And the next garage to get New Flyers is...

[BusHunter]

No one said North Park would be next. What I said is that North Park, 103rd, and 74th are more likely candidates than Chicago for New Flyers because they had more soon to be retired buses to permanently replace than Chicago. That's the key phrase here: permanently replace. The order that I listed garages was not a statement of the order that buses be delivered. Respectfully, I actually don't explicitly make any statement about any order of delivery other than to state that 74th would be last on my speculated list of garages to see deliveries of New Flyers. If we wanted to go by size of remaining 1991 complement per garage, then obviously 103rd is the logical choice to be next. The reason I include North Park on the list for New Flyers is because, if in fact 103rd is next on the list with its 100 total TMCs and 5300s combined, the deliveries there should be finishing up close to the time that the hybrid Artics are set to start arriving. The hybrid artics are meant to retire all the 5800s and about half the 6000s. However, North Park has a decent complement of Artics already, but its 5800s are set to retire. Not to mention it doesn't serve streets that are suitable for BRT service along with BRT will be in the test stage during the hybrid Arctics early days of service. So what's left to permanently replace those 5800s along with its remaining TMCs? New Flyers. Plus since I already speculated Archer, FG and Chicago as logical garages to implement BRT, that leaves the last New Flyers to go to 74th to replace what 6000s may retire there.

I see that you are saying in your speculation that Chicago will have BRT routes. Shouldn't they get 600's then. Also if Fg gets 600's for use it would only be for the #80 which is there only x route. It would seem to me the BRT service would only be on routes that are x now. Plus for 4 routes, that's not many buses until it get's fully implemented. They'll be alot of these without anything to do. In the meantime where would you send them. I would send them to the most logical places I'd see. That would be NP. Not so much for use on the #11 which makes no sense, but for use on the #22's that are so crowded. Besides how would you repair all the NAbi's that are prematurly screwing up. That was CTA's position before this BRT thing came up. The whole issues you guys keep drilling me about " these buses will replace 40 footers" are true in the physical sense, but in the sense of service I view it as an upgrade to existing service on X routes as well as LSD. But if they replace the #5800's and #6000's (except 100) as they stand today these buses would be 1/2 at 74th make up a fourth of fg and make up a quarter of NP. No Archer additions which is what i was referring to before (2 posts ago) where I said for it to work there will be some swapping that should happen.

[RIPTA42]

We previously discussed seeing OC Transpo buses on the expressways around here.

I've seen MBTA and SEPTA. Any New Flyer delivery headed east likely passes through on the Kennedy.

[jajuan]

I see that you are saying in your speculation that Chicago will have BRT routes. Shouldn't they get 600's then. Also if Fg gets 600's for use it would only be for the #80 which is there only x route. It would seem to me the BRT service would only be on routes that are x now. Plus for 4 routes, that's not many buses until it get's fully implemented. They'll be alot of these without anything to do. In the meantime where would you send them. I would send them to the most logical places I'd see. That would be NP. Not so much for use on the #11 which makes no sense, but for use on the #22's that are so crowded. Besides how would you repair all the NAbi's that are prematurly screwing up. That was CTA's position before this BRT thing came up. The whole issues you guys keep drilling me about " these buses will replace 40 footers" are true in the physical sense, but in the sense of service I view it as an upgrade to existing service on X routes as well as LSD. But if they replace the #5800's and #6000's (except 100) as they stand today these buses would be 1/2 at 74th make up a fourth of fg and make up a quarter of NP. No Archer additions which is what i was referring to before (2 posts ago) where I said for it to work there will be some swapping that should happen.

Actually you found a mistake in my previous post, I meant to type I speculated Archer, FG and 77th for BRT. Chicago was just sticking in my mind because I was pointing out so many times in prior posts why Chicago didn't seem a logical choice for New Flyers. That reason being in Chicago's case that the only reason it still had 60 5300s was because of the extra service its been providing on the 11, 22, etc for Three Track operations. I pointed out that after Three Track, it would go back to operating at or slightly below capacity meaning counting it's total New Flyer complement as it stands today, only about 25-30 of those 5300s would have to be replaced. Sorry for the confusion on that point.

Even if some NABIs are temporarily taken from service to work out their mechanical issues NP still needs to permanently replace 100 buses since the CTA wants to retire all the 5800s along with its remaining TMCs. So I stick with my choice of NP for NFs.

I'm not flaming you or anything so don't take it as such. I am curious though about what makes you so sure the new Arctics will only be used for the current crosstown X routes? CTA and Mayor Daley have not said that will definitely be the case. I agree that in a way BRT will be an upgrade of the X routes, but that's not my only motivation for my speculation. For example, I pointed out there is super high usage of the 77 and the 81 most of the day on into the later part of the evening on most day almost any day on those routes. That's why I say FG. With 77th there's the King Drive and Cottage Grove corridor routes which are crowded a lot during the week especially rush hour along with the 79.

The biggest strike against permanent placement at NP is the motivation for using them for BRT service when the plans are fully developed. There is no motivation from Mayor Daley or CTA management for them to operate on LSD. The primary motivation even before BRT was announced was use on high use routes including some local routes that do not serve LSD. 22 does qualify in that regard, but from what I've observed the 40 footers work out well on this route. And I've ridden the 22 on some of the busiest portions of the route: Lincoln Park, Lakeview, Uptown etc. With NP already having artics they could have been used on the 22 by now, especially now with NP having less LSD routes since 143, 145 and 148 went to Kedzie. Also I never said swaps wouldn't happen. I also see it coming. Probably a little differently.

I say no to permanent placement at NP because outside of an indicated temporary sidelining of some NABIs for working out the kinks, CTA management seems to be leaning against permanent placement at garages that already have arctics.

[Guest]

I've seen MBTA and SEPTA. Any New Flyer delivery headed east likely passes through on the Kennedy.

Thats the cool thing about new deliveries that have to pass through Chicago heading east. I too have seen MBTA, SEPTA, CT Transit and some unknown transit systems. Also, one year on my way back from Minnesota we caught up to a brand spankin new New York City NF Artic #5450. But Ive mostly spotted MBTA and SEPTA.

[BusHunter]

Thats the cool thing about new deliveries that have to pass through Chicago heading east. I too have seen MBTA, SEPTA, CT Transit and some unknown transit systems. Also, one year on my way back from Minnesota we caught up to a brand spankin new New York City NF Artic #5450. But Ive mostly spotted MBTA and SEPTA.

I usually see new stuff on the Kennedy too that's why i said the sighting was strange on 290. I didn't know buses travelled this way too. That was the first and maybe only nf i will ever see there. I've seen Baltimore's 40 foot Nf's a few years ago on the Kennedy. A few other strange sightings on the Kennedy I couldn't figure out. A Nf all white with no colors on it or decals saying who it was for, just a plain white NF. Then a Nf headed for an airport for service. Didn't recognize the name. These buses go all over, at airports too. Also saw some old high floor Flyers in the 80's like the 9800's headed for I think it was Detriot (not sure) It had the mayor's name on the side of the bus above the driver.

[Guest]

I usually see new stuff on the Kennedy too that's why i said the sighting was strange on 290. I didn't know buses travelled this way too. That was the first and maybe only nf i will ever see there. I've seen Baltimore's 40 foot Nf's a few years ago on the Kennedy. A few other strange sightings on the Kennedy I couldn't figure out. A Nf all white with no colors on it or decals saying who it was for, just a plain white NF. Then a Nf headed for an airport for service. Didn't recognize the name. These buses go all over, at airports too. Also saw some old high floor Flyers in the 80's like the 9800's headed for I think it was Detriot (not sure) It had the mayor's name on the side of the bus above the driver.

Ive also seen quite a bit of New York City Bus MCI Highway coaches.

[BusHunter]

Actually you found a mistake in my previous post, I meant to type I speculated Archer, FG and 77th for BRT. Chicago was just sticking in my mind because I was pointing out so many times in prior posts why Chicago didn't seem a logical choice for New Flyers. That reason being in Chicago's case that the only reason it still had 60 5300s was because of the extra service its been providing on the 11, 22, etc for Three Track operations. I pointed out that after Three Track, it would go back to operating at or slightly below capacity meaning counting it's total New Flyer complement as it stands today, only about 25-30 of those 5300s would have to be replaced. Sorry for the confusion on that point.

Even if some NABIs are temporarily taken from service to work out their mechanical issues NP still needs to permanently replace 100 buses since the CTA wants to retire all the 5800s along with its remaining TMCs. So I stick with my choice of NP for NFs.

I'm not flaming you or anything so don't take it as such. I am curious though about what makes you so sure the new Arctics will only be used for the current crosstown X routes? CTA and Mayor Daley have not said that will definitely be the case. I agree that in a way BRT will be an upgrade of the X routes, but that's not my only motivation for my speculation. For example, I pointed out there is super high usage of the 77 and the 81 most of the day on into the later part of the evening on most day almost any day on those routes. That's why I say FG. With 77th there's the King Drive and Cottage Grove corridor routes which are crowded a lot during the week especially rush hour along with the 79.

The biggest strike against permanent placement at NP is the motivation for using them for BRT service when the plans are fully developed. There is no motivation from Mayor Daley or CTA management for them to operate on LSD. The primary motivation even before BRT was announced was use on high use routes including some local routes that do not serve LSD. 22 does qualify in that regard, but from what I've observed the 40 footers work out well on this route. And I've ridden the 22 on some of the busiest portions of the route: Lincoln Park, Lakeview, Uptown etc. With NP already having artics they could have been used on the 22 by now, especially now with NP having less LSD routes since 143, 145 and 148 went to Kedzie. Also I never said swaps wouldn't happen. I also see it coming. Probably a little differently.

I say no to permanent placement at NP because outside of an indicated temporary sidelining of some NABIs for working out the kinks, CTA management seems to be leaning against permanent placement at garages that already have arctics.

Actually I believe the #5300's will stay at Chicago until 3 track is over or more likely when the last 1991's are on life support. I don't think the TMC's would go there unless there were massive swaps that are most likely not going to happen in the next 6 - 9 months. I wonder why you say that 25 - 30 buses will hang around after 3 track? 3 track uses about 60 buses. After 3 track there's no need to replace those. Chicago should be fine as it stands today minus the 5300's. Now I don't rule out a 6000 heading there in 2009 because there will be no 5300's or tmc's by then and the 6000's should be starting to retire. Three track I believe goes to mid to late 2009. Something should still have to fill that void for three track until then. Now as far as the BRt's I wonder why you would put the 77 or 81 with the artics. Belmont is quite congested as far as traffic goes and driving an artic westbound through the blue line terminal would be too hazardous. Lawrence is even more congested, closing a lane between Pulaski and Kimball would be challenging to say the least. The residents over there would love you. They have parking problems now, there are many parking permit streets over there and nowhere to put the 100's of cars you'd be displacing. Don't take offense I'm not flaming you just illustrating my point. As far as your #22 viewpoint, NP has lost quite a few artics and those are needed for the #147 and other LSD NP routes which does pretty good ridership. Plus the NABI's are junk and some of them are really unreliable. Probably what needed to happen was a mixture of Nabi's and NF artics at all the existing artic locations today. That I think was the plan but the BRT's are changing the plan. Now that's why I switch myself around to say they be on X routes or future BRT lines, because that's where they'll most likely end up unless this BRT thing is a flop. I believe the 600's were bought without intentions to use them on BRT routes initially. This program is just something that fell in Chicago's lap because NY screwed up. Ask yourself why didn't CTA buy special BRT buses from NF? And if Chicago didn't get this $153 million. The PR department would have to say something else or they would look foolish.

[jajuan]

Actually I believe the #5300's will stay at Chicago until 3 track is over or more likely when the last 1991's are on life support. I don't think the TMC's would go there unless there were massive swaps that are most likely not going to happen in the next 6 - 9 months. I wonder why you say that 25 - 30 buses will hang around after 3 track? 3 track uses about 60 buses. After 3 track there's no need to replace those. Chicago should be fine as it stands today minus the 5300's. Now I don't rule out a 6000 heading there in 2009 because there will be no 5300's or tmc's by then and the 6000's should be starting to retire. Three track I believe goes to mid to late 2009. Something should still have to fill that void for three track until then. Now as far as the BRt's I wonder why you would put the 77 or 81 with the artics. Belmont is quite congested as far as traffic goes and driving an artic westbound through the blue line terminal would be too hazardous. Lawrence is even more congested, closing a lane between Pulaski and Kimball would be challenging to say the least. The residents over there would love you. They have parking problems now, there are many parking permit streets over there and nowhere to put the 100's of cars you'd be displacing. Don't take offense I'm not flaming you just illustrating my point. As far as your #22 viewpoint, NP has lost quite a few artics and those are needed for the #147 and other LSD NP routes which does pretty good ridership. Plus the NABI's are junk and some of them are really unreliable. Probably what needed to happen was a mixture of Nabi's and NF artics at all the existing artic locations today. That I think was the plan but the BRT's are changing the plan. Now that's why I switch myself around to say they be on X routes or future BRT lines, because that's where they'll most likely end up unless this BRT thing is a flop. I believe the 600's were bought without intentions to use them on BRT routes initially. This program is just something that fell in Chicago's lap because NY screwed up. Ask yourself why didn't CTA buy special BRT buses from NF? And if Chicago didn't get this $153 million. The PR department would have to say something else or they would look foolish.

Again you have not read my posts closely enough. Number one I did not say 30 busees would be hanging around at Chicago after 3 Track. I said Chicago has a 30 bus surplus now in terms of capacity with 3 Track going on, and once it's over Chicago would have a 30 bus deficit with the retirement of the 60 5300s there if it needed to operate at its 250 bus capacity after 3 Track. Thus my numerous statements that only 30 of the 60 5300s need permanent replacement. Second when I mentioned 77 and 81 as far as use of the Hybrid Arctics on those routes, I never said anything about BRT going along those corridors. My point on that front was the hybrid artics can operated as local runs on these corridors. If you refer to my post in the BRT thread that CTA could follow the advice of the author of the Tribune opinion piece on the BRT announcement in terms of where to set up this service, you will see that I explicitly state that it would be a bad move to remove one lane in each direction on streets such as Western or Ashland to create designated bus lanes because we already have too many streets where there is only one lane available in each direction to normal traffic flow. So based on that statement I made in the other thread, why on earth would I suggest that BRT go on such narrow streets as Belmont and Lawrence. That really doesn't make much sense now does it?

I don't mind anyone challenging my ideas where they believe there is a flaw in one or more areas of my thinking, but please make sure you read my statements thoroughly before you do so that you're not telling me that I'm making a statement that I never made. Or at the very least, ask me if that was what I intended to say before you publicly challenge me on an argument that I'm not even making.

On your take of the 600s going to use on the 'X' routes, I do have a better understianding now of why you think they'll be used there.

[qwantae]

I've seen MBTA and SEPTA. Any New Flyer delivery headed east likely passes through on the Kennedy.

Last two years, I've seen New Flyer Inveros on Dan Ryan on their way to Ottawa for OC Transpo, Those are good looking New Flyer, I wonder why CTA never order any Inveros.

[Busjack]

Last two years, I've seen New Flyer Inveros on Dan Ryan on their way to Ottawa for OC Transpo, Those are good looking New Flyer, I wonder why CTA never order any Inveros.

Too expensive.

[RJL6000]

Too expensive.

That also contributed to the discontinuation of that model last year. New Flyer now no longer manufactures the Invero.

[Guest]

That also contributed to the discontinuation of that model last year. New Flyer now no longer manufactures the Invero.

I remember seeing Inveros last year, not OC Transpo though.

[BusHunter]

Again you have not read my posts closely enough. Number one I did not say 30 busees would be hanging around at Chicago after 3 Track. I said Chicago has a 30 bus surplus now in terms of capacity with 3 Track going on, and once it's over Chicago would have a 30 bus deficit with the retirement of the 60 5300s there if it needed to operate at its 250 bus capacity after 3 Track. Thus my numerous statements that only 30 of the 60 5300s need permanent replacement. Second when I mentioned 77 and 81 as far as use of the Hybrid Arctics on those routes, I never said anything about BRT going along those corridors. My point on that front was the hybrid artics can operated as local runs on these corridors. If you refer to my post in the BRT thread that CTA could follow the advice of the author of the Tribune opinion piece on the BRT announcement in terms of where to set up this service, you will see that I explicitly state that it would be a bad move to remove one lane in each direction on streets such as Western or Ashland to create designated bus lanes because we already have too many streets where there is only one lane available in each direction to normal traffic flow. So based on that statement I made in the other thread, why on earth would I suggest that BRT go on such narrow streets as Belmont and Lawrence. That really doesn't make much sense now does it?

I don't mind anyone challenging my ideas where they believe there is a flaw in one or more areas of my thinking, but please make sure you read my statements thoroughly before you do so that you're not telling me that I'm making a statement that I never made. Or at the very least, ask me if that was what I intended to say before you publicly challenge me on an argument that I'm not even making.

On your take of the 600s going to use on the 'X' routes, I do have a better understianding now of why you think they'll be used there.

Sorry if i offended you, I didn't mean for my statements to become a flame war. It's easy to misinterprete a person's statements on here. According to your statements you said the New artics would run on the 77 or 81 as locals. The Mayor and the CTA's position is that these will be used as BRT's. So I assumed you mean't they would be used for this. As far as the 5300's at Chicago we just have differing opinions on this focusing mostly on you saying there is 30 buses for 3 track and I say there's 60. That's Ok. When three track began Chicago's fleet increased by 65 buses that's why I say 60. It's been noted on here before. If you can convince me I'm wrong then I'll change my position.

[Guest ctafan630]

CTA never ran Arctics out of FG on any route.

That is incorrect. When I was a kid I was taking the 81W West Lawrence bus or the 64 Foster/Lawrence bus east to Jeff park and actually rode on artic. If memory serves me correctly, I believe the driver was being trained that day.

[Busjack]

CTA never ran Arctics out of FG on any route.

I guess never say never, because there is the picture in Krambles's book of Baron Von Steuben (the 1974 MAN demonstrator) running on route 40 O'Hare Express.

That is incorrect. When I was a kid I was taking the 81W West Lawrence bus or the 64 Foster/Lawrence bus east to Jeff park and actually rode on artic. If memory serves me correctly, I believe the driver was being trained that day.

Training may have been possible, but unless your reference was before the L was extended past Jefferson Park, the routes you say surely wouldn't have needed them. I guess it depends on how old you are now.

[Guest ctafan630]

I guess never say never, because there is the picture in Krambles's book of Baron Von Steuben (the 1974 MAN demonstrator) running on route 40 O'Hare Express.

Training may have been possible, but unless your reference was before the L was extended past Jefferson Park, the routes you say surely wouldn't have needed them. I guess it depends on how old you are now.

I am in my mid 30's. I am not trying to turn this into a big issue. I was just stating an experience from the past. My mom and I were heading into the loop and were taking the bus to Jeff Park and then the train to Washington or Monroe. We had just missed a bus at the bus stop and I was surprised when the next bus was an "expandable bus" (yes the correct term is an articulated, but that is how I called them back then).

I want to say this took place in the mid 80's (somewhere between 83-86).

[Buslover88]

Again you have not read my posts closely enough. Number one I did not say 30 busees would be hanging around at Chicago after 3 Track. I said Chicago has a 30 bus surplus now in terms of capacity with 3 Track going on, and once it's over Chicago would have a 30 bus deficit with the retirement of the 60 5300s there if it needed to operate at its 250 bus capacity after 3 Track. Thus my numerous statements that only 30 of the 60 5300s need permanent replacement. Second when I mentioned 77 and 81 as far as use of the Hybrid Arctics on those routes, I never said anything about BRT going along those corridors. My point on that front was the hybrid artics can operated as local runs on these corridors. If you refer to my post in the BRT thread that CTA could follow the advice of the author of the Tribune opinion piece on the BRT announcement in terms of where to set up this service, you will see that I explicitly state that it would be a bad move to remove one lane in each direction on streets such as Western or Ashland to create designated bus lanes because we already have too many streets where there is only one lane available in each direction to normal traffic flow. So based on that statement I made in the other thread, why on earth would I suggest that BRT go on such narrow streets as Belmont and Lawrence. That really doesn't make much sense now does it?

I don't mind anyone challenging my ideas where they believe there is a flaw in one or more areas of my thinking, but please make sure you read my statements thoroughly before you do so that you're not telling me that I'm making a statement that I never made. Or at the very least, ask me if that was what I intended to say before you publicly challenge me on an argument that I'm not even making.

On your take of the 600s going to use on the 'X' routes, I do have a better understianding now of why you think they'll be used there.

Why don't you relax?

As for this whole BRT thing, its totally stupid and I protest it. I know buses wouldn't have to sit through lights and all of that crap, but honestly, that would ruin CTA's meaning in my opinion. Its PUBLIC transportation after all, not "Separate Lane Bus Authority". Its a waste of money in my eyes. I know i'll get hate for saying this but I really do not care.

That is incorrect. When I was a kid I was taking the 81W West Lawrence bus or the 64 Foster/Lawrence bus east to Jeff park and actually rode on artic. If memory serves me correctly, I believe the driver was being trained that day.

Artics at Jefferson Park? On #64 and #81W of all places? That could have never happened. Its too unrealistic, in my opinion.

I guess never say never, because there is the picture in Krambles's book of Baron Von Steuben (the 1974 MAN demonstrator) running on route 40 O'Hare Express.

unless your reference was before the L was extended past Jefferson Park, the routes you say surely wouldn't have needed them. I guess it depends on how old you are now.

Why did you have to ask his age? But anyway, yes, I agree with Busjack when he says that those routes would not have needed artics.

[Guest]

It will be nice to see the 600s at FG. FG has never operated articulated buses in its history so this would be interesting to see. Im sure there will have to be some space to be found for the arrival of the 600s, FG is already overcrowded, 74th isnt really one of the largest garages in the system and 77th Im sure dosent have a space issue. This will be the largest fleet of artics CTA has ever had at one time, 375 articulated 60 footers. Does anyone know when the first 600 series prototype is scheduled to arrive?

I have to correct myself, if memory serves me right, an artic did operate once out of FG. There is a picture of a MAN Artic demonstrator (3 door) running on the old # 40 OHare Express route. One pic is in one of the CTAs calendars of the demo leaving Jeff Pk. and the other pic is printed in the "CTA at 45" book at Foster/Milwaukee with the # 40 route showing.

[nflyer22]

I hate to change the topic to get us back on topic , sorry about it, saw 1670 just 1:25 PM today working 12 Roosevelt.

[jajuan]

Sorry if i offended you, I didn't mean for my statements to become a flame war. It's easy to misinterprete a person's statements on here. According to your statements you said the New artics would run on the 77 or 81 as locals. The Mayor and the CTA's position is that these will be used as BRT's. So I assumed you mean't they would be used for this. As far as the 5300's at Chicago we just have differing opinions on this focusing mostly on you saying there is 30 buses for 3 track and I say there's 60. That's Ok. When three track began Chicago's fleet increased by 65 buses that's why I say 60. It's been noted on here before. If you can convince me I'm wrong then I'll change my position.

Oh no I wasn't offended. I just wanted to make sure we both understand the other's line of thinking on both our arguments. I do see though where you're confused of my mention of the 30 buses. When I'm speaking of 30 buses, I'm not explicitly referring to use for 3 Track alone. I was also thinking in terms of the additional am rush work done with Chicago now operating 121 and 123 during the morning. I was making a point to quantae that I didn't think Chicago wouldn't be in line for further New Flyer deliveries because if any of the 60 5300s need replacement after their retirement at most it would 30 assuming operation at the full 250 bus capacity which most likely won't be the case. Chicago currently has approximately 220 New Flyers (original count + those from Archer). I'm not saying Chicago's 1991 buses will be replaced, but let's say for the sake of argument some will. Let's now also say it will be done in terms of Chicago's capacity and not what was added due to 3 Track. In terms of these two lines of thought, that's a maximum of 30 buses to replace. Those were the lines along which I was making my original point. It's very likely (I think you will agree more than 90% likely) that Chicago can get by with only its New Flyers after 3 Track is over meaning zero replacement of buses there. The end result is the same as my original point, no more New Flyers for Chicago.

[Buslover88]

I hate to change the topic to get us back on topic , sorry about it, saw 1670 just 1:25 PM today working 12 Roosevelt.

So this means we're almost up to #1700.

[jajuan]

Why don't you relax? You used to talk so much about Busjack saying "Oh, Busjack's hostile" and "Busjack this, Busjack that". Seriously, why don't YOU stop being so hostile?

I was correcting a misunderstanding of an earlier point in one of my prior posts and not making an attack on anyone. There's a difference. Respectfully, if you have a disagreement with me that brings about such an emotional response, I'll gladly talk it over with you through the forum's PM system. Let's try to spare the rest of our members needless back and forth of 'he did this' and 'he did that'. And no I'm not offended by your comment. Any annoyance that came through in that post was moreso from extreme exhaustion from a nine and a half hour work day. Just shows I should have given myself some rest first before making my response.

[Guest]

I was correcting a misunderstanding of an earlier point in one of my prior posts and not making an attack on anyone. There's a difference. Respectfully, if you have a disagreement with me that brings about such an emotional response, I'll gladly talk it over with you through the forum's PM system. Let's try to spare the rest of our members needless back and forth of 'he did this' and 'he did that'. And no I'm not offended by your comment. Any annoyance that came through in that post was moreso from extreme exhaustion from a nine and a half hour work day. Just shows I should have given myself some rest first before making my response.

Saturday morning Im heading for Rockford for the weekend so I will keep an eye out for more NF deliveries, Im sure Ill spot something. Hopefully Ill have something for my fellow busfans to report tomorrow.

[Busjack]

FYI: CTA has confirmed that Chicago Ave. is part of the BRT project.

I guess this disclosure throws all prior calculations out, so I guess it doesn't pay to hotly dispute, when only CTA has the inside information, and isn't divulging it.

One could probably conclude that Chicago Garage has more D40LFs than what it will eventually need. Gentlemen and ladies, start your calculators.

[trainman8119]

FYI: CTA has confirmed that Chicago Ave. is part of the BRT project.

I guess this disclosure throws all prior calculations out, so I guess it doesn't pay to hotly dispute, when only CTA has the inside information, and isn't divulging it.

One could probably conclude that Chicago Garage has more D40LFs than what it will eventually need. Gentlemen and ladies, start your calculators.

I'll back Buslover88, and, again say I think the idea is really silly, and I would rather see money spent more wisely. That said and repeated again, although this is supposed to be BRT related, this set up looks like nothing more that what was at one time bus lanes in the loop. We see how far that got. Does this mean that in 6 months the program will be scrapped because too many people are stupid and step into bus lanes and get whacked, as was often the case downtown???? Is Chicago ave really a good test for this ??? And how long will there be strict enforcement of bus only traffic in these lanes ??? Yup, Chicago and Halsted streets will definitely be streets to stay far away from when this mess all starts !!!!