CTA Tattler

Awesome. Maybe they read this blog!

I hope they make improvements on the bus stops on all the routes. I've not ridden anywhere close to all the bus routes, but I'm sure all of them can be tweaked at least a little.

That's great!

Off topic- what movie/TV show are they filming at the Library stop?

Interesting change for the #66 at Chicago and Franklin. Last December, I asked CTA about reestablishing that stop after the renovation & was told it was unsafe. Then 2 weeks later they opened a stop under the stairs and now they are moving it back to where it was before the renovation (and where it makes far more sense for riders).

Perhaps the chartered bus had a washroom?

For the life of me, I never understood why Chicago buses stop on the near side of the intersection (before the light) rather than on the far side (after the light). The NYC system, which also includes phased lights in Manhattan, seems to work much better. And like the Obama tire pressure suggestion, seems to be a relatively easy, common sense way to save gas.

How does moving the stop to the other size of the intersection save gas? Please explain, cause I don't get it.

Chris, the rationale is that by stopping on the far side of the intersection, the bus has a better chance of clearing the intersection and avoiding waiting for a red light. A lot of transit agencies try to do this whenever and wherever possible to reduce dwell time and to speed up service. If I had a dime for every time my bus pulled up at an intersection where the light was green and by the time everyone got on it was turning yellow, I could retire.

Chris: It at least saves time in that if the bus gets through the intersection on green and the light changes behind it, it got through the intersection. On the other hand, if it stops on the near side, and the light turns red while it is stopped, it has to wait (and burn gas idling) for the green.

Of course, this makes certain assumptions regrading the timing of the next light (such as whether the bus pulls up to the next light when it is red) and whether CTA bus drivers will obey the red. These assumptions disappear when and if transit signal preemption is implemented.

My main question would be about the geometry of the stop, especially when articulated buses are concerned (is it better to have the back of the bus blocking the cross street, or sticking out into traffic, because either the far or near side stop, respectively, is too short)?

I am also surprised that the occasional moving of a stop is important enough to put on the weekly alert list, instead of just posting a notice at the stop. But providing the alert may be a better policy.

I meant "traffic signal preemption" and "fuel."

this is nothing new. cta began a more agressive program of reevaluating bus stop locations and shifting to far-side stopping in 2002, and it continues to this day.

They installed a new stop on the 73 armitage at humbolt blvd that pretty much obstructs the entire sidewalk. Really poorly planned.

Far-side vs. near-side is hardly a simple issue -- especially if it's a major transfer point with a line on the cross street.

You can put all the stops at a particular intersection in balance by making them all far-side, or all near-side. That means any transfer requires crossing one street. When you move stops, you end up with some transfers requiring no street crossings, and some transfers requiring two street crossings.

With near-side stops, if commercial vehicles are using the stop as a loading zone or if cars are parked illegally, the bus blocks a traffic lane, and traffic backs-up up the block.

With far-side stops, if the stop is blocked, and the bus has to stop in the traffic lane, even if the bus stops far enough forward to clear the intersection, the traffic that inevitably follows will block the cross street, and create a very dangerous situation for pedestrians once the bus starts moving again.

If the buses have signal pre-emption devices, and the police do a good job of keeping the stop clear, far-side stops can do wonders for travel times. But in the reality we call Chicago, how likely is that?

Essentially, each stop location needs to be judged by criteria unique to that location. General policies generally don't work.

And speaking of buses blocking traffic, in a number of cities they've started to build out the sidewalk area so the bus stays in the traffic lane, rather than build a bay, and requiring the bus to pull back into traffic.

Of course this only works well if the dwell times are short, and the street is a minor throughfare, with an alternate main route for cars nearby. And, of course, it only works for near-side, not far-side stops.

It's always seemed to me that, given the likelihood that the bus will have to stop for a red light anyway, it makes sense to use that time to move passengers in and out. There are now two stops every time a bus hits a red light, and that doesn't make sense to me.

(I'm guessing it doesn't make sense to bus drivers either. My observation is that they're more eager to run red lights than I've ever seen.)

And it's all the more true now that buses pull over whenever they're more than a minute early.

There's also a nasty hit in user friendliness for the system, too. Back when near-side stops were the rule and far-side stops the very rare exception, you knew where to go to make a transfer, and you never had to cross more than once. Now, especially if you're at an unfamiliar stop, you have to find the transfer stop you want, and you may have to cross twice.

>For the life of me, I never understood why Chicago buses stop on the near side of the intersection (before the light) rather than on the far side (after the light).

It depends on traffic and typical loading. If there is little backup of cars at a light and relatively few passengers, then it's likely the bus will pull up to a red, load, and then pull through on the green. A far side stop would mean the bus stops at the light, then stops again a few yards later.

On the other hand, if there are regular backups preventing a bus from getting to the no-parking bus stop area during the red, and the likelihood of 5 or more passengers, then it's likely the bus will pull up behind cars, wait for a green, pull into the bus stop midway through the green, load passengers long enough that the light changes, and wait for the next light. In that situation, a far side stop is more efficient.

The exact efficiencies depend on how long the light is, how long it takes to load a passenger on average, etc. But I think I've given a fair summary of the basic mathematics.

And as Rusty points out, if transit signal priority is installed, the balance tips decisively to far-side stops.

Surprised that Unindicted Co-conspirator hasn't pointed out that the 155 stops at both the near side and the far side of Clark. If we're looking to eliminate stops, that'd be a good place to start.

Or, at least, the eastbound 155 stops on both sides of Clark. The westbound only stops on the near side.

Sorry for the double post.

No hybrid bus ride for the IOC? Is someone worried that they'll get all goofy from the new bus smell?

This was discussed a while back in some long-forgotten threat, but: In the absence of signal priority, the probability that a bus will encounter a red light when coming to an intersection has nothing to do with which side of the intersection the bus stop is on. At any given moment, the probability that the light will be red is simply the duration of the red light divided by the duration of a full green-yellow-red cycle.

(That said, for the reason Bob S. mentions, the *duration* that a bus has to wait for a red light once encountering it might be affected by which side the stop's on. Or, more precisely, the *additional* time the bus is stopped due to encountering a red light. But this effect militates in favor of near-side stops, not far-side stops.)

But all those transit planners are probably not all collectively insane, so there's presumably some sort of benefit to having far side stops. If it's a time savings, then it's due to something other than increasing the odds of avoiding a red light. The most plausible suggestion I've heard is that it's faster for a bus to get back into the traffic lane on the far side of an intersection than it is on the near side of an intersection. (Among other things, on the far side of an intersection, traffic behind the bus will be waiting for a red light some fraction of the time, thus giving the bus a fairly clear path back into the traffic lane.)

Or maybe we're all overlooking the obvious: Mayor Daley clearly must have a cousin in the bus-stop-relocation business.

Just a little history lesson. The debate on nearside and farside stops has been going on since the electric streetcar, if not the horsecar. And, the same arguments have been debated for the past hundred years--literally.

If this has not been resolved in a hundred years, I doubt if the same arguments will change anything. However, we might want to discuss stop locations at particular points.

Yeah, I don't get how making all stops on the farside makes any difference. If a bus pulls up to a red light, it then has to stop again in 30 feet to let people out. If it is on the nearside, they will already have exited and the bus can go on down the street.

I'm sure there is a way to figure this out mathematically if they wanted to. UPS did an analysis that changed all their routes to eliminate as many left hand turns as possible to save gas. If they can do that, they can prove which is better, nearside or farside.

But the important thing is that they eliminate superfluous stops so the bus doesn't stop every 50 feet on smaller streets without stop lights. That will make more of a difference.

As I mentioned before, if parking enforcement isn't going to keep the stop areas clear, far-side stops will result in a significant decrease in safety.

If the bus needs to stop in the traffic lane, even if the bus clears the intersection, some cars will try to follow it across the intersection, with the result of blocking cross-traffic, and the crosswalk.

So if these cars are blocking cross-traffic, that means more delays for the route crossing at that point, too. You may even have another bus on the cross-route that has to sit through a green cycle without moving to reach its own far-side stop.

And if the bus moves, and the cars stuck behind it try to clear the intersection while they still have the red, the crosswalk they need to cross becomes unusable. Those passengers who just got off the bus, and want to use it to cross the street will be out of luck.

So the question can become, "How well can CPD keep a far-side bus stop zone clear?" And this includes delivery trucks.

So signal priority makes a far-side stop a better choice, but ONLY if that stop area is always clear. If they can't keep the bus stop zone clear of obstructions, far-side is a huge problem, and money spent on signal priority is wasted.

Wouldnt far side stops always save gas and improve safety? Firstly we dont have other motorists waiting behind the bus to turn while they load and unload passengers. As to safety, I see far too often impatient cab drivers and others just whip out around the bus and make blind turns infront of the bus while its loading at a green light. The impact of far side stops effects more than just the CTA I would think.

Speaking of eliminating stops, can we remove the stops every 30 feet or so on the 151 between Delaware and North Ave.? Reducing the number of stops that particular route makes along Michigan Ave. would also be beneficial.

The same goes for the express buses that run down Michigan Avenue. Those buses should make, at the most, three stops along Michigan north of the river: Tribune Tower, Huron, and Chestnut. Instead of taking, on average, 20 minutes to traverse Michigan Ave, it would significantly cut down the travel time.

[The same goes for the express buses that run down Michigan Avenue. Those buses should make, at the most, three stops along Michigan north of the river: Tribune Tower, Huron, and Chestnut. Instead of taking, on average, 20 minutes to traverse Michigan Ave, it would significantly cut down the travel time.]

I'm really skeptical that this would have the effect you think. More likely, it would lead to lines 40 people deep at each of those three stops.

Simply put, I don't think it's the number of stops that's the primary cause for the long travel times, but rather the number of riders. That's not going to change by getting rid of a few stops.

Generally speaking, it's pretty pointless to eliminate stops along busy sections of routes. The places to consolidate stops are the less busy stretches, because letting 1-2 riders on or off at a time takes a disproportionately long time.

(That said, I'm not a huge proponent of cutting down on bus stops, since I feel that the extra time is worth the convenience.)

First of all, most of the former Chicago Motor Coach Co. stops were far side stops & that has continued to today.

Second, why would I comment on the 155 stops at Clark?

Third. The most ridiculous stop that is in the wrong position is the NB stop for the 4 & X4 at 63rd & Cottage Grove.
That stop is at the SE corner, right next to the stairs to what used to be the EB L platform.
Except those stairs are exit only & no one ever goes down them because almost every L train crosses over at the west end of the platforms & everyone gets off & boards on what was the westbound platform.
So everyone that wants to go for the train from the bus must cross 63rd St. & everyone that wants to go from the L to the NB bus must also cross 63rd St.
And the CTA knows that almost everyone uses the NE stairs, because those stairs are a double width.
Pure stupidity in bus stop location.

And don't write a truly moronic insult like the one above unless you have some to complain about!
You're becoming the troll here.

[And don't write a truly moronic insult like the one above unless you have some to complain about!]

Not sure what this is referring to? If it was my comment about you and the 155, I apologize, I did not mean it as an insult. You've talked often about the 155 in the past, and you routinely point out little oddities about bus routes, and the double stops at Clark seem legitimately pointless to me.

Seemed right up your alley. That's all. No offense intended.

The double stop at Clark goes back decades to when there were streetcars & the Motor Coach Co.
The CMC buses [route 55] turned north on Ashland & the 36 streetcar was the way to continue east on Devon.
The alignment of Clark & Ashland has also been changed twice in the last 30-40 years.
Believe it or not, back in the 50s, Ashland wasn't controlled by the light at Devon.
This is yet another of the bizarre quirks in routes & stops the the CTA has never changed in decades.
Like the Fullerton bus not going east of Halsted until recently or the Pulaski bus ending at Peterson because they didn't want the streetcar to cross the RR grade crossing at Granville & Pulaski.
That RR grade crossing has been abandoned for close to a decade, but buses have crossed grade crossings without any of the problems that streetcars had, such as the 63rd & State disaster 50+ years ago.

The double stop at Clark goes back decades to when there were streetcars & the Motor Coach Co.
The CMC buses [route 55] turned north on Ashland & the 36 streetcar was the way to continue east on Devon.
The alignment of Clark & Ashland has also been changed twice in the last 30-40 years.
Believe it or not, back in the 50s, Ashland wasn't controlled by the light at Devon.
This is yet another of the bizarre quirks in routes & stops the the CTA has never changed in decades.
Like the Fullerton bus not going east of Halsted until recently or the Pulaski bus ending at Peterson because they didn't want the streetcar to cross the RR grade crossing at Granville & Pulaski.
That RR grade crossing has been abandoned for close to a decade, but buses have crossed grade crossings without any of the problems that streetcars had, such as the 63rd & State disaster 50+ years ago.

A lot of routes have stops on both near and far sides as they cross boulevards. I really don't think it's necessary.

I take the 151 home most nights. There's a section between Diversey and Belmont in which there are no fewer than 6 stops. Two of them (Barry & Briar) are actually on the very same block. What really drives me crazy is people want to stop at each and every single danged stop. Some are so close together that it's almost impossible to pull the cord in time to signal another stop.

Surely one of those could be scrapped.