Should CTA's Percentage of Artics Be Significantly Inceased?

[geneking7320]

Hi Folks;

When CTA began receiving the NF 1000's they sat 39 (IIRC). The last of that series has the seating reduced to 35 (I think) to facilitate standees. Should CTA's fleet have a higher percentage of artics?

I don't think transit agencies will be purchasing more high floors and Chicago overpasses and viaducts tend to preclude double decker buses. Admittedly, I don't know what CTA's ridership numbers indicate.

There are some operators on this board so what do you (along with the rest of us hobbyists) think?

Gene King

PS - If I knew how to type I would have said increased on the title. :lol:

[Busjack]

The question is what CTA intends with the contract for 900 more.

I guess more are coming because of the decrease in seats in a bus. I mentioned that a 5307 seated 53, while the current artics seat 54 or 56, but, of course, with more standing room.

[sw4400]

The question is what CTA intends with the contract for 900 more.

I think the question is how routes with viaducts will be altered with a possible 1,050 DE60LF's. The #145 and #146 cannot use these buses because of the short viaducts on Wilson. There are certainly more viaducts of this size throughout Chicago.

[jajuan]

I think the question is how routes with viaducts will be altered with a possible 1,050 DE60LF's. The #145 and #146 cannot use these buses because of the short viaducts on Wilson. There are certainly more viaducts of this size throughout Chicago.

I wonder if you meant the 148, but you do bring up a valid point that I hadn't thought of in regard to the 146. The 4000s must barely fit under the Red Line viaduct at Berwyn. What way could CTA have modified the route if the 4000s didn't make the clearance just as they couldn't on Wilson at Ravenswood with the way the 145 and 148 were configured before the NABIs were pulled?

[MetroShadow]

I wonder if you meant the 148, but you do bring up a valid point that I hadn't thought of in regard to the 146. The 4000s must barely fit under the Red Line viaduct at Berwyn. What way could CTA have modified the route if the 4000s didn't make the clearance just as they couldn't the way on Wilson at Ravenswood with the way the 145 and 148 were configured before the NABIs were pulled?

I guess it would come down to CDOT lowering the street and readjusting the viaduct to accommodate those funky bridges. Unless you can modify the design of the buses to reflect the constraints (they should've done it with the prototype).

How did the 7500's clear the viaducts and not the 4000's? I might've answered that question with the battery pack, but that can't be any more different than the AC of the 7500's.

[wordguy]

I guess it would come down to CDOT lowering the street and readjusting the viaduct to accommodate those funky bridges. Unless you can modify the design of the buses to reflect the constraints (they should've done it with the prototype).

How did the 7500's clear the viaducts and not the 4000's? I might've answered that question with the battery pack, but that can't be any more different than the AC of the 7500's.

I believe there was enough of a difference between the overall height of the NABIs and the New Flyers to mandate the new routing via Ravenswood. The pod housing the batteries must be at least five inches taller than the AC casings on the roofs of both buses.

Another poster documented the difference with a couple of photos a few months back: One showed a sign on the control panel of a NF Artic stating that the height of the bus was 10' 9" (obviously including the battery pod). A companion photo showed a sign posted just shy of the Wilson underpass at Ravenswood indicating a clearance of 10'6". As far as I know, the NABIs cleared that underpass with no problem.

Regarding the question posted on the subject line, my immediate response is another question: does the CTA have enough storage space at existing garages to accommodate significantly more Artics anytime soon? I wouldn't think so.

[artthouwill]

I believe there was enough of a difference between the overall height of the NABIs and the New Flyers to mandate the new routing via Ravenswood. The pod housing the batteries must be at least five inches taller than the AC casings on the roofs of both buses.

Another poster documented the difference with a couple of photos a few months back: One showed a sign on the control panel of a NF Artic stating that the height of the bus was 10' 9" (obviously including the battery pod). A companion photo showed a sign posted just shy of the Wilson underpass at Ravenswood indicating a clearance of 10'6". As far as I know, the NABIs cleared that underpass with no problem.

Regarding the question posted on the subject line, my immediate response is another question: does the CTA have enough storage space at existing garages to accommodate significantly more Artics anytime soon? I wouldn't think so.

Most viaducts in the city give an additional 3 inch clearance. For a viaduct that's listed 10' 6" it is actually 10' 9", unless there's a sign that says exactly. For instance, I took a Prevost bus under a 12' viaduct and the bus is actually 12' (even though the control panel listed 12' 4"). There is a viaduct at 103rd/Cottage Grove that says "exactly" 13' 5", which means that is the exact height.

In regards to the northside viaducts along Ravenswood, I believe most are 11' to 11' 6" along that stretch. The question becomes how tall are the CTA NF buses? Does the control panel list the standard height of the bus including the battery pack? Perhaps the bus barely fits if you go at a slow speed, but hit any bump that could possibly cause the top of the bus to scrape the viaduct,.

I have known drivers attempt to take the 12' Prevost buses under 11' 8" viaducts and the only damage done was the emergency hatches were torn off (and of course scratches on the roof).

It would be a very expensive undertaking for CDOT to redo the streets for all of the viaducts along Ravenswood, although the Red Line viaducts aren't that much taller.

[MetroShadow]

Most viaducts in the city give an additional 3 inch clearance. For a viaduct that's listed 10' 6" it is actually 10' 9", unless there's a sign that says exactly. For instance, I took a Prevost bus under a 12' viaduct and the bus is actually 12' (even though the control panel listed 12' 4"). There is a viaduct at 103rd/Cottage Grove that says "exactly" 13' 5", which means that is the exact height.

In regards to the northside viaducts along Ravenswood, I believe most are 11' to 11' 6" along that stretch. The question becomes how tall are the CTA NF buses? Does the control panel list the standard height of the bus including the battery pack? Perhaps the bus barely fits if you go at a slow speed, but hit any bump that could possibly cause the top of the bus to scrape the viaduct,.

I have known drivers attempt to take the 12' Prevost buses under 11' 8" viaducts and the only damage done was the emergency hatches were torn off (and of course scratches on the roof).

It would be a very expensive undertaking for CDOT to redo the streets for all of the viaducts along Ravenswood, although the Red Line viaducts aren't that much taller.

I believe that Metra and CDOT are fixing bridges from Ravenswood through Rogers Park (give or take a mile), with some of the stimulus money being used.

As for the buses (and the viaducts themselves):

Wilson/Ravenswood: 10'6"

Lawrence/Ravenswood: 14'4"

Foster/Ravenswood: 13'10"

(And what was the height of the 7100's if the height really was a problem?)

[Busjack]

(And what was the height of the 7100's if the height really was a problem?)

The 7100s (and for that matter 7300s) didn't have roof pods. Everything, including the engine and air conditioner was under the floor. Very high floors.

Looking over nabinut's film, the more relevant question would be how high are the pods compared to those on the 5800s and 6400s, neither of which had trouble going crosstown past Ravenswood Ave. and the Red Line. I suppose the NABI pods (just being air conditioners) were similar to those on the 5800s, although those on the Novas seem a bit more streamlined.

[Guest]

Believe it or not I wish CTA would recieve the NovaBus LFS Artic. I think with some slight mods it would look really cool. All Nova would hav to do is get rid of those goofy headlights and redesign it with the standard rectangular lamps. Honestly I wouldnt mind seeing a demonstrator here in Chicago.

[Tcmetro]

Lets compare Chicago to other major cities:

Bolded cities have over 208 articulated buses

Chicago - 150 (+58 on order)

New York - 370 artics (+90 on order)

Ottawa - 275

Mississauga - 45

YRT/Viva - 41

Calgary - 41

Vancouver - 254 (including ETB's)

Phoenix - 90

Los Angeles - 391 (+100 on order)

San Diego - 39

Oakland - 112 (Van Hool & '96 D60)

San Francisco - 217 (not incl. '91 D60)

San Mateo Cty. - 70

Denver - 119

Washington DC - 110

Miami - 66

Honolulu - 73

Baltimore - 90

Boston - 77

Minneapolis - 166 (+29 on order)

Las Vegas - 148 (incl. 60 BRT vehicles, and buses that are being retired)

New Jersey - 85

Pittsburgh - 50

Philadelphia - 155

Houston - 141

Snohomish Cty, Washington - 121 (+15? BRT vehicles)

Seattle - 614 (incl. ETB's, +16 BRT vehicles on order)

Sound Transit - 75

[Busjack]

Lets compare Chicago to other major cities:...

My question would be why some place like Ottawa would need much of any, so much as 275 (especially compared to Toronto or Boston, although the latter have rapid transit systems).

There, are of course, places like Rochester NY which had a few since the 1980s, but mostly acquired because of the Can of Worms expressway reconstruction, and were basically used so that passengers had 3 or 4 seats to spread their stuff.

Also left off are places like Champaign, which apparently uses public transportation as the campus system, and thus probably needs bigger buses.

[Tcmetro]

I left of systems with low numbers of artics. Places like Cleveland, Eugene, Champaign, Edmonton, etc.

Ottawa has a busway system (with buses running every 2 minutes all day!) because there are few parking spaces in the core from parking restrictions.

Toronto had a bad experience with the Orion 3/Ikarus 286 buses, and has decided to not get artics since. Montreal is getting some soon, though.

[Busjack]

Ottawa has a busway system (with buses running every 2 minutes all day!) because there are few parking spaces in the core from parking restrictions.

My mention of rapid transit foreshadowed this response.

Therefore, if we were to use comparative data to try to answer Gene King's question, we would have to sort out the two reasons for articulated buses:

• To deal with overloading
  
• As signifying a BRT project*
  

Applying this back to the CTA situation, we then get into the question that, once enough DE60LFs are received to overcome the shortage due to retiring the NABIs, does CTA intend:

• To use the DE60LFs as Huberman originally stated, to replace standard buses on heavy routes on a 3 for 4 basis
  
• Even though the Congestion Reduction Demonstration BRT project appears dead, to inaugurate something like that on the X routes
  

Of course, there could be a combination, such as in the case of beefing up X80 and cutting back 80, or (more in point) doing something similar in establishing an X79. However, no longer wishing to divine the intent of CTA management, I probably pass on making a prediction.

Of course, Doomsday de jour could affect the equation either way.

____________

*Sort of in the same sense as it is necessary to have independent branding and livery, although not all BRTs use BRT buses, and not all BRT buses are 60 footers, but there is some correlation.

[geneking7320]

Using data from the Buses section of this site I did a little math with the seating capacity of the Flxible Metro vs New Flyer DE60LF.

Flx = 45 45 x 4 = 180 45 x 5 = 225

NF = 54 54 x 3 = 162 54 x 4 = 216

How about CTA replaces the Flxibles with NF artics on a 4 to 5 basis?

More seats!

Gene King

[Busjack]

How about CTA replaces the Flxibles with NF artics on a 4 to 5 basis?

More seats!

Gene King

Because, by going to longitudinal seating (in the case of DE60LFs having 54 vs. NABIs having 61), CTA shows that it does not care about seating capacity, but packing the passengers in. Cf. the "seatless" L car.

BTW, there are only 48 seats if the 2 wheelchair positions are in use.

[MT0851]

Lets compare Chicago to other major cities:

Bolded cities have over 208 articulated buses

Chicago - 150 (+58 on order)

New York - 370 artics (+90 on order)

Ottawa - 275

Mississauga - 45

YRT/Viva - 41

Calgary - 41

Vancouver - 254 (including ETB's)

Phoenix - 90

Los Angeles - 391 (+100 on order)

San Diego - 39

Oakland - 112 (Van Hool & '96 D60)

San Francisco - 217 (not incl. '91 D60)

San Mateo Cty. - 70

Denver - 119

Washington DC - 110

Miami - 66

Honolulu - 73

Baltimore - 90

Boston - 77

Minneapolis - 166 (+29 on order)

Las Vegas - 148 (incl. 60 BRT vehicles, and buses that are being retired)

New Jersey - 85

Pittsburgh - 50

Philadelphia - 155

Houston - 141

Snohomish Cty, Washington - 121 (+15? BRT vehicles)

Seattle - 614 (incl. ETB's, +16 BRT vehicles on order)

Sound Transit - 75

Your numbers are way off for New York City Transit, they have nearly 630 D60s. (1000-1109, 5250-5769)

Also Seattle's Breda Artic ETBs retired in 2007.

Mississauga has 22 more artics on order for the end of this year/early 2010 and another 20 are going to be ordered for 2011. So MT's artic fleet will be going up to 87 artics.

Toronto had a bad experience with the Orion 3/Ikarus 286 buses, and has decided to not get artics since. Montreal is getting some soon, though.

Yeah, the TTC did a RFP for artics last year and they were dealing with New Flyer for a while, however the TTC dropped out of it.

[Tcmetro]

KCM repowered 59 of the 236 Breda's for surface trolley operations using the old transmissions.

[Busjack]

Looking over nabinut's film, the more relevant question would be how high are the pods compared to those on the 5800s and 6400s, neither of which had trouble going crosstown past Ravenswood Ave. and the Red Line.

Which just gave me a bad thought. If, in fact, CTA gets past the NABI replacement stage with the DE60LFs, and uses them as first implied (3 for 4 on heavy routes, or X routes sort of like BRT) , that use would be precluded for something like X80 or X81, if the overpass conditions at Ravenswood on those routes are similar to those at Wilson.

For that matter, there are plenty of railroad underpasses on the south side, although I don't know if they are as low clearance as the ones mentioned above (thinking of 79th west of Stony Island). Apparently, the 6 can get under the IC at 47th and 51st (Hyde Park).

[Chicago13]

Which just gave me a bad thought. If, in fact, CTA gets past the NABI replacement stage with the DE60LFs, and uses them as first implied (3 for 4 on heavy routes, or X routes sort of like BRT) , that use would be precluded for something like X80 or X81, if the overpass conditions at Ravenswood on those routes are similar to those at Wilson.

For that matter, there are plenty of railroad underpasses on the south side, although I don't know if they are as low clearance as the ones mentioned above (thinking of 79th west of Stony Island). Apparently, the 6 can get under the IC at 47th and 51st (Hyde Park).

Irving Park doesn't pose much of a problem with clearances. With the exception of the viaduct at Kenton (just east of Cicero), for which the city doesn't have a posted clearance, all of the other viaducts on Iriving have a minimum of 12'6'' clearance. Irving was lowered at Ravenswood some years back to a clearance of 13'8". I'm pretty sure Iriving/Kenton has enough clearance though. On Lawrence, the shortest clearance would be the Red Line tracks at 11'0" (Lawrence/Ravenswood is 14'4")

At 79th/Stony, the railroad viaduct is 14'2". The Skyway is not posted. 51st/Lake Park is 12'8" and at 47th, it's 13'2"