What to Do With Surplus Artics

[Sam92]

On 7/10/2024 at 8:03 PM, Busjack said:

 

If I were restructuring this, once RPM stage 1 is done, cut back on parallel bus routes. For instance, 147 could be made a local between Howard and Berwyn., eliminating several of your complaints. The project should determine that with a 30% vacancy rate on Michigan Ave., how much service is needed there.

One can also question how much rush hour service is needed on Clarendon; maybe extend some Halsted buses.

 

 

On 7/25/2024 at 7:13 PM, Busjack said:

• 145 and 148 used to terminate at Wilson/Ravenswood or Lawrence/Damen until the Crowd Reduction Plan, when all of the legacy Boulevard System routes were taken off Wilson. 156 had been cut back from Wilson/Ravenswood  to Belmont earlier.
• "[I] in case anybody from the north suburbs work downtown," they can stay on Metra.

My prior point was that if development has moved from LaSalle to Fulton Market, some LaSalle bus route should accordingly be moved. My other suggestion that maybe the 127 Circulator should come back  would better address my second bullet point.

Between RPM possibly diverting ridership from LSD service along with the decline in LaSalle service demand, are we approaching the point where even 208 artics would be excessive if they can't find a way to make them work on other routes? 

[artthouwill]

1 hour ago, Sam92 said:

 

Between RPM possibly diverting ridership from LSD service along with the decline in LaSalle service demand, are we approaching the point where even 208 artics would be excessive if they can't find a way to make them work on other routes? 

I could be wrong but I don't see RPM diverting ridership from LSD routes.  There's enough density along the north lakefront to justify the LSD routes, particularly south of Devon.  There is also the crime issue around the Red Line ( and it's not just the south side).  The LSD routes offer a safer alternative.  

If CTA reduces the artic fleet, will they be able to manage any uptick in ridership?  Currently CTA has service back up to prepandemic levels but ridership is more spread out instead of rush hour centric.  Would CTA be able to adjust with bus service as easily as it could with rail service? While 308 artics may be too many, 225 to 240 may seem to be the sweet spot.

[Sam92]

2 hours ago, YoungBusLover said:

So it's time to give them the ole TMC treatment from 2008? 😅 In all seriousness though NP is up to 27 #8350s with two more popping up for the evening rush being #8777 and #8793, whatever CTA decides to do will be determined before the spring pick next year.

What doesn't make sense is why is cta continuously mentioning keeping artic numbers around 310 if they cant find anything to do with the 100 surplus we have outside of emergency purposes (Track work, pandemic social distancing etc). 

[Javi75]

I’m not completely sure if this is the right thread for this topic but even though NP has rehabbed 4300s and lower mileage 4000s from K in recent moves I’ve noticed the 146 being very 40 footer heavy lately. The 146 is almost half artics and half 40 footers the 40 footers being 8350 heavy with some 1000s. This is the most 40 footers I’ve seen on the 146 since the Nabis downfall in the late 2000s with the exception of the Covid bus moves. Are artics starting to become obsolete on the LSD express routes or are NPs artics at the point of falling apart? The 147 is still artic heavy but the 146 is half and half. 

[Sam92]

1 hour ago, Javi75 said:

I’m not completely sure if this is the right thread for this topic but even though NP has rehabbed 4300s and lower mileage 4000s from K in recent moves I’ve noticed the 146 being very 40 footer heavy lately. The 146 is almost half artics and half 40 footers the 40 footers being 8350 heavy with some 1000s. This is the most 40 footers I’ve seen on the 146 since the Nabis downfall in the late 2000s with the exception of the Covid bus moves. Are artics starting to become obsolete on the LSD express routes or are NPs artics at the point of falling apart? The 147 is still artic heavy but the 146 is half and half. 

Probably falling apart cause the frames are flimsy like the later 1000s. Same thing is going on with 6 and 26. 

[Busjack]

2 hours ago, Javi75 said:

The 147 is still artic heavy but the 146 is half and half.

1 hour ago, Sam92 said:

Same thing is going on with 6 and 26.

CTA has proved over the past 20 years that this is the recipe for bus bunching, unless the routes are running under capacity, in which case the artics are unnecessary.

Since it looks like CTA is not going to get 200 electric articulated buses by, say the end of 2027, it is going to have to decide what to do--probably wlll have to get some hybrids of 40' or 60' capacity.

 

[Sam92]

11 hours ago, Busjack said:

CTA has proved over the past 20 years that this is the recipe for bus bunching, unless the routes are running under capacity, in which case the artics are unnecessary.

Since it looks like CTA is not going to get 200 electric articulated buses by, say the end of 2027, it is going to have to decide what to do--probably wlll have to get some hybrids of 40' or 60' capacity.

 

If the electrics aren't Chicago winter proof then they'll definitely need a hybrid order with some steel frames to hold them over. I'm still trying to figure why the urge to keep numbers around 310 for artics

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, Sam92 said:

If the electrics aren't Chicago winter proof then they'll definitely need a hybrid order with some steel frames to hold them over. I'm still trying to figure why the urge to keep numbers around 310 for artics

I think about 175 is enough. They apparently only work on DLSD routes. Maybe on something like 66 with bus lanes, but they were pulled off there, too.

[artthouwill]

14 hours ago, Busjack said:

CTA has proved over the past 20 years that this is the recipe for bus bunching, unless the routes are running under capacity, in which case the artics are unnecessary.

Since it looks like CTA is not going to get 200 electric articulated buses by, say the end of 2027, it is going to have to decide what to do--probably wlll have to get some hybrids of 40' or 60' capacity.

 

I always said  getting 200 electrics was a bad idea.  It wasn't realistic.  Hybrids would definitely work and CTA could still order a small number of electrics with the ILLINOIS EPA grant money if they choose to.   But action needs to take place sooner rather than later.

[NewFlyerMCI]

23 hours ago, Busjack said:

probably wlll have to get some hybrids of 40' or 60' capacity.

Notably, hybrid artics are no longer an option since New Flyer has ceased production of them. Options are diesel, electric, CNG (a no go) and fuel cell (a joke)

[YoungBusLover]

20 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

Notably, hybrid artics are no longer an option since New Flyer has ceased production of them. Options are diesel, electric, CNG (a no go) and fuel cell (a joke)

Diesel is the only way to go, CNG and Hydrogen can only take an agency so far. Barring all the terms of the federal funds and grants shifted towards the 2040 electrification guidelines. Only a dummy would not have multiple plans for an order of that size to replace a fragile aging fleet. The past administration really screwed things up for all US agencies trying to rush things without having the funds and infrastructure to support such a grand scheme.

[strictures]

On 4/23/2025 at 9:40 AM, Busjack said:

I think about 175 is enough. They apparently only work on DLSD routes. Maybe on something like 66 with bus lanes, but they were pulled off there, too.

Clark needs artics during rush hours.

[Busjack]

3 hours ago, strictures said:

Clark needs artics during rush hours.

But that brings up a Jarrett Walker conundrum whether there should be 9-13 minute schedules (or as you say worse in actuality) with artics, or maybe 7 minute frequency with 40-foot buses, depending on whether CTA is short drivers or artics, and in light of the experience I noted above on 66 (and apparently 79th).

[YoungBusLover]

14 hours ago, strictures said:

Clark needs artics during rush hours.

Clark needs updated infrastructure to support the use for more artics on certain portions of the route to help with the bottlenecks in River North and Wrigleyville. Also a simple short turn between North Ave and Addison would really help with the frequency on game days. There's no reason why that detour should be that long to get through when you can simply do short turns at Addison and North Ave.

[artthouwill]

23 minutes ago, YoungBusLover said:

Clark needs updated infrastructure to support the use for more artics on certain portions of the route to help with the bottlenecks in River North and Wrigleyville. Also a simple short turn between North Ave and Addison would really help with the frequency on game days. There's no reason why that detour should be that long to get through when you can simply do short turns at Addison and North Ave.

The funny thing is that the 36 used to have short turns at Waveland and Halsted,  although those were operated by Limits garage before it closed.  It certainly helped with loads between downtown and Clark and Diversey.   I don't know why CTA abandoned the short turns on the 36.  K could have operated them just like they operated the 151 shorts.   Certainly K could operate shorts on the 22 and/or 36 now.  Obviously that won't solve traffic issues on fame days and nights.  The only other solution is to ban parking altogether on Clark Street,  but business along Clark would suffer as parking on the north side is scarce currently.  Many residential areas have permit parking.  I endured the madness one time and decided that future trips would always be Red or Brown Line trains.  

As an aside,  there's plenty of land to develop on the South Side rather than packing everything into an already dense Lincoln Park. Lakeview, Wrigleyville, Uptown,  and Rogers Park area.

[Busjack]

7 hours ago, YoungBusLover said:

Clark needs updated infrastructure to support the use for more artics on certain portions of the route to help with the bottlenecks in River North and Wrigleyville. Also a simple short turn between North Ave and Addison would really help with the frequency on game days. There's no reason why that detour should be that long to get through when you can simply do short turns at Addison and North Ave.

But this doesn't do anything about @strictures's complaint, which is Howard to about Bryn Mawr. South of North Ave., and until Diversey, 22 and 36 overlap. If you are suggesting a North Ave. to Addison shuttle, the 36 overlap still mostly applies, and, as @artthouwill suggested. use the L.

6 hours ago, artthouwill said:

The funny thing is that the 36 used to have short turns at Waveland and Halsted,  although those were operated by Limits garage before it closed.  It certainly helped with loads between downtown and Clark and Diversey.   I don't know why CTA abandoned the short turns on the 36.  K could have operated them just like they operated the 151 shorts.   Certainly K could operate shorts on the 22 and/or 36 now.  Obviously that won't solve traffic issues on fame days and nights.  The only other solution is to ban parking altogether on Clark Street,  but business along Clark would suffer as parking on the north side is scarce currently.  Many residential areas have permit parking.  I endured the madness one time and decided that future trips would always be Red or Brown Line trains.  

As an aside,  there's plenty of land to develop on the South Side rather than packing everything into an already dense Lincoln Park. Lakeview, Wrigleyville, Uptown,  and Rogers Park area.

Too many fallacies here, but in reverse order:

• Unless you believe in 1950s urban renewal by eminent domain, which brought us such classics as Robert Taylor and Cabrini Green. people are going to live where people want to live, and banks will invest only where there is demand. Pouring city money into stuff like Yellow Banana might do something at the margins, but will not resurrect vast wasteland.  I noted the city's solicitation for development at 115th and Michigan, possibly a TOD on the RLE, but someone still has to develop it. But people are not flocking the near north, either: Developer Sterling Bay hands over portion of $6B Lincoln Yards site to lender.
• Kedzie doesn't have room to expand, but you want to assign more routes there?
• Besides merchants not wanting to lose parking, the city would have to pay off LAZ.

[strictures]

The one thing that could help the entire CTA bus fleet would be bus signal priority.  Let the buses change the traffic lights to green so they can go & not wait forever.  The single worst is when the 155 turns north at Devon/Sheridan & has to wait for several minutes to go past the Sheridan Rd. cutoff there. 

But Clark is also stuck at the lights at Ridge, Elmdale/Peterson & where Ashland splits off at Edgewater Ave for far too much time.

[NewFlyerMCI]

On 4/24/2025 at 6:25 PM, YoungBusLover said:

Diesel is the only way to go, CNG and Hydrogen can only take an agency so far. Barring all the terms of the federal funds and grants shifted towards the 2040 electrification guidelines. Only a dummy would not have multiple plans for an order of that size to replace a fragile aging fleet. The past administration really screwed things up for all US agencies trying to rush things without having the funds and infrastructure to support such a grand scheme.

Agreed with Hydrogen, but CA has been doing fine as all CNG for nearly the past two decades? WMATA has also had two all-CNG garages (technically three) for the last 15+ years as well. MTA in NYC is in a similar boat. Perfectly viable fuel source, but the forest (proven alternatives other than diesel, like ETBs and CNG) was missed for the trees (non-ETB ZEBs that are still by and large, teething)

The only reason I said CNG is a no-go for CTA is b/c I don't expect them to construct or convert any garages with the capability. But, unlike hybrids, New Flyer is still making CNG artics, and unlike the fuel cell ones, isn't being forced to take them back.

[artthouwill]

6 minutes ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

Agreed with Hydrogen, but CA has been doing fine as all CNG for nearly the past two decades? WMATA has also had two all-CNG garages (technically three) for the last 15+ years as well. MTA in NYC is in a similar boat. Perfectly viable fuel source, but the forest (proven alternatives other than diesel, like ETBs and CNG) was missed for the trees (non-ETB ZEBs that are still by and large, teething)

The only reason I said CNG is a no-go for CTA is b/c I don't expect them to construct or convert any garages with the capability. But, unlike hybrids, New Flyer is still making CNG artics, and unlike the fuel cell ones, isn't being forced to take them back.

Based on your post and my observations,  CNG Zmight be a rough go here.  CA is a warm weather state and the DMV winters aren't as brutal as here.  Pace is looking for an alternative to replace their CNG buses at South, and the oldest 20 buses aren't due for retirement for another 2 years.  South has been reported to have experienced a lot of issues according to passenger complaints.  From experience,  extreme cold temperatures affect the fuel and fuel lines which in turn affect mileage.   

[NewFlyerMCI]

On 4/26/2025 at 10:23 AM, artthouwill said:

Based on your post and my observations,  CNG Zmight be a rough go here.  CA is a warm weather state and the DMV winters aren't as brutal as here.  Pace is looking for an alternative to replace their CNG buses at South, and the oldest 20 buses aren't due for retirement for another 2 years.  South has been reported to have experienced a lot of issues according to passenger complaints.  From experience,  extreme cold temperatures affect the fuel and fuel lines which in turn affect mileage.   

NYC & it's suburbs, Cleveland, Portland (ME), Boston & Hamilton (ON) also have XN40s/XN60s and had them for a while, the cold isn't as huge a detriment to them as they are to straight up BEBs, but on the whole, I don't disagree with it being a rough go here, just not wholly b/c of the cold 

[MetroShadow]

On 4/26/2025 at 7:06 AM, NewFlyerMCI said:

Agreed with Hydrogen, but CA has been doing fine as all CNG for nearly the past two decades? WMATA has also had two all-CNG garages (technically three) for the last 15+ years as well. MTA in NYC is in a similar boat. Perfectly viable fuel source, but the forest (proven alternatives other than diesel, like ETBs and CNG) was missed for the trees (non-ETB ZEBs that are still by and large, teething)

The only reason I said CNG is a no-go for CTA is b/c I don't expect them to construct or convert any garages with the capability. But, unlike hybrids, New Flyer is still making CNG artics, and unlike the fuel cell ones, isn't being forced to take them back.

I am unsure if CARB will move the target, considering how many agencies have a transition plan and have started (now or by 2028) procurement. That said, the environment here with good maintenance result in keeping the fleet in tact. Case in point: AC Transit has had OTR coaches go 20+ years (with relatively low mileage) and artics about 16 years old (will be replaced soon with hydrogen). LA Metro still has its NABIs on the road (for the moment).

[YoungBusLover]

On 4/25/2025 at 4:41 PM, Busjack said:

But this doesn't do anything about @strictures's complaint, which is Howard to about Bryn Mawr. South of North Ave., and until Diversey, 22 and 36 overlap. If you are suggesting a North Ave. to Addison shuttle, the 36 overlap still mostly applies, and, as @artthouwill suggested. use the L.

Too many fallacies here, but in reverse order:

• Unless you believe in 1950s urban renewal by eminent domain, which brought us such classics as Robert Taylor and Cabrini Green. people are going to live where people want to live, and banks will invest only where there is demand. Pouring city money into stuff like Yellow Banana might do something at the margins, but will not resurrect vast wasteland.  I noted the city's solicitation for development at 115th and Michigan, possibly a TOD on the RLE, but someone still has to develop it. But people are not flocking the near north, either: Developer Sterling Bay hands over portion of $6B Lincoln Yards site to lender.
• Kedzie doesn't have room to expand, but you want to assign more routes there?
• Besides merchants not wanting to lose parking, the city would have to pay off LAZ.

Not necessarily a shuttle between Addison and North Ave but more so Short turns between Howard and Addison and or Howard and North Ave. If the #8 Halsted can have Short turns at 41st/Root during peak rush periods to better facilitate service on the northern end the same adjustments can be made to the #22 during peak rush periods and game days. The alternative is the slower 36 with crush loads or taking a chance with the crime ridden serviced delayed Red Line. 

 

On 4/25/2025 at 6:18 PM, strictures said:

The one thing that could help the entire CTA bus fleet would be bus signal priority.  Let the buses change the traffic lights to green so they can go & not wait forever.  The single worst is when the 155 turns north at Devon/Sheridan & has to wait for several minutes to go past the Sheridan Rd. cutoff there. 

But Clark is also stuck at the lights at Ridge, Elmdale/Peterson & where Ashland splits off at Edgewater Ave for far too much time.

I definitely agree with your point about signal priority, I'll go even further with by adding in lane signal priority at service stops at major intersections to give operators at least 3 - 5 seconds to merge into traffic ahead of everyone else before the regular signals turn green. I've only seen these on the loop link corridor and on 79th and Lafayette going WB. I'm not sure why CTA and CDOT hasn't added more of these along many corridors with heavy traffic at bottleneck intersections around the system.

[strictures]

37 minutes ago, YoungBusLover said:

Not necessarily a shuttle between Addison and North Ave but more so Short turns between Howard and Addison and or Howard and North Ave. If the #8 Halsted can have Short turns at 41st/Root during peak rush periods to better facilitate service on the northern end the same adjustments can be made to the #22 during peak rush periods and game days. The alternative is the slower 36 with crush loads or taking a chance with the crime ridden serviced delayed Red Line. 

 

I definitely agree with your point about signal priority, I'll go even further with by adding in lane signal priority at service stops at major intersections to give operators at least 3 - 5 seconds to merge into traffic ahead of everyone else before the regular signals turn green. I've only seen these on the loop link corridor and on 79th and Lafayette going WB. I'm not sure why CTA and CDOT hasn't added more of these along many corridors with heavy traffic at bottleneck intersections around the system.

California did a pilot program several years ago, that's apparently ended.  They passed a law & allowed the transit agencies to put a giant left turn arrow on the rear of the buses, that when that arrow was activated, all traffic that was going to be in the same lane as the bus leaving the bus stop,l had to wait until, the bus was back in the traffic lane.  Do it here, as we have few streets with more than one traffic lane in each direction & drivers refuse to let the buses in & then they must wait, delaying the buses.

I don't know why they ended it.

[YoungBusLover]

16 minutes ago, strictures said:

California did a pilot program several years ago, that's apparently ended.  They passed a law & allowed the transit agencies to put a giant left turn arrow on the rear of the buses, that when that arrow was activated, all traffic that was going to be in the same lane as the bus leaving the bus stop,l had to wait until, the bus was back in the traffic lane.  Do it here, as we have few streets with more than one traffic lane in each direction & drivers refuse to let the buses in & then they must wait, delaying the buses.

I don't know why they ended it.

That's an interesting pilot test, I don't know how well that would of worked here though. Drivers here in Chicago are the most aggressive airheads I've ever come across.

[Sam92]

6 minutes ago, YoungBusLover said:

That's an interesting pilot test, I don't know how well that would of worked here though. Drivers here in Chicago are the most aggressive airheads I've ever come across.

Yeah that just translates to "lemme hurry and beat this guy" here in Chicago