City
Articulated buses set to return to the TTC
Articulated buses are set to return to the TTC, reports NOW Magazine. The subject of discussion amongst transit enthusiasts for years (and more recently at the TTC itself), the Commission finally awarded a contract to Nova Bus Corporation for 60 of these extend-a-rides last week at a cost of $24,392,745, pending approval in September.
While these buses won't increase capacity on busier routes to anywhere near the same degree that LRT — or, dare I say it, subways would — there's a pretty strong argument in their favour in terms of reduced maintenance costs and the higher number of passengers they can accomodate. In the absence of these other options (the earliest an LRT line is scheduled to open on the busy Finch West corridor, for instance, is 2019), longer buses could ease some of the congestion on the city's busier routes.
They're not a cure-all, though. As anyone who's waited for the Queen 501 streetcar during rush hour knows, articulated vehicles are still subject to delays and bunching — and because they run at wider intervals, wait-times can increase on lines where they're used.
What do you think? Is this a good move on the part of the TTC?
Photo by drum118 on Flickr
Discussion
33 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
PS stop going on about LRT, no-one really wants it, it is a really bad idea, ridiculous waste of money and would set the transport infrastructure in the city back decades if more is ever rolled out. Rob Ford preferring subways (his one good idea) doesn't make them a poor option!
re: the buses, is there any reason why we haven't tried double decker buses here? I can't think of all that many low bridges that would pose a problem, and I'm sure many routes could easily take a double decker. a much better option than an articulated bus, as long as passenger load was comparable.
I know a hell of a lot so I'll answer some Q's.
Q:Why not double deckers?
A:They won't fit under some bridges (particularly new Dupont and Lakeshore) and people are not used to them, and so, boarding times would be increased.
Q:Why no double-artics?
A:Same as above, we are not used to them, and they would not "fit" between the parking spaces on the road into the stops. In fact, on some routes like Dufferin, even a 60 foot (single bend) artic will have trouble fitting.
Q:Why do we need these long buses?
A:The driver make up 75% of the cost of operating a bus. 1 driver per 40 feet of bus is more expensive than 1 per 60 feet of bus.
Q:Do they fit into the subway stations?
A:No. That probably surprises you, but for some stations, that is the truth. I doubt you'd get on into Lawrence for example.
Due to the need for them to physically fit into stations and streetside stops, some routes, despite being busy, will not see these buses. Some garages (those in the south half of the city) also have no lifts for buses so large, so they'd need to operate out of garages in the northern half of the city. Good candidates for the bendy buses are Thorncliffe Park, Don Mills, Eglinton West, Finch West, Finch East, Wilson, maybe Jane and Dufferin if they fit, as well as hopefully the Yonge and Bloor blue-nights.
Also, some routes I'd put these buses on include Keele, Bathurst, Islington, Kennedy, Steeles West and East, Malton, the Airport Express, Vaughan, and Lawrence East.
Though there are some issues with these which might prevent it, and, the other routes I'm not that familiar with.
The seating arrangement is low-floor but awful - really weird seats on top of wheel wells and such, not nearly the capacity you think it would have. Not exactly a comfortable bus to ride.
Bottom line -- these will be a nice improvement if Presto and off-bus payment is integrated and some too-close stops are cut. Otherwise all those people will just slow the bus down tremendously as they count out their quarters at the entry.
The last time I was enthusiastic about transit was my father taking my sister and I on a subway ride from York Mills (where it ended at the time) to Union and back up. I was thrilled. But then I was 13!
Seems like the last time you were enthusiastic about transit was ... well, whenever it was you last gushed about that giant subway station in São Paulo, probably. But your main interest seems to be being snotty and repeating your same half-dozen catchphrases. Which is sad, as is the fact that your dad didn't teach you proper grammar. It's 'taking my sister and me', not 'and I'.
Of greatest importance for the city is that nothing adversely affect the brilliant project for light rail (i.e., tramlines) that will extend across and around Toronto. As anyone can see who visits European cities, surface rail is the most popular form of public transit.
TTC has successfully operated articulated buses back in the 90s on the 37D(now 37A) Rexdale branch. I don't see why it would be impossible now. Many Mississauga articulated buses go through Islington, it's not a problem. Even though I doubt they will run these buses on the 37 again. Maybe a few will make it in rush hour.
Why not double deckers?
That's cause everyone wants to be near a door. Strollers won't fit on the second floor either. They also have to take care of safety issues with the stairs. We know how well operators will do in this side of operations. Articulated buses have 3 doors oppose than 2. Also, a double decker bus costs a million a piece, much more expensive than an articulated bus. Double deckers are more suitable for express routes like the 191 Highway 27 Rocket.
Why articulated buses?
There are routes on the TTC that would bunch up regardless. POP would be able to relief the problem. In the interior of the current low floor buses, people tend to stand on the lower floor section only while 30% high floor section remains for seating only. The GM New Looks and other high floor buses have a higher carrying capacity than lower floor buses. That's why 29, 39, 53, 131, 139, 190 and 199 usually uses high floor buses.
I hope they don't use the same articulated buses as VIVA. I like the articulated connector part, but the rest of the seating is typical VIVA crap with no room to stand or sit. Come on TTC, show Markham how buses are done!
Look at namehijacked's sentence again:
my father (was) taking my sister and I on a subway ride
Why is this wrong?
Because 'taking' has two objects: 'my sister' and, no, not 'I': ME.
taking my sister on a subway ride
+
taking me on a subway ride
=
taking my sister and me on a subway ride.
'My sister and I' isn't some kind of unchanging unitary phrase that can function as an object as well as a subject.
Conversely, 'My sister and I were taken on a subway ride' is grammatical, 'My sister and me were ...' is not and, if the sister did not come along, 'taking I on a subway ride' is definitely ungrammatical.
People overgeneralize from being corrected ('Don't say "Timmy and me went to the store"') without being told about when '___ and me' is in fact grammatical. That's why this ludicrous error is produced by even the most educated-seeming speakers.