Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Anthony Devera

Bus Stop Spacing

Recommended Posts

I was reading the thread about bus moves and what to do about the surplus of artics. People mentioned that certain popular corridors could benefit well from limited-stop peak-only expresses, as riders would have faster travel times during peak hours. I feel like basically every corridor could benefit from a bit of stop spacing. Right now I feel like having stops basically every block is a bit excessive, though I do understand that people do like to have door-to-door service.

I feel like if stops are spaced to about every 1/4 mile, travel times could improve significantly. Some riders might have to spend more time walking, but I feel like for many riders the total travel times could be reduced significantly. However, there should still be stops at places such as train stations, shopping malls, and hospitals. Stop-spacing projects could start out on the lower-ridership routes, where there would be less people getting on at every stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Anthony Devera said:

Stop-spacing projects could start out on the lower-ridership routes, where there would be less people getting on at every stop.

That's about the opposite of what's usually proposed. If hardly anybody is riding, the bus isn't stuck at stops.Ventra should have sped the boarding process.

The problem is the heavy routes, with enough passengers to justify artics, but nowhere to pass. Ashland and Western are wide enough that an express bus can pass, but most of the other streets on which X service is proposed are not.

Maybe 1/8th of a mile is too close, but increasing the distance on a light ridership route will just kill it (cf. the Uber thread) or put more people on paratransit (at a cost to the taxpayers of $40/ride).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BusHunter said:

They can use more artics. Artics work good [sic] on routes where there are standing loads. ....

Apparently they don't work well if 135 out of 306 are "spares." Weren't you the one who complained that FG was not getting new buses,. and the reason, from the official CTA FOIA response turns out to be that there are about 100 artics CTA can't use.

Before CTA gets any more artics (and it looks like it won't), why don't you tell us, based on your experience with computer aided dispatch, why about 100 of them are sitting in the garage on an average rush hour. Especially when CTA said in the same document that all garages other than 77 are over capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Busjack said:

Apparently they don't work well if 135 out of 306 are "spares." Weren't you the one who complained that FG was not getting new buses,. and the reason, from the official CTA FOIA response turns out to be that there are about 100 artics CTA can't use.

Before CTA gets any more artics (and it looks like it won't), why don't you tell us, based on your experience with computer aided dispatch, why about 100 of them are sitting in the garage on an average rush hour. Especially when CTA said in the same document that all garages other than 77 are over capacity.

Hey I just want to know why 18 year old buses are still driving at fg. Even when they get new buses they take some away. How can they not need artics that are newer buses and have the capacity to work the routes they need them on like 3, 79 or 66. Common sense dictates what makes sense here. Not all routes are the #96.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Busjack said:

Maybe 1/8th of a mile is too close, but increasing the distance on a light ridership route will just kill it (cf. the Uber thread) or put more people on paratransit (at a cost to the taxpayers of $40/ride).

So would that mean that stop-spacing might work better on a higher-ridership route? I was thinking it would make a lower-ridership route a faster alternative to a parallel high-ridership route, and maybe some riders would move to the lower-ridership route.

I think stop-spacing would probably work best on a route that does not run parallel to a rail corridor so that riders would not already have a faster option. If not a general stop-spacing project, there could be all-day X routes running together with all-day local routes on the streets where this is possible, and the two would be coordinated somehow. The local routes would keep their current stop-spacing, and the X routes would have stops every 1/2 mile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Anthony Devera said:

So would that mean that stop-spacing might work better on a higher-ridership route?

That's what the theory is. CTA started with J14, X9, and X49, not 96. Also, CTA has done it only on streets where the less frequent local remained.

 

34 minutes ago, Anthony Devera said:

maybe some riders would move to the lower-ridership route.

I don't think anyone is walking from Devon to Lunt for that reason.

36 minutes ago, Anthony Devera said:

I think stop-spacing would probably work best on a route that does not run parallel to a rail corridor so that riders would not already have a faster option.

Again that was the original theory. Nobody proposed an X22 or X29.

38 minutes ago, Anthony Devera said:

The local routes would keep their current stop-spacing, and the X routes would have stops every 1/2 mile.

Again, other than the all day point, that's exactly what CTA has always done (see above).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

Hey I just want to know why 18 year old buses are still driving at fg.

Try to put 2 and 2 together: When CTA ordered 100 artics and 450 Novas, it said they would replace the old Novas and Optimas. Then @andrethebusman posted a document saying that the spare ratio for artics was 45%, or about 135 buses, when a normal spare ratio is 15%, or 30 buses. Somehow, about 100 old Novas are left, and there are 100 surplus artics. Bus ridership has fallen, and the only place where service was increased was on the south side. Hence, this is not a coincidence.

I said about a year ago that the fleet was bloated, and Andre obtained the evidence.

55 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

and have the capacity to work the routes they need them on like 3, 79 or 66. Common sense dictates what makes sense here

Well, common sense doesn't explain why CTA pulled artics from 3 (with the end of the NABIs) and 66 and 79 more recently. Nor why CTA plans to put 40' electric buses on 66.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well #66 has always been an experimental route (remember the #5900s) because it's attached to Chicago garage which has a training facility. Think of it as 77th light or 77th of the North from an operational standpoint. There are a lot more managers and trainers there.

Speaking of operations the old novas make no sense because they are  high maintenance and guzzle gas. Hybrid 60 foot buses make more sense and are less money to maintain plus think of all the overtime they are putting out on mechanics fixing an older bus versus a mid life bus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BusHunter said:

Well #66 has always been an experimental route (

Maybe that explains the electric buses there, but you dodged the issue why the experiment with the artics failed.

 

1 hour ago, BusHunter said:

Speaking of operations the old novas make no sense because they are  high maintenance and guzzle gas. Hybrid 60 foot buses make more sense and are less money to maintain plus think of all the overtime they are putting out on mechanics fixing an older bus versus a mid life bus. 

May be the case, but someone made the decision when the shops portion of FG was rehabbed not to include facilities for artics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Busjack said:

Maybe that explains the electric buses there, but you dodged the issue why the experiment with the artics failed.

 

May be the case, but someone made the decision when the shops portion of FG was rehabbed not to include facilities for artics.

Yeah but what I don't get is why fg can't just get a newer fleet. Give the artics to 77th. I dont understand why the artics got pulled there. 79th with 33 40 foot buses in the rush shows a need for artics. I think the union just don't want them for the reasons I said above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

Give the artics to 77th. I dont understand why the artics got pulled there.

Read what @andrethebusman posted.

 

5 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

I think the union just don't want them for the reasons I said above.

I don't think the union has any voice on that. And I think that CTA read the computer aided dispatch records for that and didn't give them to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Busjack said:

Read what @andrethebusman posted.

 

I don't think the union has any voice on that. And I think that CTA read the computer aided dispatch records for that and didn't give them to you.

Well according to Andre they slow down the street but bus bunching doesn't slow down the street?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

Well according to Andre they slow down the street but bus bunching doesn't slow down the street?

That gets down to whether the CAD system cut back bus bunching.

Also, if aftics aren't running on time, aren't they bunched?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×