4000-series DE60LF - Updates - Rehabs

[YoungBusLover]

On 11/10/2023 at 7:04 PM, Sam92 said:

Maybe some extras due to charging, block changes or just some extras to safely cover any teething issues. Maybe they can work out a better way to make artics work at 77th or Chicago cause honestly 79th can use some back. Maybe this time running more buses to make up for the increased running times. Heck Clark is narrow as 79th, has more  congestion and makes it work. Same with Sheridan. Heck 77th needs to just have a good 100 artics which will allow them enough to convert 4, 8, and 79. Running mixed 40fts and artics on artic routes vs running all artics isnt recommended according to some report I found a while back. I'll look for it and post it. 60 artics wasn't enough and another thing I'm starting to notice 77th tends to purge artics when they only have on artic route (sending 6 to 103rd, purging them after splitting artics with Chicago and only running the on 79th.) At least they tried to work with them more when they had 60. Heck they ran 3 and 79 exclusively on weekends. 

 

The 8 doesn't use artics because of the small terminals at Waveland and 79th. Unless they're used as deadheads from Waveland after doing a NB trip it's kind of useless for them to be put on the 8. They would really be effective on trips from Division/Randolph to Root to help decrowding on the UIC campus. The 4 worked great with Artics especially when the headway weren't spread out as they are now. King Drive during peak hours could really use a few artics as well. 

[Sam92]

41 minutes ago, Busjack said:

However, that ignores the CTA reality that passengers are complaining about the schedules, even though the schedules  were cut back due to the driver shortage, and while the last cutback was supposed to do away with what the news media characterizes as "ghost buses," it didn't, as indicated by the ABC7 Eyewiness News report frequently cited by others. I don't know what tourists going to casinos expect, but Chicago is not going to accept converting 49/X49 to artics and scheduling them once an hour. It seems as though frequency, rather than crowding, is the current issue. Clearly, the artics are not working on Clark, for whatever reason.

Instead of reducing frequency "slow down the schedule" means realistic run times for artics. CTA was trying to do 2/3 replacements it seems with the artics 

[Busjack]

12 hours ago, Sam92 said:

Instead of reducing frequency "slow down the schedule" means realistic run times for artics. CTA was trying to do 2/3 replacements it seems with the artics 

• If it takes longer to finish a trip, and CTA is short drivers (and maybe buses), lengthening the trip time inherently increases the interval.
• I don't have to repeat again that the 3 for 4 artic representation was a fraud. When Huberman represented it, there was already evidence that the NABIs were going to be pulled. I bet you believed that CTA was going to get 900 DE60s, too.

[Sam92]

55 minutes ago, Busjack said:

•  
• I don't have to repeat again that the 3 for 4 artic representation was a fraud. When Huberman represented it, there was already evidence that the NABIs were going to be pulled. I bet you believed that CTA was going to get 900 DE60s, too.

First of all I knew unless a huge ridership boom from Chicago winning the Olympic bid and a few new garages were built of course 900 artics would have been a waste.  I'm going based off the fact that other routes that use artics used to operate more frequently have slightly cut back but they were primarily assigned to express routes at that time so as ander cited before; CTA seemed to try to do the same with the artics on local routes but later found you can't do the same (i.e 66, 79 and apparently 22 by what @jajuanmentioned). Also what I was getting at is a report that was made AFTER cta went from considering more artics after 4300s to going all standards mentioned artic numbers projected to increase to 400 for some reason around the time that 4300s were due for replacement. That report is actually somewhere In one of these threads I'm still looking for it to post as reference so I'm wondering if maybe the bump in artics was maybe to try again with enough artics to convert and while still maintaining proper headways. I bet YOU believed I was saying stuff without doing some sort of homework like @Nitro ???

[Busjack]

2 hours ago, Sam92 said:

First of all I knew unless a huge ridership boom from Chicago winning the Olympic bid and a few new garages were built of course 900 artics would have been a waste.  I'm going based off the fact that other routes that use artics used to operate more frequently have slightly cut back but they were primarily assigned to express routes at that time so as ander cited before; CTA seemed to try to do the same with the artics on local routes but later found you can't do the same (i.e 66, 79 and apparently 22 by what @jajuanmentioned). Also what I was getting at is a report that was made AFTER cta went from considering more artics after 4300s to going all standards mentioned artic numbers projected to increase to 400 for some reason around the time that 4300s were due for replacement. That report is actually somewhere In one of these threads I'm still looking for it to post as reference so I'm wondering if maybe the bump in artics was maybe to try again with enough artics to convert and while still maintaining proper headways. I bet YOU believed I was saying stuff without doing some sort of homework like @Nitro ???

If you are saying that there was some proposal to buy artics after the 4300s, I'm not aware of it. It seems like any interest in them waned once the Dan Ryan rebuild was over and they weren't successfully redeployed until it was decided that they could be useful for social distancing.

While, at first glance, there's nothing saying that artics are necessarily express buses, the dwell time issue indicates that maybe they are or BRT buses, as most of the manufacturers' announcements indicate that the orders are for BRT (i.e. most Miami buses for a transitway, Madison, Wis., Pittsburgh,*etc.).

___________

*OT, but note Gillig couldn't fulfill a contract, and NF is` now the only BAA compliant manufacturer of 60-ft buses.

[Sam92]

27 minutes ago, Busjack said:

If you are saying that there was some proposal to buy artics after the 4300s, I'm not aware of it. It seems like any interest in them waned once the Dan Ryan rebuild was over and they weren't successfully redeployed until it was decided that they could be useful for social distancing.

 

Yes . And oddly this report was  made a while AFTER the artics were deemed unsuccessful on 79 and 66 which is why I had suggested that maybe cta's first thought with the 4300s was to still maybe try using the 2 for 3 method on local routes since Andre hints that they found out the hard way when they ran into scheduling issues. Also as someone noted on the forum they could have easily went a more temporary route for artics if they were only intended for the Ryan rebuild (possibly grabbing 100 used artics from another TA which were already on the way to retirement like the 7300 MANs). Maybe CTA believes that the crowds on 22 justify the performance issues seeing as they keep them at NP and use them. I notice NP Operators tend to drive slow as if they are ahead of schedule more often and with so many artics stacked there they were able to adjust the runs times out there even though you still run into delays. I also alluded to consolidation of artics being a possible reason because 77th and Chicago were down to only one route running artics at each garage. We know 6 definitely is artic worthy yet went to 103rd in the 2010 moves (and was really the only route 77th ran them consistently on besides sporadic use on 3 4 and 79.). Just speculation on all combined factors observed tbh honest. 

[Sam92]

2 minutes ago, Sam92 said:

Yes in. And oddly this report was  made a while AFTER the artics were deemed unsuccessful on 79 and 66 which is why I had suggested that maybe cta's first thought with the 4300s was to still maybe try using the 2 for 3 method on local routes since Andre hints that they found out the hard way when they ran into scheduling issues. Also as someone noted on the forum they could have easily went a more temporary route for artics if they were only intended for the Ryan rebuild (possibly grabbing 100 used artics from another TA which were already on the way to retirement like the 7300 MANs). Maybe CTA believes that the crowds on 22 justify the performance issues seeing as they keep them at NP and use them. I notice NP Operators tend to drive slow as if they are ahead of schedule more often and with so many artics stacked there they were able to adjust the runs times out there even though you still run into delays. I also alluded to consolidation of artics being a possible reason because 77th and Chicago were down to only one route running artics at each garage. We know 6 definitely is artic worthy yet went to 103rd in the 2010 moves (and was really the only route 77th ran them consistently on besides sporadic use on 3 4 and 79.). Just speculation on all combined factors observed tbh honest. 

Wanted to add my reasoning is current assignments with the possible 400 artics could be 

80-k

80-103rd

120- NP 

That would leave 120 for 77th which could all just go there and cover the 2, 3, 4 and 79 plus spare ratio of 20. If CTA gets rid of the bloat at 103rd and K then 40 could be freed up leaving 170 which at that point CTA can possibly go with 100 at 77 for 3, 4 and 79 and Chicago gets 70 to put on 20, 66 and 53. As far as @jajuan's question about Chicago's store .... Maybe give up 74 to FG and split some work with maybe kedzie that can leave cover the extra 40 buses worth of space needed.

 

[Busjack]

6 hours ago, Sam92 said:

Yes . And oddly this report was  made a while AFTER the artics were deemed unsuccessful on 79 and 66 which is why I had suggested that maybe cta's first thought with the 4300s was to still maybe try using the 2 for 3 method on local routes since Andre hints that they found out the hard way when they ran into scheduling issues. Also as someone noted on the forum they could have easily went a more temporary route for artics if they were only intended for the Ryan rebuild (possibly grabbing 100 used artics from another TA which were already on the way to retirement like the 7300 MANs). Maybe CTA believes that the crowds on 22 justify the performance issues seeing as they keep them at NP and use them. I notice NP Operators tend to drive slow as if they are ahead of schedule more often and with so many artics stacked there they were able to adjust the runs times out there even though you still run into delays. I also alluded to consolidation of artics being a possible reason because 77th and Chicago were down to only one route running artics at each garage. We know 6 definitely is artic worthy yet went to 103rd in the 2010 moves (and was really the only route 77th ran them consistently on besides sporadic use on 3 4 and 79.). Just speculation on all combined factors observed tbh honest. 

On your implication on 100 temporary artics, 4300-4332 were from a federal grant for hybrid buses. 4333-4399 (diesels) later turned out to be from the lump-sum state money for the Dan Ryan project. I agree that CTA probably could have gotten second-hand buses but figured (1) we got the state money (similar to CTA saying there was enough money saved by shutting down the line that it could make stations accessible) and/or (2)  it could use the buses afterwards.

[Busjack]

On 11/12/2023 at 12:46 PM, Busjack said:

If you are saying that there was some proposal to buy artics after the 4300s, I'm not aware of it. ...

 

On 11/12/2023 at 12:59 PM, Sam92 said:

Yes . And oddly this report was  made a while AFTER the artics were deemed unsuccessful on 79 and 66...

Going back and reviewing stuff brought me back to the 2012 procurement for 40 and 60 foot buses, over which there was the initial debate whether the bidder had to bid on both parts (turns out the answer was no) and only the 40 foot part was awarded (to Nova Bus). If that is what you were talking about, I stand corrected.

[Sam92]

1 hour ago, Busjack said:

 

Going back and reviewing stuff brought me back to the 2012 procurement for 40 and 60 foot buses, over which there was the initial debate whether the bidder had to bid on both parts (turns out the answer was no) and only the 40 foot part was awarded (to Nova Bus). If that is what you were talking about, I stand corrected.

Nah it was later. Like 2017 or later but at least unlike others you're willing to admit when other evidence is there. I'm gonna look through your posts cause I think you were the one that posted what I'm talking about though. I'm emphasizing the date cause this report was made AFTER the 66 and 79 fiasco. What you're quoting basically was the contract that turned into an exclusively 40ft deal which coincidentally happened around that issue so you may have caught another lack of transparency so don't fall back just yet with your info. 

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, Sam92 said:

Nah it was later. Like 2017 or later but at least unlike others you're willing to admit when other evidence is there. I'm gonna look through your posts cause I think you were the one that posted what I'm talking about though. I'm emphasizing the date cause this report was made AFTER the 66 and 79 fiasco. What you're quoting basically was the contract that turned into an exclusively 40ft deal which coincidentally happened around that issue so you may have caught another lack of transparency so don't fall back just yet with your info. 

If it was some consultant, I don't care, since, in any event, it's now moot.

[Nitro]

On 11/12/2023 at 11:05 AM, Sam92 said:

First of all I knew unless a huge ridership boom from Chicago winning the Olympic bid and a few new garages were built of course 900 artics would have been a waste.  I'm going based off the fact that other routes that use artics used to operate more frequently have slightly cut back but they were primarily assigned to express routes at that time so as ander cited before; CTA seemed to try to do the same with the artics on local routes but later found you can't do the same (i.e 66, 79 and apparently 22 by what @jajuanmentioned). Also what I was getting at is a report that was made AFTER cta went from considering more artics after 4300s to going all standards mentioned artic numbers projected to increase to 400 for some reason around the time that 4300s were due for replacement. That report is actually somewhere In one of these threads I'm still looking for it to post as reference so I'm wondering if maybe the bump in artics was maybe to try again with enough artics to convert and while still maintaining proper headways. I bet YOU believed I was saying stuff without doing some sort of homework like @Nitro ???

I don’t think anyone will be exactly sure about the future of the CTA Buses. Since they have a worker shortage crisis and seem to be cutting back.

[YoungBusLover]

On 11/14/2023 at 5:17 PM, Nitro said:

I don’t think anyone will be exactly sure about the future of the CTA Buses. Since they have a worker shortage crisis and seem to be cutting back.

Moving on.......The future will be very clear cut in the next 2-3 years. 

[jajuan]

On 11/12/2023 at 9:53 AM, Busjack said:

Also interesting is that 82 was running artics, so this seems to be another route where they are being phased out.

 

On 11/12/2023 at 12:05 PM, sht6131 said:

About ten years Kedzie ran artics on the 82 on 3 or 4 weekends in a row than stopped. I know this is hear say but a few drivers told me that Lincoln Town Center (the north terminal) did not want them there.

 

 

On 11/12/2023 at 1:24 PM, YoungBusLover said:

Of course. ???? I don't know what is about Malls not wanting buses let alone Artics laying over on the property.

Artics on the 82 during weekends was a regular thing for years up until about the time that 82 got extended to the mall. Kedzie tried it for a short time but it quickly reverted to primarily 40 foot buses on the 82 during weekends same as it does on weekdays. True the operator members who were assigned to K at the time reported the mall didn't want artics on the mall lot. But I still wonder if the logistics of the lot layout also was a part of it given the routing on the lot buses from the 82 currently are allowed to take makes it pretty tight turn and tight squeeze making that left turn onto the staging area for layover. 

On 11/14/2023 at 9:16 AM, artthouwill said:

Well North Riverside hadn't complained about the artics on the 21.

Maybe not, but Kedzie still doesn't send as many artics out on the 21 as it used to. Weekdays, the 21 may now only have at most four runs operated with artics with the rest overwhelmingly 40 footers. Heavy artic deployments now only happens during weekends. North Riverside management probably figures they're only dealing with a bunch of artics from CTA just two days a week, so why make a fuss about it? Plus in North Riverside's case, they've long had the space across from the east entrance that explicitly made for bus staging and layovers. Lincolnwood Town Center hasn't really had to deal with buses doing layovers much on the mall lot until CTA extended 82 service into the mall. 96 and Pace's 290 simply pass through, and 210 service now has become sparse enough for buses doing layovers isn't as much an issue. 

[artthouwill]

1 hour ago, jajuan said:

 

 

Artics on the 82 during weekends was a regular thing for years up until about the time that 82 got extended to the mall. Kedzie tried it for a short time but it quickly reverted to primarily 40 foot buses on the 82 during weekends same as it does on weekdays. True the operator members who were assigned to K at the time reported the mall didn't want artics on the mall lot. But I still wonder if the logistics of the lot layout also was a part of it given the routing on the lot buses from the 82 currently are allowed to take makes it pretty tight turn and tight squeeze making that left turn onto the staging area for layover. 

Maybe not, but Kedzie still doesn't send as many artics out on the 21 as it used to. Weekdays, the 21 may now only have at most four runs operated with artics with the rest overwhelmingly 40 footers. Heavy artic deployments now only happens during weekends. North Riverside management probably figures they're only dealing with a bunch of artics from CTA just two days a week, so why make a fuss about it? Plus in North Riverside's case, they've long had the space across from the east entrance that explicitly made for bus staging and layovers. Lincolnwood Town Center hasn't really had to deal with buses doing layovers much on the mall lot until CTA extended 82 service into the mall. 96 and Pace's 290 simply pass through, and 210 service now has become sparse enough for buses doing layovers isn't as much an issue. 

If o remember correctly,  didn't the 82 used to end at Howard and McCormick ?  I think the 11 replaced the 82 north of the mall as a result of one of the route shortening of the 11 on the southern portion of the route.

[jajuan]

1 hour ago, artthouwill said:

If o remember correctly,  didn't the 82 used to end at Howard and McCormick ?  I think the 11 replaced the 82 north of the mall as a result of one of the route shortening of the 11 on the southern portion of the route.

No, actually that was the 93 that ended at Howard/McCormick which the 11 ended up replacing. The 82 ended at Devon/Kedzie (its current early morning and night time north terminal) before the mall extension. When CTA extended extended the 93 up to the Davis Purple Line station as replacement for the 202 and 204 following the Evanston area restructuring, they extended the 11 from the Devon/Kedzie terminal to the Howard/McCormick terminal formerly used the 93. If memory serves, up to that point the 11 was sharing it's terminal berth at Devon/Kedzie with the 96. But now the 96 has that berth to itself. At any rate, it's good that the 11 took on the extension to Howard because CTA may likely have cut it completely instead of just south of the Western Brown Line when CTA implemented Claypool's decrowd plan.

[artthouwill]

1 hour ago, jajuan said:

No, actually that was the 93 that ended at Howard/McCormick which the 11 ended up replacing. The 82 ended at Devon/Kedzie (its current early morning and night time north terminal) before the mall extension. When CTA extended extended the 93 up to the Davis Purple Line station as replacement for the 202 and 204 following the Evanston area restructuring, they extended the 11 from the Devon/Kedzie terminal to the Howard/McCormick terminal formerly used the 93. If memory serves, up to that point the 11 was sharing it's terminal berth at Devon/Kedzie with the 96. But now the 96 has that berth to itself. At any rate, it's good that the 11 took on the extension to Howard because CTA may likely have cut it completely instead of just south of the Western Brown Line when CTA implemented Claypool's decrowd plan.

Got it.   Thanks 

[Sam92]

4 hours ago, jajuan said:

 

 

Artics on the 82 during weekends was a regular thing for years up until about the time that 82 got extended to the mall. Kedzie tried it for a short time but it quickly reverted to primarily 40 foot buses on the 82 during weekends same as it does on weekdays. True the operator members who were assigned to K at the time reported the mall didn't want artics on the mall lot. But I still wonder if the logistics of the lot layout also was a part of it given the routing on the lot buses from the 82 currently are allowed to take makes it pretty tight turn and tight squeeze making that left turn onto the staging area for layover. 

Maybe not, but Kedzie still doesn't send as many artics out on the 21 as it used to. Weekdays, the 21 may now only have at most four runs operated with artics with the rest overwhelmingly 40 footers. Heavy artic deployments now only happens during weekends. North Riverside management probably figures they're only dealing with a bunch of artics from CTA just two days a week, so why make a fuss about it? Plus in North Riverside's case, they've long had the space across from the east entrance that explicitly made for bus staging and layovers. Lincolnwood Town Center hasn't really had to deal with buses doing layovers much on the mall lot until CTA extended 82 service into the mall. 96 and Pace's 290 simply pass through, and 210 service now has become sparse enough for buses doing layovers isn't as much an issue. 

I thought artics on 82 on weekends started with the 2010 cuts that also made 12 all artics weekends but later at some point was retracted compared to 12 which kept artics? I think the Lincoln townwood extension on 82 was before that time but all those other details I'll leave to you guys. I just know for sure cause I recently went through search history and remembered 82 starting out out weekend artics in the 2010 cuts

[jajuan]

43 minutes ago, Sam92 said:

I thought artics on 82 on weekends started with the 2010 cuts that also made 12 all artics weekends but later at some point was retracted compared to 12 which kept artics? I think the Lincoln townwood extension on 82 was before that time but all those other details I'll leave to you guys. I just know for sure cause I recently went through search history and remembered 82 starting out out weekend artics in the 2010 cuts

Yeah artics on the 82 during weekends did start at the same time as was the case for weekend artics on the 12. But that pattern ended shortly after the 82 extension to Lincolnwood Town Center for the most part. And from what operators reported it was because the mall's management didn't want artics on the mall lot. That reason is plausible given Yorktown made Pace move the layover point outside the mall lot after agreeing to let the bus routes that serve the mall continue to enter the lot, and Ford City kicked Pace routes 379 through 385 out except 382, which Pace ended up eliminating after initially suspending it due to COVID, while getting CTA's 67 and 79 moved from Cicero side to the east side of the mall after a new bus terminal was built. I do remember that the 82's route through the mall did get tweaked to its present form a short time after the extension. That present routing does make it more challenging to maneuver an artic through the lot to turn around for southbound service.

[Sam92]

14 hours ago, jajuan said:

Yeah artics on the 82 during weekends did start at the same time as was the case for weekend artics on the 12. But that pattern ended shortly after the 82 extension to Lincolnwood Town Center for the most part. And from what operators reported it was because the mall's management didn't want artics on the mall lot. That reason is plausible given Yorktown made Pace move the layover point outside the mall lot after agreeing to let the bus routes that serve the mall continue to enter the lot, and Ford City kicked Pace routes 379 through 385 out except 382, which Pace ended up eliminating after initially suspending it due to COVID, while getting CTA's 67 and 79 moved from Cicero side to the east side of the mall after a new bus terminal was built. I do remember that the 82's route through the mall did get tweaked to its present form a short time after the extension. That present routing does make it more challenging to maneuver an artic through the lot to turn around for southbound service.

If artics on 82 started in 2010 then it's probably more of an issue with getting through the terminal than Lincoln townwood complaining because the extension happened in 2009. Also 82 has a lot of stop signs and narrow streets to move down so that may have been more of the reason for taking them off that route. I think if a mall wants buses out it wouldn't matter if it was a standard or artic since pace definitely isn't using artics and got kicked out of many places. 

[jajuan]

5 hours ago, Sam92 said:

If artics on 82 started in 2010 then it's probably more of an issue with getting through the terminal than Lincoln townwood complaining because the extension happened in 2009. Also 82 has a lot of stop signs and narrow streets to move down so that may have been more of the reason for taking them off that route. I think if a mall wants buses out it wouldn't matter if it was a standard or artic since pace definitely isn't using artics and got kicked out of many places. 

Well I do remember making the point at the time that part of the thing with artics on the 82 was the trickiness in negotiating the path through the lot after the tweek in mall lot routing. That turn into the staging area that buses from 82 has to make is tighter than buses were making using when operating the initial route through the lot. 

[Sam92]

2 hours ago, jajuan said:

I wonder if they've been able to start on that last part already, given that as far as 103rd goes, I've noticed fewer 40 foot buses on the 6 during a number of weekdays these past couple of weeks than we had been seeing in recent months. There have been days when when they've gotten down to as little as two or three total 40-footers operating runs. I've noticed there have been more artics on the 26 in recent days as well. Though there, I wonder if that might also be a function of interspersing 40 footers more broadly and not having them blocked back to back to back as often given the one way operations during rush and evening periods.

Hmm I've been in the hospital for the last 2 weeks but as far as scheduling; 6 and 26 are the same group so maybe vehicle blocks are similar. especially cause PM frequencies are slightly longer than AM at 103rds routes so as the day goes on artics can be more spread out. Looks like either way J14 is pretty much priority for artics then everyone else at that depot gets whatever's left. We'd probably have to look at loan activity to help determine all of that

[Busjack]

2 hours ago, strictures said:

As at least 80% of my bus rides are on 22, there aren't enough artics, because they are overcrowded at all times of the day, although I rarely ride after dark, so I don't know what the ridership is at those times. 

One of the things I really hate is that in the morning, CTA sends all the 22s straight to the Howard terminal to start their runs north on Western to Touhy & then east to Rogers & into the Howard terminal as non-revenue service.. 

But when the 22's end point was moved from the old streetcar turn around at Clark/Howard, to the Howard L station, they encouraged us living north of Devon to go north to Howard to catch the L.  So what happens now, we have almost no NB 22s in the early morning.  What should be done is send just a few of those early morning rush hour buses is east on Foster to Clark & then start their runs there.

Your complaint seems more about lack of service control than artics, which seem to make service control worse. Assuming (very hypothetically) that 208 BEB artics would instantly appear, it wouldn't cure the problem. It seems like problems that took artics off routes such as 79 are hitting 22, but NP has nothing else (unless it has a swap with 96 and 201--but I better get real).

[Elkmn]

On 11/11/2023 at 9:29 AM, Busjack said:

 Having 2 or 3 doors isn't going to make much difference if those doors aren't at the curb.

i was thinking about how there are so many routes without bendy buses that should have bendy buses, but would bendy buses on the 3,4, 66 and 79 work better if there were "bus bubbles/bulbs" so buses wouldn't have to pull up to the curb? I know they do that with bus stops on streets with protected bike lanes like belmont.

[Sam92]

13 hours ago, Elkmn said:

i was thinking about how there are so many routes without bendy buses that should have bendy buses, but would bendy buses on the 3,4, 66 and 79 work better if there were "bus bubbles/bulbs" so buses wouldn't have to pull up to the curb? I know they do that with bus stops on streets with protected bike lanes like belmont.

They'd have to slow down the schedules to make them work and CTA doesn't wanna do that for artics to only be used on 1-2 routes out of a garage