SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   CHICAGO: Transit Developments (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=101657)

Mr Downtown Apr 20, 2014 3:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfastx (Post 6546023)
My source is the NTD (national transit database) reports from 2012.

Thanks; I'm quite familiar with the NTDB; it's where I got the statistics I posted. The statistical problem is that it aggregates figures from all lines using a given mode in a system. So all the bus lines that St. Louis (for example) runs—no matter how lightly patronized—get compared to the two light rail lines. That helps us not at all in looking at what mode would be most cost-effective for a particular corridor, where ridership will be about the same no matter what mode is chosen.

Suppose Bombardier tests the very same railcar in Philadelphia's Broad Street Subway and on the Sixth Avenue IND in Manhattan. Because the ridership denominator in the New York statistics is much larger, the cost per passenger mile will be half or even less in New York than in Philadelphia. The cost per operating hour or per place mile would be roughly the same.

The NTDB doesn't give us place-mile figures, but we can make a good guess by looking at the hourly figures and estimating the number of passengers that can be carried on different vehicles. As I've twice pointed out, light-rail vehicles carry only about 50% more than standard buses, but the hourly operating costs average 220% of bus costs.

Remember that the labor costs for the light-rail vehicle aren't just the operator you see on board. They have to include the people who stock the ticket machines, sweep the platforms, audit and enforce the fares, repair the catenary, and the ones back at the shop who vacuum out the trash, true the wheels, and rewind the motors.

N830MH Apr 20, 2014 5:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 6546157)
Don't forget the planned expansion to 10-car platforms, which adds another 25% of capacity to the Red Line.

Wow! Lots of trains car, huh? It gonna so crowding! Overcrowded!

mfastx Apr 20, 2014 5:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 6546543)
Thanks; I'm quite familiar with the NTDB; it's where I got the statistics I posted. The statistical problem is that it aggregates figures from all lines using a given mode in a system. So all the bus lines that St. Louis (for example) runs—no matter how lightly patronized—get compared to the two light rail lines. That helps us not at all in looking at what mode would be most cost-effective for a particular corridor, where ridership will be about the same no matter what mode is chosen.

Suppose Bombardier tests the very same railcar in Philadelphia's Broad Street Subway and on the Sixth Avenue IND in Manhattan. Because the ridership denominator in the New York statistics is much larger, the cost per passenger mile will be half or even less in New York than in Philadelphia. The cost per operating hour or per place mile would be roughly the same.

The NTDB doesn't give us place-mile figures, but we can make a good guess by looking at the hourly figures and estimating the number of passengers that can be carried on different vehicles. As I've twice pointed out, light-rail vehicles carry only about 50% more than standard buses, but the hourly operating costs average 220% of bus costs.

Remember that the labor costs for the light-rail vehicle aren't just the operator you see on board. They have to include the people who stock the ticket machines, sweep the platforms, audit and enforce the fares, repair the catenary, and the ones back at the shop who vacuum out the trash, true the wheels, and rewind the motors.

I agree with the above, it's tough to truly measure cost efficiency. Generally, a rail line attracts more ridership than a similar bus line. And even though cost per revenue hour is more for rail, a train has much more capacity than a bus so that has to be factored into the equation as well.

Mr Downtown Apr 20, 2014 6:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfastx (Post 6546776)
Generally, a rail line attracts more ridership than a similar bus line.

Where's the proof of this?

We're not comparing a heavy rail line to a local bus service. We're talking about the cost-effectiveness of LRT vs. BRT on a specific corridor in Chicago. Do Pittsburgh's light rail lines "attract more ridership" than their busways do? Are Edmonton's light rail lines better patronized per mile than Ottawa's busway?

Looking at mode by entire systems using the NTDB is a bit like comparing cost per passenger-mile between the Green Line and the Red Line. You'd conclude that lines named for warm colors are vastly more efficient.

wierdaaron Apr 20, 2014 8:40 PM

Would BRT here be using new, as-yet-unproposed bus models, or something retrofitted from the current (or already pipelined) fleet? One thing the L trains have going for them is zero emissions. That said, I know nothing about the current buses' emissions but I assume they're greater than zero.

Busy Bee Apr 20, 2014 9:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wierdaaron (Post 6546924)
Would BRT here be using new, as-yet-unproposed bus models, or something retrofitted from the current (or already pipelined) fleet? One thing the L trains have going for them is zero emissions. That said, I know nothing about the current buses' emissions but I assume they're greater than zero.

This being Chicago I'm sure we'll end up with some butt ugly New Flyer CNG "metroliners" like the ones in LA all dolled up with ticky tack to look like its different than an ordinary bus. For the infrastructure required for the Ashland BRT, I wish they'd go ahead and install overhead wires and give Chicago a real trolleybus again.

Not electric, but Van Hool just released a new BRT bus made to look as much like an LRV as possible:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-H2C3URqgrZ...lding_1170.jpg
><><

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3813/...9209204f08.jpg
><><


Trolleybus version:

http://oi59.tinypic.com/4j70wk.jpg
><><

http://www.tbus.org.uk/obusvanhool.jpg
><><

ardecila Apr 20, 2014 9:44 PM

^ Those are bad-ass. ABC Companies (Van Hool's USA affiliate) features the ExquiCity on their website, so it seems like they are looking for American customers. Of course, I don't know if they meet Buy America requirements which could be a sticking point.

http://www.abc-companies.com/

The buses for Ashland will need doors on the left, though, so they can't just use traditional buses with cosmetic upgrades. Ideally you would flip the entire bus design and put the driver on the right (like a postal truck) so he can monitor the entrances. Depends on whether CTA will do an honor system with proof-of-payment, though.

Ch.G, Ch.G Apr 21, 2014 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 6546957)
^ Those are bad-ass.

Agreed. I love the pink one.

Mr Downtown Apr 21, 2014 1:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wierdaaron (Post 6546924)
One thing the L trains have going for them is zero emissions.

Well, zero emissions right around the vehicle, anyway. There are still emissions around the downstate power plants, though I think ComEd gets about 40 percent of its electricity from nuclear plants.

ardecila Apr 21, 2014 1:24 AM

Plus renewables like wind and solar. Environmentalists don't like to include nuclear or hydro power as "clean" or "renewable" but Illinois has an especially low reliance on fossil fuels for power generation, at least by American standards. Our carbon emissions are still around the average for America, though.

Using electric traction for transit decouples the consumption from the generation of energy, and that alone has huge benefits. Nobody would seriously propose a nuclear or wind-powered bus, but that can actually happen through electrification.

Busy Bee Apr 21, 2014 1:35 AM

Video Link

le_brew Apr 21, 2014 2:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wierdaaron (Post 6546924)
Would BRT here be using new, as-yet-unproposed bus models, or something retrofitted from the current (or already pipelined) fleet? One thing the L trains have going for them is zero emissions. That said, I know nothing about the current buses' emissions but I assume they're greater than zero.

we seem to ignore jeffery "jump" which is operational and supposed to be a case study in BRT for chicago.

ardecila Apr 21, 2014 3:00 AM

Except that the Ashland proposal is a whole other kettle of fish. Center dedicated lanes, actual stations, left boarding, prepaid fares, etc.

Jeffrey Jump isn't BRT and calling it such just waters down the term. It's an upgraded bus, that's it. Even on CTA's webpage, they are careful to avoid using the term BRT for the Jump.

le_brew Apr 21, 2014 3:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 6547138)
Except that the Ashland proposal is a whole other kettle of fish. Center dedicated lanes, actual stations, left boarding, prepaid fares, etc.

Jeffrey Jump isn't BRT and calling it such just waters down the term. It's an upgraded bus, that's it. Even on CTA's webpage, they are careful to avoid using the term BRT for the Jump.

really? then we really don't know WTF we're doing cause that was supposed to be the purpose. a prototype.

sorry, just frustrated about this city's approach! to just about everything!

alright i should just move. . .

Rizzo Apr 21, 2014 4:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 6547086)

We can't have these. They are too nice.

UPChicago Apr 21, 2014 2:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 6546934)
This being Chicago I'm sure we'll end up with some butt ugly New Flyer CNG "metroliners" like the ones in LA all dolled up with ticky tack to look like its different than an ordinary bus. For the infrastructure required for the Ashland BRT, I wish they'd go ahead and install overhead wires and give Chicago a real trolleybus again.

Not electric, but Van Hool just released a new BRT bus made to look as much like an LRV as possible:

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3813/...9209204f08.jpg

YES PLEASE! :tup:

LouisVanDerWright Apr 21, 2014 3:34 PM

While those buses are certainly eye candy, I don't really give a shit what they look like, I just want the Ashland BRT to get built NOW. They can use school buses for all I care, just build the damn BRT line.

oshkeoto Apr 21, 2014 8:46 PM

Quote:

really? then we really don't know WTF we're doing cause that was supposed to be the purpose. a prototype.

sorry, just frustrated about this city's approach! to just about everything!

alright i should just move. . .
What? The Jump was never supposed to be full-on BRT. It tested a few concepts, like part-time dedicated lanes, queue jumps and signal priority. Calm down.

CTA Gray Line Apr 22, 2014 3:47 AM

Transit shake-up not on fast track, key lawmaker says
 
http://politics.suntimes.com/article...04212014-305pm

MON, 04/21/2014 - 3:05PM

ROSALIND ROSSI

@ROSALINDROSSI | EMAIL

Legislative efforts to dramatically shake up how the Chicago area’s transit agencies are organized probably won’t become a reality until next year, the chairman of the House Mass Transit Committee said Monday.......

chicagopcclcar1 Apr 22, 2014 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright (Post 6547514)
While those buses are certainly eye candy, I don't really give a shit what they look like, I just want the Ashland BRT to get built NOW. They can use school buses for all I care, just build the damn BRT line.

I say don't ever build a Ashland BRT!!!! A Chicago motorist!


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.