Bus Tracker info puts drivers at forefront of war on bus bunching

Slowing down at green lights hardly seems like the best solution to the bus bunching problem. I think The CTA needs to work on eliminating the root causes of the bus bunching. I believe this to be an excessive number of stops and too much dwell time at each stop. They need fewer stops, off-board fare payment at busy stops or a proof of purchase fare system for busy routes, and level boarding at the busiest stops.

Congrats to Rodriguez for riding the bus. I think the bus bunching/gaps has gotten much better in the last year or so with the rollout of Bus Tracker. I rarely notice it being a problem anymore.

I 2nd the call for less bus stops. Some of these need to be reexamined and eliminated. Also, urging people to exit out the back more often would help too.

At least one chicagobus.org member does not concur with bus bunching becoming better, and has personal observation and recorded BusTracker screens to demonstrate that. Start reading about here.

I concur with JW on this one. The problem isn't holding up the trailer, but the two late buses in front of it.

But since Rodriguez says he doesn't know what more he can do (which probably talks more to his lack of transit experience rather than there isn't anything that can be done) and far being it from me to give him operating advice, which I said I would not do ...

Also, why is it usually 3 in a bunch?

I really hope it is not the CTA's policy to always maintain a gap and have buses slow down whenever there might be a bunch. The reality is whenever a bus on a heavy travelled route is late it is normally good for it to be bunched with the following bus. That speeds up everyone's travel by decreasing the load time at each stop.

If anyone read today's Tribune article, they will note that there has been a 23% decrease in the use of the Chicago Card since the fare change elimanated its cheaper price relative to other fare media. You will recall that I predicted this would happen and that many people stated I was incorrect. And you will recall that Huberman stated he thought the fare changes wouldn't deter people from using the card. What the article doesn't mention is that the Chicago Card (and the Chicago Card Plus) are, by far, the cheapest tickets for the CTA to process. And it speeds up bus boarding which attracts riders, saves gas, and increases reliability. So although the Tribune didn't mention it, this is not good news. And it goes against all indications of the CTA's goals for encouraging specific types of rider fare behavior.

jack, he just means you are very hostile. It isn't a comment on your argument per se, just your approach. Ad Hominem doesn't address your argument, but your slippery slope and red herrings also degrade the conversation.

Btw, that Crain article feels very iffy. "yuppie types who work downtown" ? Nevermind that the CTA is not designed for zone-based fares and that the CTA depends on rush hour commuters too much to make changes so heavily against them. Rest of that article is just stop the circle line, failed projects are a waste, and the cta should do all the things they need to do but don't have the money.

About the cta bus tracker, does anyone know what the "Click on a bus above to push it to the back - Click on a bus number below to bring it forward" mean? Both pressing the bus and the number does nothing for me on the bustracker website

By far the best way to fight bus bunching would be to implement a true bus rapid transit system. I hope we'll hear what Rodriguez has to say about that sooner or later.

It would seem to me that it's very doubtful that CTA has a system that tells the actual bus driver that there's a gap and that bus drivers are "managing" it themselves. From what I've seen by looking over their head when I'm crunched in the front, is it tells them if they are early or late--to their schedule, regardless what the bus in front or behind them is doing. That'd be quite a sophisticated piece of technology that would be cool; I just don't believe RRod has it right.

So it's been my understanding that bus drivers are slowing down if they are early and that managers are cracking-down on those that run early.

From what the CTA (Huberman) said last Fall, they've also been using the GPS data to rewrite the schedule to reflect better the traffic conditions. I point you to Page 13 of December's Board meeting.

I guess the point is the same: CTA is using the BusTracker data stream to improve reliability; it just sounds like RRod still has some catching-up to do on how the whole thing works.

I'm all for promoting even spacing between busses, but I think the key is the driver communicating to the passengers that the bus will be stopped momentarily (sort of like the announcements on the train, but not canned). On the same page... I was on a #11 bus last week that stopped at Foster for what seemed like five minutes, and then a passenger in the back asked "why aren't we moving??" and the bus driver snapped back "The other driver is coming, take it easy! ok!" I thought it was a reasonable question and the driver should have better communicated the delay.

You're right JustinS, that situation calls for better communication. I actually think that what you saw was a late driver relief (Foster is the relief point for the garage out there on Foster and Kedzie), so it's not the same as them waiting to not get ahead of schedule.

Which, by the way, is a good thing if that driver is keeping a gap from happening behind his bus. I don't think MK has to worry that they'd actually stop a bus to solve a gap in front of the bus. At least I hope not.

BY the way, JustinS, what you experienced needs better communication, but I do believe in my experience is that it is happening less these days. It used to be a common occurance on Clark--not as much so anymore.

MK, I have to pick a bone with you on this Chicago Card issue. Per the charts that were in the paper today (not available on the online Trib, unfortunately) it shows that when added together, the Chicago Card and the Chicago Card Plus increased their rides, which not only disproves what you predicited but in fact most likely proves Huberman correct, when he said last year "Our Chicago Card customers are more elastic [sic] in their ability to absorb fare increases." [he must have meant inelastic, but I think we know what he meant by saying "absorb fare increases."]

If I remember right that statement set off a fire-storm on this blog and elsewhere. But the data are clearly showing that the ridership went up on that fare media. Now, the individual Chicago Card has been decreasing, but, according to the December Board meeting Page 11, Chicago Cards were already decreasing before the fare increase.

I'd also like to take issue with your sentence, "What the article doesn't mention is that the Chicago Card (and the Chicago Card Plus) are, by far, the cheapest tickets for the CTA to process." How do you know that? Do you know for sure? From what I've read elsewhere, it's somewhat of a boondoggle that maybe hasn't turned out to be so cheap for CTA. And even if it was cheaper--does that still justify giving away a 10% discount, and then more for the rail ride? Do you actually think that for every dollar CTA migrated over to a Chicago Card that they saved 10 cents on that dollar? Can't be. Then why give away that 10 cents? And if speeding-up bus boarding was one of the goals, then why the discount only on the rail rides?

I think Huberman was probably right on this one. This was a ridiculous set of discounts being given to a market that wasn't bringing much to the CTA and he couldn't justify giving away that kind of discount anymore--especially since he was about to raise pass prices by 15%.

The bottom line is that the numbers clearly indicate that people are switching over from Chicago Cards to either a transit card or a 30 day pass. The magnetic strip version of the 30-day pass, according to the Tribune's chart, still comprises more than half of the trips in which the 30-day pass is used. I have always said that I thought the Chicago Card Plus was still an attractive product and that many people would still use them. But that doesn't excuse the fact that the change in the price structure encourages many people to use the magnetic strip cards (either the transit card or the magnetic strip version of the 30-day pass). I really don't know what to say if you really don't understand why printing out several magnetic stirip cards and constantly replentishing machines is more expensive than selling one person a Chicago Card that they will use for years. When I used the transit card, I would generally use a new one every two months or so. That is what you have to do since the cards get worn down pretty quickly and have the potential to be unreliable. Each of those cards costs the CTA money to print (or purchase or whatever they do), distribute around the stations and then replentish the machines. This is not rocket science and, in fact, was mentioned several times by the CTA when they were discussing why they were using the old price incentives.

I have never stated that the old price structure should have been preserved exactly the way it was. It probably didn't make sense for there to be both a 10% bonus and a 25 cent difference in the rail fare. It would have been perfectly fine with me if they only kept one or the other. But we see that removing all the price incentives encourages a large portion of riders to use the less cost-efficiant form of payment. My guess is that effects the CTA's budget by a few million dollers. Another major benefit to the old price system that we have discussed before (and I'm sure you read) is the fact that it caused those who were most price sensitive to pay cheaper fares than those who are less price sensitive. This is because many people don't bother going out of their way to get a Chicago Card. So obviously they are not that concerned about price and the CTA is less likely to lose their business. So a higher fare can be charged to them. Any time any business or govenment organization can have a price system like this it means it is able to do a better job at maximizing revenue. Jewel, Dominick's, CVS, Borders, and many other retailers have a system like this. A customer who goes a little out of their way to get a card will get some discounts while those who choose not to will pay higher prices. So your argumement that the "CTA couldn't afford" to give these discounts doesn't really make sense. IF the exact discount were chosen correctly (and I'm not saying it was) there would be more revenue, not less.

"I really don't know what to say if you really don't understand why printing out several magnetic stirip cards and constantly replentishing machines is more expensive than selling one person a Chicago Card that they will use for years."

Let's assume that each cost magnetic card costs about 5 cents, no, let's say 10 cents. CTA has repeatedly said the Chicago Cards are over $5. That means that if I switch from a Chicago Card to a magnetic 30-Day Pass it'll take 50 months before I'm costing CTA money. Since these Chicago Cards expire every 4 years (the message on the bus says so), then I never will. Now, granted, there's more costs, administrative, etc.., my basic numbers may not be correct: but that's my question to you. Do you really know the CC is so much cheaper? The CC+ has a website and someone's paying the credit card fees. CTA probably has to handle more customer service calls because of it. But, yes, magnetics seem wasteful and costful too. And, yes, some aren't switching to 30-Days, so my algebra above doesn't always apply.

I definitely think there's a lot here that both of us don't know, because we don't have all the info, but don't make it seem so obvious, because it is not. Really.

I am registered here also. I don't logon here as much as I do over at forum.chicagobus.org.
I like Bus Tracker. I find it mesmerizing to watch on the Internet. But I do constantly use it when I am getting ready to get out of the domicile here.
Towards that, seeing the gaps on #65 Grand, or the astounding bunching on #54 Cicero graphically illustrates that a CTA supervisor needs to take rapid action that moment to alleviate the situation.
What can be done? CTA needs more short-run terminii, or permission to use side streets in order to turn around a bus going the other way. I know #54 Cicero used to have a short turn "Y" at Cicero and Waveland [3700 N.] (with a trolley bus, no less). Southbound; because the garage was there at North Ave.; it could reverse a bus in either direction there.
Bus Tracker does a valuable service in displaying where the snags are appearing. CTA needs to follow through and make the necessary resultant move(s) to eradicate the snags.

JMan, buses stop routinely to solve a gap in front of the bus. It was discussed on the original Tattler site long ago. I see it so frequently that I don't think twice about it. Often it's because they're early, but often it's because they can see the next bus in front of them and stop at a traffic light for a cycle or two.

I know one thing, I get pretty pissed when I'm on a bus that is basically idling or slowing at green lights. It's ridiculous. I'm on that bus to get somewhere in a timely manner.

Here is the pertinent linage from "Chicago Surface Lines • An Illustrated History" by Alan R. Lind [© MCMLXXIV: ISBN 0-934732-01-9].

Page 176:

In addition to the scheduled short line cars, CSL turned back cars on its lines in emergencies to avoid flooded underpasses, reroute cars, restore normal headways, avoid major fires or accidents, etc. Even though it might not have any scheduled short line cars, a route always had crossovers strategically placed to reroute or turn back cars. Cars always carried on their destination signs a number of unscheduled terminals for emergency display.
More often than is now done, cars were pulled off one route to fill in service on another whose headways had been badly interrupted. For example, a 63rd Street PCC car would sometimes be sent down Stony Island, although PCC cars were never assigned to Stony Island.