More Bus Moves

[Sam92]

CTA decided they were putting people in danger, so that should be it. At least that is one place where the past administration was somewhat decisive (and also in slow zoning most of the south Red Line).

This talk should be put off...

...until there is an engineer's report that they are safe and NABI settles the lawsuit it brought against the CTA.

...someone actually has comparative passenger load numbers, instead of always saying that the south side is getting the shaft (with Richard Roundtree).

I don't see either here

Now, maybe if CTA wants to buy some Ottawa castoffs...

Well if you look here, http://www.rtams.org/rtams/ridershipSummary.jsp?month=3&year=2011&dayTypeID=0&dataset=ctaBus , you see that 77th has 3 routes in the top ten with 79th being #1 consistently, while North Park/ Kedzie route 151 has been on and off. That's as far as comparable numbers, on a sidenote, spotted 6400 on the 14 Jeffery Express bus, never thought I would actually see that

[BusHunter]

Well if you look here, http://www.rtams.org/rtams/ridershipSummary.jsp?month=3&year=2011&dayTypeID=0&dataset=ctaBus , you see that 77th has 3 routes in the top ten with 79th being #1 consistently, while North Park/ Kedzie route 151 has been on and off. That's as far as comparable numbers, on a sidenote, spotted 6400 on the 14 Jeffery Express bus, never thought I would actually see that

True, but if you look at the the #22 and #151 they move to the top 6 in the summer months. So they are correct to shift buses there for the summer. Mostly I believe the reason #22 gets alot of artics is simply with all the cuts there have been, a 40 footer would be too overloaded. Look at the 79th or Belmont for that matter, buses are still very frequent in the rush hour. Most likely if either routes got mostly artics they'd want to cut them down a few buses. No doubt though the top 4 should have express service. BTw, I was thinking yesterday how could bus service be more fast and effective in the rush. Most main routes go to 10 - 12 minute headways in the rush. (Top 10's more frequent than that) I was thinking perhaps they could make every other bus in the rush an x bus and every other a local. Of course a 20 minute headway route like an #88 or #85A would not get this service. But it would speed up 70 to 80 percent of the routes. Having x service systemwide also could have benefits in saving money in the budget. With faster buses perhaps a bus could be cut off each route. That could mean 100 buses if 1 were cut per route across two thirds of routes that would be changed around. At least the idea should be studied because something needs to be done about slow buses.

[Busjack]

... I was thinking perhaps they could make every other bus in the rush an x bus and every other a local. Of course a 20 minute headway route like an #88 or #85A would not get this service. But it would speed up 70 to 80 percent of the routes. Having x service systemwide also could have benefits in saving money in the budget. With faster buses perhaps a bus could be cut off each route. That could mean 100 buses if 1 were cut per route across two thirds of routes that would be changed around. At least the idea should be studied because something needs to be done about slow buses.

That's an interesting point (and somewhat how Pace thinks about it, although they haven't implemented anything).

In effect, before Feb. 2010, you had something like that on the X corridors, with the local down to about a 15 minute interval and the express more frequent.

Instead of killing most of the X routes, and putting the resources into the locals, maybe they should have just reduced both the X and underlying proportionately. However, that would then have put the local stops to about 20 minute intervals, and I don't know if people using them would get teed off, instead of figuring to walk a couple of blocks to the next X stop.

[jajuan]

That's an interesting point (and somewhat how Pace thinks about it, although they haven't implemented anything).

In effect, before Feb. 2010, you had something like that on the X corridors, with the local down to about a 15 minute interval and the express more frequent.

Instead of killing most of the X routes, and putting the resources into the locals, maybe they should have just reduced both the X and underlying proportionately. However, that would then have put the local stops to about 20 minute intervals, and I don't know if people using them would get teed off, instead of figuring to walk a couple of blocks to the next X stop.

Folks likely would have done just that, gottened teed off and complained that they were getting the shaft on the locals instead of walking that one of two blocks to an X stop. On a day like today, they would complain it's too hot to make that walk. Other days it would probably be too cold, and on and on and on.....

[BusHunter]

That's an interesting point (and somewhat how Pace thinks about it, although they haven't implemented anything).

In effect, before Feb. 2010, you had something like that on the X corridors, with the local down to about a 15 minute interval and the express more frequent.

Instead of killing most of the X routes, and putting the resources into the locals, maybe they should have just reduced both the X and underlying proportionately. However, that would then have put the local stops to about 20 minute intervals, and I don't know if people using them would get teed off, instead of figuring to walk a couple of blocks to the next X stop.

Most riders would probably be happy with the change and with high gas prices this would have the capability to draw even more riders because x service is getting closer to the speed benefits of driving a car versus public transit. When there was x service before the routes were a raging success although it probably wouldn't work on any lakeshore express service because most of their customers are local one ride passengers. But just think express service from Cottage Grove to Harlem or 95th to Devon does sound tantalizing. This is one reason why the "L" is such a draw. Speed.

[Busjack]

But just think express service from Cottage Grove to Harlem or 95th to Devon does sound tantalizing. This is one reason why the "L" is such a draw. Speed.

In effect, CTA is trying to bring back essentially the second, by asking for the grant for the Alternatives Analysis to replace what they dumped on Ashland and Western. The question I raised was basically why they dumped them, and now need another $1.6 million to study the problem.

As far as the L and speed, it was much speedier when they still had A B service. I have gotten on an L at Howard, saw a 147 in the bus depot, got off the subway at Chicago and saw the same bus at Chicago and Michigan. So, for the expresses, not much of a difference. Undoubtedly there would have been a difference if I had taken the Clark bus downtown, but Clark is too narrow to support any kind of express bus service (even if enough curb parking could be cleared away so the express could bypass a local at the bus stop). Which was, of course, why I couldn't see a 79BRT, at least between Vincennes and Stony Island.

[jajuan]

In effect, CTA is trying to bring back essentially the second, by asking for the grant for the Alternatives Analysis to replace what they dumped on Ashland and Western. The question I raised was basically why they dumped them, and now need another $1.6 million to study the problem.

As far as the L and speed, it was much speedier when they still had A B service. I have gotten on an L at Howard, saw a 147 in the bus depot, got off the subway at Chicago and saw the same bus at Chicago and Michigan. So, for the expresses, not much of a difference. Undoubtedly there would have been a difference if I had taken the Clark bus downtown, but Clark is too narrow to support any kind of express bus service (even if enough curb parking could be cleared away so the express could bypass a local at the bus stop). Which was, of course, why I couldn't see a 79BRT, at least between Vincennes and Stony Island.

I've had similar experiences with hopping on a Red Line train at a stop that intersects with one of the N Lake Shore expresses figuring the train would be faster, and getting off downtown and meeting the same bus I might have spotted on said express route at the beginning of the ride into downtown.

[Sam92]

True, but if you look at the the #22 and #151 they move to the top 6 in the summer months. So they are correct to shift buses there for the summer. Mostly I believe the reason #22 gets alot of artics is simply with all the cuts there have been, a 40 footer would be too overloaded. Look at the 79th or Belmont for that matter, buses are still very frequent in the rush hour. Most likely if either routes got mostly artics they'd want to cut them down a few buses. No doubt though the top 4 should have express service. BTw, I was thinking yesterday how could bus service be more fast and effective in the rush. Most main routes go to 10 - 12 minute headways in the rush. (Top 10's more frequent than that) I was thinking perhaps they could make every other bus in the rush an x bus and every other a local. Of course a 20 minute headway route like an #88 or #85A would not get this service. But it would speed up 70 to 80 percent of the routes. Having x service systemwide also could have benefits in saving money in the budget. With faster buses perhaps a bus could be cut off each route. That could mean 100 buses if 1 were cut per route across two thirds of routes that would be changed around. At least the idea should be studied because something needs to be done about slow buses.

If the #22 and #151 shift is a summer only thing, why don't our artics come back? These last picks, I've only seen 103 lose artics and not gain a single bus in return. Also, even with the summer thing, North Park and Kedzie should be good with their 101 artics (North Park) and 59 (Kedzie) 103rd needs some back or at least send some to 77th, who would really have a use for them

[BusHunter]

If the #22 and #151 shift is a summer only thing, why don't our artics come back? These last picks, I've only seen 103 lose artics and not gain a single bus in return. Also, even with the summer thing, North Park and Kedzie should be good with their 101 artics (North Park) and 59 (Kedzie) 103rd needs some back or at least send some to 77th, who would really have a use for them

Because the #22 and #151 needs them. 103rd basically only has the #6, #14 and #26. 77th I agree could use some artics. Capacity seemed like it was much better on the #3 when the NABI's were around. Alot of artics used to run that route. Even back then though not many artics ran the #79. The major tie to why 77th doesn't have artics is the transfer of the #6 to 103rd. Without the #6, it's hard to justify artics at 77th because they don't handle any major lakeshore express service. So Np and Kedzie wins out because of that. Really CTA could probably use a few more artics, that's one of the problems of having 226 NABi's versus 208 Flyer artics. There short about 18 artics now, no doubt if they had those 77th would get some artics back. Maybe if the NABI lawsuit ever gets solved, they can get some artics back.

[BusHunter]

In effect, CTA is trying to bring back essentially the second, by asking for the grant for the Alternatives Analysis to replace what they dumped on Ashland and Western. The question I raised was basically why they dumped them, and now need another $1.6 million to study the problem.

As far as the L and speed, it was much speedier when they still had A B service. I have gotten on an L at Howard, saw a 147 in the bus depot, got off the subway at Chicago and saw the same bus at Chicago and Michigan. So, for the expresses, not much of a difference. Undoubtedly there would have been a difference if I had taken the Clark bus downtown, but Clark is too narrow to support any kind of express bus service (even if enough curb parking could be cleared away so the express could bypass a local at the bus stop). Which was, of course, why I couldn't see a 79BRT, at least between Vincennes and Stony Island.

Also the L was alot speedier when they had conductors. As far as Clark i'm surprised they can run artics on there, but they do. Express service could probably be done, but it would be difficult with artics. On the speed issue, I'm not surprised a #147 could beat a Red line train. One of the Red line's problems is all the stops they make on the north side main between Wilson and Granville. That's going to be an issue if they remove the purple line express because everyone seems opposed to any station closures.

[Busjack]

... One of the Red line's problems is all the stops they make on the north side main between Wilson and Granville. ...

That was basically my point with regard to having done away with A and B trains. It is no longer "rapid transit" if the train has to stop every two or three blocks, which is the case from Wilson to Howard.

[artthouwill]

Yesterday I saw back to back 62 Archer buses northbound at Archer/Ashland. The first was a Nova out of 74th. He appeared to be waiting for his relief driver to come. The following bus was a New Flyer also out of 74th, but its destination sign read 62 Archer to Clark. Clark? As in Archer and Clark? Was he interlining? I thought it an odd destination for a northbound bus in the p.m. rush. (Around 5p.m.)

[jajuan]

Really CTA could probably use a few more artics, that's one of the problems of having 226 NABi's versus 208 Flyer artics. There short about 18 artics now, no doubt if they had those 77th would get some artics back. Maybe if the NABI lawsuit ever gets solved, they can get some artics back.

Keep in mind that CTA also scaled back service about ten percent almost a year later, so in a sense that wouldn't necessarily apply. Also CTA is deadset against putting the NABIs back in service with the apparent safety issues involved in those buses' condition when pulled from service. And even if the litigation between them was resolved, those buses have been out of commission for over two years now which would bring up maintenance costs that CTA pretty likely hasn't budgeted for. So I wouldn't hold my breath on seeing any of them back on the road.

[cta5658]

Keep in mind that CTA also scaled back service about ten percent almost a year later, so in a sense that wouldn't necessarily apply. Also CTA is deadset against putting the NABIs back in service with the apparent safety issues involved in those buses' condition when pulled from service. And even if the litigation between them was resolved, those buses have been out of commission for over two years now which would bring up maintenance costs that CTA pretty likely hasn't budgeted for. So I wouldn't hold my breath on seeing any of them back on the road.

Or maybe NABI can fix the buses themselves

[artthouwill]

Because the #22 and #151 needs them. 103rd basically only has the #6, #14 and #26. 77th I agree could use some artics. Capacity seemed like it was much better on the #3 when the NABI's were around. Alot of artics used to run that route. Even back then though not many artics ran the #79. The major tie to why 77th doesn't have artics is the transfer of the #6 to 103rd. Without the #6, it's hard to justify artics at 77th because they don't handle any major lakeshore express service. So Np and Kedzie wins out because of that. Really CTA could probably use a few more artics, that's one of the problems of having 226 NABi's versus 208 Flyer artics. There short about 18 artics now, no doubt if they had those 77th would get some artics back. Maybe if the NABI lawsuit ever gets solved, they can get some artics back.

Also 103rd runs artics on the 192, about 5 or 6 of them.

[sw4400]

The NABI 60-LFW won't return(at least for CTA).

[Sam92]

Because the #22 and #151 needs them. 103rd basically only has the #6, #14 and #26. 77th I agree could use some artics. Capacity seemed like it was much better on the #3 when the NABI's were around. Alot of artics used to run that route. Even back then though not many artics ran the #79. The major tie to why 77th doesn't have artics is the transfer of the #6 to 103rd. Without the #6, it's hard to justify artics at 77th because they don't handle any major lakeshore express service. So Np and Kedzie wins out because of that. Really CTA could probably use a few more artics, that's one of the problems of having 226 NABi's versus 208 Flyer artics. There short about 18 artics now, no doubt if they had those 77th would get some artics back. Maybe if the NABI lawsuit ever gets solved, they can get some artics back.

OKay I get that the 22 and 151's may need them but for the 151, most of the loads are south of Diversy meaning that Kedzie (Belmont trips) should be the ones using artics, not North Park. Anyone going north of Belmont would use an express bus. Also now since 103rd has lost so many buses, there are now way more 1000's than there should be during rush hour on the 6 and 14 not to mention that 103 also uses artics for the 169 and 192 and possibly for the 125, 143, and 134 runs.

[busfan2847]

Also 103rd runs artics on the 192, about 5 or 6 of them.

The 192 is supplied from buses arriving downtown on the 14 that would otherwise run empty back to 103rd.

[BusHunter]

Keep in mind that CTA also scaled back service about ten percent almost a year later, so in a sense that wouldn't necessarily apply. Also CTA is deadset against putting the NABIs back in service with the apparent safety issues involved in those buses' condition when pulled from service. And even if the litigation between them was resolved, those buses have been out of commission for over two years now which would bring up maintenance costs that CTA pretty likely hasn't budgeted for. So I wouldn't hold my breath on seeing any of them back on the road.

I moreless mean't if some financial award was given they could either buy new artics at Nabi's expense or make them fix the #7500's to not be a safety issue. BTW, I was thinking yesterday I wonder if the NABi's are being leased. Whomever is paying for the lease is really losing there money with the buses being parked.

[Busjack]

I moreless mean't if some financial award was given they could either buy new artics at Nabi's expense or make them fix the #7500's to not be a safety issue. BTW, I was thinking yesterday I wonder if the NABi's are being leased. Whomever is paying for the lease is really losing there money with the buses being parked.

No. As was stated in the about 2002 releases (see, e.g., here), it was either FTA money, but mostly Illinois First money. So, the taxpayers are getting the shaft in paying for Illinois First bonds, the proceeds of which were used in this manner.

If you go back to the News Briefs, the Tribune article when Rodriguez said the buses were not returning to the streets said that Huberman had been negotiating with the FTA about the federal stake, which was about $55 million, but that was only about 1/2 of the cost, and that article said that the federal interest was only in 142 of the 226.

[sw4400]

If the CTA can get that Illinois First money back from the failed NABI Buses, we might be able to get some more New Flyer DE60LF's. I'm not anywhere near Math Whiz, so these numbers might be way wrong, but the 58 the CTA ordered (4150-4207) cost $50 million, or $1.16 million/Bus. With $55 million being negotiated with the FTA in the past by Huberman, if the CTA can get that amount back, we might be able to order another 58 DE60LF's possibly, and have 266 New Flyer DE60LF's in our fleet.

[Sam92]

If the CTA can get that Illinois First money back from the failed NABI Buses, we might be able to get some more New Flyer DE60LF's. I'm not anywhere near Math Whiz, so these numbers might be way wrong, but the 58 the CTA ordered (4150-4207) cost $50 million, or $1.16 million/Bus. With $55 million being negotiated with the FTA in the past by Huberman, if the CTA can get that amount back, we might be able to order another 58 DE60LF's possibly, and have 266 New Flyer DE60LF's in our fleet.

There'a also the fact that NOVA's are on their way to retirement in the upcoming years. We may see more artics replacing those hopefully

[Busjack]

If the CTA can get that Illinois First money back from the failed NABI Buses, we might be able to get some more New Flyer DE60LF's. I'm not anywhere near Math Whiz, so these numbers might be way wrong, but the 58 the CTA ordered (4150-4207) cost $50 million, or $1.16 million/Bus. ...

Your math is bad. 50/58 has to be less than a million each. At the time, they reported that they were about $800,000 to $880,000 each.

Of course, with prices going up and New Flyer going to redesigned, etc. 2009 prices may not be valid today.

Since NABI hasn't settled the lawsuit yet, getting anything out of them is a matter of speculation.

However, for others of you with business relationships with NABI, don't bring up the company line that "CTA didn't let us inspect the buses." Here's a tip for NABI's counsel: Use Supreme Court Rule 214. Don't try to foist that canard on us again.

Finally, for people like qwante, I suggest going back and reading the Tribune article on what (at least Rodriguez said) it would take to certify them back into service.

[Sam92]

Your math is bad. 50/58 has to be less than a million each. At the time, they reported that they were about $800,000 to $880,000 each.

Of course, with prices going up and New Flyer going to redesigned, etc. 2009 prices may not be valid today.

Since NABI hasn't settled the lawsuit yet, getting anything out of them is a matter of speculation.

However, for others of you with business relationships with NABI, don't bring up the company line that "CTA didn't let us inspect the buses." Here's a tip for NABI's counsel: Use Supreme Court Rule 214. Don't try to foist that canard on us again.

Finally, for people like qwante, I suggest going back and reading the Tribune article on what (at least Rodriguez said) it would take to certify them back into service.

I've never mentioned the NABI's. I was talking about NOVA's being replaced in the upcoming years since their 12 years are almost up.

[Busjack]

I've never mentioned the NABI's. I was talking about NOVA's being replaced in the upcoming years since their 12 years are almost up.

I corrected it in the interim (as indicated by that the block quote was of the corrected version). It was qwante.