Jump to content

Anthony Devera

Members
  • Content Count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Anthony Devera last won the day on January 28

Anthony Devera had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

12 Good

About Anthony Devera

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Favorite Bus
    4333-series D60LFR
  • Favorite Railcar
    2400-series, 5000-series

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I agree the Red Line is too heavy of a line to test the 7000s. But I don't think the Purple or Yellow Lines would be a good idea either, since it seems like CTA wants the Red, Purple, and Yellow lines to operate with the same type to make operations at Howard Yard easier. Maybe the Orange Line would be a good place to start; it's not a particularly heavy line, and if I remember correctly, it has the oldest 2600s. If not, the Green and Pink lines are another option, and I believe those were the first lines to run completely with 5000s. Your idea about the 4 track transfer point at Racine is interesting. Were you thinking of short-turning trains at Racine similar to how trains are currently short-turned at UIC? Or were you thinking of breaking the Blue LIne into two parts there? Also, is it feasible to shutdown and renovate the Forest Park branch the way the Dan Ryan was renovated in 2013? It might even be easier since there is more alternative service for the Forest Park branch. If such a thing happens, it definitely makes sense to run Blue Line trains to 54th/Cermak, and probably reduce frequency on the Pink Line while increasing frequency on the Lake Street branch of the Green Line.
  2. I am aware that it will take a long time for ridership to return to pre-COVID levels, but I was thinking that social distancing would probably still be in place for a while, and there might be more instances of routes that regularly reach the 15 riders per 40ft bus limit. I'd definitely prefer increased frequency over increased artic use on these routes, but some routes are already operating at very frequent headways during rush hours. An example is the 66, which at times has 2-minute headways. In order to increase peak frequency on crowded routes that currently have lower peak frequency, CTA would most likely either have to order a lot of new buses or keep some 6400s and early 1000s in service for longer. I wasn't sure if it would be cheaper to operate more 40-footers and pay the increased purchase and operation costs associated with the increased frequency, or purchase a smaller mix of 40-footers and artics while mostly keeping frequency as is. But looking at the chart, I notice many of these routes approach red zones during midday and on weekends, so increasing midday and weekend frequency for these routes could be a solution. In that case, there shouldn't be as much of a problem. I am also aware that the maintenance bays at 74th and FG cannot facilitate 60ft artics, but I think some routes could be reassigned to nearby artic garages, such as moving the 63 to 77th. I can imagine at some point CTA might decide to renovate 74th and upgrade the lifts, but I don't see that happening anytime in the next decade, as CTA has been losing a lot of money lately. I will leave it at that, since I don't think this discussion is going anywhere.
  3. I see where you're coming from, but I was thinking less about the present moment and more about the time in a few months when more jobs reopen and ridership picks back up. When that happens, ridership will increase on the south and west side routes you mentioned (which currently have a few 40-footers), as well as the K and NP routes that lost artics. And before the pandemic, there were many 40-foot routes that consistently experienced crush loads and are not getting artics now (e.g. 55, 63, 77), so those routes might experience heavy loads again. With the current situation, CTA might want to avoid having those crush loads again. I'm not saying new artics are an absolute must, but I think CTA's priorities are very different now compared to before the pandemic, and it might be in their interest to order new artics. There are many routes that do not currently have artics but are hitting red zones during many hours of the day, such as the 21, 29, 36, 66, and 82. Are these routes only crowded for short portions of the route, or are these routes hitting the bare minimum load for red zones while still not having enough ridership to justify artics?
  4. Is there a chance this interline will change when the 63 has electric buses? Or will charging stations also get built at 63rd/Archer? Also, will there be charging stations at Kedzie and Stony Island, or do the buses have enough range to go from Midway to Stony and back? If there's a charging station at Stony, maybe the 59 could get rerouted there and go electric as well.
  5. I made this suggestion because I saw that NP lost many artics and sent them to C and 77th (if I understand correctly) and it seems like routes 22, 146, and 147 have some crowding issues due to their new abundance of 40-footers. I would not have made that suggestion if the pandemic didn't happen. I suggested 3-door artics to reduce dwell times on local routes, as that was previously a problem on the 66 and 79. I think all-door boarding would be nice, but there has to be a way to enforce it. Since you mentioned they would work better on some routes than others, I think NP and 103rd can have the 2-door artics, and the 3-door artics would be at the other garages.
  6. With the pandemic and its aftermath, it might make sense to order more artics to reduce the crush loads. These should be 3-door artics, which would be useful on local routes.
  7. If FG does get closed, would it be possible to expand Chicago Garage? According to Google Maps, there is some vacant land to the west of the current building there. With the expanded facility, Chicago Garage could then take all the North-South routes west of Laramie and the 76 and 77 (maybe also the 80, as some 80 trips could end at Irving Park Blue Line and deadhead as Route 53). Then North Park could take all the East-West routes as far south as the 152 (maybe the 80 can be shared between the two garages). The short routes at Jefferson Park (68, 81W, 85A, 88) could be at either garage, but it would be easier to deadhead from JP to NP as Route 92. People have also been discussing an Archer Garage replacement, an example being the Fisk site. How good is the former Michael Reese Hospital site for a garage? It's been empty for about a decade now, and it doesn't seem like it will be developed anytime soon. This garage could take routes such as the 1, 12, 21, 31, 35, 39, 124, and the Downtown expresses. It has a convenient location close to Downtown and Lake Shore Drive. The only problem I can see with this location is community opposition.
  8. I think they are different models. Boston has the XDE40 (hybrid), while Pace has the XD40 (diesel-only). They do look pretty much the same from the outside, because Pace ordered their XD40s with the extended roof fairings that come standard on the XDE40.
  9. Moving the 87 to 103rd doesn't make sense, as it would be a longer deadhead without much benefit. But I definitely agree with moving the 4 to 103rd, and maybe also the 3 if it gets extended to 115th/Michigan (if there's space of course). I think the 54B should be moved to 77th so that instead of deadheading, it can run as a 79 trip to the garage. Speaking of the Dan Ryan shutdown, people have been speaking of the possibility of a shutdown of the Congress branch of the Blue Line. I guess that's another situation where the surplus artics could be used. But I'm not sure where those artics would be stored, as Kedzie is over capacity, Chicago is mostly full, and the other garages are too far. I agree CTA needs another garage in the central area. It would have been nice if Archer wasn't shut down, but I think the land ended up being developed into a shopping complex. But I don't see CTA building a new garage anytime soon, especially with 74th and 77th operating below capacity.
  10. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the management at Chicago and 77th decided to get rid of their artics because they were making routes much slower, and the remaining artic garages didn't really need more, so that's why we have the surplus. It would be best if Chicago and 77th would keep their artics; they both have routes that could really use them. And FG and 74th also have routes that could use them. If artics didn't work on the 66, how do they work on the 12? I left out the 79 because Chicago and Roosevelt are mostly 4-lane roads, while 79th is mostly a 2-lane road, and that might be a factor. Instead of just normal 30' buses, I wonder if cutaway vans could be a solution for some routes. Those would be good for routes that run on narrow streets (96, 172), and they would be more fuel-efficient than a 30' bus.
  11. I'm not sure why the 20, 53, and 54 are more of a priority for artics than the 22 and 146. But to be fair, it will take a while for ridership levels to return to the way they were before the pandemic, and it's possible that the 20, 53, and 54 didn't see as significant of a ridership drop during the lockdown, so they're more likely to be crowded once everything opens up again. Since there are about 100 surplus artics, does this mean all of them will be utilized now? I'm assuming not, considering artics are being taken off of the 22 and 146 (if I understand correctly). What I think should happen is that the in-service artics remain on the routes they were on before, and the surplus artics are split somehow between Chicago (20, 53, 54, 66, 72, 74) and 77th (2, 3, 4, 79, 87). Or some of those artics could be put in service at NP (36, 155). Yes, I know dwell time was a problem before, but I feel like now there should be different priorities. I'm wondering how some transit systems (such as Seattle) are able to successfully run artics on local routes, but Chicago seems to have trouble with it, and if Chicago could somehow learn from those transit systems.
  12. How much does it make sense for the 10 to run as reverse peak 26 trips that would otherwise deadhead, similar to how 192 trips are J14 deadheads? This could save money, as well as free up some capacity at Kedzie Garage.
  13. I think another possible factor is to reduce the load on Kedzie garage. Right now it is operating at full capacity, while 74th has a lot of spare capacity. 74th could easily handle the extension; the only problem I see is deadheads. As many have said, sharing the route with Kedzie could help solve this problem.
  14. I think the 7 is important for IMD and UIC. How much would it make sense to discontinue the 7 and have the 157 run along Harrison instead of Taylor? This might be a way to temporarily streamline service in that area while ridership is lower. People who need to get to Taylor can take the 12 instead, as Taylor is only a block away from Roosevelt.
  15. I've heard many people here saying they're afraid the new 94 will not be a very reliable route, considering it is about 16 miles long and has many turns. I have some ideas that might help solve reliability issues: Remove little used bus stops, especially those that are not at arterials. On some stretches of the route, stop spacing can be increased from 1/8 miles to 1/4 miles. Change the southern terminal to the 79th/Western turnaround. This would shave off about a half mile from the route, as well as eliminate some turns. To make room for it, the westbound 79 will no longer use the turnaround, and instead just continue straight on 79th. Change the southern terminal to 71st/Western or 71st/Kedzie (like before the 74th extension). But, as others have pointed out, this would make reliefs much harder. Introduce TSP along California. But I'm not sure the ridership justifies this.
×
×
  • Create New...