CTA Bus Garage Rosters

[Erin Mishkin Jr.]

55 minutes ago, YoungBusLover said:

So I was doing some digging and came across these PDF documents in regards to the clever devices and found this projected fleet management diagram. Notice that the projected retirements for the fleet are a bit off but not by much other than the #1000's of course.

 

Cool, as there’s still over a thousand active flyers in service

[Shannoncvpi]

1 hour ago, YoungBusLover said:

So I was doing some digging and came across these PDF documents in regards to the clever devices and found this projected fleet management diagram. Notice that the projected retirements for the fleet are a bit off but not by much other than the #1000's of course.

 

Its 2021 & its still over 1k flyers still in ssrvice & dil why they aint have the 6400's up until 2021

[NewFlyerMCI]

1 hour ago, YoungBusLover said:

So I was doing some digging and came across these PDF documents in regards to the clever devices and found this projected fleet management diagram. Notice that the projected retirements for the fleet are a bit off but not by much other than the #1000's of course.

 

Why the sudden drop offs of ~175 artics? Is that 4000-4125, the ones with the regular seating?

[YoungBusLover]

55 minutes ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

Why the sudden drop offs of ~175 artics? Is that 4000-4125, the ones with the regular seating?

I would say yes and only I can assume that the drop off could be surplus related but I forgot to mention this was pre pandemic projections.

[Erin Mishkin Jr.]

Wow

[Sam92]

14 hours ago, YoungBusLover said:

I would say yes and only I can assume that the drop off could be surplus related but I forgot to mention this was pre pandemic projections.

 

15 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

Why the sudden drop offs of ~175 artics? Is that 4000-4125, the ones with the regular seating?

What’s even weirder is 300 was supposedly too many artics but by 2024 the 4000s get replaced by 200 TBD artics, the 4300s still remain and another 100 artics are slated to get ordered bringing us to 397 barring any accidents between now and then. What kind of trend are they seeing where artic numbers dip for a few years then return especially when the heaviest part of RPM takes places between now and 2024 which would encourage more people to hop on the bus. ?

[Sam92]

15 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

Why the sudden drop offs of ~175 artics? Is that 4000-4125, the ones with the regular seating?

 

16 hours ago, YoungBusLover said:

So I was doing some digging and came across these PDF documents in regards to the clever devices and found this projected fleet management diagram. Notice that the projected retirements for the fleet are a bit off but not by much other than the #1000's of course.

 

 

1 minute ago, Sam92 said:

 

What’s even weirder is 300 was supposedly too many artics but by 2024 the 4000s get replaced by 200 TBD artics, the 4300s still remain and another 100 artics are slated to get ordered bringing us to 397 barring any accidents between now and then. What kind of trend are they seeing where artic numbers dip for a few years then return especially when the heaviest part of RPM takes places between now and 2024 which would encourage more people to hop on the bus. ?

Upon closer observation the year the 4000’s retire they will be replaced on the spot so artic counts aren’t going to decrease at all but the increase to 397 still holds true by this sheet. Can you narrow down the year by any chance @YoungBusLover? Because If this is after artics were purged from Chicago then this blows a hole in the “anything over 200 artics is overkill” theory. 

[YoungBusLover]

50 minutes ago, Sam92 said:

 

 

Upon closer observation the year the 4000’s retire they will be replaced on the spot so artic counts aren’t going to decrease at all but the increase to 397 still holds true by this sheet. Can you narrow down the year by any chance @YoungBusLover? Because If this is after artics were purged from Chicago then this blows a hole in the “anything over 200 artics is overkill” theory. 

I'll just say this once the #4300s are done getting rehabbed which should take no longer than a year relatively speaking 2022 you'll see some possible changes by 2023 but the problem is CTA hasn't given a clear indication on what direction they're going with the entire #4000 fleet as far as replacing them. I'll honestly say 2024 will realistically be the year that they'll get replaced.

[Sam92]

13 minutes ago, YoungBusLover said:

I'll just say this once the #4300s are done getting rehabbed which should take no longer than a year relatively speaking 2022 you'll see some possible changes by 2023 but the problem is CTA hasn't given a clear indication on what direction they're going with the entire #4000 fleet as far as replacing them. I'll honestly say 2024 will realistically be the year that they'll get replaced.

Well going off what other operators have inputted on the issue of artic numbers, finding out if this is from before or after 66 and 79 failed to work with artics gives a HUGE hint as to whether this holds true and they increase artic counts by replacing 4000’s 1:1, keeping all 43000’s and ordering the extra 100 or they changed plans to let 100 4000’s go un replaced and only replace 100 in accordance with @andrethebusman’s discovery that artics aren’t workable on routes outside of LSD expresses, 12, 22, 151 and 82. If it’s from before then this may be invalid and modified to knock off 100 artics; if this was made after then we just found out that we actually may not have surplus numbers. 

[NewFlyerMCI]

1 hour ago, Sam92 said:

Well going off what other operators have inputted on the issue of artic numbers, finding out if this is from before or after 66 and 79 failed to work with artics gives a HUGE hint as to whether this holds true and they increase artic counts by replacing 4000’s 1:1, keeping all 43000’s and ordering the extra 100 or they changed plans to let 100 4000’s go un replaced and only replace 100 in accordance with @andrethebusman’s discovery that artics aren’t workable on routes outside of LSD expresses, 12, 22, 151 and 82. If it’s from before then this may be invalid and modified to knock off 100 artics; if this was made after then we just found out that we actually may not have surplus numbers. 

Artics are workable outside those routes, CTA just doesn't want to put the work in. Other agencies have managed high-frequency two-door artics on local routes for years, the reasons given for CTA not to is frankly bs. CTA can't even be bothered to run artics on 12 outside the weekend pre-pandemic and they weren't a regular occurrence on the 82 even though they should've been. It's all just excuses.

[artthouwill]

17 minutes ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

Artics are workable outside those routes, CTA just doesn't want to put the work in. Other agencies have managed high-frequency two-door artics on local routes for years, the reasons given for CTA not to is frankly bs. CTA can't even be bothered to run artics on 12 outside the weekend pre-pandemic and they weren't a regular occurrence on the 82 even though they should've been. It's all just excuses.

I'd like to hear the arguments why artics would. Could. , and should work on 66 and 79 as wells why they wouldn't,  couldn't  and shouldn't work on those routes.  High capacity makes them seem like perfect candidates, but is that offset by traffic lanes and dwell times?

[Mr.NewFlyer1051]

10 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

I'd like to hear the arguments why artics would. Could. , and should work on 66 and 79 as wells why they wouldn't,  couldn't  and shouldn't work on those routes.  High capacity makes them seem like perfect candidates, but is that offset by traffic lanes and dwell times?

one of the routes they would work perfectly on is the #81 Lawrence route that is one of the heaviest routes out of FG along with the #77 Belmont both of these routes are optional for artics during the rush period 

[Mr.NewFlyer1051]

here’s a updated list of FG buses that have received their “F” stickers so far i have 3 new ones added to the list i will post the list again as i see F on windshields 

1379 F

1055 F

1353 F 

1347 F

1380 F

1346 F

1054 F

1585 F

1601 F

1404 F

1350 F

1935 F

1934 F

1400 F

1357 F

Edited April 16, 2021 by Mr.NewFlyer1051
list updated

[Erin Mishkin Jr.]

19 minutes ago, Mr.NewFlyer1051 said:

here’s a updated list of FG buses that have received their “F” stickers so far i have 3 new ones added to the list i will post the list again as i see F on windshields 

1379 F

1055 F

1353 F 

1347 F

1380 F

1346 F

1054 F

1585 F

1601 F

1404 F

1350 F

1935 F

Did you saw 1397 recently

[Mr.NewFlyer1051]

1 hour ago, Erin Mishkin Jr. said:

Did you saw 1397 recently

no why?

[Sam92]

3 hours ago, artthouwill said:

I'd like to hear the arguments why artics would. Could. , and should work on 66 and 79 as wells why they wouldn't,  couldn't  and shouldn't work on those routes.  High capacity makes them seem like perfect candidates, but is that offset by traffic lanes and dwell times?

Theoretically any improvements or service changes are supposed to be budget neutral or save CTA some money in a way. Everywhere that artics have stayed are routes that would be running every 2-3 minutes without them and usually that route is running about every 5 now which allowed the cut runs to be used somewhere else. 79 and 66 has so much short distance on and off hoardings that you still need the same amount of buses to keep schedule so now 77th and Chicago is taking up space better used for spare ratio buses by storing artics that aren’t really making a difference. Locals youre better off handling crowds with turn backs and sheer volume and since 3,4 and 79 qualify as such you need LOOOOOOTS of spares LOL 

[artthouwill]

30 minutes ago, Sam92 said:

Theoretically any improvements or service changes are supposed to be budget neutral or save CTA some money in a way. Everywhere that artics have stayed are routes that would be running every 2-3 minutes without them and usually that route is running about every 5 now which allowed the cut runs to be used somewhere else. 79 and 66 has so much short distance on and off hoardings that you still need the same amount of buses to keep schedule so now 77th and Chicago is taking up space better used for spare ratio buses by storing artics that aren’t really making a difference. Locals youre better off handling crowds with turn backs and sheer volume and since 3,4 and 79 qualify as such you need LOOOOOOTS of spares LOL 

Great points, although I would say the 4 handles artics better than the 3. 66, and 79.

[NewFlyerMCI]

1 hour ago, artthouwill said:

I'd like to hear the arguments why artics would. Could. , and should work on 66 and 79 as wells why they wouldn't,  couldn't  and shouldn't work on those routes.  High capacity makes them seem like perfect candidates, but is that offset by traffic lanes and dwell times?

 

1 hour ago, Sam92 said:

Theoretically any improvements or service changes are supposed to be budget neutral or save CTA some money in a way. Everywhere that artics have stayed are routes that would be running every 2-3 minutes without them and usually that route is running about every 5 now which allowed the cut runs to be used somewhere else. 79 and 66 has so much short distance on and off hoardings that you still need the same amount of buses to keep schedule so now 77th and Chicago is taking up space better used for spare ratio buses by storing artics that aren’t really making a difference. Locals youre better off handling crowds with turn backs and sheer volume and since 3,4 and 79 qualify as such you need LOOOOOOTS of spares LOL 

The CTA is effectively a public utility. The primary goals needs to be serving passengers, not turning a profit. If the trade-off here is more passengers on buses, not waiting for them, buses moving (however fast or slow) vs having spare space, then it's worth it. It's not like 77th and Chicago are tiny garages bursting at the seams. Maybe something like artics only being used on runs that aren't the full length of the line (so Western for 79 and Pulaski for the 66) and 40fts for the rest would be an intermediate solution. But the lines are worse off without artics than with. Making some difference is better than no difference at all. And if anything, the passengers prefer them. Lots of 79 riders were upset when they lost the "bendy buses".

The mistake CTA made was thinking that introducing artics meant they could reduce the frequency of buses. Had that never changed, things would've been as smooth or slightly smoother, and less people would be waiting for a bus. In the case of the 79 (I was never a 66 rider), adding artics but reducing frequency effectively meant you would be having crowded buses but the same amount of people waiting outside for one.

There are other issues endemic to the specific routes (such as westbound E 79th riders bus shopping) but I digress.

More to the point, CTA just mismanages their artics. The route like the 79 & 66 deserve artics way more than something like the 12, who only uses them on weekends (pre-pandemic) and doesn't even go to museum campus anymore (which would be a valid reason for riders going from Roosevelt station). Heck the 82 deserves them more than the 12. Artics are never consistently ran on the 82, despite it being worth it at least during weekdays. Routes like the 26 still have artics, I can count on 1 hand the last times I saw a 26 with a full bus. 

1 hour ago, artthouwill said:

Great points, although I would say the 4 handles artics better than the 3. 66, and 79.

I agree with this, somewhat. I would say the 3 is lower on the artic priority list, simply by not being as busy as the other three and King Dr being fairly narrow south of 51st St (not that that's prevented artics before, but I always think it's an important designation).

 

[Erin Mishkin Jr.]

3 hours ago, Mr.NewFlyer1051 said:

no why?

oh idk i was just wondering

[RJL6000]

1 hour ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

More to the point, CTA just mismanages their artics. The route like the 79 & 66 deserve artics way more than something like the 12, who only uses them on weekends (pre-pandemic) and doesn't even go to museum campus anymore (which would be a valid reason for riders going from Roosevelt station). Heck the 82 deserves them more than the 12. Artics are never consistently ran on the 82, despite it being worth it at least during weekdays.

True. It's just mismanagement by the CTA. In fact, outside of the 151 short trips between downtown and Belmont, Kedzie Garage has no artic-worthy routes that it currently runs. As such, it could do well by sending the 151 short trips (operation-wise) to North Park and becoming an all-40-foot (or 40-foot-only) garage. (Currently, because Kedzie has way more artics than it currently needs, routes 12 and 21 are operated mostly with artics.)

Even Forest Glen and 74th, the two garages that currently have no artics, have a couple of artic-worthy routes. But unless those routes are handed over in their entirety to an artic-equipped garage, running artics on those routes requires a lot of deadheading.

[artthouwill]

39 minutes ago, RJL6000 said:

True. It's just mismanagement by the CTA. In fact, outside of the 151 short trips between downtown and Belmont, Kedzie Garage has no artic-worthy routes that it currently runs. As such, it could do well by sending the 151 short trips (operation-wise) to North Park and becoming an all-40-foot (or 40-foot-only) garage. (Currently, because Kedzie has way more artics than it currently needs, routes 12 and 21 are operated mostly with artics.)

Even Forest Glen and 74th, the two garages that currently have no artics, have a couple of artic-worthy routes. But unless those routes are handed over in their entirety to an artic-equipped garage, running artics on those routes requires a lot of deadheading.

The reason K has 151 trips is because 151 also serves as a downtown feeder for the Metra trains at Union Station.   It is a shorter deadhead for buses ending at Union Station to go to K than North Park.  At least K's trips that end at Belmont during P.M. rush runs the 77 and 82 back to garage.  Th same can be done with the 156, which also serves as a Metra feeder to Union Station. 

[NewFlyerMCI]

2 hours ago, RJL6000 said:

True. It's just mismanagement by the CTA. In fact, outside of the 151 short trips between downtown and Belmont, Kedzie Garage has no artic-worthy routes that it currently runs. As such, it could do well by sending the 151 short trips (operation-wise) to North Park and becoming an all-40-foot (or 40-foot-only) garage. (Currently, because Kedzie has way more artics than it currently needs, routes 12 and 21 are operated mostly with artics.)

Even Forest Glen and 74th, the two garages that currently have no artics, have a couple of artic-worthy routes. But unless those routes are handed over in their entirety to an artic-equipped garage, running artics on those routes requires a lot of deadheading.

To be fair, the routes Kedzie did have pre-pandemic did require artics. It's only because of the pandemic, that they don't. All those express routes had passengers who weren't essential workers. And even currently, the 12, 52, 66 & 82 could all use (and do see) a smattering of artics.

1 hour ago, artthouwill said:

The reason K has 151 trips is because 151 also serves as a downtown feeder for the Metra trains at Union Station.   It is a shorter deadhead for buses ending at Union Station to go to K than North Park.  At least K's trips that end at Belmont during P.M. rush runs the 77 and 82 back to garage.  Th same can be done with the 156, which also serves as a Metra feeder to Union Station. 

Yeah, I didn't realize for years why the 125 ran with artics until I stayed at a hotel near Water Tower and went to Doughnut Vault at Kinzie & Franklin and took it back up, that bus was crowded to the max, literally standing room only. Same reason 120 & 121 (which really should be the same route at this point) run trips back to Streeterville in the morning. 120, 121, 124, 125, 151 & 156 can get very, very packed with commuters from CUS & OTC. 

[Sam92]

13 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

 

The CTA is effectively a public utility. The primary goals needs to be serving passengers, not turning a profit. If the trade-off here is more passengers on buses, not waiting for them, buses moving (however fast or slow) vs having spare space, then it's worth it. It's not like 77th and Chicago are tiny garages bursting at the seams. Maybe something like artics only being used on runs that aren't the full length of the line (so Western for 79 and Pulaski for the 66) and 40fts for the rest would be an intermediate solution. But the lines are worse off without artics than with. Making some difference is better than no difference at all. And if anything, the passengers prefer them. Lots of 79 riders were upset when they lost the "bendy buses".

The mistake CTA made was thinking that introducing artics meant they could reduce the frequency of buses. Had that never changed, things would've been as smooth or slightly smoother, and less people would be waiting for a bus. In the case of the 79 (I was never a 66 rider), adding artics but reducing frequency effectively meant you would be having crowded buses but the same amount of people waiting outside for one.

There are other issues endemic to the specific routes (such as westbound E 79th riders bus shopping) but I digress.

More to the point, CTA just mismanages their artics. The route like the 79 & 66 deserve artics way more than something like the 12, who only uses them on weekends (pre-pandemic) and doesn't even go to museum campus anymore (which would be a valid reason for riders going from Roosevelt station). Heck the 82 deserves them more than the 12. Artics are never consistently ran on the 82, despite it being worth it at least during weekdays. Routes like the 26 still have artics, I can count on 1 hand the last times I saw a 26 with a full bus. 

I agree with this, somewhat. I would say the 3 is lower on the artic priority list, simply by not being as busy as the other three and King Dr being fairly narrow south of 51st St (not that that's prevented artics before, but I always think it's an important designation).

 

They may not need to turn a profit but the state is stingy and they need to survive. If you have no room to store spare ratio and the trade off isn’t worth  then the issue cascades for EVERY route at that garage for no needed reason (less spares mean more breakdowns with no bus to replace it quickly).  Running 79th with artics on the same frequency is 30 buses that’s taking up 45 spaces out of 250. Nearly a 5th of the space one route alone. Now instead of having space for 15 spare buses for whatever needs fixing it’s being taken up by buses that are getting less down time and aren’t really fixing an issue. If CTA is looking to cut runs and does it better with short turning 40fts instead so be it

[Sam92]

Artics are for commuting load and go type routes. And operators are often told to ignore timepoints at the end of the express zone to get back on schedule quicker. You keep stuff moving quicker you use less buses another way to free up service hours and keep bus fare low and service cuts at bay. PERSONALLY I feel 79 and 4 DOES qualify as well BUT cta has to be Willing to use more of the space 77th has available and make it more of a super garage of sorts. It has space for 470 but cta decided to keep storage as close to 250 as possible (NP also has 400 bus space) 

[Sam92]

Want a realistic relatable example? I do doordash and have had to cut out bringing food up to people’s door when our pay got cut. The less time I’m spending in elevators the more food I can drop off and keep it moving. Otherwise I’d have to work less hours to maintain $25/hour