Bus Bunching

[trainman8119]

Bus bunching can be reduced simply by short turning a late bus. It doesn't have to be from the middle of the route, it can be done towards the end, when a load may (and I will emphasize the word may) be lighter. If a bus is so late it will never make up time, then it gets turned at a point where it will be put on time in its order of run. This is a process that was always used at one time, but is rarely done now. The real reason is statistics. The honchos in cushy chairs don't want to see missed trips, and a short turn is counted as a missed trip. Instead of trying to keep a schedule, it is felt that it is more important to have a bus complete its trip and serve its ridership (statistically), whether or not it is accomplishing its schedule goal or not.

For all of the talk about bus bunching, is the problem as severe as it is played out to be ???? Might it be that some of these routes are served so well with buses, that it is natural for 2 or 3 to run together (ie schedule 3-5 minutes apart and being slightly late) by design and it appears that there is a major problem when there is really not. I could see this on routes such as 56 to the north and 79 on the south and pick an express bus along Lake Shore Drive/Michigan Ave. Also, does this happen more during rush hour, when there are more buses out and about and traffic would be a mess anyway. Quite frankly, if there are 3 or 4 buses in a row, the latest should be turned at its point that would put it back on schedule headed in the opposite direction...if it is a pull in, run it to the end and pull it in !!!!! But remember one thing too...with the lack of seating on buses these days, maybe 3 in a row isn't such a bad thing either !!!!

The flaw in the short turn theory is that once you short turn something it will create problems in the area not covered by the bus short turned. In the end the bunching will continue because of the work needed by other buses doing the work in that area, albeit buses that are, in theory, on time, and the problem continues. In addition to the bunching, overcrowding occurs on those remaining buses too.

[Busjack]

I've also mentioned the NY solution of putting a "Next Bus Please" sign on the leader if the trailer is right behind. We have also mentioned that the CTA policy that the leader must make all stops even if the bus is packed makes no sense. I have also suggested that on a route like 79th, replace the 3 bunched buses with 2 articulateds, and in fact improve the frequency of service, while saving platform costs.

The other flaw in the short turn theory is that if the bus was originally signed for the terminal, the time it would take it to unload for the riders to presumably move to the trailer. I wonder if they would willingly do it. We previously discussed passengers' lack of comprehension of short turns properly posted on the destination sign.

Also for the person on Ask Carole who "thought" bus bunching is good, I am not suggesting that the bus with the "Next Bus Please" sign unload, thus causing a reboarding delay, but that it not pick up.

Huberman also asserts that fewer bus breakdowns helps reduce bus bunching, hence better maintenance is needed. We'll have to see if that works. He also seems to advocate holding buses at terminals to even out the interval, although I think that is the wrong approach. Similar is Pace's approach of using the IBS to create "more realistic schedules," but I doubt that CTA riders are willing to patiently sit 5 minutes while the bus waits to cross Western or Pulaski, for instance, so it doesn't overrun that time point.

Agreed that in the type of weather we have had lately, there is no way any bus will run on time.

[Guest]

I've also mentioned the NY solution of putting a "Next Bus Please" sign on the leader if the trailer is right behind. We have also mentioned that the CTA policy that the leader must make all stops even if the bus is packed makes no sense. I have also suggested that on a route like 79th, replace the 3 bunched buses with 2 articulateds, and in fact improve the frequency of service, while saving platform costs.

The other flaw in the short turn theory is that if the bus was originally signed for the terminal, the time it would take it to unload for the riders to presumably move to the trailer. I wonder if they would willingly do it. We previously discussed passengers' lack of comprehension of short turns properly posted on the destination sign.

Also for the person on Ask Carole who "thought" bus bunching is good, I am not suggesting that the bus with the "Next Bus Please" sign unload, thus causing a reboarding delay, but that it not pick up.

Huberman also asserts that fewer bus breakdowns helps reduce bus bunching, hence better maintenance is needed. We'll have to see if that works. He also seems to advocate holding buses at terminals to even out the interval, although I think that is the wrong approach. Similar is Pace's approach of using the IBS to create "more realistic schedules," but I doubt that CTA riders are willing to patiently sit 5 minutes while the bus waits to cross Western or Pulaski, for instance, so it doesn't overrun that time point.

Agreed that in the type of weather we have had lately, there is no way any bus will run on time.

No matter what kind technology is used or innovations are made, theres no sure answer to the problem of bus bunching. Although one solution which is used in Paris, France is buses have their dedicated right of ways on city streets, they are not caught behind other traffic and the buses that you do see bumper to bumper are buses from different lines all converging together. But Chicago does not have the room or the capacity to form right of ways for CTA buses. The Bus Rapid Transit I think would still be a good idea, it is used heavily in Los Angeles and it works well there.

[Busjack]

No matter what kind technology is used or innovations are made, theres no sure answer to the problem of bus bunching. One solution which is used in Paris, France is buses have their dedicated right of ways on city streets, they are not caught behind other traffic and the buses that you do see bumper to bumper are buses from different lines all converging together. But Chicago does not have the room or the capacity to form right of ways for CTA buses. The Bus Rapid Transit I think would still be a good idea, it is used heavily in Los Angeles and it works well there.

A bus lane could work on a wide street, such as Western, if you could enforce no parking zones. Pace also suggests an alternative of a bus getting the right lane at the intersection, in accordance with traffic signal priority, and then having the bus stop on the far side. However, admittedly, many streets (such as 79th east of State) are too narrow to do much in this regard.

This does imply the point that CTA could learn best practices from other transit authorities, but appears hesitant to do so.

[Guest]

A bus lane could work on a wide street, such as Western, if you could enforce no parking zones. Pace also suggests an alternative of a bus getting the right lane at the intersection, in accordance with traffic signal priority, and then having the bus stop on the far side. However, admittedly, many streets (such as 79th east of State) are too narrow to do much in this regard.

This does imply the point that CTA could learn best practices from other transit authorities, but appears hesitant to do so.

CTA very badly needs to take a long hard look at themselves. What they need to do is see how other transit systems operate and see what is available elsewhere to improve the system and put those ideas to work here. The dedicated right of way concept is probably the best solution they could consider right now but the problem is the narrow streets of this city. Also you dont seem to hear of many ideas or plans coming from 567 W Lake. I have ridden systems such as New York, Paris, S.F. and the Los Angeles MTA which I thought for many years way back from its RTD days was inferior to CTA now I look at L.A. and I say to myself " Wow!" or "we could do this in Chicago" or "this is what Chicago needs to do!" Los Angeles has an amazing bus system, they have buses solely for express service and their freeway express service is I believe a model for other transit systems, their rapid and light rail system still has a long way to go but its moving along. I just visited Switzerland this past fall and I was impressed at the many bus lines that serve that city not to mention their light rail system which is unbelieveable. Paris also has a very well run system. Bus, subway, commuter and rapid long distance rail lines which connect to other countries in Europe. We dont have "transit professionals" at CTA, people who know transit and know the history of it. It seems all they want to do is go home with a paycheck and to ©over (T)heir (A)ss!

Its very dissappointing that this city has lots of potential when it comes to mass transit development, I mean we have it all, local and express bus service, subway/elevated rapid transit, commuter rail, and a suburban bus system, all thats lacking is light rail. Im tired of hearing about CTA concepts the were talked about 10 or 15 years ago its time to start getting this system to where it should be. You dont hear much about expansion projects or major improvements, save for the Brown Line and the Blue Line but thats not enough by any means. All that seems to change is the bus fleet over the years but running on the same routes that existed 10 or 20 years ago, but you dont see the elevated lines either expanding outward or improving the lines, no effective bus lines being added. CTA if it really wanted to be, could be one of the best transit systems in the nation, if not the world. But from what Ive seen elsewhere around the world we are lacking behind badly. And the talk of "Doomsday" on the horizon dosent make our situation better. Were going to end up with a broken up system that the citizens of Chicago will not have pride in or hold in high regard. I would love to read the Sun Times one day and find that the CTA rates as one of the best transit systems in the world. That would definitely be something to be proud of. It would be something to bragg about!

But I dont think our citizens think that of CTA. All CTA gets is negative press, stories of rude bus drivers and bad service.

George Krambles is turning over in his grave if he saw what was happening to CTA today.

[Busjack]

We are getting slightly off, but there have been restructurings since 2000. The only one that seems effective (and is related to this thread) is the X9. Other implementations of this idea (such as X80) don't seem to have high enough productivity to really be called successful. Also, are express buses being trapped behind locals?

What we agree on is that there hasn't been a reaching out to other systems for new ideas. The CTA has been sold stuff like Bus Tracker, but doesn't seem to know how to use it. For instance, the reading for 20 Madison at Ashland WB at 5:18 p.m. is 15, 21, 25, and 28 minutes, respectively. Looks like bus bunching to me. The closest is at the river, with another at Dearborn, and three at Michigan and Madison. At that point, the map froze my display (fortunately, Firefox saves your session), and there may be a question whether Bus Tracker is still of any value if it can stall a computer for several minutes. Maybe if it screws up on the supervisors' laptops, they will come up with a more efficient display applet.

[Guest]

We are getting slightly off, but there have been restructurings since 2000. The only one that seems effective (and is related to this thread) is the X9. Other implementations of this idea (such as X80) don't seem to have high enough productivity to really be called successful. Also, are express buses being trapped behind locals?

What we agree on is that there hasn't been a reaching out to other systems for new ideas. The CTA has been sold stuff like Bus Tracker, but doesn't seem to know how to use it. For instance, the reading for 20 Madison at Ashland WB at 5:18 p.m. is 15, 21, 25, and 28 minutes, respectively. Looks like bus bunching to me. The closest is at the river, with another at Dearborn, and three at Michigan and Madison. At that point, the map froze my display (fortunately, Firefox saves your session), and there may be a question whether Bus Tracker is still of any value if it can stall a computer for several minutes. Maybe if it screws up on the supervisors' laptops, they will come up with a more efficient display applet.

Yes I agree in terms of the Express routes being implemented which was a great improvement but more still needs to be done. There are not many express routes and there are routes that that dont have them that should. Also I believe that the rapid transit should expand as well. There hasnt been a new line since the the Orange Line in 1993 and the Pink Line isnt much of an improvement since it already runs over existing tracks. But I feel the rapid transit could be larger and reach more areas of the city. There was talk a few years ago of extending the Blue Line beyond OHare to Schaumburg. There was also talk of Express bus service to Woodfield from Jefferson Park. The Circle Line concept wouldnt reach a wide area. There has to be a rapid transit line that could reach possibly a line from Howard st west to the far western reaches of the city then south or southeast connecting to other lines finally ending at 103rd st. if the Red Line were to reach there. A lone north south rapid transit line along the western end of the city would be a good idea.

[jajuan]

We are getting slightly off, but there have been restructurings since 2000. The only one that seems effective (and is related to this thread) is the X9. Other implementations of this idea (such as X80) don't seem to have high enough productivity to really be called successful. Also, are express buses being trapped behind locals?

I would say yes there are times when express buses get trapped behind the locals. I talked about the success of the X49 Western Express in another topic thread. Though it is a good route, there are times when the it gets stuck behind a local Western bus, and the driver starts to lag behind some or sits at a stop for a few minutes because he doesn't want to get too far ahead of schedule because the local is picking up all the passengers. This has happened a couple times when I've used the X9 Ashland Express and most recently on Friday when I needed to use the X54 Cicero Express. That bus got caught behind a 54B running northbound from Midway Orange Line station.

[Busjack]

I have also suggested that on a route like 79th, replace the 3 bunched buses with 2 articulateds, and in fact improve the frequency of service, while saving platform costs.

Maybe this post indicates that the CTA took my suggestion. Since I had earlier posted it on Ask Carole, send me the suggestion award.

[BUSANGEL#1]

Bunching and capital improvements are a weakness for the CTA, however it is slowly improving and has came a long way since 1947.

[nextstopchicago]

We are getting slightly off, but there have been restructurings since 2000. The only one that seems effective (and is related to this thread) is the X9. Other implementations of this idea (such as X80) don't seem to have high enough productivity to really be called successful. Also, are express buses being trapped behind locals?

I'd add the X49. The September figures are up at transitchicago.com, and the X49 actually had a HIGHER productivity figure than the regular 49. Here are boarding per platform hour in September:

9 - 56.9; X9 - 45.6

20 - 72.9; X20 - 11.5

49 - 50.3; X49 - 52.0

54 - 65.2; X54 - 20.9

80 - 55.4; X80 - 30.9

Those are the so-called cross-town Expresses. Keep in mind that the X49 needed a long time to reach these productivity levels. The X9 has rapidly done so. That's impressive.

Also, when comparing the productivity levels of the regular run and the X, you have to consider that the regular route operates all night, when presumably its productivity is much lower.

I still think CTA needs to rebrand these buses. I think there is a lot of potential for them, but many people don't even know they exist. How many people wait for hours on Damen when they could have walked the other direction from their house on Oakley and gotten a faster bus on a street that has more frequent service?

[nextstopchicago]

I'd also mention that there IS a solution to bunching on the horizon that has the potential to be near perfect.

That is signal pre-emption. The idea is that late buses get an extra few seconds at a stop light to get them through. On many routes, once you're five minutes behind (and 15 behind the bus ahead of you), you're past the point of no return, and you'll continue to get further behind. Saving two minutes at consecutive stoplights could make all the difference, getting you back to 13 minutes behind your leader, with only 30% more passengers rather than 50% more than average. Two minutes sounds like nothing, but it does actually give you a fighting chance to keep up.

CTA has had signal pre-emption money available for several years, but my understanding is that they haven't implemented, partly because they felt the need to approach car-drivin' alderman gingerly. Signal pre-emption generally has little effect on traffic patterns, but CTA fears the potential perception that cars have been held up, and somehow congestion has gotten worse.

I believe they intend to test signal pre-emption on several intersections on the southern end of 49/X49 in 2008. If anyone lives on the south side, it would be worth calling your alderman, letting him or her know that signal pre-emption is important to you.

[jajuan]

I'd also mention that there IS a solution to bunching on the horizon that has the potential to be near perfect.

That is signal pre-emption. The idea is that late buses get an extra few seconds at a stop light to get them through. On many routes, once you're five minutes behind (and 15 behind the bus ahead of you), you're past the point of no return, and you'll continue to get further behind. Saving two minutes at consecutive stoplights could make all the difference, getting you back to 13 minutes behind your leader, with only 30% more passengers rather than 50% more than average. Two minutes sounds like nothing, but it does actually give you a fighting chance to keep up.

CTA has had signal pre-emption money available for several years, but my understanding is that they haven't implemented, partly because they felt the need to approach car-drivin' alderman gingerly. Signal pre-emption generally has little effect on traffic patterns, but CTA fears the potential perception that cars have been held up, and somehow congestion has gotten worse.

I believe they intend to test signal pre-emption on several intersections on the southern end of 49/X49 in 2008. If anyone lives on the south side, it would be worth calling your alderman, letting him or her know that signal pre-emption is important to you.

Looking over this post and your other one immediately preceding this one, you have some really good suggestions that the CTA should look into implementing, especially the signal pre-emption that they've had the money to use for years. This one area where we both can agree on. (Sidenote directly for nextstopchicago, if I may. I wasn't trying to but your chops in the Bustracker section. I was only making the point of preciseness for those of us who might have read your post at 2 in the morning, which I did make a point of reading your post twice because it was so late. Now back to the topic at hand.) I first read about the signal pre-emption proposal in the Suntimes a few years ago. If I remember the article correctly, the proposal was meant to be tested on the West Cermak corridor serving North Riverside Mall. At that time, that included CTA's former 25 W. Cermak and Pace's 304 and 322. I'm surprised to hear the idea didn't go beyond the proposal stage after all this time. It really should be implemented or at the very least tested. I'm curious, did you suggest this to the CTA through 'Ask Carole'?

[nextstopchicago]

Looking over this post and your other one immediately preceding this one, you have some really good suggestions that the CTA should look into implementing, especially the signal pre-emption that they've had the money to use for years. This one area where we both can agree on. (Sidenote directly for nextstopchicago, if I may. I wasn't trying to but your chops in the Bustracker section. I was only making the point of preciseness for those of us who might have read your post at 2 in the morning, which I did make a point of reading your post twice because it was so late. Now back to the topic at hand.) I first read about the signal pre-emption proposal in the Suntimes a few years ago. If I remember the article correctly, the proposal was meant to be tested on the West Cermak corridor serving North Riverside Mall. At that time, that included CTA's former 25 W. Cermak and Pace's 304 and 322. I'm surprised to hear the idea didn't go beyond the proposal stage after all this time. It really should be implemented or at the very least tested. I'm curious, did you suggest this to the CTA through 'Ask Carole'?

Actually, I believe the Cermak Rd. project is still running. I'm not clear whether CTA buses participate in it, or whether only PACE buses do. I've read reports (just on-line -- I have no special pipeline of info) about the success of that project. It's possible in that sense that CTA does already have some buses that benefit from signal preemption, so I may have been inaccurate, and you may be right that they do have a current program in the sense of participating in a PACE-led project.

So maybe I should be talking about expansion beyond that test case.

I know that CTA has been talking about the Western Ave project for several years. I know that there was a line item grant made (I can't remember whether RTA, Congestion Mitigation federal bucks, or something else) as of a couple years ago. And just recently, I read (again on-line) that they are intending to try it out on Western in 2008. At a small number of lights on the South side.

I did mention something on Ask Carole recently about what I had read. (I wouldn't say I suggested it, since CTA was already thinking about it. I just posted to let people know.)

I do think CTA needs some political backing on this, and that's why I suggest calling relevant aldermen.

I'm trying to track down where I read that about the 2008 start. Interestingly, in trying to track it down, I did find this Chicago Metro Area Planning document

http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/transportatio...maq_program.pdf

which suggests that there might be Western Express service on weekends next year -- at least a grant has been put forward by CMAP.

And also for a "Clybourn Corridor Shuttle!!!" What in hell? Have they been reading our discussions here?

[nextstopchicago]

Here's another fascinating thing for the bus geeks, which I stumbled on while looking for info about signal priority (or preemption - slightly different terms for related things):

http://www.pcb.its.dot.gov/t3/s070620/s070...c_transit_a.ppt

This is a Power Point slideshow that apparently had to do with some agency coming in to look at CTA bus performance data collection.

Click through to slide 31!

It's a timesheet showing the exact moments at which bus 6031 stopped on its run out the #7 Harrison route on Feb. 22 2006, starting at 8:53 in the morning.

It shows which bus stops it stopped at, how long it stopped, whether there was wheelchair boarding, how many fares got on and off at that stop (22 boarded at Clinton/Jackson at 9:08, in case you were wondering!) and the speed the bus was going as it drove past bus stops at which it did not stop.

It's fascinating to know CTA has this level of data (had it already a year and a half ago).

[nextstopchicago]

This is not where I read about the Signal Priority plan, but here is a reference to its implementation in the coming year, from CMAP's Unified Work Program for Transportation for 2008:

http://www.chicagoareaplanning.org/uwp/fy0...am_document.pdf

I'm still looking for the document I originally saw. It gave the exact corners where the lights would give buses priority.

[jajuan]

This is not where I read about the Signal Priority plan, but here is a reference to its implementation in the coming year, from CMAP's Unified Work Program for Transportation for 2008:

http://www.chicagoareaplanning.org/uwp/fy0...am_document.pdf

I'm still looking for the document I originally saw. It gave the exact corners where the lights would give buses priority.

Great. This is some interesting info. I'll agree it is worth contacting relevant alderman about implementation. It'll be interesting to see how things would work out with the new block of alderman who've become known as rebels against Mayor Daley.

[jajuan]

Actually, I believe the Cermak Rd. project is still running. I'm not clear whether CTA buses participate in it, or whether only PACE buses do. I've read reports (just on-line -- I have no special pipeline of info) about the success of that project. It's possible in that sense that CTA does already have some buses that benefit from signal preemption, so I may have been inaccurate, and you may be right that they do have a current program in the sense of participating in a PACE-led project.

So maybe I should be talking about expansion beyond that test case.

I know that CTA has been talking about the Western Ave project for several years. I know that there was a line item grant made (I can't remember whether RTA, Congestion Mitigation federal bucks, or something else) as of a couple years ago. And just recently, I read (again on-line) that they are intending to try it out on Western in 2008. At a small number of lights on the South side.

I did mention something on Ask Carole recently about what I had read. (I wouldn't say I suggested it, since CTA was already thinking about it. I just posted to let people know.)

I do think CTA needs some political backing on this, and that's why I suggest calling relevant aldermen.

I'm trying to track down where I read that about the 2008 start. Interestingly, in trying to track it down, I did find this Chicago Metro Area Planning document

http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/transportatio...maq_program.pdf

which suggests that there might be Western Express service on weekends next year -- at least a grant has been put forward by CMAP.

And also for a "Clybourn Corridor Shuttle!!!" What in hell? Have they been reading our discussions here?

As I understand it, CTA was having some of the buses from Kedzie Garage at the time outfitted with devices involved in the test. It's a question of if that is still the case because at the time, mainly Americanas were being used for the CTA operated service in that area as the 25 was still unaccessible at the time and of course has been swallowed into the 21 since 2006. And of course the equipment at Kedzie has changed drastically of course with the Americanas being retired since 2004 and gone from Kedzie since 2003, Flxible 5300s being brought in in place of the Flxible 6000s that were there, and a total different group of TMCs being there now. And of course the recent acquisition of NABIs and New Flyers have to be considered. With all these changes with going on since then, who knows what CTA's current involvement is in the project.

[Busjack]

I happened across the Channel 2 report on what is being done to alleviate bus bunching (a link is on the home page).While I might disagree with some of the strategies, the report proves one thing...prior incompetent CTA management and the CTA apologists were wrong that nothing could be done about it. At least now CTA has repealed the operating rule that the follower couldn't pass the leader.

Maybe Huberman's group will continue to try to find solutions, even though the so called "funding crisis" is over (i.e. the transit authorities will be flush with cash for the next few years).

[trainman8119]

At least now CTA has repealed the operating rule that the follower couldn't pass the leader.

When did CTA impose that rule? For the longest time, "leapfrogging" was done (pass and honk going by) and it was a cool way for drivers to work together to keep moving. I don't know that it really helped the guy who was late, but it did keep the trailer on time, at least. I believe Pace still does have that rule. We could never pass a stopped bus (of any route). I should add, that at least in Aurora, we could not pass a stopped bus.

[Busjack]

When did CTA impose that rule?

I refer to this post about a RedEye article. Obviously, I don't have the rule book itself. But, if you remember at the time, you said that BusTracker is a big waste of money, and I said that if the rule that you had to make all service stops is true, then you were right. Maybe leapfrogging is not the same in the bus lexicon as not making all stops, but the TV version of the Channel 2 story sure indicated that it was a new policy.

[trainman8119]

I refer to this post about a RedEye article. Obviously, I don't have the rule book itself. But, if you remember at the time, you said that BusTracker is a big waste of money, and I said that if the rule that you had to make all service stops is true, then you were right. Maybe leapfrogging is not the same in the bus lexicon as not making all stops, but the TV version of the Channel 2 story sure indicated that it was a new policy.

That quote to me means that I can't pass a stop because my bus is full. Leapfrogging was a practice to pass a bus already stopped, thus no passenger is left behind.

[cta_44499_FG]

That quote to me means that I can't pass a stop because my bus is full. Leapfrogging was a practice to pass a bus already stopped, thus no passenger is left behind.

The one thing that amazes me the most is that the general public will never admit that they are partly to blame for this problem. Take for example the person whom waits until they climb up to the fare box to start looking for their fare, holding about 10 people behind them for over a minute, causing the bus to (for say) miss a light cycle, delaying it another 2 minutes...allowing 10 more passengers to show up (sound like michigan ave?), and start the cycle all over again.

People won't admit that part of the factor is them being too darn slow. :angry:

[Danielsmusic]

The flaw in the short turn theory is that once you short turn something it will create problems in the area not covered by the bus short turned. In the end the bunching will continue because of the work needed by other buses doing the work in that area, albeit buses that are, in theory, on time, and the problem continues. In addition to the bunching, overcrowding occurs on those remaining buses too.

This always happens on the 72 at both ends. I've been on North Avenue buses that short-turn at Austin, Central, Laramie, Cicero, Pulaski, Ashland, and Halsted. The last time I was going to board at Harlem, I had to wait for over an hour.

[Danielsmusic]

That quote to me means that I can't pass a stop because my bus is full. Leapfrogging was a practice to pass a bus already stopped, thus no passenger is left behind.

Both happen on the 3, 4, 22, 36, 156, and 151 all the time.