BusHunter Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 You wanna add #12, #20, #22, #26, #49, #55, #66, & #80 to the list? #12 and #22 are already mostly artic now. My point is this, why have buses in the weekday rush 3-5 minutes apart when you could run an artic 7-10 minutes apart. Case in point: The #79 runs somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-33 buses in a given rush period. Couldn't that be rationed by a few buses if they had more capacity per bus. Now I don't believe that formula would work so well with routes that run around 10 minutes apart like an #80 if cutting service frequency, but it would work on the same frequency to eliminate overcrowding. Anyway the new hybrid electric artic is as efficient (if not more) than the vehicles they replace so they are most likely thinking why not? As far as storage space that does become an issue, but only if they replace 1 for 1. It's not an issue if they cut service but not garages. Anyway If they do go BRt on routes like #49 they would probably eliminate a lot of local service and with the vehicles not sitting in traffic that would buy you some space by eliminating a few runs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted October 15, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 ,,, My point is this, why have buses in the weekday rush 3-5 minutes apart when you could run an artic 7-10 minutes apart. Case in point: The #79 runs somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-33 buses in a given rush period. Couldn't that be rationed by a few buses if they had more capacity per bus.... Again, that was supposedly Huberman's original philosophy, but then Rodriguez lengthened the interval without putting the bigger buses on. So, the question would be how packed 79 is now, with buses with about 36 seats and total capacity of 70. I guess, though, that if one put on a bus with 51 seats and capacity of 120, they could lengthen the interval more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoNova Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 #12 and #22 are already mostly artic now. My point is this, why have buses in the weekday rush 3-5 minutes apart when you could run an artic 7-10 minutes apart. Case in point: The #79 runs somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-33 buses in a given rush period. Couldn't that be rationed by a few buses if they had more capacity per bus. Now I don't believe that formula would work so well with routes that run around 10 minutes apart like an #80 if cutting service frequency, but it would work on the same frequency to eliminate overcrowding. Anyway the new hybrid electric artic is as efficient (if not more) than the vehicles they replace so they are most likely thinking why not? As far as storage space that does become an issue, but only if they replace 1 for 1. It's not an issue if they cut service but not garages. Anyway If they do go BRt on routes like #49 they would probably eliminate a lot of local service and with the vehicles not sitting in traffic that would buy you some space by eliminating a few runs. 12 & 22 are covered with artics on the weekends only until late at night. On the weekdays they are covered mainly with 40 footers. You may see an artic or two on the routes. I'm not sure of the maximum number of buses in all each of the two routes use, but that could be a good number of 40 footers replaced by 60 footers on each of the two routes, meaning those 40 footers (given they're from New Flyer) could go elsewhere. As for BRT, yes, if CTA does implement BRT service on routes like #49 Western, #66 Chicago, or #79 79th, local service may have to operate half as frequent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam92 Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 Again, that was supposedly Huberman's original philosophy, but then Rodriguez lengthened the interval without putting the bigger buses on. So, the question would be how packed 79 is now, with buses with about 36 seats and total capacity of 70. I guess, though, that if one put on a bus with 51 seats and capacity of 120, they could lengthen the interval more. From what I see whenever I ride the 79, it's packed to the point where people are practically pushed against the windshield and a few times that was on a weekend. And I believe that they run about 6-9 minutes apart, even on a Sunday. That could be a start as far as more space with less buses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sw4400 Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 The issues start coming up with where you are going to find space at K to store more hybrids for 12, for instance, and similar storage problems. It seems like only 77 currently has the space. This is another good point, Busjack. This and the fact there are a lot of low clearance bridges and tight turns in the city. a 60' bus fleet is not the way to go. The 40' versions, while about the same clearance-wise, would be better in the tight turns. I would love to see some more articulated buses, but we can't have over 50% of the fleet articulated. If we replaced all the NOVA LFS buses with articulateds, that's 46% of the 40' bus roster! Then what happen in 2016, when it's time to start thinking replacement of the New Flyer 1000-Series? More articulateds then too??? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam92 Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 This is another good point, Busjack. This and the fact there are a lot of low clearance bridges and tight turns in the city. a 60' bus fleet is not the way to go. The 40' versions, while about the same clearance-wise, would be better in the tight turns. I would love to see some more articulated buses, but we can't have over 50% of the fleet articulated. If we replaced all the NOVA LFS buses with articulateds, that's 46% of the 40' bus roster! Then what happen in 2016, when it's time to start thinking replacement of the New Flyer 1000-Series? More articulateds then too??? Our fleet would go down by about 500 buses due to spacing issues unless somehow money comes up for about 3 or 4 new garages. In other words, not going to happen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See Tea Eh Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 This is another good point, Busjack. This and the fact there are a lot of low clearance bridges and tight turns in the city. a 60' bus fleet is not the way to go. The 40' versions, while about the same clearance-wise, would be better in the tight turns. I would love to see some more articulated buses, but we can't have over 50% of the fleet articulated. If we replaced all the NOVA LFS buses with articulateds, that's 46% of the 40' bus roster! Then what happen in 2016, when it's time to start thinking replacement of the New Flyer 1000-Series? More articulateds then too??? CTA is getting 30-35 new artics, and somehow you're extrapolating that into replacing all Novas with artics, and then all the D40LFs with artics? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoNova Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 CTA is getting 30-35 new artics, and somehow you're extrapolating that into replacing all Novas with artics, and then all the D40LFs with artics? I doubt it's going to happen like that. At some point, CTA would have to purchase some new 40 footers. Not all CTA bus routes are artic worthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam92 Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 I wonder if they will keep up the longtitutional seating in this next set... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoNova Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 I wonder if they will keep up the longtitutional seating in this next set... Probably so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BusHunter Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 This is another good point, Busjack. This and the fact there are a lot of low clearance bridges and tight turns in the city. a 60' bus fleet is not the way to go. The 40' versions, while about the same clearance-wise, would be better in the tight turns. I would love to see some more articulated buses, but we can't have over 50% of the fleet articulated. If we replaced all the NOVA LFS buses with articulateds, that's 46% of the 40' bus roster! Then what happen in 2016, when it's time to start thinking replacement of the New Flyer 1000-Series? More articulateds then too??? I wouldn't expect more than 200 more artics. And that's if/when they get the funding. Most likely alot of those would be for expanding BRT, which is still in the beginners stage now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sw4400 Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 I wouldn't expect more than 200 more artics. And that's if/when they get the funding. Most likely alot of those would be for expanding BRT, which is still in the beginners stage now. This is my point. 1 Artic replaces 2 40' buses. 200 more Artics will replace 400 40' buses(or the NOVA LFS roster totally). A lot of garages are heavily dependant on the 40' buses most likely due to as above mentioned, viaduct clearance and tight turns. Forest Glen is an example... they have more NOVA LFS buses than New Flyers. And many of their routes probably don't allow for artics for those above mentioned reasons. 1,050 New Flyer 40' buses can only be spread throughout the 7 garages only so much to give them standard sized buses to run the not so-Artic friendly routes. The CTA needs federal funding to get some 40' hybrids. The GM/Allison DE40LF's are the same as the DE60LF's, only shorter. I am all for more Articulated buses, but don't cut the amount of 40' buses we have in half or more. These buses are the backbone of the CTA and have been since the CTA started service. The Articulated buses didn't start here until 32 years ago, and we only had 20 then, then another 125 four years later, while we had close to or over 2,000 40' buses then. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoNova Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 This is my point. 1 Artic replaces 2 40' buses. 200 more Artics will replace 400 40' buses(or the NOVA LFS roster totally). A lot of garages are heavily dependant on the 40' buses most likely due to as above mentioned, viaduct clearance and tight turns. Forest Glen is an example... they have more NOVA LFS buses than New Flyers. And many of their routes probably don't allow for artics for those above mentioned reasons. 1,050 New Flyer 40' buses can only be spread throughout the 7 garages only so much to give them standard sized buses to run the not so-Artic friendly routes. The CTA needs federal funding to get some 40' hybrids. The GM/Allison DE40LF's are the same as the DE60LF's, only shorter. I am all for more Articulated buses, but don't cut the amount of 40' buses we have in half or more. These buses are the backbone of the CTA and have been since the CTA started service. The Articulated buses didn't start here until 32 years ago, and we only had 20 then, then another 125 four years later, while we had close to or over 2,000 40' buses then. I'm also for more artics, however, I still remember hearing about 2 artics replacing 3 40 footers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted October 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 I'm also for more artics, however, I still remember hearing about 2 artics replacing 3 40 footers. I think you folks are all getting way off track, and if you go up the thread you will see why. The artics replacing standard buses 3 for 4 was to replace Flxibles, by Huberman in 2007. The Flxibles were retired without being replaced in 2010. And those buses replaced NABIs, not Flxibles. Remember, this is only a grant for $30 million, which I presume would purchase 33 artics. There was also the apparently dead proposal for a base order of 140 artics 2 years ago. Of course, if CTA was seriously propounding a proposal to obtain 900 artics through options for the last 760, it was smoking something (even if it thought someone would pay for the Olympics that we subsequently did not get). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BusHunter Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 This is my point. 1 Artic replaces 2 40' buses. 200 more Artics will replace 400 40' buses(or the NOVA LFS roster totally). A lot of garages are heavily dependant on the 40' buses most likely due to as above mentioned, viaduct clearance and tight turns. Forest Glen is an example... they have more NOVA LFS buses than New Flyers. And many of their routes probably don't allow for artics for those above mentioned reasons. 1,050 New Flyer 40' buses can only be spread throughout the 7 garages only so much to give them standard sized buses to run the not so-Artic friendly routes. The CTA needs federal funding to get some 40' hybrids. The GM/Allison DE40LF's are the same as the DE60LF's, only shorter. I am all for more Articulated buses, but don't cut the amount of 40' buses we have in half or more. These buses are the backbone of the CTA and have been since the CTA started service. The Articulated buses didn't start here until 32 years ago, and we only had 20 then, then another 125 four years later, while we had close to or over 2,000 40' buses then. Yes, I understand your point but service is going to change when the BRT's get going. The way they want to run BRT is with artics. They can't run them with what they have so they need more. We won't be seeing artics on the #88, they will strictly be for BRT. FG is most likely going to end up with all #1000's and #500's when the nova's are gone. That's still a little ways off though. As far as the present, they just want to add artics for 77th and possibly a BRT inaugural. Some Novas may bite the dust but that is going to happen anyway unless they come up with 200 million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam92 Posted October 18, 2011 Report Share Posted October 18, 2011 Yes, I understand your point but service is going to change when the BRT's get going. The way they want to run BRT is with artics. They can't run them with what they have so they need more. We won't be seeing artics on the #88, they will strictly be for BRT. FG is most likely going to end up with all #1000's and #500's when the nova's are gone. That's still a little ways off though. As far as the present, they just want to add artics for 77th and possibly a BRT inaugural. Some Novas may bite the dust but that is going to happen anyway unless they come up with 200 million. Well if they are going to get artics for BRT then it doesn't sound like they should be reducing the fleet with the 3 to 4 ratio.... seems like they would need to expand at some point to keep the present system and find more spaces to hold new equipment to improve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted October 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2011 Well if they are going to get artics for BRT then it doesn't sound like they should be reducing the fleet with the 3 to 4 ratio.... seems like they would need to expand at some point to keep the present system and find more spaces to hold new equipment to improve. How many times do I have to say that people are missing the point? Read up the thread. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rotjohns Posted October 18, 2011 Report Share Posted October 18, 2011 I think you folks are all getting way off track, and if you go up the thread you will see why. The artics replacing standard buses 3 for 4 was to replace Flxibles, by Huberman in 2007. The Flxibles were retired without being replaced in 2010. And those buses replaced NABIs, not Flxibles. Remember, this is only a grant for $30 million, which I presume would purchase 33 artics. There was also the apparently dead proposal for a base order of 140 artics 2 years ago. Of course, if CTA was seriously propounding a proposal to obtain 900 artics through options for the last 760, it was smoking something (even if it thought someone would pay for the Olympics that we subsequently did not get). Busjack's right. When all the cuts to service happened a couple of years ago (mainly all the express routes), the Flxibles were the ones that got canned and there never was a replacement for those simply because they were never needed. If there are only 33 artics coming, there's no way there is any kind of dent to the current roster of buses. So no Novas will be in danger in the immediate future. I do agree at some point, 40-footers will have to be bought to replace the Novas, but even the earliest ones still have a year or so left before being eligible for retirement. And everybody here knows how long it could be before they truly do get canned. Remember, the Flxibles were 15 yrs old plus before finally getting the axe. And if it wasn't for the cuts, either at least half of them probably would still be out today OR CTA would've stepped up the purchasing of new buses to replace them by now. In regards to the artics on 79th, a few years ago, the Nabi artics were all over this route, but eventually they pulled them. Not sure if spacing was the issue or not, but that's one route that really could use them. I drive by Ford City all the time and see floods of 79th street buses just parked in idle. No reason to have that many buses there, then 2 of them leave within 5 minutes of each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam92 Posted October 18, 2011 Report Share Posted October 18, 2011 In regards to the artics on 79th, a few years ago, the Nabi artics were all over this route, but eventually they pulled them. Not sure if spacing was the issue or not, but that's one route that really could use them. I drive by Ford City all the time and see floods of 79th street buses just parked in idle. No reason to have that many buses there, then 2 of them leave within 5 minutes of each other. I see another artic shuffle coming. Of course the new ones will probably go to North Park, but if 77th is recieving some, I see North Park's lowest 30 getting moved there, or maybe 103rd's lowest 30 sent to 77th with North Park sending its lowest 30 to 103rd to make up nad maybe a few extras. Maybe something like... Kedzie 4000-4057 77th 4058-4087 103rd 4088-4135 North Park - 4137-4207 and then 0000 - 0030 (using 0000's until we find what the new fleet numbers will be for this series) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BusHunter Posted October 18, 2011 Report Share Posted October 18, 2011 I see another artic shuffle coming. Of course the new ones will probably go to North Park, but if 77th is recieving some, I see North Park's lowest 30 getting moved there, or maybe 103rd's lowest 30 sent to 77th with North Park sending its lowest 30 to 103rd to make up nad maybe a few extras. Maybe something like... Kedzie 4000-4057 77th 4058-4087 103rd 4088-4135 North Park - 4137-4207 and then 0000 - 0030 (using 0000's until we find what the new fleet numbers will be for this series) You'll probably see something along the lines of when the NABI's were around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam92 Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 You'll probably see something along the lines of when the NABI's were around. As in even-odd splits or what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted October 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 As in even-odd splits or what? I don't think so, with 33 buses, but the even-odd splits were basically only New Flyers and because NP and 103 had similar fleets of 4400s that were falling apart at the same time. Similarly, any temporary arrangement of DE60LFs was because the NABIs were pulled pretty much at once. The NABIs were essentially delivered out of numeric order. The first ones went to 103, but went up to 7568. Then, when more came in, the split between 103 and NP was about at 7550. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoNova Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 I don't think so, with 33 buses, but the even-odd splits were basically only New Flyers and because NP and 103 had similar fleets of 4400s that were falling apart at the same time. Similarly, any temporary arrangement of DE60LFs was because the NABIs were pulled pretty much at once. The NABIs were essentially delivered out of numeric order. The first ones went to 103, but went up to 7568. Then, when more came in, the split between 103 and NP was about at 7550. Actually, 103rd had the lowest numbered NABIs. Then North Park, then Kedzie, then 77th with the highest up to 7725. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sw4400 Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 I don't think so, with 33 buses, but the even-odd splits were basically only New Flyers and because NP and 103 had similar fleets of 4400s that were falling apart at the same time. Similarly, any temporary arrangement of DE60LFs was because the NABIs were pulled pretty much at once. The NABIs were essentially delivered out of numeric order. The first ones went to 103, but went up to 7568. Then, when more came in, the split between 103 and NP was about at 7550. Actually, the splits occurred around the hubner joint and rubber accordion. :D 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam92 Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 Actually, the splits occurred around the hubner joint and rubber accordion. Had a felling someone was going to say that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.