New Diesel Bus Order 2023-2025?

[Mr.NewFlyer1051]

So i was watching the july board meeting and came across someone urging the CTA to revise their bus order and order another 500 buses between 2023-2025 i can only think of this order being for the 60ft’s

[RJL6000]

No. You got the revision wrong. The calls were for not ordering any more diesel buses - period. Instead, they want existing diesel buses to be converted to electric power.

Unfortunately, it might not be feasible due to the deteriorating condition of the older bus shells.

[YoungBusLover]

8 minutes ago, RJL6000 said:

No. You got the revision wrong. The calls were for not ordering any more diesel buses - period. Instead, they want existing diesel buses to be converted to electric power.

Unfortunately, it might not be feasible due to the deteriorating condition of the older bus shells.

Those callers were irritating to listen to, they kept repeating the same message that I've heard for the past decade or so now. Converting 12-15 year-old buses fully over to electric is a waste of manpower and federal money. Having potentially 1,500 electric buses by 2040-2045 is the goal but the pollution from other variables will still be around by that because I'm sure not everyone will be driving around with electric cars and trucks by that time.  

[jajuan]

On 7/15/2022 at 12:38 PM, YoungBusLover said:

Those callers were irritating to listen to, they kept repeating the same message that I've heard for the past decade or so now. Converting 12-15 year-old buses fully over to electric is a waste of manpower and federal money. Having potentially 1,500 electric buses by 2040-2045 is the goal but the pollution from other variables will still be around by that because I'm sure not everyone will be driving around with electric cars and trucks by that time.  

On the last part of your comment, it's probably going to take government action to bring about higher electric vehicle usage outside of transit buses. In California for example, LA County Metro and MUNI of San Francisco, to name a couple of big city transit authorities in that state, pushing towards stricter electric bus fleet goals than what CTA is going for is due in part to a mandate spelled out by a 2020 executive order in that state that all new sales of gasoline and diesel vehicles be banned by 2035. The state's Air Resources Board also mandated in that same year that all new trucks sold in California be zero emissions by 2045.

[MetroShadow]

On 7/16/2022 at 4:18 PM, jajuan said:

On the last part of your comment, it's probably going to take government action to bring about higher electric vehicle usage outside of transit buses. In California for example, LA County Metro and MUNI of San Francisco, to name a couple of big city transit authorities in that state, pushing towards stricter electric bus fleet goals than what CTA is going for is due in part to a mandate spelled out by a 2020 executive order in that state that all new sales of gasoline and diesel vehicles be banned by 2035. The state's Air Resources Board also mandated in that same year that all new trucks sold in California be zero emissions by 2045.

Correct. Many of the agencies are ordering (relatively speaking) their last diesels in the next five years (assuming the 12 year cycle, but many of the buses have been kept around for much longer). 

[jajuan]

8 hours ago, MetroShadow said:

Correct. Many of the agencies are ordering (relatively speaking) their last diesels in the next five years (assuming the 12 year cycle, but many of the buses have been kept around for much longer). 

In MUNI's case, their last diesels were their now retired AN440s and AN460s. So their last diesel purchase was a couple of decades ago. They've been operating on an all hybrid fleet for their conventional bus routes for a few years now. And LA Metro has been all CNG for at least a decade if I'm remembering how long it's been since they last operated a diesel bus corrected.

[Busjack]

9 hours ago, jajuan said:

In MUNI's case, their last diesels were their now retired AN440s and AN460s. So their last diesel purchase was a couple of decades ago. They've been operating on an all hybrid fleet for their conventional bus routes for a few years now. And LA Metro has been all CNG for at least a decade if I'm remembering how long it's been since they last operated a diesel bus corrected.

Hybrids are still considered diesels for this purpose. Note this New Flyer press release, stating that TTC has the largest battery electric fleet, and that "New Flyer’s hybrid-electric buses bridge the transition between traditional combustion engines and zero-emission propulsion...". Similarly, Pace said that the CNGs were transitional.

[MetroShadow]

On 7/20/2022 at 9:17 PM, jajuan said:

In MUNI's case, their last diesels were their now retired AN440s and AN460s. So their last diesel purchase was a couple of decades ago. They've been operating on an all hybrid fleet for their conventional bus routes for a few years now. And LA Metro has been all CNG for at least a decade if I'm remembering how long it's been since they last operated a diesel bus corrected.

Not counting whatever they borrowed from AC Transit (for NX Judah). That said, it's still a majority hybrid fleet. 

[renardo870]

Are there any upcoming new or replacement orders for the 4000/4300 series articulated buses? Hopefully it will be more than 300 buses. 500 buses* would be ideal since artics can be stored and maintained at 1, 7, C, K and P. 6 and F need lifts that can accommodate 60' buses if they were to get assigned artics and F needs a new garage anyway. 

500 buses* with the five existing garages 150 more with 6 and F garage upgrades.

Edited August 7, 2022 by renardo870
Added additional info

[artthouwill]

28 minutes ago, renardo870 said:

Are there any upcoming new or replacement orders for the 4000/4300 series articulated buses? Hopefully it will be more than 300 buses. 500 buses* would be ideal since artics can be stored and maintained at 1, 7, C, K and P. 6 and F need lifts that can accommodate 60' buses if they were to get assigned artics and F needs a new garage anyway. 

500 buses* with the five existing garages 150 more with 6 and F garage upgrades.

We have questioned that CTA has too many artics (300) and you think 509 us ideal?  77th and C had trouble deploying artics when they had them.  The spare ratios for artics are higher than the 40ft buses.

The 2009 4000s are 13 years old and the 2913 4300s/4333s are 9 years old.  So really CTA only needs to replace the 4000s, though they will be around for a minimum if 2 more years and could be stretched to 2029.  At some point CTA may start looking at electric artics which New Flyer us already making.  Expect Nova to get into that game soon.  However CTA is having trouble rolling out its current fleet of electrics, so don't look for replacement if the artics anytime soon 

[Shannoncvpi]

On 8/7/2022 at 1:41 PM, artthouwill said:

We have questioned that CTA has too many artics (300) and you think 509 us ideal?  77th and C had trouble deploying artics when they had them.  The spare ratios for artics are higher than the 40ft buses.

The 2009 4000s are 13 years old and the 2913 4300s/4333s are 9 years old.  So really CTA only needs to replace the 4000s, though they will be around for a minimum if 2 more years and could be stretched to 2029.  At some point CTA may start looking at electric artics which New Flyer us already making.  Expect Nova to get into that game soon.  However CTA is having trouble rolling out its current fleet of electrics, so don't look for replacement if the artics anytime soon 

Still don't get how C & 7 have trouble deploying artics especially on their most heavy routes 

[artthouwill]

4 minutes ago, Shannoncvpi said:

Still don't get how C & 7 have trouble deploying artics especially on their most heavy routes 

Remember that 7 has them on 79 which is easily their heaviest route, but it didn't seem to work well.  They tried 87th too before seemingly settling on the 4.

C has had them on the 20 and the 66.

[Shannoncvpi]

1 minute ago, artthouwill said:

Remember that 7 has them on 79 which is easily their heaviest route, but it didn't seem to work well.  They tried 87th too before seemingly settling on the 4.

C has had them on the 20 and the 66.

Yea but what was the big issue cause whenever I do the 66 I always have a 40 cause you know we help c with the 66 in the rush hour traffic trips 

[artthouwill]

45 minutes ago, Shannoncvpi said:

Yea but what was the big issue cause whenever I do the 66 I always have a 40 cause you know we help c with the 66 in the rush hour traffic trips 

I know 66 and 79 are high frequency routes.   Using artics on those routes increases dwelling time at each stop which slows the buses down.   In the case of 79, most of the street us one traffic lane in each direction, with a ton of traffic )gets, sto signs, school zones which add to the slowness of the route.  Yoy can only partially curb and artic as the back end will still be in the street blocking traffic so other buses can't go around you.  On 79, the ability to carry more people is offset by operational inefficiency which is why they stopped putting them on 79.

As for C, they seemed to work on the 20, but I imagine the 66 had the same problem as the 79, especially in the downtown area.  

[Shannoncvpi]

5 hours ago, artthouwill said:

I know 66 and 79 are high frequency routes.   Using artics on those routes increases dwelling time at each stop which slows the buses down.   In the case of 79, most of the street us one traffic lane in each direction, with a ton of traffic )gets, sto signs, school zones which add to the slowness of the route.  Yoy can only partially curb and artic as the back end will still be in the street blocking traffic so other buses can't go around you.  On 79, the ability to carry more people is offset by operational inefficiency which is why they stopped putting them on 79.

As for C, they seemed to work on the 20, but I imagine the 66 had the same problem as the 79, especially in the downtown area.  

Aw ok but I've still see some rolling on 79th 

[NewFlyerMCI]

6 hours ago, Shannoncvpi said:

Still don't get how C & 7 have trouble deploying artics especially on their most heavy routes 

 

6 hours ago, artthouwill said:

Remember that 7 has them on 79 which is easily their heaviest route, but it didn't seem to work well.  They tried 87th too before seemingly settling on the 4.

C has had them on the 20 and the 66.

 

5 hours ago, artthouwill said:

I know 66 and 79 are high frequency routes.   Using artics on those routes increases dwelling time at each stop which slows the buses down.   In the case of 79, most of the street us one traffic lane in each direction, with a ton of traffic )gets, sto signs, school zones which add to the slowness of the route.  Yoy can only partially curb and artic as the back end will still be in the street blocking traffic so other buses can't go around you.  On 79, the ability to carry more people is offset by operational inefficiency which is why they stopped putting them on 79.

As for C, they seemed to work on the 20, but I imagine the 66 had the same problem as the 79, especially in the downtown area.  

There was also that issue that they reduced the headways (at least for the 79), which I still maintain was a bad decision. Adding artics, then reducing headways was nearly doubling capacity, then slashing that bonus almost in half. Essentially, if you assume 40ft = 1 pax/ft, then at 4 min headways (what the current schedule has), you move 600 people/hour (not accounting for standing capacity). Add artics, but cut to 6 min headways (memory of the headways might be off), you still get 600 people/hour. Now, these aren't the accurate seating capacities nor does it take into account standing capacity, but even with this rough estimate, you didn't actually do anything to alleviate crowding + the street conditions of east 79th that Art mentioned.

I also remember Sam's explanation of the spare ratio, but with that in mind, I'll still always be of the opinion that the busiest routes are the ones that need the artics

[artthouwill]

40 minutes ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

 

 

There was also that issue that they reduced the headways (at least for the 79), which I still maintain was a bad decision. Adding artics, then reducing headways was nearly doubling capacity, then slashing that bonus almost in half. Essentially, if you assume 40ft = 1 pax/ft, then at 4 min headways (what the current schedule has), you move 600 people/hour (not accounting for standing capacity). Add artics, but cut to 6 min headways (memory of the headways might be off), you still get 600 people/hour. Now, these aren't the accurate seating capacities nor does it take into account standing capacity, but even with this rough estimate, you didn't actually do anything to alleviate crowding + the street conditions of east 79th that Art mentioned.

I also remember Sam's explanation of the spare ratio, but with that in mind, I'll still always be of the opinion that the busiest routes are the ones that need the artics

I don't know how you mix in srtics on the 79 with that high of a frequency.  I think artics slow down the operation.  Then there's the question of whether its better to put them on the full route or put them on the Western short turns?

[NewFlyerMCI]

20 hours ago, artthouwill said:

I don't know how you mix in srtics on the 79 with that high of a frequency.  I think artics slow down the operation.  Then there's the question of whether its better to put them on the full route or put them on the Western short turns?

New York is probably the only other agency that has routes with consistent artics at those frequencies, although I may be missing something in Seattle. For comparison, I took a quick look at WMATA's artic routes, many of which operate at what I assume would be the ideal frequency for artics, due to how their routes are set up

• 70: Every 10 mins during peak, but supplemented by an express route, at every 10-12 mins
• S2: Every 10 mins during peak, but every 4-6 mins along main trunk, via short-turns. Those used to be pullouts from the garage, but it's currently being rebuilt, so these runs are typically 40ft buses from other garages, and artics are used for the full length runs due to where their garage is (Imagine the 79 being run out of 103rd). System used to work in reverse. Also has an express route
• W4: Every 12 mins, but the main portions of it's route are shared with other routes
• X2: Every 10 mins. Has a streetcar along the majority of the route, but it doesn't really affect the ridership of the bus.

For CTA, I'd say it doesn't matter for the Western or Ford City runs (although if the Ford City runs were to no longer use the terminal, going WB at least, that's a clear favorite), but the peak Wentworth runs could probably stay 40ft. Outside of peak, frequencies cool down enough to allow full artic.

[NewFlyerMCI]

Back on topic with a new diesel bus order, CTA should really explore getting some 35ft buses. I imagine there would be plenty of bidders, and I think they might be the largest TA outside of NYC to not have any. Lot of routes they'd be more useful on than the 40fts, especially out of 74th, 103rd & FG (although every garage has a couple of routes that would be suited for them)

[jajuan]

3 minutes ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

Back on topic with a new diesel bus order, CTA should really explore getting some 35ft buses. I imagine there would be plenty of bidders, and I think they might be the largest TA outside of NYC to not have any. Lot of routes they'd be more useful on than the 40fts, especially out of 74th, 103rd & FG (although every garage has a couple of routes that would be suited for them)

That probably might have worked better for them than the 500s when we consider that part of the reason the 500s didn't last too long here (outside of the reported issue about the shoddy suspensions) was CTA starting to lean more on interlining resulting in weird sightings like 500s on the 84 during rush hour when boarding at the Red Line and at Ridge/Broadway results in a full load on a 40ft bus on that route.

[NewFlyerMCI]

42 minutes ago, jajuan said:

That probably might have worked better for them than the 500s when we consider that part of the reason the 500s didn't last too long here (outside of the reported issue about the shoddy suspensions) was CTA starting to lean more on interlining resulting in weird sightings like 500s on the 84 during rush hour when boarding at the Red Line and at Ridge/Broadway results in a full load on a 40ft bus on that route.

Yeah, I remember when I learned about the 59 and it's spaghetti interlines. I understand it, especially as a means to get drivers and buses back to the garage, but it's still baffling. Previously, I thought all the west of midway routes were interlined with each other.

Slightly related, school is back in session here, and my local TA is still using an even mix of 35ft & 40ft buses on my route, which is the first or second busiest in the system. There've been crowding issues before, but now it's really bad, especially waiting for the bus at the Pentagon. Just yesterday, over 30 people were waiting to get on a tiny 35ft gillig, and it wasn't even late. Felt sorry for the standing passengers when we got on 395

[artthouwill]

44 minutes ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

Back on topic with a new diesel bus order, CTA should really explore getting some 35ft buses. I imagine there would be plenty of bidders, and I think they might be the largest TA outside of NYC to not have any. Lot of routes they'd be more useful on than the 40fts, especially out of 74th, 103rd & FG (although every garage has a couple of routes that would be suited for them)

Once upon a time CTA had 35 ft buses.  They were the 3300 series by Flxble.  I remember riding them on the 37 Sedgwick.   The 74L Lepanto bus was a 3300 series Flxble.  I believe they also ran the 16 Lake abd i know they used to run on the original 31.  If you know what the 3000s, 3500s, or 3700s looked like, just reverse the fat pillars from the front to the back of the bus with shorter windows.

If CTA were to order 35 ft buses now, they would have to be careful about how many to order and where to place them.  For instance, a 35ft might work on the 100 Jeffery Manor Express, but not the 106 because the latter may interline with the 29 which needs a 40ft bus.  77th could use them on the 43 as long as there's no interline, and could use them on the 31 IFthey deem the 1 fit to have 2 35ft buses on the route.

Having all 40ft buses gives CTA flexibility.  Pace West had struggles with the 6600s because they would wind up on heavy routes.   Who knew 5 extra feet of standing room and an extra 6 seats could make such a difference?

[NewFlyerMCI]

1 hour ago, artthouwill said:

Once upon a time CTA had 35 ft buses.  They were the 3300 series by Flxble.  I remember riding them on the 37 Sedgwick.   The 74L Lepanto bus was a 3300 series Flxble.  I believe they also ran the 16 Lake abd i know they used to run on the original 31.  If you know what the 3000s, 3500s, or 3700s looked like, just reverse the fat pillars from the front to the back of the bus with shorter windows.

If CTA were to order 35 ft buses now, they would have to be careful about how many to order and where to place them.  For instance, a 35ft might work on the 100 Jeffery Manor Express, but not the 106 because the latter may interline with the 29 which needs a 40ft bus.  77th could use them on the 43 as long as there's no interline, and could use them on the 31 IFthey deem the 1 fit to have 2 35ft buses on the route.

Having all 40ft buses gives CTA flexibility.  Pace West had struggles with the 6600s because they would wind up on heavy routes.   Who knew 5 extra feet of standing room and an extra 6 seats could make such a difference?

I think the solution here is to interline routes of similar demand, which would be easier to do for Jeff Pk, Midway & 103rd. However, I agree with your point about flexibility. Also, that last line as well, sheesh

[artthouwill]

31 minutes ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

I think the solution here is to interline routes of similar demand, which would be easier to do for Jeff Pk, Midway & 103rd. However, I agree with your point about flexibility. Also, that last line as well, sheesh

I think the issue lies in driver hours.  I used to argue that the 29 should run out of 77th, but it was said to balance the workloads and driver hours, those 95th Red Line routes had to be interlined with the 29 and thus that route had to stay at 103rd.  I would imagine the 56 would operate the same way at Jefferson Park.   Bur I suppose it could work IF the drivers change buses, leaving the short buses on the short routes and the longer ones on the heavier routes.  They will still like some flexibility but if they don't order too many, is manageable. 

I have never seen a 35ft Nova before.

I still think CTA needs to include ordering more artics as well.

[Anthony Devera]

4 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

New York is probably the only other agency that has routes with consistent artics at those frequencies, although I may be missing something in Seattle. For comparison, I took a quick look at WMATA's artic routes, many of which operate at what I assume would be the ideal frequency for artics, due to how their routes are set up

• 70: Every 10 mins during peak, but supplemented by an express route, at every 10-12 mins
• S2: Every 10 mins during peak, but every 4-6 mins along main trunk, via short-turns. Those used to be pullouts from the garage, but it's currently being rebuilt, so these runs are typically 40ft buses from other garages, and artics are used for the full length runs due to where their garage is (Imagine the 79 being run out of 103rd). System used to work in reverse. Also has an express route
• W4: Every 12 mins, but the main portions of it's route are shared with other routes
• X2: Every 10 mins. Has a streetcar along the majority of the route, but it doesn't really affect the ridership of the bus.

For CTA, I'd say it doesn't matter for the Western or Ford City runs (although if the Ford City runs were to no longer use the terminal, going WB at least, that's a clear favorite), but the peak Wentworth runs could probably stay 40ft. Outside of peak, frequencies cool down enough to allow full artic.

Here are some example frequencies in Seattle. I got these by looking at the schedules of each route.

• 7: Every 3-10 mins during peak
• 36: Every 8-10 mins during peak (I believe this route has a mix of 40ft and 60ft)
• 40: Every 6-10 mins during peak
• 120: Every 5-10 mins during peak
• RapidRide C: Every 4-10 mins during peak
• RapidRide D: Every 6-8 mins during peak
• RapidRide E: Every 4-10 mins during peak

Someone pointed out that artics (especially 2-door) work better on routes with unidirectional ridership where people board along the length of the route and get off at major destinations or vice-versa, and most downtown routes in Chicago fit this profile. I'm still puzzled as to how artics supposedly work well on the 12 and 22 but not the 66, although someone mentioned that the 12 and 22 both have "reliever" routes like the 18 and 36 respectively, while the 66 doesn't have such a route. Does the 66 also have a largely unidirectional ridership pattern to/from Downtown, or is it more of a crosstown route like the 79?

On this note, does it make sense for CTA to briefly lease a few 3-door artics and test them on routes like the 79? Or is the 79's dwell time issue attributed mainly to the back section of the artic blocking the street or the slow-closing doors?