy.

"and then I said 'But that many people is NOT an empty bus ... the fact remains that a bus that consistently has 25-35 people riding on each bus all day long does NOT constitute a bus route that isn't busy...'"

I just told you that I am not interested in discussing the semantics of what the definition of "busy" means. It has nothing to do with this discussion, which is about whether it makes sense to restructure some routes. What matters is how the reroutes would affect passenger flow.

"Well, it's the total daily ridership in both directions divided by the total number of buses the CTA sends up and down the route in both directions in a given day, right? That gives us the average number of people who get on and off each individual bus from the beginning of the route to its end."

Do you actually think you are going to get away with that? At first I thought you were just not interpreting the statistics correctly. But as you state, the numbers are "from the beginning of the route to its end". The routes in question cover a HUGE distance and have ENORMOUS passenger turnover. Nearly everyone rides these routes for fairly short distances. I mentioned twice before that the estimates I was using (which you agreed with but, quite frankly, are probably a bit high in retrospect) were for how many people are on a bus AT ANY GIVEN TIME. That is sort of relevant when one is considering whether they are near capacity.

Also, it is very simplistic and misleading to use the statistics for each and every bus on the route. I also used the phrase "in at least one direction" earlier. I am not really conserned about how many people are on buses that go the opposite of the peak direction at certain times of the day (for example, southbound after around 8:00). And obiviously there are certain times of the day that have fewer riders than other times. My suggestion for the route merging would be for the whole day. It is probably more relevant to use the numbers for the buses not at the absolute most busy time because you can always adjust service then. It always amazes me when people think that a statistic they found provides conclusive proof to an argument when it reality it is almost meaningless. Perhaps that is something that needs to be better taught in schools. A statistic only measures what it is measuring. It is often much narrorer than what you trying to figure out.

As for

(The first part of that post was meant to be after the second. There might be ways that people can get confused if they read it the way it is now.)

I should mention that it really does surprise me that my suggestion has caused so much of a negative reaction. It was a very minor part of the post I made it on. It essentually was an aside used to illustrate a point (in fact, the whole thing was in perenthesis). And it really would seem to me to be a very minor change that doesn't effect many people significantelly. I've generally thought from prior threads that Keil and Strannix were level-headed and knowledgable about these issues. Yet they had that reaction. I think it shows how difficult it would be for the CTA to make any type of route changes at all. Many people seem to think that any decrease in buses or routes is a service reduction. And if the CTA announced they were planning on considering this there probably would be people who would complain loudly even though they would hardly be affected. Maybe the best thing to do is to make a change like this as low-key as possible. A few months ago, the CTA actually elimanated a low-performing bus route. They did not issue a press release or do anything to make it seem like it mattered. And it didn't and nobody noticed. I have never seen it mentioned here or anywhere. The few people using the route could have pretty much the same level of convenience using other CTA service. It would be interesting to see if anyone here can figure out what route it was (and I'll give a hint, it was not a route that travelled only through the fringes of the city).

[I've generally thought from prior threads that Keil and Strannix were level-headed and knowledgable about these issues.]

Ah yes, the old "if you disagree with me, it means you're not level-headed" canard.

This argument seems to have gotten stale. Fun while it lasted, but it's clear that MK is not interested in offering any kind of argument except that 36 buses aren't full enough by whatever arbitrary criteria he's (it is 'he,' right?) decided on. And we've also learned that any kind of statistical evidence is completely irrelevant because hey, he's ridden the bus and there are still empty seats.

So, to sum up, MK wants to take one of the busier routes in the city, reduce the number of available buses in the densely populated neighborhoods in which it runs, but not call it a service reduction because it's not like people can't walk to another stop somewhere.

And Kiel and I are the ones who are not displaying the proper amount of level-headedness.

OK.

"I mentioned twice before that the estimates I was using ... were for how many people are on a bus AT ANY GIVEN TIME. That is sort of relevant when one is considering whether they are near capacity."

No, MK, it is not relevant. That's a completely useless piece of information - picking one bus at an arbitrary point in space and time and counting its riders tells you nothing whatsoever about whether the whole route is busy or not and/or should be combined with another. You need information about the whole route to make judgments about the whole route. Information like the numbers I listed.

"Please see my NFL player analogy."
Public buses routes are not comparable to football players.

"I've generally thought from prior threads that Keil and Strannix were level-headed and knowledgable about these issues."

Well, at least strannix has remained level-headed enough not to misspell the four-letter name of the person he's been arguing with back and forth for last three days. That may be because he hasn't been too busy making incoherent arguments about how obviously busy bus routes are, in fact, not busy and that the immensely popular bus route on Sheridan Road should be abandoned north of Diversey because somehow abandoning popular bus routes is "efficient" in some alternate universe where the definition of the elementary word "busy" is so elastic that it can have a definition that only a single individual can manage to grasp.

You lost this one, MK. Nobody agrees with you, and there are no real facts to back you up. And no blog's thread comment, no matter how long, can change that.

OK. This is getting ridiculous. I should not have to explain the same thing three times or more.

" but it's clear that MK is not interested in offering any kind of argument except that 36 buses aren't full enough by whatever arbitrary criteria he's (it is 'he,' right?) decided on. And we've also learned that any kind of statistical evidence is completely irrelevant because hey, he's ridden the bus and there are still empty seats."

I mentioned not once, not twice, but three times the criteria I am using. It is not remotely arbitrary. And I told Kiel why I thought the statistics he presented is not relevent to this issue. That does not mean that "any kind of statistical evidence is completely irrelevent". It means that, in my opinion, THAT PARTICULAR statistic is not relevent. If you disagree with my argument that it isn't then why don't you argue with it. Explain where you think my reasoning is wrong and try to make your case. Instead of doing that you make the ridiculous and childish statement that I am not interested in a real argument. Obviously, that is because you can't think of a way to argue with my facts.

" Public buses routes are not comparable to football players."

That's interesting. Of course, it has nothing to do with what I stated because I wasn't comparing football players to public buses. I used the analogy to point out that Kiel's emphasis on arguing what the word "busy" means was misplaced because most people have different definitions of these things based on what they are discussing. If you want something you feel is more of a comparable example, I suggest you look at where I stated that if we were talking about whether the #36 should be elimanated then I would probably state that it IS a busy route. If you walk into medium sized store on Michigan Avenue on a saturday afternoon and there are about seven custumers, you would likely not describe it as busy. But you probably would describe the same sized store with seven customers as busy on a tuesday morning on the outskirts of the city. So I'm really sick of this nitpicking over whether my definition of busy is correct. It depends on what one is talking about.

"So, to sum up, MK wants to take one of the busier routes in the city, reduce the number of available buses in the densely populated neighborhoods in which it runs, but not call it a service reduction because it's not like people can't walk to another stop somewhere."

As I've stated two or three (or maybe even four) times already, the frequency of buses would increase. In my opinion, that is a service improvement. Some people will need to walk a little farther. But others would actually not have to walk as far as they do now. For example, people who live near the 151 bus south of Diversey who wish to travel to the area north of Diversey where the #36 currently. There are always tradeoffs when people make decisions. In my opinion, it is wrong to believe that it never makes sense to make any changes if there are any negative effects. There will almost always be positives and negatives to everything. The question is whether or not the postives outweigh the negatives. If you belive the negatives for this outweigh the positives then feel free to make that case. Neither you or Kiel has done so. Instead you both seem to think that no bus routes should ever be changed as long as there are a sufficiant
number of passengers on the route.

"No, MK, it is not relevant. That's a completely useless piece of information - picking one bus at an arbitrary point in space and time and counting its riders tells you nothing whatsoever about whether the whole route is busy or not and/or should be combined with another. You need information about the whole route to make judgments about the whole route. Information like the numbers I listed"

I specifically mentioned yesterday that I wasn't picking an arbitiary time and place. My observations of these buses were at its busiest points and included the busiest time of day. It might make the two of you feel better to state that I am being arbituary, but it is false.

"Public buses routes are not comparable to football players."

Please see my post directly above.

"That may be because he hasn't been too busy making incoherent arguments about how obviously busy bus routes are, in fact, not busy and that the immensely popular bus route on Sheridan Road should be abandoned north of Diversey because somehow abandoning popular bus routes is "efficient" in some alternate universe where the definition of the elementary word "busy" is so elastic that it can have a definition that only a single individual can manage to grasp."

Please see my post directly above.

"You lost this one, MK. Nobody agrees with you"

Well, if you go by who has posted here about this then I suppose you would have to also say that nobody agrees with you and Strannix. Drawing the conclusion you did simply because nobody else has come here to state their opinion does actually provide some insight as to how you come to all your other conclusions here. And perhaps nobody has disagreed with you because they can see that you and strannix tend to get angry when someone expresses an opinion different from yours.

"OK. This is getting ridiculous. I should not have to explain the same thing three times or more."

I agree that this is getting ridiculous, but no one asked you to explain yourself over and over. It was nonsensical enough the first time :-D

"It is not remotely arbitrary."

It is indeed arbitrary, for reasons strannix and I have already explained.

"If you walk into medium sized store on Michigan Avenue on a saturday afternoon and there are about seven custumers, you would likely not describe it as busy."

Wait - what? You're the one who looked around the Broadway bus one day and decided that the 35 people on board was the only criterion you needed to declare that the bus wasn't busy and its route needed to be fooled with.

"If you belive the negatives for this outweigh the positives then feel free to make that case. Neither you or Kiel has done so."

Strannix and I don't have to, MK. It's a hypothetical situation - the burden is on you, not us, to come up with positives. You have not. You are eliminating pieces of busy, popular bus routes and combining them into one route for no good reason. Increased service frequency on a busy route on a crowded, two-lane street means bunched buses means slower buses. Combining both routes' riderships means fuller buses means slower buses. And combining two popular routes into one means fewer travel options for riders. Slower, more crowded buses along with route eliminations and longer walks to the bus stop do not a service improvement make. Oh, look, there we go, some negatives, how about that? Look how easy that was.

"Instead you both seem to think that no bus routes should ever be changed as long as there are a sufficiant
number of passengers on the route."

No we do not. That's you putting words in our mouths. We're specifically defending the Broadway and Sheridan buses, which have been busy and popular routes in or approximating their present forms for decades now without any calls from anyone to fuck with them.

"My observations of these buses were at its busiest points and included the busiest time of day."

It doesn't matter, MK, it's still limited information taken out of context of the whole bus route. If you're gonna change the whole bus route, you can't look at just one intersection at one time of day - or even several, for that matter. (AND you have to take into account where and how far the people on board are usually going, for that matter)

"It might make the two of you feel better to state that I am being arbituary..."

Actually, yes it does :-)

"And perhaps nobody has disagreed with you because they can see that you and strannix tend to get angry when someone expresses an opinion different from yours."

You mean like the way you like to write long, rambling, histrionic responses when someone expresses an opinion different from yours? strannix and I aren't angry, MK. In fact, I'd venture to say we're having a lot of fun at your expense. Keep it coming, MK, this is fun! :D

Wow, you guys are still talking about this?

"I agree that this is getting ridiculous, but no one asked you to explain yourself over and over. It was nonsensical enough the first time :-D"

No, I have to repeat myself because you keep arguing with me in a manner that is inconsistant with the points I have made. You take what I said and then argue something completely unrelated to what I was talking about. Or you make a vague statement, such as the one I will get to shortly, that does not do a single thing to specifically challange what I stated. On a bright note, I am glad this time you didn't argue with me again about the definition of the word "busy".

"It is indeed arbitrary, for reasons strannix and I have already explained."

That's odd because you didn't give any reasons other than to falsely state that I didn't pay attention to when and where the buses were that I was observing.

"Wait - what? You're the one who looked around the Broadway bus one day and decided that the 35 people on board was the only criterion you needed to declare that the bus wasn't busy and its route needed to be fooled with."

That is so adametely false a statement that I just don't know what to say. I gave SEVERAL reasons why I think this change makes sense. For example, the availability of nearby bus routes and the increased frequency of two bus routes that I mentioned. I getting kind of sick of being told that I have stated things that I never did.

"Strannix and I don't have to, MK. It's a hypothetical situation - the burden is on you, not us, to come up with positives. You have not. "

That is just downright false. And I think you know it. I have written around three entire paragraphs explaining what I believe are the positves, most recently in the last paragraph of my last post. If you disagree with these reasons, fine. Argue with them. I absolutely respect people who have differing opinions. But to state I never gave any reasons is just an outright lie. And I don't appreciate being lied about.

"You are eliminating pieces of busy, popular bus routes and combining them into one route for no good reason. Increased service frequency on a busy route on a crowded, two-lane street means bunched buses means slower buses. Combining both routes' riderships means fuller buses means slower buses. And combining two popular routes into one means fewer travel options for riders. Slower, more crowded buses along with route eliminations and longer walks to the bus stop do not a service improvement make. Oh, look, there we go, some negatives, how about that? Look how easy that was. "

Great. If it was so easy, why did you wait so long to state these reasons? I'm glad you finally did. For the first time in this whole discussion you are actually arguing about the merits of my suggestion instead of simply making personal attacks and arguing about things unrelated to what we are talking about. Those are all legitimate arguments (except for your snide comment that my opinion has "no good reason") about how my suggestion might have drawbacks. I disagree that they mean the restucturing is undesirable but they seem to be well-thought out and are related to the discussion.

You are correct that this will mean somewhat more crowded buses in some places. And it will sometimes mean a longer travel time. The area that most comes to mind is the downtown area where many people currently using the #36 would use the #22. But I think this is outweighed by the increased bus frequency. Right now, people going north from this area must choose to take either the 36 or the 22 since they operate mostly operate two streets apart. That can be annoying to people who don't really care which bus they want to use and have no idea which would come first. The shorter wait times will be an advantage. And I don't think the increase passenger loads will be enough to offset the convenience that comes with that. Like I stated before, I don't believe this will cause very much people to switch from the 36 to the 151 in the areas where they are most crowded (downtown) because there doesn't seem to be very much passenger overlap between these two routes there. So I don't think the 151, at the point it is very crowded, would have an influx of new passengers from this change. Farther north, there would be some overlap for people travelling within the north side. It would not be enough to make the ride take noticebly longer but it will mean the CTA will operate more efficiantly.

I disagree with you that this really causes fewer travel options. There is one fewer route option but the remaining ones, in my opinion, cause a better choice for riders. People still have the #22 and the rail system to use from the middle part of downtown to the north side. And now they will be able to go from the even more heavilly populated and trafficked eastern part of downtown directly to areas of the north side that are farther west. And the express buses would continue to provide service from the easter part of downtown to the easter part of the north side. Yes, some people will have to walk farther. But it is just a few blocks. And other people will not have to walk as far as they do now (such as those travelling from Michigan Avenue to the Broadway area near Belmont/Addison/and Irving Park). I think the positives outweigh the negatives.

"No we do not. That's you putting words in our mouths. We're specifically defending the Broadway and Sheridan buses, which have been busy and popular routes in or approximating their present forms for decades now without any calls from anyone to fuck with them."

Just because something is popular and busy does not mean it operates in the best manner possible. The blue line was still very popular and busy during the year or so it had the enormous slow zones. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have been fixed. Restuarants often change menus even when they are already popular. Things can still improve once they are already reasonably good.

And just to expand my last point, every business must always improve what they do to some extent no matter how successful they already are. Public transit bus routes are one of the few things that rarely change.

"It doesn't matter, MK, it's still limited information taken out of context of the whole bus route. If you're gonna change the whole bus route, you can't look at just one intersection at one time of day - or even several, for that matter. (AND you have to take into account where and how far the people on board are usually going, for that matter)"

And where are you coming to the interpretation that I am only looking at a limited part of the route and time of day? I am not. When I first made the infamous "25-35 passengers" statement (which you agreed with and then later tried to suggest was wrong) I was talking about the whole route. I stated that ON THE WHOLE ROUTE there is not more than that on each bus at any given point of the route. And my suggestion for the route change encompassed rhe whole thing. How you could think I was only referring to a specific part of the route is beyond me. You provided statistics for the entire run of each individual bus. When we are talking about capacity, that is competely irrelevant. People nealy always only use the 36 for short or medium distances. The entire route has nothing to do with anything. If the 36 continues farther south to the other end of the city(say, if it was combined with the #4), the numbers you cited would be even higher, by quite a bit. And would that have anything to do with what we are talking about? Of course not.

"And just to expand my last point, every business must always improve what they do to some extent no matter how successful they already are."

And that's where your arguments are misguided. The CTA is not a business, per se, it's a public service, like trash pick-up or electricity or natural gas. It's there for everyone and it's publicly subsidized. Consolidating bus routes in the name of "efficiency" doesn't make sense if both routes are popular and useful to their riders. The CTA's there to provide the public with lots of travel options to get them to their destination at all times of the day and night in all parts of the city, no matter how many (or few) people are traveling, or where they're going. And if that's not why it's there, it should be. And so, until people "vote with their feet" and literally abandon a bus route or an El stop, there's no reason to eliminate that service or combine it with another - i.e. having the travel option at all is more important than how "efficient" it may (or can) be. In the case of popular service, only adding to it would be an improvement, and then you can change service later as demographics and ridership trends change e.g. express buses, extended hours, etc.

You've done a very good job of describing what your service would look like, MK, but it's still completely speculative - the route doesn't exist and never has, so what use is arguing about whether it would work or not? No use whatsoever, that's what.

strannix and I were more concerned with why you thought there was something wrong with the Broadway and Sheridan buses, because it's pretty obvious to us that there's nothing wrong with them that warrants changing. And that's why we focused on your reasons for believing otherwise (like the #36 not being busy) instead of pointless arguing with the speculative stuff.

I think this has become a "see-who-can-get-the-last-word-in" situation. Any other 8 year olds out there wanna play? There will be hopscotch later! :-)

From the beginning of this discussion to the end, I have never said that the two routes should be combined primarally because it would save money for the CTA. I agree with you. The CTA is a public service and its decisions should be about what is good for its riders, the Chicago residents and employees, and the economy as a whole. If this was a change that substantually reduced passenger conveinence for the purpose of creating efficiences then I would almost certainly be against it. But the fact is, in my opinion, that the changes would INCREASE the conveinence of those who ride the buses. The fact that it would also reduce the number of buses needed and thus the cost to the CTA is just a nice secondary plus. Believe it or not, it is possible to restructure routes so that the total amount of service provided is reduced while the conveinence for the passengers improves. You seem to be skeptical about that. Apperently, you think that any reduction of buses or even routes is a negative (at least as long as they are not underperforming routes). In my opinion, that is a very short-sighted way of looking at things. The fact that the CTA is not a for-profit business does not mean that it should not be attempting to think of ways to improve its efficiancies without reducing the quality of service.

And I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about in terms of passengers "voting with their feet". We are discussing restructuring two routes into one route that currently doesn't exist. How can passengers vote with their feet for something that isn't offered right now?

"You've done a very good job of describing what your service would look like, MK, but it's still completely speculative - the route doesn't exist and never has, so what use is arguing about whether it would work or not? No use whatsoever, that's what."

OK. I am completely baffled by that statement. It may be the strangest thing you have stated yet. Are you suggesting that there is no purpose discussing anything conceptual? People should only talk about things that currently or have existed? It would sort of be impossible for anything ever to get done if that were the case. No planning would occur and no progress would ever be made in society.

"strannix and I were more concerned with why you thought there was something wrong with the Broadway and Sheridan buses, because it's pretty obvious to us that there's nothing wrong with them that warrants changing. And that's why we focused on your reasons for believing otherwise (like the #36 not being busy) instead of pointless arguing with the speculative stuff."

Again, just because something is popular and generally works well doesn't meant that it cannot improve. It is a complete fallicy to think that only negative things can get better. If you have that belief then you are likely to have a difficult time with life. If a child generally does well in school should his parents avoid helping him with his homework or never talk to his teachers? Should a popular restuarant never attempt to come up with new dishes?

MK, what was the eliminated bus route that you referred to earlier?

We're not talking in generalizations here, MK, we're talking about a very specific case and comparisons with restaurants and kids doing homework don't really apply.

I don't "seem" to be skeptical - I am. There are too many what-ifs in your scenario, MK. What if the buses bunch worse than they do now? What if people aren't willing to walk those extra blocks? What if that many people having to change buses at Clark and Diversey creates chaos? What if buses are so full they leave people behind all of the time, despite the increased frequency? What if all those people who live on Sheridan would rather drive than have to walk to Broadway? How is walking a few blocks away more convenient than having a bus stop on the street you live on?

That's why I kept prodding you about facts and statistics, MK - the only justifications you've given so far that your scenario would work have been of the "because I say so/isn't it obvious/why can't you understand my logic" kind, which just isn’t convincing given all the what-ifs. If we took a poll today of people who ride the Sheridan bus north of Diversey and asked them if they would be okay with losing the Sheridan bus if the Broadway bus ran more frequently, they very might well all respond by saying that they'd rather drive than walk to Broadway, no matter how close it is. More cars on the road and fewer CTA riders overall would not be more "efficient." But we don't know either way, because we haven't bothered to ask.

I'm all for improvements, but you have to study proposals in the real world before you can tackle and defend all of the what-ifs, and you need to establish conclusively with facts and figures (not just a hypothetical that looks good on paper) that: 1. It would be better overall for the system and the riders AND 2. Riders would find it more useful and desirable as a transit option. If you can't clonclusively establish that either point is true, you're advocating change without cause.

I don’t think most riders would prefer one route when they can have two, no matter how frequently buses come on the one route. But, we'd have to ask first, wouldn't we? If you can establish that they would prefer your route over the service they already have, then that’s the strongest argument you can make in this particular case. But if riders reject your route as undesirable compared to the service they currently have, then you’ll have to come up with MUCH stronger and more substantial arguments than the ones you’ve already made (backed up with facts and stats), that the service would be better for them, despite all of their objections (e.g. establishing the pink line instead of splitting the blue line comes to mind).

First of all, if you think that anything like this is going to make the people who live on Sheriden drive then you are obviously not knowledgable about the traffic patterns in the city. The people who live on Sheriden do not drive to places for which it is much easier and cheaper to get to via the CTA. In the northern part of the city, where this is not neccessarally the case, there is plenty of room on all 151 and 36 buses. So there is no chance my suggestion would cause people to switch from the bus to a car. Like I stated, the service would improve with buses running more often.

If you believe there are "what if's" that's fine. I did not say that this is something that shouldn't be studied and that they need to immedietely begin tomorrow. I'm a bit baffled with your complaint about lack of polling data or conclusive proof. Normally, the way these things work is a suggestion is made and THEN people do studies to discover whether there are some statistics that may help them decide whether the idea is good. I made a suggestion. We are still on the first stage. If someone at the CTA reads this and decides it is worth exploring (which I doubt) then they would go on to the second stage and conduct studies like you suggested. Perhaps they would find out that I am wrong and this wouldn't be a positive. But we are not at that stage yet. And any survey they do would need to be specific about what is changing and how it would affect each individual passenger. Obviously, as we've seen here, many people have an automatic negative reaction if they are primarally focused on the fact that there will be fewer bus routes. In reality, most people will not have their travel options reduced.

Which brings me to Strannix's question. The point I was making is that when the CTA quietly elimanates a route and people realize that the quality of service is not actually being decreased then nobody makes a big deal about it. The fact that he or anyone else doesn't know what route that was shows that this is the case. I bet we can go a whole week before somebody guessing it correctly. I think the fits that we are seeing on this thread come from the word "reduce" rather than the details of the change I mentioned.

"First of all, if you think that anything like this is going to make the people who live on Sheriden drive then you are obviously not knowledgable about the traffic patterns in the city."

No, you are the mistaken one. People who live on the north side close to the lake (aka along the #151 route) are some of the most likely people in town to give up on the CTA and drive their cars when faced with the slightest inconvenience.

"The people who live on Sheriden do not drive to places for which it is much easier and cheaper to get to via the CTA."

They would if there was no Sheridan bus and they had to walk to Broadway.

"So there is no chance my suggestion would cause people to switch from the bus to a car."

Why? Because you've asked them, or because you say so?

"Normally, the way these things work is a suggestion is made and THEN people do studies to discover whether there are some statistics that may help them decide whether the idea is good."

I agree.

"Like I stated, the service would improve with buses running more often."

Wait! Where's the studies you conducted to prove that would be true?

You can't have it both ways, MK, and assume you're correct from the start. You still haven't shown that this change would be necessary, better, or desirable by any objective criteria.

MK, Kiel and Strannix: Ya'll have till end of day Friday to finish off this enlightening discussion. Then I'm shutting off comments.

It's for you're own good!

;-)

Hey, don't look at me! I've been done with this argument since yesterday morning.

"No, you are the mistaken one. People who live on the north side close to the lake (aka along the #151 route) are some of the most likely people in town to give up on the CTA and drive their cars when faced with the slightest inconvenience."

And why would you believe that? Kind of ironic you are complaining about me supposidely not giving enough support for my arguments (even though, in reality, I have been very specific) and then you make this silly statement. It seems sort of a snobbish opinion based on a tendency to engage in class warfare. The people who live in the lakeshore condominiums would need to spend several minutes just going to the buildings garage to get their car and driving it out. By the time they are on the street, they might have been halfway to their destination if they had caught a bus. And obviously it would be nuts to drive if they are going to a place (such as downtown) that has huge parking fees. The people who live in that area have amongst the lowest rate of car ownership in the country (And yes, I have seen statistics. You'll excuse me if I don't spend an hour or so trying to find it.). Manhatten, of course, has the lowest car ownership rate in that nation. And those are pretty much the same type of demograph that lives in the high rises near the Lakeshore. So you snobbish comment is nonsensical and bizarre(and no, I don't live in that area).

"They would if there was no Sheridan bus and they had to walk to Broadway."

As you know, that is not much of a walk.

"You can't have it both ways, MK, and assume you're correct from the start."

No, I don't. Heck, I very well could be wrong about this. Perhaps it actually doesn't make sense to restructure the routes the way I suggest. I'm pretty confident that it does but something could always come before me that causes me to change my mind. I just stated an opinion based on my observations of the layout of these routes and the people who use them(like I said, it was not even my main point and was essentually an aside). Nothing about doing that indicates that I assume there is no chance I am wrong. There are some things that I know I am correct about but this is not one of them.

"Hey, don't look at me! I've been done with this argument since yesterday morning."

And would that be because you have been convinced you were originally wrong?

Oh. I hate to make three posts in a row but I just have to link to this since it is related to what we were originally discussing, the idiocy of those entrusted to make important decisions about or tax dollers: http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1368604,disabled-owned-businesses-city-contracts-010809.article

Truly unbelievable. Obviously, it is far from likely that the CTA's funds will be put to good purposes.