[smallspy]

THAT SAID... on the contract awards page (http://ttc.ca/TTC_Business/Materials_and_procurement/Contract_Awards.jsp), the TTC did award contracts for bus suspension suppliers. While a number of companies will be providing vehicle suspension, New Flyer was awarded to supply nearly $600,000 worth of parts while Orion/Daimler was awarded less than $300,000. Considering that currently New Flyer only makes up a fraction of the fleet when compared with Orion, I think it is safe to say that New Flyer will be the next supplier.

Aftermarket parts supply is a very, very big business, arguably bigger than actually producing the buses themselves. And when you consider that something like 66% of any given bus on the market (in North America) is common with every other bus built (in North America) that year, it's easy to see why companies such as New Flyer are getting such a huge share of the parts business in Toronto.

Part of every new bus contract also covers a certain number of years of consumable and non-warranty parts. This parts contract that was just awarded was for some part of the existing fleet.

If that was true, then it might be because an articulated vehicle doesn't cost the same as a non-articulated vehicle? Isn't that obvious? The reason other agencies buy articulated vehicles isn't really to increase capacity (because artic costs around 50% more), it's to increase efficiency, and even that is debatable. The ability of articulated vehicles to increase efficiency and capacity is limited without an all-door boarding scheme. Why does Queen have POP? Think about that.

It's not just the purchase cost. While the actual on-street operating cost is only slightly higher than that of a regular bus (same staffing costs, slightly higher fueling costs, slightly higher consumables), the maintenance costs are substantially higher. Like on the range of twice to three times higher. When the TTC tested the GM articulated buses 25 years ago they found that their maintenance costs were over 3 times higher than a comparable 40' bus. And while the Orion III buses may have been regarded as lemons due to their lack of longevity their maintenance costs were quite a bit lower than the GM artics, but still well over twice as much as a 40' bus.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[gweed123]

Though doesn't the 96 (Kanata/Stittsville-Hurdman) still use 12-metre buses?

I've never taken it, but I've seen plenty of them pass by while I was waiting for my bus to head home from work. By and large, the only standard buses I saw using the Transitway downtown were local routes that used that stretch of the Transitway, and a few Transitway route buses that were "supplementing" a bus of the same route number right in front of it.

 

[Electrify]

Aftermarket parts supply is a very, very big business, arguably bigger than actually producing the buses themselves. And when you consider that something like 66% of any given bus on the market (in North America) is common with every other bus built (in North America) that year, it's easy to see why companies such as New Flyer are getting such a huge share of the parts business in Toronto.

Part of every new bus contract also covers a certain number of years of consumable and non-warranty parts. This parts contract that was just awarded was for some part of the existing fleet.



It's not just the purchase cost. While the actual on-street operating cost is only slightly higher than that of a regular bus (same staffing costs, slightly higher fueling costs, slightly higher consumables), the maintenance costs are substantially higher. Like on the range of twice to three times higher. When the TTC tested the GM articulated buses 25 years ago they found that their maintenance costs were over 3 times higher than a comparable 40' bus. And while the Orion III buses may have been regarded as lemons due to their lack of longevity their maintenance costs were quite a bit lower than the GM artics, but still well over twice as much as a 40' bus.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

While maintenance might be higher, the savings come from having to use less drivers on a single route. It can also help reduce bunching. Rather than having 2 buses come together, only one articulated bus needs to roll by.

That said, the TTC is a public service, not a private business. While this doesn't mean we should be building subways to the moon, when we have single bus routes carrying more passengers in a day than some entire systems with arctics carry in a year, it is more than time to look into adding them to our fleet.

 

[doady]

It's not just the purchase cost. While the actual on-street operating cost is only slightly higher than that of a regular bus (same staffing costs, slightly higher fueling costs, slightly higher consumables), the maintenance costs are substantially higher. Like on the range of twice to three times higher. When the TTC tested the GM articulated buses 25 years ago they found that their maintenance costs were over 3 times higher than a comparable 40' bus. And while the Orion III buses may have been regarded as lemons due to their lack of longevity their maintenance costs were quite a bit lower than the GM artics, but still well over twice as much as a 40' bus.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Yes, I remember a few years ago drum118 mentioned that Mississauga Transit was considering abandoning artics altogether because of all the things you mention.

While maintenance might be higher, the savings come from having to use less drivers on a single route. It can also help reduce bunching. Rather than having 2 buses come together, only one articulated bus needs to roll by.

It doesn't work that way because when the frequency is halved, the amount of people waiting at stops is increased by two times. So the buses are more unreliable and slower, causing bunching and forcing more buses to be added to maintain the frequency. Hurontario with artics is just as bad without. One time I remember seeing 4 artics bunched together on Hurontario back in the day. Again, with an all-door boarding scheme this problem would be reduced.

Hurontario is an interesting example to look at since they recently took artics away from weekday service. From 2004 to 2008, weekday service along Hurontario went from 10 minute frequency with artics on the 19, to approximately 4 minutes on the combined 19/202 during peak and 6 minutes in midday. Cost recovery went from ~115% in 2004 to ~85% in 2008; the capacity in offpeak remained the same but was increased by almost 50% during peak. Take into account the added capacity of 19/202 and the ~15% ridership gain, and the cost saving of artics seems small compared to their larger size, and that's not even taking into account the maintenance costs smallspy mentioned.

 

[Electrify]

It doesn't work that way because when the frequency is halved, the amount of people waiting at stops is increased by two times. So the buses are more unreliable and slower, causing bunching and forcing more buses to be added to maintain the frequency. Hurontario with artics is just as bad without. One time I remember seeing 4 artics bunched together on Hurontario back in the day. Again, with an all-door boarding scheme this problem would be reduced.

Hurontario is an interesting example to look at since they recently took artics away from weekday service. From 2004 to 2008, weekday service along Hurontario went from 10 minute frequency with artics on the 19, to approximately 4 minutes on the combined 19/202 during peak and 6 minutes in midday. Cost recovery went from ~115% in 2004 to ~85% in 2008; the capacity in offpeak remained the same but was increased by almost 50% during peak. Take into account the added capacity of 19/202 and the ~15% ridership gain, and the cost saving of artics seems small compared to their larger size, and that's not even taking into account the maintenance costs smallspy mentioned.

Even if bunching isn't reduced (something I still think is debatable, if you go from 20 buses on a 10km route to 10, it reduces the chances of them running into each other) the fact is you can get more people on to a bus more comfortably. On many TTC routes throughout the day, the problem isn't just that there is bunching, but that the buses are filled beyond capacity and passengers cannot get on.

And to elaborate on the costs, yes there is more maintenance - though the arctic buses of today are far more reliable than those of 25 years ago, but there are some significant payoffs as well. As mentioned, there is less labour required, which considering the TTC's salaries compared to smaller systems can result in quite a bit of savings. And if ridership increases to the point that you need just as many drivers using arctics as you did before, that also means there are that many more paying passengers using the route. Even if this happens and the margins for the system are not much better, there are society benefits by having fewer cars on the road and cleaner air, just to name a few.

Finally, I'm sure mini buses of under 30 feet long have lower maintenance than our 40 foot buses. Does this mean we should be getting smaller buses and running them more frequently to save more on maintenance?

 

[Electrify]

Also worth adding that according to Wikipedia, ridership is at least 25,000 per day along Hurontario (if I understood the numbers correctly from a Metrolinx PDF, the numbers were closer to 35,000 per day - and that was published before it got its own Zum route). The six busiest TTC bus routes all exceed this, with the lowest at 38,100, and the top four exceeding 40,000 riders per day. The highest is the Don Mills bus, which has nearly 42,000 riders per day.

Along the Finch East corridor, which is served by three routes and is not expected to get an LRT line, ridership is over 45,000 per day and at its peak has 50 buses servicing the avenue. In my experience during the afternoon rush at York University, The first 20 minutes of one's commute is solely waiting in line watching countless buses go by before being able to squeeze into one.

Moral of the story: The fact that this system is only now looking at articulated vehicles, and that we have had to do without for about a decade - a decade which saw some of the fastest and strongest growths in ridership recorded, is incompetence at best and gross negligence at worst.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurontario-Main_LRT
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regiona...efits_Case_Hurontario_Main_FINAL_June2010.pdf
http://ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Operating_Statistics/2011.jsp
http://ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Transit_Planning/Surface_Ridership.jsp

 

[rbt]

Moral of the story: The fact that this system is only now looking at articulated vehicles, and that we have had to do without for about a decade - a decade which saw some of the fastest and strongest growths in ridership recorded, is incompetence at best and gross negligence at worst.

I was curious so I looked at 4 MTA bus routes which have ridership over 40,000+ per weekday (one was over 52,000 prior to 2007).

M15 and B12 SBS portions seem to run articulated buses but their local components and the B44 and B46 appear to use standard 40' buses.

IIRC, SBS is limited stop with all-door boarding and ticket machines on the platforms.


The front-door only loading policy and lack of POP could be part of the issue.

 

[drum118]

I rode a few artic's routes in Amsterdam and they run every 7-15 using the front door loading only, considering they have smart-card readers at all doors. You need to tap your card getting off by the back doors and this also applies to the trams also.

All divers collect fares as well issues cards and money back to riders. Amsterdam is not the only system still doing this.

In fact, the 5 section articulated trams have a fare collector setup in the 4th section. There are also gates at the doors to stop riders getting on without tapping their card. Getting off is a different story. The 3 car section loads by all door and go figure that one out. Seen riders get on without tapping on the 3 section trams.

Zurich and Geneva run artic's every 10-15 minutes even though the ridership is not there in the first place. This also applies to the triple artic's.Then I am only seeing a snap shot in a small window and maybe the numbers are there when school is in session. Both systems run artic's on their major routes only with 40's on the outside edge or low ridership routes.

Copenhagen Denmark is using 45' and double deck buses like GO, as well 40's. Seen no artic's, but just got here 6 hours late.

As for Hurontario, I don't think its over 30,000 yet. If they brought back the artic's for weekday, you could remove some buses and drivers. In fact, MT would be better off using double deck buses in place of artic's.

 

[CDL.TO]

IIn fact, the 5 section articulated trams have a fare collector setup in the 4th section. There are also gates at the doors to stop riders getting on without tapping their card. Getting off is a different story. The 3 car section loads by all door and go figure that one out. Seen riders get on without tapping on the 3 section trams.

Aren't the "3 section trams" with all-door loading only on route 5? They are the only trams with doors on both sides because they also operate on a Transit City-style median segment with island platforms in the south of the city.

 

[Nobina]

All divers collect fares as well issues cards and money back to riders. Amsterdam is not the only system still doing this.

In fact, the 5 section articulated trams have a fare collector setup in the 4th section. There are also gates at the doors to stop riders getting on without tapping their card. Getting off is a different story.

I remember being in Amsterdam a long time ago, and having to board through the fourth car of the tram (the Siemens trams), and pay the conductor. All the other doors had gates that prevented you from getting on, similar to what you'd find at the entrance to a big box store. That system is very, very antiquated, and inefficient.

Helsinki had a similar system set up, where the driver didn't handle fares at all and passengers boarded through the very rear doors where there was a booth with a conductor, who sold and stamped tickets and gave change. Exiting was through the front 3 sets of doors. This method was abandoned in the late 1980s, and trams changed to all-door boarding with proof-of-payment. The conductor booths were replaced by seating, passenger activated "Open Door" buttons were installed at each set of doors, machines that stamped tickets installed adjacent to each set of doors inside the tram, and the driver started selling tickets to those that require them.

Nowadays, the ticket stamping machines have been replaced by smart card readers (still at all doors), and the driver still sells tickets to those that require them, and provides change. Busier stops now have Ticket Vending Machines, which you can also use to add value to your smart card. In Helsinki, you can also text A1 to 16355 to buy a single ticket via text message on your cell phone (no smartphone required), which is actually 50 cents cheaper than buying the ticket from the driver. A 60-90 seconds delay on receiving the text exists, to prevent people from cheating when fare inspectors check tickets where proof-of-payment exists. Fare enforcement is conducted by plainclothes inspectors.

The front door boarding policy Zum (Brampton) has seems like a joke to me. That isn't real BRT! Considering they use Presto, they should have all-door boarding with Presto readers at all doors, or at the stops, like Viva does.

I definitely hope once the TTC starts to roll out artics on busier routes (and once the TTC starts implementing Presto on buses), that proof-of-payment and all-door boarding will become the standard on those busier routes, at least during the daytime.

My preference for the new TTC artics: New Flyer XD60

 

[drum118]

Aren't the "3 section trams" with all-door loading only on route 5? They are the only trams with doors on both sides because they also operate on a Transit City-style median segment with island platforms in the south of the city.

They run on a few other lines and can't tell you which one, but 5 is one. 5 and 51 (subway line) use the same car as they are duel ended and doors on both side. They also operate on the same line outside the core.

Not sure what 50 use, as I never saw it, but the other 2 subway lines don't have overhead and more a true subway 2 2 car train (4). 51 is an S-Bahn Line. Never took any photos of them.

 

[CDL.TO]

They run on a few other lines and can't tell you which one, but 5 is one. 5 and 51 (subway line) use the same car as they are duel ended and doors on both side. They also operate on the same line outside the core.

Not sure what 50 use, as I never saw it, but the other 2 subway lines don't have overhead and more a true subway 2 2 car train (4). 51 is an S-Bahn Line. Never took any photos of them.

51 isn't an S-Bahn line at all. It's a dual metro and light rail line. North of Zuid station the line is fully grade-separated, the corridor is shared with full metro/subway lines, and the vehicles use a third rail. South of Zuid station the line runs (mostly) in the media of a street, the corridor is shared with a tram/streetcar route (number 5), the vehicles use a pantograph. Perhaps a possible solution for Sheppard?

5 and 51 don't use the same vehicle. Metro line 51 generally uses these and tram line 5 generally uses these.

The Amsterdam metro is quite an interesting case study, with large protests over the initial underground section, Corbusier-style elevated through towers in park in the south-east, a hybrid subway-LRT-streetcar operation in the south, cross-platform transfers between subway and intercity rail, and a modern late-90s elevated section in the west.

 

[new.flyer.408]

For those interested - articulated buses provided by Nova Bus will be coming to Toronto.

 

[ProjectEnd]

That's fantastic news. What's the timeline for getting them on the streets?

 

[RapidTransit]

Probably in 18-24 months, like other bus orders.