More New Flyers

[Busjack]

Minneapolis (usually for the 16 service along University).

I would count DC also, but they have LFA's for Local and Express service.

New Flyer also has the BRT (LFA), which is used in Cleveland, although their BRT page at the moment only pushes Xcelsior.

Have to figure whether the transit authority wants the covered fenders, and reports that the flat front bus is no longer being made.

[Busjack]

there's nothing that says they couldn't possibly bring back #X49 and #X9 with these buses in anticipation of BRT.

Considering that the grants are only for an Alternatives Analysis (i.e. keeping consultants off the bread line), I don't think we are close to that (especially given the schedule on the CTA site). Could be for the 1-1 replacement, especially since Western is mostly Nova

Of course, Huberman also stated a similar reason for leasing 4000-4149 as given for these buses, but that never happened.

[ChicagoNova]

BTW, is there any North American city running LFR's that does not use them for a BRT or BRT like (like x)service?

This link might tell you: http://cptdb.ca/wiki...ustries_DE60LFR

[Busjack]

This link might tell you: http://cptdb.ca/wiki...ustries_DE60LFR

Based on that, and clicking through to King County, relevant to that question is whether there is a distinction between the 6020 series of LFRs, which the wiki says is for Rapid Ride, and the 6866 series of LFRs, which doesn't have a similar note.

Also, related to my earlier point is that King County started with LFAs, but went to LFRs.

[See Tea Eh]

BTW, is there any North American city running LFR's that does not use them for a BRT or BRT like (like x)service?

I would wager that most systems that run LFRs do not use them in BRT service.

The LFR was designed as the standard LF with a facelift. The first LFRs were actually trolley buses for Vancouver, and those definitely aren't BRT.

More and more systems have gone with the LFR just to get something that doesn't look as boxy as the old LF, and now that New Flyer has discontinued the LF (and, apparently, the LFA), your only choices are the LFR or Xcelsior.

As for King County, I'm not sure if their Rapid Ride buses have this, but their non-BRT hybrid artics have extra batteries on the roof so they can run in "tunnel mode" (entirely on batteries) all the way through the bus tunnel.*

*Edit: I should clarify that the 6800-series hybrids have the extra batteries. The 2600-2800 series just have the batteries on the rear portion of the roof.

[jajuan]

Now that we know these will be 60 foot LFR's, wouldn't it seem sorta weird to put them into regular local or current express service? (unless there was no other choice on what model they would receive) The press release linked to above does state there will be customer service amenities, which leaves me to wonder whether these will have onboard Bustracker system screens like they intend to do for the Jeffery BRT pilot. With the delivery slated for mid 2013, they are getting closer to a possible #49 and #9 BRT startup date. While they seem to be a little early for that, there's nothing that says they couldn't possibly bring back #X49 and #X9 with these buses in anticipation of BRT. With the NABI's going to the shredder, they now may have the room to house these buses, maybe at 77th, for this service. If that's not the case, I see these buses working there way to Jeffery BRT, as these buses will probably be superior to the 53 buses that would be mocked up to BRT standards in house. Just a few ideas I wanted to pass along. BTW, is there any North American city running LFR's that does not use them for a BRT or BRT like (like x)service?

I can see where you surmise these may find their way onto the Jeffery BRT since these definitely would be unique and different in appearance from CTA's current artics some of which are supposed retrofitted for the start of Jefferey BRT and given the premise of BRT is to have something unique about the buses in service that says this is the BRT bus coming not a local or traditional express.

[Busjack]

There is the link on the homepage to a story that suddenly CTA says it has the money for 425 more new buses in addition to these 100. Also, they are sending the specifications out to bid.

The description of how many they would need to increase capacity slightly makes sense, but again there is a reference to "sales tax bonds." Similar references were made with respect to most of the Bombardier cars.

Since CTA doesn't have any sales tax authority, they somehow must be pledging RTA disbursements that would otherwise go to operating. Maybe that explains why they tried to end run the RTA in the legislature, but then, don't fares have to go up to cover the $1.33 billion in debt?

But I'm sure that CTA beancounters won't be replying.

[geneking7320]

Hi All;

Do you think CTA artics should have 3 doors instead of just 2? I thought about this because many people exit at the front of the bus which can slow operation [how much I don't know].

Gene King

[ChicagoNova]

Hi All;

Do you think CTA artics should have 3 doors instead of just 2? I thought about this because many people exit at the front of the bus which can slow operation [how much I don't know].

Gene King

I pretty much agree with the 3-door idea. Other transit agencies in North America have artics with 3 doors. I think people use the front door to exit instead of the rear door because they think it's closer.

[RJL6000]

There is the link on the homepage to a story that suddenly CTA says it has the money for 425 more new buses in addition to these 100. Also, they are sending the specifications out to bid.

In the article linked above, it also mentions the phase-out of the 30-foot Optimas. Unfortunately, since the major bus manufacturers are no longer offering 96-inch-wide buses in the 40-foot length (this means that all 40-foot buses from those companies are 102 inches wide), this will likely mean the end of the CTA's operation of the University of Chicago routes since that contract will likely be terminated due to the lack of suitable buses to operate along those routes. A private contractor like First Transit or MV Transportation will likely take over the U of C routes once the CTA's contract runs out.

[Busjack]

In the article linked above, it also mentions the phase-out of the 30-foot Optimas. Unfortunately, since the major bus manufacturers are no longer offering 96-inch-wide buses in the 40-foot length (this means that all 40-foot buses from those companies are 102 inches wide), this will likely mean the end of the CTA's operation of the University of Chicago routes since that contract will likely be terminated due to the lack of suitable buses to operate along those routes. A private contractor like First Transit or MV Transportation will likely take over the U of C routes once the CTA's contract runs out.

That's admittedly speculation, in that, as noted in the discussion of New Flyer having some sort of arrangement to assemble Alexander Dennis buses, especially here, the 96" width issue was the motivation more than the 30' one, they could get a NF-AD if they wanted to, and CTA sometimes runs a 40' x 108" bus there.

CTA never really figured out how to "optimize" use of the Optimas.

I'm sure that the real motivations will be whether the U of C determines that it still needs the service, and while U of C is subsidizing the CTA and is using private contractors for other shuttles, it is still getting a break because these are public routes, and thus have some benefit of RTA money. For instance, by reference to the Pace wrangling over Oswego, I doubt that the U of C is paying CTA for its cost of capital.

[Sam92]

In the article linked above, it also mentions the phase-out of the 30-foot Optimas. Unfortunately, since the major bus manufacturers are no longer offering 96-inch-wide buses in the 40-foot length (this means that all 40-foot buses from those companies are 102 inches wide), this will likely mean the end of the CTA's operation of the University of Chicago routes since that contract will likely be terminated due to the lack of suitable buses to operate along those routes. A private contractor like First Transit or MV Transportation will likely take over the U of C routes once the CTA's contract runs out.

It wouldn't seem that having only 102 inch wide buses would stop CTA's operation of UofC routes seeing as 103rd does run a few 1000's on those routes not to mention one of the routes is 100% artic in the rush periods (referring to the 192)

[Sam92]

So now it seems that with a 408 artic fleet every garage except 74th will have some. Does anyone think 74th is going to give up some of it's heaviest routes (49, 9, 55 etc) to others in exchange for some minor routes? The 9 and the 49 aren't too far from 77th

[Busjack]

So now it seems that with a 408 artic fleet every garage except 74th will have some. Does anyone think 74th is going to give up some of it's heaviest routes (49, 9, 55 etc) to others in exchange for some minor routes? The 9 and the 49 aren't too far from 77th

Since the only thing stated was that 74th doesn't have a long enough lift, it isn't clear whether one couldn't be installed there.

Not to mention the problem that 200 more artics than CTA now has means that there has to be garage space to store the equivalent of at least 75 additional buses, not to mention any fleet expansion implied by the article.

There was the policy, of about 3 years ago, of giving each garage about 250 buses, but that would leave open whether, in effect, NP and 77th could absorb more.

Also, given that many of the Novas to be replaced are at FG, I suppose that it could take some artics for 77, 80, 81, and 152, but their other routes basically don't justify them. Again, the question is what service facilities are available there, since they certainly didn't have any 7300s, 7500s, or NF 4000s (unless there was some fluke of which I am not aware).

Obviously, we agree on 9 and 49, but I would say 63 before 55. Of course, if a garage reshuffling would be necessary as you indicate, the bigger question is what would be assigned back to 74, as it basically covers everything near there. 79 and 87 previously had artics.

[sw4400]

It looks like another order of buses is in the works...

The Chicago Transit Authority is giving its fleet of buses a half a billion dollar overhaul.

It will involve both purchasing new buses and rehabbing some buses currently in service.

"Today we are announcing within the next two years, the CTAwill have an entirely new bus fleet thanks to the most ambitious bus replacement and corporate rebuilding project in CTA history," said CTA President Forrest Claypool during a news conference Friday. "As part of this initiative, a (purchase order) is being issued this morning for the purchase of 425 new buses."

The CTA recently purchased 100 new buses. It will purchase another 425. They're a mix of hybrid and clean diesel buses. They're modern and provide a smoother ride for passengers with more seating.

The CTA will also rebuild more than 1,000 other buses, essentially creating an entire new fleet of 1,500 buses. The project will be paid for with sales tax dollars.

Full Story here

Looks like the 1,050 New Flyer D40LF & DE40LF fleet are going to start mid-lifes soon. This might also include the New Flyer DE60LF's. And looks like the 100 DE60LFR and D60LFR's are not the only new buses coming soon, but another 425 New Flyer DELFR and DLFR models. It doesn't mention if they'll all be 60' or if it'll be a mix of 40' and 60' buses.

I wonder if the Optimas will be part of this rehab, or will they be retired early.

[See Tea Eh]

I pretty much agree with the 3-door idea. Other transit agencies in North America have artics with 3 doors. I think people use the front door to exit instead of the rear door because they think it's closer.

Some systems have three-door artics, some have two-door artics. A third door increases maintenance costs and reduces seating capacity, but on the other hand increases standee capacity and improves overall passenger flow for exiting.

A third door might not be a bad idea given the massive crowding on some of the busy routes during rush hour.

[sw4400]

With regard to this quote from Kevin's main page...

"In addition to the new bus purchases, the CTA announced a $165 million plan to overhaul its fleet of 1,030 New Flyer D40LF buses. According to the CTA, the buses will be completely rebuilt, with only the steel frames remaining the same."

Does this mean that the New Flyers are going to be transformed from a D40LF model to a D40LFR???

Also, according to this quote from the Tribune

The current fleet of 1,780 CTA buses is dominated by New Flyers, but other manufacturers are encouraged to participate in the upcoming procurement process, officials said.

This opens up the possibility of NOVA returning after 10 years to supply some of these vehicles now that they have 40' and 60' models. I doubt highly NABI will even be considered, unless the CTA procures them for the 40' model ONLY.

Full story here

[Sam92]

Since the only thing stated was that 74th doesn't have a long enough lift, it isn't clear whether one couldn't be installed there.

Not to mention the problem that 200 more artics than CTA now has means that there has to be garage space to store the equivalent of at least 75 additional buses, not to mention any fleet expansion implied by the article.

There was the policy, of about 3 years ago, of giving each garage about 250 buses, but that would leave open whether, in effect, NP and 77th could absorb more.

Also, given that many of the Novas to be replaced are at FG, I suppose that it could take some artics for 77, 80, 81, and 152, but their other routes basically don't justify them. Again, the question is what service facilities are available there, since they certainly didn't have any 7300s, 7500s, or NF 4000s (unless there was some fluke of which I am not aware).

Obviously, we agree on 9 and 49, but I would say 63 before 55. Of course, if a garage reshuffling would be necessary as you indicate, the bigger question is what would be assigned back to 74, as it basically covers everything near there. 79 and 87 previously had artics.

Well, no doubt 77th will have artics again, also they have almost as many NOVAs to replace as FG as well as the oldest ones. Also I hear that both 77th and NP have space for 450 buses along with Glen having space for 310. So there could be room to serve it's busier routes

[artthouwill]

With regard to this quote from Kevin's main page...

"In addition to the new bus purchases, the CTA announced a $165 million plan to overhaul its fleet of 1,030 New Flyer D40LF buses. According to the CTA, the buses will be completely rebuilt, with only the steel frames remaining the same."

Does this mean that the New Flyers are going to be transformed from a D40LF model to a D40LFR???

Also, according to this quote from the Tribune

The current fleet of 1,780 CTA buses is dominated by New Flyers, but other manufacturers are encouraged to participate in the upcoming procurement process, officials said.

This opens up the possibility of NOVA returning after 10 years to supply some of these vehicles now that they have 40' and 60' models. I doubt highly NABI will even be considered, unless the CTA procures them for the 40' model ONLY.

Full story here

I wonder if the CTA will accept separate bids for the 40' buses and the artics or will New Flyer, NABI, and Nova be allowed to submit a bundle bid for both types.

In a somewhat related matter, I read somewhere the state is trying to put pressure on CTA, Metra, and Pace to consolidate some of its duplicity, especially in obtaining certain parts and services. The agencies claim they are trying to work more closely with each other, but that doesn't appear to be rhe case. This takes me back to why the RTA can't solicit bids for buses for both CTA and Pace? Both agencies will need new buses, and perhaps a larger order can fetcha better deal.

[Busjack]

I wonder if the CTA will accept separate bids for the 40' buses and the artics or will New Flyer, NABI, and Nova be allowed to submit a bundle bid for both types.

You'll have to wait for the RFPs to come out.

One thing you can bet with about 99% certainty is that if NABI is allowed to bid, it will be quickly thrown out based on the past experience clause. After that kind of litigation, CTA isn't going to find them qualified.

Thus, only NF and Nova would be eligible to bid on any contract that included artics. Now, if they split the contract, Orion is out, and that would leave whether Gillig or ElDorado, or [as mentioned in the Minneapolis thread, ha ha] Millennium would bid or be considered by CTA.

In a somewhat related matter, I read somewhere the state is trying to put pressure on CTA, Metra, and Pace to consolidate some of its duplicity, especially in obtaining certain parts and services. The agencies claim they are trying to work more closely with each other, but that doesn't appear to be rhe case. This takes me back to why the RTA can't solicit bids for buses for both CTA and Pace? Both agencies will need new buses, and perhaps a larger order can fetcha better deal.

It wasn't the state, it was the RTA. At least I picked up the FoxChicago version of the story (web version here). That one said:

The head of the RTA wants to streamline services between the CTA and PACE to eliminate redundant routes. Add Metra to that, and the RTA said it could save taxpayers $150 million a year.

RTA chairman John Gates sent a memo to the RTA board, along with the CEOs of Metra, PACE and the CTA, detailing how combining purchasing, personnel, marketing and maintenance would save $100 million a year.

CTA and Pace have had incompatible types of buses since after the RTA order of the CTA 9600s and its own 8000s, and since Pace is locked in with ElDorado, I don't think CTA is going to follow.

Nonetheless, since the RTA has up to now shown no sign of intestinal fortitude, and, for instance, Pace and CTA have their own fuel purchasing policies, even though ultra low sulfur biodiesel should be a commodity, I'm giving this one about 80% certainty that it won't happen, even though the story cites $250 million a year in savings, while Claypool is pinning his hopes on various nonexistent contingencies.

[Tcmetro]

Wow, looks like Nova or New Flyer. Nova has won a lot of orders in New York recently, but of course, NF would allow a homogeneous bus fleet. NABI, Gillig, and ElDorado all seem like a far shot.

[Busjack]

You'll have to wait for the RFPs to come out.

No, I was wrong. It's up there now, and actually is for 300-450 diesel 40 footers and 50-150 either hybrid or diesel 60 footers.

On page 9 of the bidding document, one of the requirements is "Report of structural defects experienced with Contractor's proposed vehicle," including "remedial measures" So, as I said before......

[See Tea Eh]

Does this mean that the New Flyers are going to be transformed from a D40LF model to a D40LFR???

Very unlikely. Would cost too much for no benefit. The front area of the LFR is different from the LF (they have different front doors because of the way the windshield curves). What they're proposing to do is a mid-life overhaul. They might standardize the interior seating, interior lighting and whatnot, but the outside of the bus is going to be the same.

[Busjack]

Very unlikely. Would cost too much for no benefit.

The specs for the overhauls of 600 and 429 1000 series buses are up, so if you are interested, you could check. Personally. I'm not.

[See Tea Eh]

Have to register to download. Not going to do that.

Still, can't help but note that the two proposals add up to 1029 buses. Anyone know which bus gets left out?