More hybrids coming

[BusHunter]

As in even-odd splits or what?

No, I just mean in the last days of the NABI's 77th had 15 buses, Np had 80, 103rd had 55, and Kedzie had 76. (rough estimate) That's when there were 226 NABI's versus the 208 NF's artics we have now. Of course that was when the #6 belonged to 77th. Most likely the #6 would go back to 77th when this order arrives, and they could turn 103rd into exclusively Brt artics (or rebrand ones) Or if they didn't want to do that, they could give the artics to BRT hopefuls (like the #49) as a experiment. That should be about the time they seriously decide with what there going to replace the novas with.

[Sam92]

Reading in the budget right now and it says it is seeking $6.6 million to "Purchase up to SEVEN articulated buses" to replace a like number of 40 foot buses. But then under that it mentions the $30 million it just recieved this month. So thats a possible 37 artics right there

[jajuan]

From the sounds of proposed capital expenditures, beyond the 30something artics that's already been talked about, the NOVAs are likely to be replaced by 40 ft clean air models. There's some mention of hydrogen fuel cell and all electric buses being evaluated, but from the way it's reading, it looks like they are leaning with hybrid since they say it's a proven model type for them. The one thing that is clear is that they're aiming to move from fuel diesel powered buses starting with the replacement of the NOVAs. As has been pointed out numerous times, going half artic on the bus fleet may not be feasible no matter how big somebody's wish list for it. Or have we forgotten that Chicago has a lot of viaducts that these buses would have to navigate even after setting aside a lot of streets that some of these routes currently operate on are not exactly artic friendly. There are a number of intersections where it's a very tight go making turns even for a 40 ft bus. Don't forget that 145 and 148 got rerouted at the northern end because the current artics don't fit under the Wilson viaduct the same as the NABI artics did.

One other item is that NF's 1000-1429 (or as the budget proposal describes them 430 New Flyer buses of 2006 model year) are slated for a retrofit to receive diesel particulate filters as part of the midlife overhaul for the entire NF 1000 fleet. The total cost for the 1000 overhaul is slated at $76.9 million with $22.5 million being for next year and the rest over 2013-16. The overhaul is being funded from CMAQ.

[Busjack]

From the sounds of proposed capital expenditures, beyond the 30something artics that's already been talked about, the NOVAs are likely to be replaced by 40 ft clean air models....

As to whether they would be 40 foot, I don't see anything on page 44* of the budget that indicates that one way or the other. The line item on page 41 states $15 million for 2012 and a total of $166 million for 5 years, but one can't tell whether you divide that by $600K (the presumed cost of a 40 foot hybrid) or $900K (the presumed cost of a 60 foot hybrid or electric bus).

I agree with your analysis that any more electric buses than the two is purely speculation until such time as the two prove themselves.

As far as buses not fitting under viaducts, one has that problem regardless of the length of the hybrid, unless new technology allows for shrinking the battery pack. As far as the CALSTART project on a hydrogen fuel cell bus, didn't we have that in 1995, and one sure needs a place to store the hydrogen (up to now, on the roof).

I see on page 67 where Sam got that they were seeking the grant for the 7 additional buses, which would reenforce that the expected cost is $940K each, although it is phrased in terms of "up to 7." That would mean that the other grant is presumably for 32.

___________

*All references are to page numbers printed on the bottom; add 4 for the "go to" in Acrobat Reader.

[Sam92]

As far as buses not fitting under viaducts, one has that problem regardless of the length of the hybrid, unless new technology allows for shrinking the battery pack. As far as the CALSTART project on a hydrogen fuel cell bus, didn't we have that in 1995, and one sure needs a place to store the hydrogen (up to now, on the roof).

___________

Well, I know just by looking that the 800 series definately wouldn't fit, but if would a battery about the size of the 900s have enough clearance to go under?

[Busjack]

Well, I know just by looking that the 800 series definately wouldn't fit, but if would a battery about the size of the 900s have enough clearance to go under?

Usually, the dashboard has a sticker with the height of the bus. If you want to play with this, the city posts its viaduct clearance list, which says that Wilson-Ravenswood (railroad) is posted 10'6". New Flyer says that their "old style buses" are 11' (132") with roof mount. The viaduct is not listed as EX, or that the sign is exact.

Anyway:

• With these buses, the issue may be the big rooftop air conditioner, rather than the less high battery pack.
• Maybe something like an Excelsior is more sleek, but those specs have 126" over the A/C and 130" over the hybrid cooling fans and 133" over a CNG tank. So, one is still in the 10-1/2 to 11 ft range on those. However, CTA isn't shelling out the extra cost of an Excelsior.

[BusHunter]

As to whether they would be 40 foot, I don't see anything on page 44* of the budget that indicates that one way or the other. The line item on page 41 states $15 million for 2012 and a total of $166 million for 5 years, but one can't tell whether you divide that by $600K (the presumed cost of a 40 foot hybrid) or $900K (the presumed cost of a 60 foot hybrid or electric bus).

Looks like there not in too big of a hurry to replace the Novas. Looks as if they'll pluck away at it with small orders over 5 years. All future bus purchases appear to be hybrid. If you want to read tea leaves on whether they'll be 60 foot or not, they do seem to be concerned with replacing hoists "for an increased 60 foot fleet". As far as 40 foot replacement they seem to be looking at yet more fuel efficient vehicles including tests of fuel cell vehicles (Calstart) and hydrogen and fully electric systems. Not too much was discussed concerning BRT, I don't know where that fits into the equation. They do mention the lakefront corridor is looking at BRT as well as other options. It's something that will come into play in the future. Probably the biggest positive out of the budget, as far as equipment upgrades is the #5000's arrival thru 2016 and also the rehab of the #3200 series (thru 2016) which will give them digital destination signs and public address systems similar to the #5000's. In many respects the cars will appear the same.

[Busjack]

Looks like there not in too big of a hurry to replace the Novas. Looks as if they'll pluck away at it with small orders over 5 years. ...

At that, if you assume the numbers I posted per bus, $166 million doesn't replace 480 buses. Even at $600K, that would be only about 275. Maybe they are figuring on keeping picking the feds for the small grants to make up the difference, unless they still figure on having about 200 Novas on the street in 2017. Then you are starting to talk the same age territory as the 4400s and 5300s.

[sw4400]

At that, if you assume the numbers I posted per bus, $166 million doesn't replace 480 buses. Even at $600K, that would be only about 275. Maybe they are figuring on keeping picking the feds for the small grants to make up the difference, unless they still figure on having about 200 Novas on the street in 2017. Then you are starting to talk the same age territory as the 4400s and 5300s.

You know that any retirements on the NOVA LFS that take place before 2013 are early retirements(pre-12 Yr. FTA shelf life). The NOVA model years for the CTA are 2001-2002, which means that retirement can't begin per FTA regulations until 2013-2014. These buses were purchased with Illinois FIRST grants, if memory serves...

[Busjack]

You know that any retirements on the NOVA LFS that take place before 2013 are early retirements(pre-12 Yr. FTA shelf life). The NOVA model years for the CTA are 2001-2002, which means that retirement can't begin per FTA regulations until 2013-2014. These buses were purchased with Illinois FIRST grants, if memory serves...

1. Your memory only partially serves. Maybe it is supported by this Illinois First press release of July 17, 2000 for the release of funds for 48 40 foot buses and 66 dual buses (we know what they were) as the state match for federal grants. So, the state may have picked up 10% on the Novas. Of course, the FTA regulations would apply only if it were FTA money, so they apply, but...

2. The first Novas were received in later 2000 (but before Thanksgiving; I'm sure one can go back to BusHunters' list if you need to). In any event, if the budget indicated actual procurements rather than money available, if the procurement were advertised tomorrow, you sitll wouldn't see a bus for at least a year. What is a year from now? Thanksgiving 2012.

[BusHunter]

At that, if you assume the numbers I posted per bus, $166 million doesn't replace 480 buses. Even at $600K, that would be only about 275. Maybe they are figuring on keeping picking the feds for the small grants to make up the difference, unless they still figure on having about 200 Novas on the street in 2017. Then you are starting to talk the same age territory as the 4400s and 5300s.

There probably hoping for some BRT money to roll in. That would help with the more expensive hybrids purchase especially 60 footers that would cost more. That would then fill the gap if you figure on 200 Nova buses left. It probably would make sense to replace buses when BRT starts up, ( they'll most likely get a grant) because with no service cuts you then have a storage issue.

[Busjack]

There probably hoping for some BRT money to roll in. That would help with the more expensive hybrids purchase especially 60 footers that would cost more. That would then fill the gap if you figure on 200 Nova buses left. It probably would make sense to replace buses when BRT starts up, ( they'll most likely get a grant) because with no service cuts you then have a storage issue.

Of course, other than Jeffery being stated to run with existing equipment, that would have to get beyond the Alternatives Analysis stage, either on the Western Corridor (Western and Ashland) or the Lakeshore Corridor (making assumptions about the $2 million grant for that study). I don't know if they thought that far in advance, or are just saying that it looks like $166 million will be available for buses in the next five years.

I suppose, though, that if the feds did something as bizarre as granting $300 million for Western and Ashland BRT, which would include a grant for buses, that would knock out the estimated number of 40 foot buses, but if they were to be replaced by 60 foot BRTs, the storage problem you previously outlined (especially with regard to lifts at 74th) would still exist. At what seems like the rush hour, there are 34 buses on 9 and 34 buses on 49, if I am reading BusTracker properly.

Are you thinking about replacing north LSD express buses with BRT buses, in which case the Jeffery scenario might be more likely, but even if the feds gave grants to, in effect, replace the DE60LFs at North Park with DE60BRTs, one would still have to store the DE60LFs for what ever other route to which they would be assigned (say 3, 4, 66, 77, or 79).

[See Tea Eh]

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.

You're arguing a point that nobody is challenging. Nobody (except you, apparently) is even suggesting that CTA is going to replace all (or even half) of the 40-foot buses with artics.

This order is about 30-35 buses, give or take. And yes, there are plenty of places were you could put more artics if you had them (22, 66, 79, etc.).

I'll also note that 1 artic does not replace 2 40-footers. Lengthwise, the bus is only 50% longer, not 100% longer. Capacity-wise, you're talking 50-60% more capacity (depending on which seating configurations you're comparing, and what you deem crush load to be).

[Sam92]

• However, CTA isn't shelling out the extra cost of an Excelsior.

Well if CTA is serious about getting more hybrids Artic or not, then they dont really have a choice on Excelsiors unless they plan on changing more routes around as was done with the 145/148. Doesn't look like a matter of artic friendliness from that point unless there's something else I'm missing?

[ChicagoNova]

If CTA were ever to purchase any BRT buses from New Flyer, they're not manufacturing anymore DE40LFAs or DE60LFAs.

[jajuan]

Well if CTA is serious about getting more hybrids Artic or not, then they dont really have a choice on Excelsiors unless they plan on changing more routes around as was done with the 145/148. Doesn't look like a matter of artic friendliness from that point unless there's something else I'm missing?

Well artic friendly in general in my mind is more than the viaduct clearance issue. You also have that issue of a number of these two way Chicago streets are pretty narrow as in narrow enough to not accommodate biking lanes and keep existing parking in place narrow and either don't have the rounded out curb sides at intersections or widen out somewhat in accommodation for a turning lane in some form and therefore leave little room for a bus of any standard 40 to 60 ft length to turn comfortably enough without having to inch it's way through its turn and hold up or slowdown surrounding traffic. As for others looking toward further BRT proposals beyond the Jeffery and downtown ones that already got funding as an opening to knock off the Novas for artics, as pointed out by Busjack and others where are you going to store them since even with any modifications to local service on the other corridors you still will have that local service? Even in non peak times during daytime hrs 8, 9, and 49 still might use close to 20 buses each or more because they are pretty long routes to cover with acceptable daytime headway intervals. Plus since there have been past and current BRT proposals for the corridors of these three routes, remember 74th, where some or all of the buses assigned to these routes are housed, was built at a time when CTA was still using 55 ft artics and when the lifts were put in those concerned didn't do enough research or take into account artics also came in 60 ft lenghths even in the 7100 days and there may come a time where artics assigned to 74th might be feasible. So with Archer gone, that only leaves six other garages to store them. Three already have them to a significant degree with the other three having only three routes each at most among them that would justify any significant artic use without having them running relatively empty compared to keeping them run efficiently with 40 ft and in some cases 30 ft buses.

[Sam92]

Well artic friendly in general in my mind is more than the viaduct clearance issue. You also have that issue of a number of these two way Chicago streets are pretty narrow as in narrow enough to not accommodate biking lanes and keep existing parking in place narrow and either don't have the rounded out curb sides at intersections or widen out somewhat in accommodation for a turning lane in some form and therefore leave little room for a bus of any standard 40 to 60 ft length to turn comfortably enough without having to inch it's way through its turn and hold up or slowdown surrounding traffic. As for others looking toward further BRT proposals beyond the Jeffery and downtown ones that already got funding as an opening to knock off the Novas for artics, as pointed out by Busjack and others where are you going to store them since even with any modifications to local service on the other corridors you still will have that local service? Even in non peak times during daytime hrs 8, 9, and 49 still might use close to 20 buses each or more because they are pretty long routes to cover with acceptable daytime headway intervals. Plus since there have been past and current BRT proposals for the corridors of these three routes, remember 74th, where some or all of the buses assigned to these routes are housed, was built at a time when CTA was still using 55 ft artics and when the lifts were put in those concerned didn't do enough research or take into account artics also came in 60 ft lenghths even in the 7100 days and there may come a time where artics assigned to 74th might be feasible. So with Archer gone, that only leaves six other garages to store them. Three already have them to a significant degree with the other three having only three routes each at most among them that would justify any significant artic use without having them running relatively empty compared to keeping them run efficiently with 40 ft and in some cases 30 ft buses.

I see your point on that. Well, you have always have 77th for artic storage, which has been shown to need them time and time again so that's four garages and 77th has twice as much room as most of them as well. I think the 8 could be switched from 74th to 77th garage since 77th is closer to the terminal and if they still want to keep the 8 interlined with the 125 then Kedzie would still keep that route to a degree. Chicago Garage might be able to use a few for the 66, 20, and 72. Maybe move some of Kedzie's artics to 77th since they really dont need 59 artics and most of their use is in the weekdays till 8pm. 74th does have some pretty heavy routes itself such as the 9, 49, 55 and 53A but the issues with Garage come into play... Oh and there are still 7 Garages without Archer

[BusHunter]

Of course, other than Jeffery being stated to run with existing equipment, that would have to get beyond the Alternatives Analysis stage, either on the Western Corridor (Western and Ashland) or the Lakeshore Corridor (making assumptions about the $2 million grant for that study). I don't know if they thought that far in advance, or are just saying that it looks like $166 million will be available for buses in the next five years.

I suppose, though, that if the feds did something as bizarre as granting $300 million for Western and Ashland BRT, which would include a grant for buses, that would knock out the estimated number of 40 foot buses, but if they were to be replaced by 60 foot BRTs, the storage problem you previously outlined (especially with regard to lifts at 74th) would still exist. At what seems like the rush hour, there are 34 buses on 9 and 34 buses on 49, if I am reading BusTracker properly.

Are you thinking about replacing north LSD express buses with BRT buses, in which case the Jeffery scenario might be more likely, but even if the feds gave grants to, in effect, replace the DE60LFs at North Park with DE60BRTs, one would still have to store the DE60LFs for what ever other route to which they would be assigned (say 3, 4, 66, 77, or 79).

In time, if the LSD corridor became BRT, most if not all artics would most likely get rebranded. That would help with a storage/fleet issue having buses at NP all one type of bus. That looks like what they might do with the 53 pilot BRt's at 103rd. Even though they may take care of the #192 (or the #6 for now)those BRT's would run it, even though it's not a BRT route. Any type of garage incompatible with artics would have to pick up additional 40 foot service, making #49 a shared route between NP and Kedzie. Np and the artic garages would become more artic. It would be a challenge to find extra space in the garages, but I know there's space now for about 75 40 foot buses at 77th. With 7 garages it would be hard to increase fleets, that's why I'd suggest a partial Nova replacement with artics. If they used a limited local service like they used to on the #80,#49 and #55 they could wipe out half to 3/4 of local service. That's the only way it could currently work without too much overcrowding at the garages. With the speed of BRt, less of those buses would be required. In the end you could possibly come out close to the 34 buses mentioned on the #49. BTW, in the budget I was reading that they might possibly want to replace Archer and bring an 8th garage back, but it would seem more like a wish list to me. They'd like to replace 77th also which is from 1908. It hard to imagine horsedrawn streetcars once used Archer garage. (is that really true?) They must not have been too advanced 100 years ago.

[Busjack]

... BTW, in the budget I was reading that they might possibly want to replace Archer and bring an 8th garage back, but it would seem more like a wish list to me. They'd like to replace 77th also which is from 1908. It hard to imagine horsedrawn streetcars once used Archer garage. (is that really true?) They must not have been too advanced 100 years ago.

That wasn't the case. Lind's book said that Archer Carhouse was built "after 1907" (I believe in 1909), which was after CCRy was all electric (in 1906). Also, that book has pictures that, before that, the Archer Ave. line was electrified, and Archer Ave. cars had to be towed behind cable cars on State Street. More recently, there was the sign over the entrance "nine decades of serving the neighborhood" with a picture of a street car and a trolley bus.

So, as one can imagine, the statement to that effect on page 73 was b.s, especially since horse drawn cars did not have trolleys, which is the device used to contact the overhead wire. I only take the statement there to mean that they closed the garage, unlike the statement a few sentences down about closing the 61st St. shop, because there is a statement on page 60 that they allocated money to replace that shop.

You'll note on p. 60 that they said that various units at 77th and South Shops needed life extension or replacement, but all that was said about Archer was "not in service." Also, I noted that CTA advertised the property for sale.

For that matter, the statement that the viaducts in Evanston were 100 years old doesn't seem supported by the literature, which indicates somewhere in the high 80s. However, so long as they are getting replaced, it doesn't matter.

[BusHunter]

That wasn't the case. Lind's book said that Archer Carhouse was built "after 1907" (I believe in 1909), which was after CCRy was all electric (in 1906). Also, that book has pictures that, before that, the Archer Ave. line was electrified, and Archer Ave. cars had to be towed behind cable cars on State Street. More recently, there was the sign over the entrance "nine decades of serving the neighborhood" with a picture of a street car and a trolley bus.

So, as one can imagine, the statement to that effect on page 73 was b.s, especially since horse drawn cars did not have trolleys, which is the device used to contact the overhead wire. I only take the statement there to mean that they closed the garage, unlike the statement a few sentences down about closing the 61st St. shop, because there is a statement on page 60 that they allocated money to replace that shop.

You'll note on p. 60 that they said that various units at 77th and South Shops needed life extension or replacement, but all that was said about Archer was "not in service." Also, I noted that CTA advertised the property for sale.

I guess they had me fooled. I know the horse drawn service was around 1859-60 IIRC, it was just a matter of how long that stayed around. If I would've thought about it, pictures circa 1900 at State/Madison do show trolleys and horse drawn wagons. My old relatives have told me of milk wagons as late as the 20's. There are a few mistakes here and there in the budget too, like the replacement of emergency exit lighting in the Kimball subway, that dates to the 1940's. (page 69) Obviously, they have the wrong subway. As far as the garages mentioned above, I'm surprised they still acknowledged Archer as a garage. I can't find where I think I read something about Archer to give me that impression of an 8th garage. I guess I'll have to scan through it again.

[Busjack]

I guess they had me fooled. I know the horse drawn service was around 1859-60 IIRC, it was just a matter of how long that stayed around. If I would've thought about it, pictures circa 1900 at State/Madison do show trolleys and horse drawn wagons....

I don't know how we got from hybrid buses to streetcars, but while horse wagons stayed around, including as wreck wagons to pull streetcars back onto the tracks until probably the 1920s, Krambles's book indicates (pages 13-17) that in the 1880s, the trunk lines (State and Cottage Grove south; Madison, Milwaukee, and Blue Island west; and the various north side lines going through the LaSalle St. Tunnel) were all cable car. The far south side was being run by the Calumet Electric, and apparently horse cars were only on residential streets where the tony people did not allow a trolley. As I mentioned, by 1906, everything was converted to electric.

[jajuan]

I see your point on that. Well, you have always have 77th for artic storage, which has been shown to need them time and time again so that's four garages and 77th has twice as much room as most of them as well. I think the 8 could be switched from 74th to 77th garage since 77th is closer to the terminal and if they still want to keep the 8 interlined with the 125 then Kedzie would still keep that route to a degree. Chicago Garage might be able to use a few for the 66, 20, and 72. Maybe move some of Kedzie's artics to 77th since they really dont need 59 artics and most of their use is in the weekdays till 8pm. 74th does have some pretty heavy routes itself such as the 9, 49, 55 and 53A but the issues with Garage come into play... Oh and there are still 7 Garages without Archer

Actually it's six without Archer when we're talking about storing artics and being able to do repair and other work at the garage. 74th's bus maintenance lifts are too short for them.

[jajuan]

In time, if the LSD corridor became BRT, most if not all artics would most likely get rebranded. That would help with a storage/fleet issue having buses at NP all one type of bus. That looks like what they might do with the 53 pilot BRt's at 103rd. Even though they may take care of the #192 (or the #6 for now)those BRT's would run it, even though it's not a BRT route. Any type of garage incompatible with artics would have to pick up additional 40 foot service, making #49 a shared route between NP and Kedzie. Np and the artic garages would become more artic. It would be a challenge to find extra space in the garages, but I know there's space now for about 75 40 foot buses at 77th. With 7 garages it would be hard to increase fleets, that's why I'd suggest a partial Nova replacement with artics. If they used a limited local service like they used to on the #80,#49 and #55 they could wipe out half to 3/4 of local service. That's the only way it could currently work without too much overcrowding at the garages. With the speed of BRt, less of those buses would be required. In the end you could possibly come out close to the 34 buses mentioned on the #49. BTW, in the budget I was reading that they might possibly want to replace Archer and bring an 8th garage back, but it would seem more like a wish list to me. They'd like to replace 77th also which is from 1908. It hard to imagine horsedrawn streetcars once used Archer garage. (is that really true?) They must not have been too advanced 100 years ago.

One monkey wrench with that scenario is North Park operates more than just the North Lake Shore Express routes, not all of which use artic buses, and the great bulk of the local routes it has doesn't have ridership numbers to the degree of justifying artics as we now see on 22 or 151 in various hours if you're looking to make efficient use of them. I really don't see good use of artics on say the 49B or 93, both of which I live near now. And the city would have a heck of a time adding parking restrictions in very many places on the north side to institute any BRT conversion on one or more of the heavier local routes that hasn't been mentioned in a current or prior BRT proposal. So where are you going to place those locals to keep from having a bunch of artics running half empty or less?

[MetroShadow]

Off the topic, a bit: How much would it cost to upgrade Archer to allow for storage for any of the arctics?

[Busjack]

Off the topic, a bit: How much would it cost to upgrade Archer to allow for storage for any of the arctics?

Irrelevant, since it is for sale and the bids have closed.