Bus Rapid Transit System

[nextstopchicago]

To take a different tack, if you want to take about 1% of the cars off Western, and eliminate a major source of mid-morning and mid-afternoon bottlenecks, charge more for parking at Lane Tech, and put meters on Rockwell behind it. Right now, you've got 100's of kids who managed to get there by bus when they were freshman, sophomores and juniors, but suddenly have to drive when they're seniors, because we're providing free (on Rockwell) or nearly free (in the lot) parking for them.

I believe that a typical stretch of Western serves about 100,000 vehicles/day. Mid-north, it's glutted from 7:15 to 9:15 and from about 2:30 to 6:15. Taking even 250 cars out at both ends of that time slot would have an immense impact (since the 100,000 vehicles is all day, and in a given hour at rush, it's more like 6-8,000, so 250 cars is 1 in every 30 or so, speaking in very round numbers.)

[trainman8119]

Can the driver open a very wide door in back at some stops, while leaving it closed at others, allowing exit, but forcing those entering to use the front door so he can be sure they're paying?

Can a driver control the back doors, absolutely !!!!! Can he be sure they are paying....nope.

As for the BRT, I think this is somewhat comical. This is a fantasy Pace has had for years over a myraid of areas, most notable mentioned along the NW tollway out of Rosemont. Funny how the CTA has now beat them to the punch, after all the spending and planning they claim to have done. Yet, there will be more money spent, and more consultants hired. Ya gotta love the politics in play here.

I am not a fan of the concept. I agree with much of what Bushunter said...I think he is right on. I also think way too much is being taken for granted here. Why does anyone think that charging more at a parking meter is going deter people from driving. After all, how much has $4 gas "helped" and has $20-25 parking in the Loop deterred anyone from driving. Not too much. Unless there is a real substantial reduction in traffic on any of these streets mentioned, I question the "rapid" part of this, and would rather see money of this magnatude put into the system to reduce fares, reduce gaps in service, and reduce waits between buses (ie. put more on the street, not less). And if you think that signal premption does not have an effect on traffic, sit at a light when an ambulance or police car comes and goes. It could screw up an intersection for 1-2 minutes, not 8 seconds. For that matter, look at how the lights at Caldwell, Devon and Central, after at train goes by, and after the lights "recycle". It has a much longer effect than you may think it does.

But....to each his own, I guess.

[Guest]

I hope that when the BRT is implemented that Chicago Police will enforce the lanes to keep impatient motorists from using the lanes if theyre not suppose to. As we all know we live in an extremely impatient world with this "Me first" attitude and many times auto drivers see a hole in the traffic they gun it without signaling or giving motorists around them indication that they are changing lanes, usually its done with the flash of the middle finger! Anyway as it may be, I hope that motorists will not choose to take advantage of the "bus only" lanes and tie up the buses only to slow them down. As we all see in Chicago and other cities drivers just dont care anymore. Nowadays you see the most ignorant drivers out there and they will do whatever they can so they dont have to sit in traffic and they do it in the most unsafe manners possible.

[nextstopchicago]

Can a driver control the back doors, absolutely !!!!! Can he be sure they are paying....nope.

I think you're mixing two issues. They will certainly make sure everyone is paying. The question is how.

Under normal BRT, the stop itself is enclosed, so that you have to pay to get in. Then, when the driver pulls up, a couple large boarding doors open to allow pax on. Whether at the front of the bus, or in the new, large double-sliding-door in the back, it's easy to be sure they've paid -- they had to in order to enter the boarding area.

However, under Chicago's plan, which seems to envision at least initially only small portions of the affected routes actually being changed, they must foresee some stops designed to BRT standards, and other stops that will be regular stops, all on the same route. It seems to me that you can't open a big wide back door at non-BRT stops, where there is nothing to allow (meaning nothing to require) prepayment of fares. But you still have to have a back door. After all, these are big, high-capacity artics. People in the back won't be able to exit via the front.

So my question is whether there will be different doors for BRT-style stops versus traditional stops? Or some other mechanism of fare control.

One way to accomplish all this would be to have center-of-road BRT stops and left-side doors for BRT stops. The right side of the bus would feature more traditional design for traditional stops.

Or, perhaps the "10 miles" figure, divvied between the 4 pilot routes, is describing portions of those routes that will have dedicated bus lanes where traffic is excluded, while the entire route will have new boarding areas designed to BRT standards. If they have a way of creating dozens of pre-payment areas around the city without spending more money than they've talked about, more power to them, but I find it somewhat hard to believe. A single Mexican route of about 12 miles, seems to have cost about $50 million. On the one hand, they were pouring concrete for raised platforms, which is more than the city expects to do. On the other hand, Mexican labor is much cheaper than even standard Chicago wages, let alone the union trades that will be used.

So there are some interesting questions to be answered.

[nextstopchicago]

After all, how much has $4 gas "helped" and has $20-25 parking in the Loop deterred anyone from driving. Not too much.

...

if you think that signal premption does not have an effect on traffic, sit at a light when an ambulance or police car comes and goes. It could screw up an intersection for 1-2 minutes, not 8 seconds.

$4 gas has reduced gallons per capita in this country by about 6%. Here's the Sun-Times link:

http://www.suntimes.com/business/922594,CS...-econ30.article

As to whether signal priority screws up traffic, signal priority has nothing to do with a situation where, in the absence of a switched signal, with an ambulance is coming, people at the stoplight, seeing it 3/4 of a block away moving about 15 mph, wait for it, sometimes for half the light cycle, in that normal way that we all exaggerate politeness so as not to be seen impolite; after which, there is no compensatory time provided in the next cycle. Yes, that does indeed screw up traffic a bit. Though we've all had this happen frequently, and it's really not all that bad, either.

But with a proper signal priority system, the signal won't trip unless the bus is ready to pass through. It's typically done at far side stops, so that it won't be confused by a bus AT the light, but not actually ready to move through. It only adds a few seconds to the cycle, to make sure the bus makes it. And then it replaces those seconds in the next cycle.

Given the average bus speed of about 12 mph, getting them through a light (usually saving 30 seconds or more) is a huge deal. If, on a 12 mile route, you save 30 seconds at even 6 lights, you've saved 5% of running time, and you can get the bus back on the route for another run. If you save a minute at a 6-corner intersection, even better.

In fact, you mention that you'd like resources to be used to reduce gaps between buses. Transit agencies believe signal priority is a very inexpensive way to do this, because reducing the time to traverse by 5% allows your 20 buses on a route to act like 21. Reducing it by 20% allows 20 buses to make the runs of 22 buses at the slower speed.

[Tcmetro]

On the payment type, I could see TVM's at each stop/station then having police board the buses at certain points to check tickets (similar to many LRT operations).

If the buses are built to KCM spec, they will likely have 3 doors, with the middle and rear doors being extra wide, and the front doors like any NF.

As for lanes, some sort of barrier should be installed, and median lanes should be considered.

Some sort of improvements should be made to the LSD bus routes, like adding lanes and platforms on Michigan (and leaving the routes as is in the northern neighborhoods).

[Busjack]

Again, we don't have the specs for the boarding areas and the like, but the above seems to raise 3 concerns:

• Unless the boarding areas have gates on the street side, what stops a pedestrian from bypassing the fare control and entering from the street side? The artist's portotype might show a fence in front of the shelter, but that looks jumpable. (See page 59 of the City Club presentation.) If I remember correctly, an experiment about treating the bus boarding area at 69-Dan Ryan as in the paid area was abandoned.
  
• Assume Ashland is a selected route. How secure would a fare collection machine be at say Garfield?
  
• Even though the driver can control the door, there seems nothing now, after someone uses the pushbar to alight, keeping someone on the curb from holding the back door open and entering at the back.
  

And TCMetro, it is very unlikely that CTA would do the hiring necessary to have customer assistants at each bus station or fare inspectors on each bus. Also, how could a fare inspector tell that one dipped or scanned their stored value card the last time they boarded a bus?

Finally, based on everything Huberman has said (pdf pages 58 and 60), the buses are built to the existing King County spec. No third door (also in accord with NF photos in King County livery).

As the press release comes close to stating, this is a demonstration project of limited scope, not something from whole cloth. Thinking it over further, the references to "10.2 miles" indicate that they pretty much know where the demonstration will be, notwithstanding claims that the corridors are yet to be determined, so I take back my comment on "maybe that's why they need a study."

[Tcmetro]

I had assumed the new KCM DE60LF's would be 3 doors, because the KCM website says the 2002 and 2004 DE60LF's have 58 seats, whereas the 2008 DE60LF's (to be delivered later this month, so we will find out soon) will have 56 seats, possibly indicating a third door.

http://transit.metrokc.gov/am/vehicles/hy-diesel.html

I am under the assumption that the BRT line will be similar to the Los Angeles Orange Line, Eugene, OR EmX Line, and the Bronx Bx12 SBS Line, which all will/already have ungated and unstaffed stations with a TVM, and random ticket inspections, very similar to many light rail systems and the Los Angeles Subway.

It will most certainly be a problem with TVM's in unsafe neighborhoods. Other options that should be considered are TVM's on the buses, pass payment only on the buses (and cash tickets perchased in nearby stores/L stations). Seeing as the CTA has placed a fare structure that is heavily geared towards passes this could be less of a problem. That said the CTA will decide what they want in the end.

Here is the New York City SBS BRT website: http://www.lirr.org/mta/planning/sbs/

[BusHunter]

A few more things to think about. In the suburbs when an ambulance comes a white light appears above the signal bar over the street to show it has been prioritized. Do you see that in the city limits. No, that leads me to suspect that all the traffic lights in this project would have to be retrofitted with signal priority gear. More infrastructure costs. Plus how would you handle the prepaid machines. You would have to have a guard or CA protect the machines similar to an "L" stop. In a bad neighborhood, with our economy tanking I can just imagine all the nuts who will be trying to carry off the machine like it was an ATM if it were unprotected. Think about it would you put an "L" transit card machine somewhere unguarded? Also, people will most likely drive in these lanes, they drive in bicycle lanes don't they. The irony to me is that this program is going to ease gridlock when in fact it could cause more for motorists. Take away one lane on a street like Addison can you imagine the chaos this will cause for them. Does anyone see the gridlock when a bus stalls or is parked blocking a lane. Think of this as a bus stalled on each block. This project to me would almost have to be run on streets like Irving Pk. Even then taking away the park lane defeats many of the parking meters on this street (more lost revenue) and taking away one of the 2 driving lanes creates havoc by reducing the car capacity in half. This is going to be interesting to see how this works in the real world as opposed to a traffic simulator.

[nextstopchicago]

A few more things to think about.

That leads me to suspect that all the traffic lights in this project would have to be retrofitted with signal priority gear. More infrastructure costs.

Plus how would you handle the prepaid machines. You would have to have a guard or CA protect the machines similar to an "L" stop. In a bad neighborhood, with our economy tanking I can just imagine all the nuts who will be trying to carry off the machine like it was an ATM if it were unprotected. Think about it would you put an "L" transit card machine somewhere unguarded?

Also, people will most likely drive in these lanes, they drive in bicycle lanes don't they. The irony to me is that this program is going to ease gridlock when in fact it could cause more for motorists. Take away one lane on a street like Addison can you imagine the chaos this will cause for them. Does anyone see the gridlock when a bus stalls or is parked blocking a lane. Think of this as a bus stalled on each block. This project to me would almost have to be run on streets like Irving Pk.

I'm sure you're right about the need to install signal priority controls. The CTA already had an RTA grant to do so on Western, but it hadn't yet been done, to my knowledge.

The handling of prepaid machines is a big issue. It's done in other places. I'm assuming they have a plan. But it is indeed a big issue. It seems that unlike most BRT systems, they plan a sort of hybrid, in which BRT routes will still have miles and miles of non-BRT street. My guess is that in initial phase, they may be looking at pre-payment machines only in spots where it's easy to protect them. At el stations, for instance, which are major boarding/alighting spots, and therefore ought to be priority sites, it would be farely easy to integrate a pre-payment area into existing CTA fare payment -- the machines for purchase of credit are inside the station, while the machines for debiting of your fare instrument are at the pre-payment enclosure. But yes, the long-term issue remains. It would be interesting to know how LA handles this.

Finally, I'm sure you're right that streets like Addison are not likely to see BRT because there is no room for a dedicated lane nor for the street furniture necessary for pre-payment enclosures. One of that CTATattler commenters posted a list of top ridership routes, and I think if you look at those routes, and then think about which have the most traffic congestion and which have the greatest amount of streetscape, you're probably close to the list of test routes. But what do I know. Somebody at CTA could live at 4600 W. Addison, and decide he wanted personal express service to the lakefront ...

But I doubt that. If I were a bookie, I'd give odds on Ashland, Western, King, Madison. But if I were a betting man, I might go with a long-shot -- Cicero, with a decent ridership, but a horrendous congestion problem, and some big employment centers that could be served.

Somebody at RTA must know stats on where trips on Ashland, Western and Cicero start and end. The degree to which one or the other terminal points is along the street must go along way toward predicting whether someone would switch from car to transit. I don't see a triple transfer as being very attractive even if the middle segment IS on a surprisingly rapid bus. Cicero has a lot of destinations. Maybe more than Western, though Western probably has more traffic, much of it using Western to get N/S, but then jogging east or west to reach their final destination.

The thing that may DQ Cicero is that it's not entirely in the city, and I don't know that the mayor would be spending federal dollars that way.

[jajuan]

While it's good to play devil's advocate to way the pros and cons of any proposal, some of you are talking as if Armageddon is among us. It's already been stated in news stories and press releases that the first implementation of the test routes until a year from now. Which means they have a year to figure out how to iron out details of how to implement the program. I'm pretty sure all of this will be considered in the coming months. It's not like they're going to spring the whole program on us right away. We won't be seeing any of this for a year. So let's wait and see what they actually come up with before we start any predictions of Armageddon.

As for any difficulties for motorists, part of the idea is to get more people out of their cars and onto public transit. Hate to say it, but that's a huge factor to any city's gridlock problem. There are too many cars on the street for the roadways to handle. The thinking behind the BRT system is if motorists see buses whizzing by while they're stuck in traffic not moving on top of less parking options as space needs to be made for a bus lane, they'll be encouraged to take one of these buses instead. Whether they'll be able to accomplish this, we'll have to give them a chance to see.

[nextstopchicago]

While it's good to play devil's advocate to way the pros and cons of any proposal, some of you are talking as if Armageddon is among us.

To the degree you may have thought my comments were alarmist, I was really just talking about my curiosity about how they'll overcome hurdles, and to some degree wondering whether they've recognized them all as of yet, though no doubt they will. I agree there's lot of time.

As to your further comment about how this may impact drivers, people can probably tell by my posts here that I'm way on your side in terms of figuring out ways to speed up buses, and to some degree, if cars get slowed a bit, well, that's okay, because a lot of people will be helped.

But I think there's a natural skepticism even among people here who generally like buses, a skepticism that says, "well, that'd be fine if the buses really got faster, but I don't believe it".

BRT is a new idea for Chicago. It's been proven in other places. But there's no question it could be done poorly, in ways that hurt more than they help. So the devil is in the details. I think it's always worth examining these things and looking for potental drawbacks, as long as we don't approach it from a view that says "nothing can ever be done to improve things."

[Busjack]

For those predicting Armageddon, here is some ammo for you from a Tribune opinion piece. I'm not taking sides on this, just providing the reference.

I see I am congruent with that guy on most possible routes, although I throw out Cermak as being too close to the Pink Line. I also tend to put little weight on Roosevelt as too close to the Forest Park Branch of the Blue Line (or the Congress, which is the shorter name).

Also, if you note, I was earlier to bring up this idea, now in the column:

Which streets? The city isn't saying, though that 10.2 figure tells me city officials have a pretty good idea.

[jajuan]

For those predicting Armageddon, here is some ammo for you from a Tribune opinion piece. I'm not taking sides on this, just providing the reference.

I see I am congruent with that guy on most possible routes, although I throw out Cermak as being too close to the Pink Line. I also tend to put little weight on Roosevelt as too close to the Forest Park Branch of the Blue Line (or the Congress, which is the shorter name).

Also, if you note, I was earlier to bring up this idea, now in the column:

After looking at this opinion piece, I'll agree that Daley and company should seriously look into some of the abandoned railroad right of ways as the author suggests. Since this is still all a year away as far as implentation and still needs CTA Board and City Council approval, I also suggest that people stay on the CTA and their alderman to find out about any public hearings that may be held. Insist that there be hearings on this if none are in the works and voice your opinions about regardless of your position on parts or all of the plan as presented now. Use every viable avenue available to suggest that using the unused railway right of ways as possible areas to plan some of these BRT routes. He's right that there are plenty available, and after thinking on it he's right that they make a better choice than existing arterial roads for dedicated bus lanes. Squeezing current traffic down to one lane instead of two is a road to disaster. We have too many streets with one lane available to normal traffic as is, hence the bottlenecks on Milwaukee, Belmont, 79th, Foster, Kimball, and N. Damen to name a few. Kimball and Damen are made worse with stretches of stop signs placed at every intersection.

[BusHunter]

Squeezing current traffic down to one lane instead of two is a road to disaster. We have too many streets with one lane available to normal traffic as is, hence the bottlenecks on Milwaukee, Belmont, 79th, Foster, Kimball, and N. Damen to name a few. Kimball and Damen are made worse with stretches of stop signs placed at every intersection.

Alot has been done to screw up chicago's traffic situations. All these speed bumps on the side streets are down right annoying. Stop signs everywhere, speedy left turn lanes, Traffic light cameras everywhere, and now these bus lanes. Talk about armagedden you haven't seen nothing yet. With the traffic patterns so bad now how can they get better with the closing of an entire lane. Let's be realistic here people are still driving with $4.00 gas. They'll be driving with $6.00 gas which might actually happen. They'll find ways to go around the roadblocks. Better to travel the side streets than a gridlocked intersection. The expressways will be more crowded for people avoiding the gridlocked intersections. And those delivery drivers that are getting ticketed for blocking a lane, they'll just pass the buck to the consumer that's all. Also with parking meter increases in the loop, that affects no one. The lots are often full at the $10 and $15 dollar parking lots I see. I'm sorry if I'm being so negative or I'm putting fuel on this fire. I'm just trying to make sense of all this traffic deterioration over the last 10 years.

[RIPTA42]

If the bus is more attractive by not getting stuck in traffic, more people will take the bus. Face it, if it takes you 30 minutes to drive in traffic, the bus gets stuck in the same traffic and takes 30 minutes plus time for stops. Build and enforce bus-only lanes, and the bus can sail past the traffic and becomes a better option.

As for the speed humps, they are located on streets that aren't supposed to carry large volumes of through traffic and should not have an effect on regional traffic patterns.

[trainman8119]

I will join in and agree wholeheartedly with Bushunter. I really do have reservations with this. For those who insist that a bus buzzing by standing traffic will reduce said traffic, all I say is remember what the Kennedy and Dan Ryan extensions were suppose to do....ie reduce traffic on said expressways. It hasn't happened, and in fact, in 30 years, traffic has got worse (and so, has service on those lines). I'll say again, if $4 gas and $20+ parking in the Loop hasn't reduced gridlock, nothing will. There will always be a convience factor in driving, and converting people will probably not happen. I would also be willing to bet that there will be some sort of premium fare in all of this, which also has not been discussed. There will be those who trump for this, and that is fine, to each his own. But me, I just don't see the advantage of this nor how it would change anything.

[Kevin]

The routes were announced today in the Tribune. Summarized by ChicagoBus.org here.

The streets are 79th, Chicago, Halsted, and Jeffery.

(Hint: These routes weren't just decided upon in the last two weeks.)

[Busjack]

The routes were announced today in the Tribune. Summarized by ChicagoBus.org here.

The streets are 79th, Chicago, Halsted, and Jeffery.

(Hint: These routes weren't just decided upon in the last two weeks.)

So, I guess everyone was wrong, including all the speculators in the press (although maybe 14 redeems Hilkevitch on LSD).

Again, not clear from the article "About $36.9 million is earmarked for the CTA to purchase new buses," whether that is in addition to the lease or pays for part of the lease. Probably the latter, and since the total cost of the order is about $120 million, that may indicate that about 45-50 go into BRT service, while 100-105 into other service. But apparently, some diesel articulateds get moved off 14.

At least my theory on assigning the hybrid artics to the top 10 ridership routes worked in 3 of the 4 instances. I had identified 8, 66, and 79. Maybe they will also show up in places such as 4 and 20, in local service, but we'll have to wait and see. The theory that existing X routes would be upgraded to BRT (with all the focus on Western) did not.

Also, as I previously indicated, I wonder how prepay equipment and "cages" will work in some of the neighborhoods traversed by the indicated routes, if that is what is intended.

[Busjack]

Does this mean that in 6 months the program will be scrapped because too many people are stupid and step into bus lanes and get whacked, as was often the case downtown???? Is Chicago ave really a good test for this ??? And how long will there be strict enforcement of bus only traffic in these lanes ??? Yup, Chicago and Halsted streets will definitely be streets to stay far away from when this mess all starts !!!!

The only reply I have is that Chicago, Halsted, and 79th were clearly streets that needed an improvement over just local service. Whether this accomplishes that, we'll have to wait and see.

Also, be sure the check the map regarding the segments.

[nextstopchicago]

The only reply I have is that Chicago, Halsted, and 79th were clearly streets that needed an improvement over just local service. Whether this accomplishes that, we'll have to wait and see.

Also, be sure the check the map regarding the segments.

Thanks for the map. I missed that in looking at the on-line version.

I had predicted in another forum that they'd use that segment of Chicago. (No, not a week ago. I just mean after reading this morning's article, I predicted it.)

My theory is that you've got an area from Streeterville through Franklin where most people can't rely on finding street parking anyway, so they've already either chosen to go elsewhere or allowed for the likelihood of paying to park in a lot. So in this section, taking away a parking lane isn't a big problem.

And then west of Halsted, you've got an area where street parking is underutilized. You often have people driving in the right lane, but then edging back into the center lane to go around a parked car, then back in the right. Again, taking the parking lane won't hurt too many parkers, and it will hurt the few drivers that were bird-dogging like that.

The other thing about the Chicago bus is that that particular section is so clotted that it restricts the ridership on the whole route. If you get bigger buses through there faster, there are many others who would be willing to take a bus, but don't because of the likelihood of either waiting for a long time or getting really, really (no -- really) squeezed in. I've rarely been on buses as full as the few times I've been on that bus between, say, LaSalle and Racine.

I'd make similar arguments about the section of Halsted chosen -- most people can't park on-street anyway. You're taking away what is more like a bonus ("hey, I found a spot on the street today!") that people just do not count on when heading to that area, and in return, you're providing a lot of people with much quicker passage. I think this will be a success.

[Busjack]

Thanks for the map. I missed that in looking at the on-line version.

Initially, I had too. I saw it in the newspaper at a bagel store, but then thought it had to be somewhere on line. On staring at the online map a bit, I realized that the notes I took at the bagel store were wrong.

[nextstopchicago]

The only reply I have is that Chicago, Halsted, and 79th were clearly streets that needed an improvement over just local service. Whether this accomplishes that, we'll have to wait and see.

Thought I'd express my agreement with this as well. I'm optimistic, but I still could see this getting screwed up.

And for once, I also agree with trainman -- I'll probably avoid these streets if I'm in a car. I don't at all think this will have zero impact on drivers. But I think that speeding up the 15,000/day who use the Chicago Ave route through this stretch, and the 10,000/day who might add themselves to that total are worth the inconvenience to the drivers (including me) on these streets.

After all, Chicago Ave. just doesn't work very well for drivers anyway, and as a result, it doesn't have that many cars. BRT can help. Umm, Maybe!! We'll see.

[Busjack]

===I'm puzzled too. While this is merely guesswork, $36.9 million would buy about 90 standard hybrid buses at slightly over $400k per unit. (I'm basing this assumption on the $412k cost per unit for a recent New York City order of Orion VII hybrids.) Then again, one of the designated routes, the Jeffery Express uses Artics. (79th St. and Chicago Ave. could probably use them too). That same $36.9 million would buy a smaller number of Artics, which probably wouldn't be enough to equip all four routes during peak periods.

So, maybe the grant buses WOULD be Artics and possibly SOME of the 150 leased Artics would be designated for the BRT. Again, just speculation.

Another item mentioned in that Tribune article as part of the new program is the plan to place bus stops at half-mile intervals as well as a proposal for "public bicycles". This arrangement might work for CTA riders who are young and able-bodied, but it could pose difficulties for customers who aren't as spry and have trouble walking great distances.

Folks, the BRT thread is here. The only reason I mentioned it in regard to the Next Garage thread was to point out that assumptions there have been thrown out the window, and Chicago Garage probably won't keep all of its existing 40 footers.

With regard to the articulated hybrids, the President's report said $120 million for 150 buses. That sounds like $800,000 a bus to me.

Since Huberman hasn't disclosed what the financing arrangement was, other than a lease with an indentified company, one could speculate that the $39 million here is that much less to pay on the lease and that it then allows CTA to lease another $39 million's worth. If one takes that assumption, a 40 foot diesel bus is about $400,000, but a 40 foot hybrid is about $600,000 (maybe a few dollars less in each case, but the escalator clauses in the contracts have had their effect). One might speculate that the freed up $39 million allows buying enough buses to replace the rest of the Flxs.

However, since there seems little need for more than 375 articulateds, and 3 of the routes on which I thought DE60LFs should be placed appear to actually be getting them, I don't now foresee getting any more.

As indicated, this is all rank speculation (until Huberman checks in with me, which he won't).

[jajuan]

Folks, the BRT thread is here. The only reason I mentioned it in regard to the Next Garage thread was to point out that assumptions there have been thrown out the window, and Chicago Garage probably won't keep all of its existing 40 footers.

With regard to the articulated hybrids, the President's report said $120 million for 150 buses. That sounds like $800,000 a bus to me.

Since Huberman hasn't disclosed what the financing arrangement was, other than a lease with an indentified company, one could speculate that the $39 million here is that much less to pay on the lease and that it then allows CTA to lease another $39 million's worth. If one takes that assumption, a 40 foot diesel bus is about $400,000, but a 40 foot hybrid is about $600,000 (maybe a few dollars less in each case, but the escalator clauses in the contracts have had their effect). One might speculate that the freed up $39 million allows buying enough buses to replace the rest of the Flxs.

However, since there seems little need for more than 375 articulateds, and 3 of the routes on which I thought DE60LFs should be placed appear to actually be getting them, I don't now foresee getting any more.

As indicated, this is all rank speculation (until Huberman checks in with me, which he won't).

A few questions came to mind at the mention in the article that the long term goal was to expand the use of the bus lanes beyond the initial rush hour only. Will there be some expansion of the BRT zones on the initial four streets in addition to expanding BRT to other congested streets once expansion to the 100 mile goal begins? If so, will routes such as Chicago, Halsted and 79th still provide local service? They can get around this on Jeffery because the 14 is already skipping every two blocks (even-numbered streets) now and the 15 is there to handle the stops in between. Halsted's initial BRT zone won't be too bad because a significant portion runs through an industrial area, and riders are getting on and off mostly at main streets in that area.