CTA Tattler

Hey Ron, start with the simple things.
Just have the drivers follow the rules & shut off the engines on buses that sit in the turnarounds.
And change the software that automatically turns off the engine on an idling bus from 30 minutes to 10 minutes.

Not only will the CTA save fuel, but it will also cut pollution.

These are all great ideas! Keep 'em coming Ron. Also, the added benefit of the hybrid buses is that they are almost silent. If you've ever been next to one idling at a bus stop, you know how loud they can be.

CTA could save fuel if they could find a way to ensure that bus operators aren't pretending they're at a drag race. Accelerating more slowly would not only save fuel, it would have the added benefit of not throwing passengers around the bus. I guess that would take all the fun out of it, though.

Build a new garage at (or to replace) Forest Glen.

It may not make much of a difference in the summer, but all those buses that have to sit outside in the winter are a problem in this part of the country.

Why? Because if you don't leave them running, the fuel gels-up, and they won't start-up in the morning. Imagine a yard full of buses idling all night! On the other hand, imagine half the runs out of Forest Glen not hitting the streets on those coldest mornings.

This is an issue that goes back before Ron, and even before Frank. This was a known issue even back in the last fuel crisis in the '70s, and has been ignored all this time.

The sooner they kill off all the old high-floor busses, the better.

Ummm, Rusty!
North Park keeps most of its buses outside too.
Or don't you like to hear anything about NP, as you believe with your heart of hearts that NP isn't going to be the last garage to get bus tracking?

A big part of fuel mileage increases is simply that the new New Flyer buses continue to be delivered and replace the old TMCs and Flxibles in service. I'd be surprised if this doesn't constitute the majority of fuel economy savings. Obviously the little things like cutting down on idling and minimizing the pull-in and pull-out distances from garages to the start of a route are helpful and worth doing, but it's still very small potatoes: a few dollars here and there as opposed to the substantial change in the makeup of CTA's fleet as the new buses come in.

From the Sneed column today: "...CTA President Ron Huberman seeking peace and quiet in a corner of the Intelligentsia cafe, while being peppered by comments from passersby ... "

I curse the guy a lot, but this made me realize that he probably get hit with comments good and (probably mostly) bad from folks all day long, going to the grocery store, sitting in a movie theater, trying to drink a cup of coffee, etc. I supposed he could always quit if he gets fed up with it. Not saying I'm letting him off the hook, but I guess I'm glad I'm not him. Anyway...

Rusty,
Don't they have plug in heaters like every other diesel owner in a cold climate (and I will remind you that diesels were invented in none-to-warm Germany)?

Sheesh, even that would be a benefit.

Any word on all those slow zones on the Blue Line between Jeff Park and Harlem when they were supposedly fixed last December?

The next round of "doomsday" service cuts and fare hikes are being prepared as we speak. High gas prices are the perfect excuse to come begging for more money to (mis)manage the system with.

Want to save money? start a 1 yr hiring freeze and some buses off the street, too many buses are rolling on routes with 0-2 passengers on them. Think ok

Umm, Wilson, would you be kind enough to give us an example of a bus you saw with 0-2 passengers. Just let us know the route, location, and time of day. I have never once seen an operating CTA bus with two or fewer passengers. Of course, maybe I have around the very beginning or the very end of the route. But obviously you wouldn't be so stupid as to think that having only 1 or 2 passengers for a block or two somehow makes a difference when the bus might be about to pick up 10-20 or 30 more passengers in just the next few blocks. Also, I'm sure you also realize that it is sometimes neccessary for a route to have a fairly low amount of ridership in one direction so that it can turn around and serve a large number of people in the peak direction. Busses cannot just be beamed back to their starting point after they finish a route. If that were possible, we probably would not need a CTA at all because people would likely be able to also be beamed from place to place. So if you have seen busses, with two or fewer passengers please let us know of specifics.

A hiring freeze only works if you don't have to hire anybody. I would presume at some point the CTA would have to hire people if it wants to run the system.

MK, maybe because I was once an English teacher that makes me write this:
The correct spelling is "buses" not "busses".
Thank you.

Elaine, either spelling is correct in the U.S. according to Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, and OED, among others, regardless whether in reference to an autobus or an electrical connection interface.

As an editor I have to back up Vinny. I checked the three references within easy reach, and all of them say that while "buses" is preferred, "busses" is acceptable.

Which is not to say that I agree with MK otherwise, of course. Allowing Wilson the same right of hyperbole MK generally exercises, I often see buses with a handful of people. 1? 2? 5? Sorry; I haven't cared enough to count. But I've taken a 147 south during my morning commute with perhaps 8 or 9 other riders on it a couple of times in recent weeks.

I was on a mid-Sunday afternoon northbound 147 once with two other people, if I recall correctly - and I'd been waiting for a few minutes too.

I have occasionally been the only rider on a bus, but it was usually on weekends or near the end of a route--or if I got on a bus at the tail of a bunch.
Like MK said, just because at point A there were less than 5 riders doesn't mean that a lot more riders won't get on at point B (esp if it's a transfer point). This week alone, for example, I got on an EB X80 at Austin and there were only 2 people. By the time it was at the Blue Line, it was almost SRO (never got back down to 2 while I was on it, btw). Since it's not always like that, removing buses is hardly the way to go.

I have to agree that there are sometimes empty buses that are doing things other than just deadheading. However, that doesn't mean they aren't necessary.

Would you ride the bus to work if you couldn't get home if you had to cut your shift short? For many people, that's a deal killer. The lack of any kind of midday service hurts some rush hour service.

That doesn't mean you should run all the routes all day long, but it's an example of how people decide to take public transportation not just because it's there when they need it, but because it'll be there when they might need it, too.

When the midday headway on a route exceeds about 20 minutes, you'll see a ridership drop disportionate to any drop in service.

For the people who like to point out that the CTA is in the business of moving people, not equipment, this should be very clear. Do you expect people to adjust their lives so they only can leave someplace once an hour, or do you have reasonable options for them even if they're leaving at an odd time.

Routes, and routes during particular day-parts, are re-evaluated constantly. Each route in each day-part has ridership goals, but that doesn't mean that each and every trip meets those goals over every mile of the route. Buses can't just magically appear out of thin air when needed, and disappear when not needed.

So paradoxily, some specific inefficiencies are necessary for overall efficiency.

Just because Merriam-Webster says it's OK, doesn't mean it's OK.
No newspaper or magazine will ever use "busses" as the plural of bus!
You ride in a bus, not a buss.
A buss is a kiss as in two people seen bussing.

Well, Elaine, since this is a blog about the CTA, do you have anything to say about the buses that has more substance than correcting the spelling of those who are staying on-topic? Or are you just freelance proofreading while on summer break?

Sorry, Elaine, but after 30 years of experience editing and 50 reading, I'm well aware that the only time people ever use the word "buss," as in "kiss," is when they start this pedantic and useless argument. It's otherwise an obsolete word, and ideally within a decade or so, people will be able to return to the regular plural of the word "bus," rather than a contrived irregular plural developed by readers scared by homonyms and unable to read for context.

That said, I echo Rusty's desire for commentary about the CTA and myself return to that topic.

It's a transit blog, folks, not an English lesson...

Give me a semi-empty bus at midday anytime. Some Pace routes in the northern suburbs run only every hour off-peak. They're saving lots of money not running buses (busses?) with only a few passengers, but the inconvenience keeps people who might not use transit regularly to try it. Then comes the lovely chicken and egg scenario where people don't use transit because it isn't convenient and routes don't run more frequently because people don't use it.

If only they could have done that, gee, 4-5 years ago they would have saved millions by now.

Some of those PACE bussses run even less than once an hour... and they stop very early! I was once basically stranded in some northern suburb for 3 hours waiting for the busss because it only ran every 90 minutes and apparently one of them was off-schedule. And this caused me to miss the last Metra train into the city (which was at something like 7pm!).

As for how to save more fuel, reducing idling would help a little. When the weather is a perfect 70 degrees out and a bus operator gets to the end of a route 15 minutes early, turn the bus off.

No wonder the CTA has had operating cost problems with its buses. Those mileage statistics are horrific. 6mpg is a more typical figure around the country for transit buses. If Huberman can get us from 2.7 all the way to eight with the hybrids, that's a TWO-THIRDS reduction in the fuel cost. Amazing.