Busjack Posted August 25, 2017 Report Share Posted August 25, 2017 58 minutes ago, Pace831 said: Back to this debate. Today I saw an unwrapped bus using the shoulder on route 775. I thought it was bus 6389 but that is a South bus, unless it was moved to SW. No, it was on 877 yesterday.I suppose it could be loaner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pace831 Posted August 25, 2017 Report Share Posted August 25, 2017 10 minutes ago, Busjack said: No, it was on 877 yesterday.I suppose it could be loaner. I probably just misread the number as it passed me going the other way. One of 6386-88 from SW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted August 25, 2017 Report Share Posted August 25, 2017 8 hours ago, Busjack said: No, it was on 877 yesterday. 8 hours ago, Pace831 said: I probably just misread the number as it passed me going the other way. One of 6386-88 from SW. And back there this morning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pace831 Posted August 25, 2017 Report Share Posted August 25, 2017 3 hours ago, Busjack said: And back there this morning Probably was 6388 that I saw yesterday. Actually I think I also saw 6389 on the Tri State so I must have been confused. I did see 6388 again today deadheading to Toyota Park for 856. Nobody else was surprised by the unwrapped bus on shoulder sighting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted August 25, 2017 Report Share Posted August 25, 2017 1 hour ago, Pace831 said: Nobody else was surprised by the unwrapped bus on shoulder sighting? Maybe for starters, and based on 6977-9, it doesn't have to be "wrapped," (even if that term has been used, including by me), but whether it has the "Authorized to Use the Shoulder" stripes. Or maybe the State Police is not as concerned as it once was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pace831 Posted August 25, 2017 Report Share Posted August 25, 2017 55 minutes ago, Busjack said: Maybe for starters, and based on 6977-9, it doesn't have to be "wrapped," (even if that term has been used, including by me), but whether it has the "Authorized to Use the Shoulder" stripes. Or maybe the State Police is not as concerned as it once was. The one I saw had no side markings at all. Maybe it had the bumper decals, which I didn't notice. After seeing this and 6510-12, I agree the only conclusion we can make is that the supposition that "BOS buses must be wrapped" isn't absolutely true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted August 25, 2017 Report Share Posted August 25, 2017 Probably the most important one is the equivalent of ECNALUBMA on the front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mel bernero Posted September 3, 2017 Report Share Posted September 3, 2017 Here is a photograph of 6977. Simplified wrap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pace831 Posted September 3, 2017 Report Share Posted September 3, 2017 8 hours ago, mel bernero said: Here is a photograph of 6977. Simplified wrap. I like the black paint below the front windows and around the headlights. That and the lack of a full wrap makes it look more luxurious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetroShadow Posted September 3, 2017 Author Report Share Posted September 3, 2017 10 hours ago, mel bernero said: Here is a photograph of 6977. Simplified wrap. If I'm not mistaken, that's with the restyled headlights. In any case, pretty! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jajuan Posted October 18, 2017 Report Share Posted October 18, 2017 On 9/3/2017 at 0:08 AM, mel bernero said: Here is a photograph of 6977. Simplified wrap. I'm usually not a fan of motor coaches that are for transit use but I agree that this newer coach picked up by Pace is sleek looking bus the way the livery is done here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artthouwill Posted October 19, 2017 Report Share Posted October 19, 2017 12 hours ago, jajuan said: I'm usually not a fan of motor coaches that are for transit use but I agree that this newer coach picked up by Pace is sleek looking bus the way the livery is done here. A lot of TAs are using coaches for commuter routes. Houston METRO, is one example. NJ Transit is well known for it. It has become popular enough that MIC and now Prevost have commuter coach product lines. Once upon a time private coach companies were primarily responsible for commuter service. Before PACE ventured into it, this area's only commuter service was Hammond Yellow serving NW Indiana to downtown commuters. Pace route 855 was operated by private carriers Keeshin/Coach USA, Neal's, Mid America and even Greyhound used to operate the 855. Each carrier used their own equipment using a dedicated fleet for the service. Greyhound even had the Pace logo painted near the door entrance. I love motorcoaches period so I am excited to see TAs use coaches for longer haul commuter routes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted October 19, 2017 Report Share Posted October 19, 2017 2 hours ago, artthouwill said: A lot of TAs are using coaches for commuter routes. NY MTA has a lot of them, and bought a lot after it took over the private bus companies (roster) and it has an order with Prevost for 45 footers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetroShadow Posted October 22, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2017 On 10/19/2017 at 5:59 AM, Busjack said: NY MTA has a lot of them, and bought a lot after it took over the private bus companies (roster) and it has an order with Prevost for 45 footers. AC Transit is swapping out MCI commuters in ordering 60 footers and double deckers. We went into a discussion years back about using double deckers; but in the Bay Area context they’re going to be more effective on maintenance than the OTRs (they have suburban Gillig’s as well). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted October 22, 2017 Report Share Posted October 22, 2017 10 hours ago, MetroShadow said: AC Transit is swapping out MCI commuters in ordering 60 footers and double deckers. We went into a discussion years back about using double deckers; but in the Bay Area context they’re going to be more effective on maintenance than the OTRs (they have suburban Gillig’s as well). The suburban Axess buses seem generally adequate, but don't have the seating capacity the MCIs have (which was a problem on I-55), and, of course, I don't see Pace going to artics. The biggest joke was that Rochester NY RTS was (and may still be) running suburban artics, even though the apparent objective on most Park and Ride routes was to fill about half the seats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artthouwill Posted October 22, 2017 Report Share Posted October 22, 2017 20 hours ago, MetroShadow said: AC Transit is swapping out MCI commuters in ordering 60 footers and double deckers. We went into a discussion years back about using double deckers; but in the Bay Area context they’re going to be more effective on maintenance than the OTRs (they have suburban Gillig’s as well). How could maintenance be more effective on attics compared to OTRs unless the OTRs are VanHools? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetroShadow Posted October 24, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2017 On 10/22/2017 at 4:22 PM, artthouwill said: How could maintenance be more effective on attics compared to OTRs unless the OTRs are VanHools? Any bus can be used on any route. Even the OTR'S. And I’ve seen standard 40footers be used on Transbay. The blocking gets janky. (Fun fact, their scheduling manager was once a scheduler for CTA for a while) The OTRs are also older, which the maintenance costs would be higher to maintain (and operationally different) than a 60ft. That said, the District started using suburban Gilligs (and the double deckers coming next summer) to address this issue. And the artics I’ve seen here have been used on the NL and O, which are all day services. You'll likely get a couple on the NX/Macarthur Corridor but it relies on space at the (temporary and New) Transbay Terminal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rotjohns Posted November 13, 2017 Report Share Posted November 13, 2017 Looks like the groundbreaking has begun for the Plainfield commuter lot. Due to be open summer of 2018 with 600 parking spaces. Believe it or not, I'm curious to know if even that's enough to accommodate. http://www.pacebus.com/pdf/PR_Plainfield_Park-n-Ride.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pace831 Posted November 13, 2017 Report Share Posted November 13, 2017 24 minutes ago, rotjohns said: Believe it or not, I'm curious to know if even that's enough to accommodate. 755 and 855 combined get just over 1000 riders per day. That includes some who get on at Old Chicago (755) and Burr Ridge (855). Also figure that some people carpool or are dropped off. The press release says "530 daily trips", presumably meaning only those trips from Plainfield. So 600 spaces should be enough for the immediate future. It remains to be seen whether more parking will attract people who currently park elsewhere. 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.