Routes that need Artics or Increased Service

[YoungBusLover]

On 5/10/2023 at 8:51 AM, Busjack said:

That's totally ancient thinking. The control center has BusTracker, and theoretically could have that authority, But then riders would complain to the media that a bus shown on the schedule as SB at Clark and Morse never showed up.  But I'll defer to @YoungBusLoveron that.

You're correct. The control center has all the equipment in place to track runs that are indeed on/off the street 24/7. When runs are held in at the very last minute or other circumstances occur they'll normally get in contact with the supervisors on the street via the phone from the garage clerk to let them know if they weren't already aware beforehand. Supervisors will monitor things as they go throughout the course of there shift but when other service disruptions occur that require there immediate attention it'll be difficult to manage everything all at once with very little manpower they have to make the necessary adjustments to the street accordingly. Sometimes you'll have an assignment of an incident that can take upwards to 30 minutes to get to, advise and then clear with control before they can return back to regular duty. (Ex. Bus breakdown, accident, Fire, protest, fights ..are just a few things I can think off the top my head.) All in all to sum things up, Control, supervision and garage clerks are working hard to get runs on the street that are held in everyday but if its not possible to make that happen then "Plan B"  so to speak is to adjust the street the best way you can with the manpower you have available to you in that current moment. As much as some of us would want to be moved up 5 - 10 minutes on a 9 - 12 minute headway to cover a 30 - 40 minute gap in service control has other ideas in mind depending on the current time of day and demand of said street. Ashland has had major issues as of late on the weekends in the early to mid afternoon with large service gaps at times of upwards to 45 minutes going NB from 95th makes ya wonder if 74th needs to share that route 77th to help out a bit. 

[pudgym29]

I live off the Authority routes #77 and #54. I believe it would not be an improvement were the #77 Belmont route be re-assigned to North Park garage, potentionally making it available for 60-footers.

Ignoring my desire, what I hope the Authority deigns to do is at least restoring the #X54 route between Jefferson Park Transit Center and Midway. This would cut the travel time between O'Hare and Midway by providing a one-seat ride between the two. (Of course this also involves riders realizing they should occupy the rear three cars on the inbound O'Hare train. I can only hope.)

Belmont is a very intriguing route, considering when the extension was opened, it was a "B" station. It should have been an all-stop station from day 1. That its base transit route has risen to be one of the Authority's most popular routes is significant.

Was the reason it was not an all-stop station from day 1 due to its base route being serviced by trolley buses? I  am not alarmed in any instance. I await a plausible response,

[Mr.NewFlyer1279]

7 hours ago, pudgym29 said:

I live off the Authority routes #77 and #54. I believe it would not be an improvement were the #77 Belmont route be re-assigned to North Park garage, potentionally making it available for 60-footers.

Ignoring my desire, what I hope the Authority deigns to do is at least restoring the #X54 route between Jefferson Park Transit Center and Midway. This would cut the travel time between O'Hare and Midway by providing a one-seat ride between the two. (Of course this also involves riders realizing they should occupy the rear three cars on the inbound O'Hare train. I can only hope.)

Belmont is a very intriguing route, considering when the extension was opened, it was a "B" station. It should have been an all-stop station from day 1. That its base transit route has risen to be one of the Authority's most popular routes is significant.

Was the reason it was not an all-stop station from day 1 due to its base route being serviced by trolley buses? I  am not alarmed in any instance. I await a plausible response,

to give you a answer on the artics on 77…………back in the day there were talks about FG getting new maintenance garage to accommodate the artics to slap em on the #81 Lawrence and #77 Belmont routes…..what happen with those plans no one knows but recently since the old building was demolished on armstrong that talk has been brought back to light moving forward. I can some what agree with you for NP taking 77 but wouldn’t it be better for FG and NP to share the route? instead of having K do pull in trippers on the 77/82?

[Busjack]

10 minutes ago, Mr.NewFlyer1279 said:

to give you a answer on the artics on 77…………back in the day there were talks about FG getting new maintenance garage to accommodate the artics to slap em on the #81 Lawrence and #77 Belmont routes…..what happen with those plans no one knows but recently since the old building was demolished on armstrong that talk has been brought back to light moving forward. I can some what agree with you for NP taking 77 but wouldn’t it be better for FG and NP to share the route? instead of having K do pull in trippers on the 77/82?

In reverse order:

• Anything to now be built for FG would be part of the electric bus facilities plan, so nothing is going to happen in the near term, even though CTA recently cleared the acquired properties, which were not part of the garage.
• About the time when Huberman lied about the 3 artics for 4 6000s plan, we went through the exercise of what routes had sufficient ridership to justify it, and based on that Belmont qualified. However, the flies in the ointment were that CTA just completed the lift replacement project and just replaced the FG lifts where they were, precluding 60' buses (the 74th lifts were not replaced), and traffic conditions on Belmont.

[artthouwill]

8 hours ago, pudgym29 said:

I live off the Authority routes #77 and #54. I believe it would not be an improvement were the #77 Belmont route be re-assigned to North Park garage, potentionally making it available for 60-footers.

Ignoring my desire, what I hope the Authority deigns to do is at least restoring the #X54 route between Jefferson Park Transit Center and Midway. This would cut the travel time between O'Hare and Midway by providing a one-seat ride between the two. (Of course this also involves riders realizing they should occupy the rear three cars on the inbound O'Hare train. I can only hope.)

Belmont is a very intriguing route, considering when the extension was opened, it was a "B" station. It should have been an all-stop station from day 1. That its base transit route has risen to be one of the Authority's most popular routes is significant.

Was the reason it was not an all-stop station from day 1 due to its base route being serviced by trolley buses? I  am not alarmed in any instance. I await a plausible response,

I certainly agree that the X54 should be reinstated, although it would be a two seat ride from O'Hare to Midway with the one transfer at Jefferson Park.   I don't know if there's a significant savings in travel time by transferring to a bus in Jefferson Park as opposed to transferring to the Orange Line downtown.   The latter does require a significant haul from subway to elevated platform.

I will defer on the Belmont B station  thing, though most of my memory had Addison as the B station.

As far as artics on the 77, I'm not sure if artics are conducive to that route.  Artics would be the only reason for North Park to operate the route.  I think that if it were possible, a North Park or FG supplement short turn service between Harlem and Belmont Blue Line station would best solve the overcrowding problem.   Even with that. I wouldn't necessarily eliminate the few K trips between Halsted and Kimball.  The only thing is whether CTA has enough staffing to pull off the supplental service.

[Busjack]

40 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

I will defer on the Belmont B station  thing, though most of my memory had Addison as the B station.

1972 map indicates you are correct. Belmont was A and Addison was B.

Starting in 1976, the map had a legend that SB B trains also stop.

I assume they thought that the Ravenswood A/B stop at Belmont was sufficient.

[pudgym29]

On 5/13/2023 at 10:34 AM, Busjack said:

1972 map indicates you are correct. Belmont was A and Addison was B.

Starting in 1976, the map had a legend that SB B trains also stop.

I assume they thought that the Ravenswood A/B stop at Belmont was sufficient.

This data is for the Red Line Belmont station. [url=http://irm-cta.org/RouteMaps/FullMaps/011-020/CTA-Map017_Front.jpg]The Blue Line Belmont station[/url] opened in 1970 as a "B" station. ?

Edited May 17, 2023 by pudgym29
Show the genuine CTA map from February 1970.

[Busjack]

On 5/13/2023 at 1:35 AM, pudgym29 said:

Belmont is a very intriguing route, considering when the extension was opened, it was a "B" station. It should have been an all-stop station from day 1. That its base transit route has risen to be one of the Authority's most popular routes is significant.

Was the reason it was not an all-stop station from day 1 due to its base route being serviced by trolley buses? I  am not alarmed in any instance. I await a plausible response,

 

 

3 hours ago, pudgym29 said:

This data is for the Red Line Belmont station. [url=http://irm-cta.org/RouteMaps/FullMaps/011-020/CTA-Map017_Front.jpg]The Blue Line Belmont station[/url] opened in 1970 as a "B" station. ?

Maybe you should have said WNW or Blue Line, or maybe you implied it.

Anyway, by then I don't think it being a trolley bus route had anything to do with it, as then most of the major north side bus routes (65, 66, 72, 74, 77, 78, 80) were trolley bus, and the Marmons were large. If anything can be said, Jefferson Park resulted in propane buses replacing trolley buses on 81 and 85, although @andrethebusman said there were plans to extend the wires there.

The main effect of trolley buses was that short motor bus extensions were needed to get service into Lincoln Park, or on Irving Park west of Neenah (Irving Park also got 80AX). I'm sure the Red Line came to mind because there was no point to transfer to an EB trolley bus, which ended at Halsted.

[jajuan]

On 5/10/2023 at 7:59 AM, YoungBusLover said:

The schedule dept has no control over the manpower though, the available manpower is there to cover the runs. However, the real problem lies in the operators using FMLA, sickbook entries and other forms of time off methods to not cover the runs for a multitude of reasons. Nonetheless, the 22 is a high demand route with priority over the 155. Does the 155 cover games at Wrigley every other weekend? Some operators would work weekends just not on Clark due to all the congestion, games at a Wrigley ,multiple detours and last but not least overall distance. If I worked out of NP I'd find a way to work the 97 over the 22 on weekends. 

And CTA in fact has service alert signs up on the #22 bus stop signs between Belmont and Addison stating just that for the most part. Well as they put it, buses would be detoured any given day as needed due to Wrigley Field home baseball games and other special events at Wrigley. 

On 5/9/2023 at 10:51 AM, YoungBusLover said:

Traffic on Devon would make service worse in my honest opinion.

Yeah agreed. Traffic is already atrocious on Devon as is.

On 5/9/2023 at 5:27 PM, strictures said:

That makes no sense whatsoever!

It makes perfect sense. Congestion on Devon has been so heavy at times, that 40 foot buses get slowed enough that it can take almost a half hour just to get from California to Ridge. A good part of it comes from cars being double parked and trucks taking up space on the road to make "quick" drop offs. The standard buses already on Devon have a challenging enough time maneuvering through that mess. An artic with 20 more feet to maneuver will have an even harder time. Crowding on the 155 is more a function of delays buses encounter because of road congestion than it is heavy ridership.

[strictures]

11 hours ago, jajuan said:

Crowding on the 155 is more a function of delays buses encounter because of road congestion than it is heavy ridership.

Obviously you don't ride the 155 as the crowding is due to passenger loads, not traffic problems!

[Busjack]

50 minutes ago, strictures said:

Obviously you don't ride the 155 as the crowding is due to passenger loads, not traffic problems!

Obviously you don't understand the point. The passenger load can't be accommodated if the bus can't navigate the street or fit into a bus stop. Maybe they can put the trolley tracks back.

Also, 3 routes serve east of Clark.

[YoungBusLover]

4 hours ago, strictures said:

Obviously you don't ride the 155 as the crowding is due to passenger loads, not traffic problems!

I've rode the 155 several times and congestion is usually the number one thing that delays service which in return will have an increased amount of passengers waiting for a bus in either direction. When I work Halsted during the week I encounter several mile long pockets of congestion that can delay me by 5 - 10 minutes and by that point that 8 - 12 minute headway I had between my leader and myself turns into a 20-24 minute headway with an increased amount of passengers I have to pick up on top of it. As much as I would want an Artic to help out with decrowding on the 8, the time it would take to travel down the street with it would double. Devon needs a few tweaks to some intersections to increase the flow of traffic. 

[artthouwill]

18 minutes ago, YoungBusLover said:

I've rode the 155 several times and congestion is usually the number one thing that delays service which in return will have an increased amount of passengers waiting for a bus in either direction. When I work Halsted during the week I encounter several mile long pockets of congestion that can delay me by 5 - 10 minutes and by that point that 8 - 12 minute headway I had between my leader and myself turns into a 20-24 minute headway with an increased amount of passengers I have to pick up on top of it. As much as I would want an Artic to help out with decrowding on the 8, the time it would take to travel down the street with it would double. Devon needs a few tweaks to some intersections to increase the flow of traffic. 

To add to that, the only east west alternative is Peterson.  Peterson is 1/2 mile south of Devon west of Clark.  Pratt is 1/2 muke north of Devon but is in a mostly residential area and has no parking in one side of the street because it's narrow.  

As far as CTA ridership,  in addition to the traffic,  the next E -W route to the north is the 96 Lunt, which is 3/4 miles away on Lunt and 1 mile away on Touhy.  Because Devon is a heavy business district,  putting parking restrictions in place may hurt those busies.  That area has high density population which means parking is already at a premium.  Restricting parking to one side during rush periods might improve traffic flow a little bit,  but Devon is really the last major thoroughfare to the north considering its direct connection to Sheridan Rd to Lake Shore Drive.   

When I started venturing north, I was surprised how packed the 255 could get in both directions.   But the street was a nightmare to drive on.  Artics wouldn't make this better.

[jajuan]

23 hours ago, strictures said:

Obviously you don't ride the 155 as the crowding is due to passenger loads, not traffic problems!

I live right near Devon and actually do ride the route when I'm not tied to a set deadline to get to my destination. The route is plagued by traffic issues along Devon. The loads of people waiting at stops would not be as high if the bus was not delayed. Or do you want to stick to the claim traffic isn't an issue and therefore say that the three buses coming at once while buses in the opposite direction being nonexistent is spurred by nothing at all? 

[jajuan]

19 hours ago, artthouwill said:

To add to that, the only east west alternative is Peterson.  Peterson is 1/2 mile south of Devon west of Clark.  Pratt is 1/2 muke north of Devon but is in a mostly residential area and has no parking in one side of the street because it's narrow.  

As far as CTA ridership,  in addition to the traffic,  the next E -W route to the north is the 96 Lunt, which is 3/4 miles away on Lunt and 1 mile away on Touhy.  Because Devon is a heavy business district,  putting parking restrictions in place may hurt those busies.  That area has high density population which means parking is already at a premium.  Restricting parking to one side during rush periods might improve traffic flow a little bit,  but Devon is really the last major thoroughfare to the north considering its direct connection to Sheridan Rd to Lake Shore Drive.   

When I started venturing north, I was surprised how packed the 255 could get in both directions.   But the street was a nightmare to drive on.  Artics wouldn't make this better.

Weekends during the afternoon can be worse in some because at that point, you got people who are off work now heading to those shops and restaurants along Devon right along with those other people who are already regular customers to those businesses, and a number of them travel to those businesses in cars instead of buses, therefore increasing the traffic congestion that is already an issue. Plus the weekend deliveries and dropoffs to businesses don't seem to be white as spread out as the weekdays. But that could be more the increased car traffic making the delivery trucks' effects on congestion more acute and noticeable.

[YoungBusLover]

I'll just add this final point, If CTA we're to ever add artics on Devon, it would be the shortest route to ever run them. A 3 mile stretch between Kedzie and Broadway. Only one can imagine seeing the next base order for artics running down Devon in one convoy.

[jajuan]

This thread seems to most fit an observation I'm seeing of the 6 today. There's only one artic operating on the route today as far as I can see from an hour and a half of observation, when usually on weekends it's primarily would be operated with artics and only one or two maybe three 40 footers at best. That would be true even after we hit a period of a lot of artics being down because of the maintenance backlog and during the period when the artics were spread between five garages before going back to the normal being split between just Kedzie, NP and 103rd. But right now all I've seen is 4311 and the rest a pretty much even split of 8350s and NF 1000s. 

[jajuan]

On 5/20/2023 at 12:57 PM, YoungBusLover said:

I'll just add this final point, If CTA we're to ever add artics on Devon, it would be the shortest route to ever run them. A 3 mile stretch between Kedzie and Broadway. Only one can imagine seeing the next base order for artics running down Devon in one convoy.

Nice play on the redressing of a San Francisco Xcelsior articulated if I'm interpreting some of the overhead wires correctly as being trolleywires.

[Tcmetro]

1 hour ago, jajuan said:

This thread seems to most fit an observation I'm seeing of the 6 today. There's only one artic operating on the route today as far as I can see from an hour and a half of observation, when usually on weekends it's primarily would be operated with artics and only one or two maybe three 40 footers at best. That would be true even after we hit a period of a lot of artics being down because of the maintenance backlog and during the period when the artics were spread between five garages before going back to the normal being split between just Kedzie, NP and 103rd. But right now all I've seen is 4311 and the rest a pretty much even split of 8350s and NF 1000s. 

I've been checking the maths22 site on a regular basis and it seems that 103rd is only consistently running artics on the J14. 6 and 26 are getting a lot of 40' buses these days, which isn't good because those routes get pretty packed.

 

My speculation is that the 4000s are really hitting their age faster than the 1000s. It doesn't help that they are hybrids, which some cities are trying to get rid of sooner because of components like the batteries being costly to replace.

[artthouwill]

One would think that CTA should balance the artics between the 6 and the J14.  Maybe they think the J14 is the better route because it's less stop and go outside of downtown and the fact that it ends at the 103rd garage.  

Where is that RFP for replacing the equivalent of 208 artics?  Will this be an all electric order or will CTA actually try for one more clean diesel order?  Will VTA even order artics?

  

[Tcmetro]

2 hours ago, artthouwill said:

One would think that CTA should balance the artics between the 6 and the J14.  Maybe they think the J14 is the better route because it's less stop and go outside of downtown and the fact that it ends at the 103rd garage.  

Where is that RFP for replacing the equivalent of 208 artics?  Will this be an all electric order or will CTA actually try for one more clean diesel order?  Will VTA even order artics?

  

The regional capital plan for 2023-27 has an item for purchase of 208 electric articulated buses. No bid has been released though.

Here's the kicker. The CTA electrification plan puts 103rd as second for investment, but Kedzie and North Park close to the end of the transition period (basically 10 years out). I don't see how electrification of artic routes is going to happen without shifting the DLSD routes to run out of Chicago, 103rd, and 77th in the short term or to ignore the plan and prioritize Kedzie and North Park for investment.

[jajuan]

25 minutes ago, Tcmetro said:

The regional capital plan for 2023-27 has an item for purchase of 208 electric articulated buses. No bid has been released though.

Here's the kicker. The CTA electrification plan puts 103rd as second for investment, but Kedzie and North Park close to the end of the transition period (basically 10 years out). I don't see how electrification of artic routes is going to happen without shifting the DLSD routes to run out of Chicago, 103rd, and 77th in the short term or to ignore the plan and prioritize Kedzie and North Park for investment.

The rub there is 77th and Chicago have an aversion to having artics for very long and always look for an excuse to rid themselves of them. The only reason they had them for so long up to last year was due to pandemic policy to relieve crowding and at one point accommodate social distancing that was no longer needed as much due to vaccinations along with travel patterns flipping back to prepandemic demographics as downtown commutes of office workers went back on the rise. Also it's 103rd that's running into the available artic issue, not Kedzie or North Park. So in spite of what's shown in CTA's electrification plans, that dramatic of a shift in route assignments isn't needed. The usual K and NP assigned artic heavy routes aren't hurting for artics. 

[YoungBusLover]

14 hours ago, jajuan said:

Nice play on the redressing of a San Francisco Xcelsior articulated if I'm interpreting some of the overhead wires correctly as being trolleywires.

I hate to break it to you but this is a NJT 60 footer. ?

[YoungBusLover]

12 hours ago, Tcmetro said:

I've been checking the maths22 site on a regular basis and it seems that 103rd is only consistently running artics on the J14. 6 and 26 are getting a lot of 40' buses these days, which isn't good because those routes get pretty packed.

 

My speculation is that the 4000s are really hitting their age faster than the 1000s. It doesn't help that they are hybrids, which some cities are trying to get rid of sooner because of components like the batteries being costly to replace.

Yeah those 8450s have been the added replacement so to speak for the artic shortage 103rd is currently suffering, the weird thing is they haven't used them that much on the LSD routes as much as I thought they would. You would think new buses would go straight there to keep the mileage down on the 1000s but that hasn't been the case so far.

[YoungBusLover]

11 hours ago, artthouwill said:

One would think that CTA should balance the artics between the 6 and the J14.  Maybe they think the J14 is the better route because it's less stop and go outside of downtown and the fact that it ends at the 103rd garage.  

Where is that RFP for replacing the equivalent of 208 artics?  Will this be an all electric order or will CTA actually try for one more clean diesel order?  Will VTA even order artics?

  

I remember seeing a timeline for the replacement of artics if funding was allocated for it a year or so ago and it hasn't become a reality yet. Most of the 4000s were supposed to be replaced by at least 2025 and newer artics were supposed to be getting delivered around that time as well. The #4300s are due to get rehabbed soon though but 98 buses can only get you so far.