Jump to content

Tcmetro

CPTDB Wiki Editor
  • Content Count

    194
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Chicago, IL

Recent Profile Visitors

4,651 profile views
  1. Tcmetro

    PACE

    There are some pictures of the just arrived New Flyer XD40s on Chicago Transit Forums. West Division is getting 75 buses to replace some early/mid 2000s NABI 40-LFWs. An option for 10 more buses was exercised, but it is not clear if they will be going to West Division or somewhere else. Here is a link to the page where other members have posted pictures and videos of the buses in service: https://chitransit.org/topic/4245-pace-new-flyer-buses/page/6/?tab=comments#comment-110837
  2. Tcmetro

    Metro Transit

    As for the routes, I believe that MTS is an entirely separate division within the Metropolitan Council. One section handles regional transportation planning, while the other organizes contracted services. The pocket schedules also state "Metropolitan Council Regional Route" on the cover. I think that Metro Transit comes up with the operational needs of the route (e.g. routing and service levels), and as you say there is some movement of routes between the two entities. Considering that all the route information is only available from the Metro Transit website, the difference between MT and MTS is only semi-public, so it might be easier to use "Metro Transit route..." as the page title. Expanding on the relationship of the two, it might even make sense to merge the articles. My personal opinion is that the details about the routes don't need to be in the template. They are probably a better fit for a separate routes page. I like the way the KCM routes page on Wikipedia handles what periods service is provided. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_King_County_Metro_bus_routes) Perhaps a way to denote in the template is treat the contracted routes equal to Metro Transit routes and put an asterisk if it is a contracted service? Agree route shouldn't be capitalized. Looking at the history of the template, I created it early in high school which probably explains a lot of poor formatting and writing of a lot of the Twin Cities stuff. -- As for COVID 19, I am surprised Metro Transit hasn't gone to back-door boarding. At this point, the ridership is those who can't work from home and have little to no other options. Considering fare revenues (especially for bus) only cover a fraction of the operating expense during normal ridership, the losses can't be much more significant. Quite a few other cities have transitioned to back-door boarding (although where I live, CTA has yet to do so). Interesting to see the artics running local services! Nice pic of the artic on the 21 in the streets.mn writeup! -- I wonder what else will be biting the dust soon. I haven't seen any items in Transportation Committee agendas or awards in the procurement system for new buses. I remember that the '08 Gilligs arrived late summer/fall, so they haven't hit the 12 year mark quite yet. It seems that Metro Transit has been pushing buses to 14 or 15 years more recently as well. Are there any Phantoms still in service? I wasn't able to ride one of the electric buses on the C Line last time I was in Minneapolis in December, so I am looking forward to that on my next visit.
  3. Tcmetro

    Metro Transit

    From what it looked like, only those routes are going to First Transit. Nothing is coming to Metro Transit. Good question about the buses. 415/452 needs two buses and 664 needs three. I wonder if they'll just transfer some over from MT.
  4. Tcmetro

    Metro Transit

    I noticed this in the March 14 service change GTFS, routes 415, 452, and 664 are becoming contract routes. Checking the new schedules, it shows that the contractor will be First Transit out of the Como garage. The transportation committee also had a work plan for this year, and it suggests that the new route 323 will be a contract route. The CMAQ change requests show that it will use 30' buses.
  5. Tcmetro

    Metro Transit

    I believe the 2007 Gillig Hybrids were RGRTA rejects. It's possible that they were numbered for RGRTA and renumbered nonsequentially for Metro Transit.
  6. I think these could be ex-Southwest Transit units. The wiki has 2001 units listed with similar numbers.
  7. Tcmetro

    Metro Transit

    I do believe this is the case. Looks like SamTrans received the last NABI 436s in 2002, and Port Authority of Alleghany County got the last Neoplan AN460s in 2005. I recall talk of NYCMTA looking for high floor artics after 2004 on Buschat. New Flyer wouldn't do a new contract for them, but Metro Transit was able to get the 2006 order as it was an option on a preexisting order.
  8. Tcmetro

    Metro Transit

    The MTN audit was reviewed by the Audit Committee at their Oct 30 2019 meeting: https://metrocouncil.org/getdoc/db18a3f8-bdf0-4a36-b562-c61e15194353/Agenda.aspx
  9. Tcmetro

    Metro Transit

    Some questions for the Minneapolis area wiki editors: My understanding is that all of the D4500's that were running under contractors are now operated by Metro Transit. Perhaps it makes sense to move these to the retired MTS list and the active Metro Transit list. I seem to recall that 60036-60039 and 60044 were renumbered from Metro Transit's Gillig LF fleet, but it's very likely that I am misremembering, and these buses were delivered directly to MTS - any way to confirm either way? Are the 2600s transferred from Plymouth Metrolink to MTS still in operation? How about 6046-6049 D40LFs? The list I am using has 3 2015 Glaval Universals and 24 2018 Glaval Universals in operation for MTS. Any idea on fleet #s? The list I am using also shows 13 2016 Gillig LF 30' and 6 2016 Gillig LF 40' buses. I put the number ranges as 60101-60113 and 60114-60119, respectively. I know that Plymouth has a 60100, so I am assuming that this is the numbering. I have updated the Plymouth list according to the roster. I have yet to update the SouthWest Transit, MVTA, Maple Grove, and University of MN rosters, nor the Transit Link, Metro Mobility, or Vanpool rosters. FYI, the roster I am using is missing fleet numbers. It has a lot of other main attributes of the bus, however. All of the information is coming from FTA's 2018 Annual Database Revenue Vehicle Inventory: https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/data-product/2018-annual-database-revenue-vehicle-inventory
  10. Tcmetro

    Metro Transit

    The original RFP was for 19 electrics for MT and 22 diesels for MTS. Now it's 8 electrics for MT and 27 diesels for MTS. I think it's likely that the options are exercised, because the Gilligs are going to start to need replacement in the next few years. Pure speculation, but MT might also be delaying the bus contract in hopes of electric bus technology advancement or major price changes by the time that they need a big order.
  11. Tcmetro

    Metro Transit

    The bus RFP has been extended to 10/24.Revised to 35 buses and 149 options. New proposed delivery schedule: 5 diesels for MTS - Oct 1 2020 15 diesels for MTS - Mar 31 2021 5 diesels for MTS - Dec 31 2021 2 diesels for MTS - Aug 12 2022 1 electric for Metro Transit - Jan 29 2021 7 electrics for Metro Transit - Aug 1 2021
  12. Tcmetro

    Metro Transit

    Looks like it's still open until 10/10. New Flyer, Gillig, Nova, and Proterra all hold plans currently.
  13. Tcmetro

    Metro Transit

    Not sure if this has been posted yet, Met Council has a new bus RFP. 41 buses, with an option for 159, all 40-footers. 19 electrics in 2021 for MT. 20 diesels in 2021 for MTS, with 2 more in 2022.
  14. The last two were in sequential order, but that started not to work well when the decade rolled over.
  15. Thunder Bay is planning to restructure and simplify the bus network: https://www.thunderbay.ca/en/city-services/route-optimization-project.aspx
×
×
  • Create New...