nfitz
Superstar
Good grief ... you mean to tell me the TTC's 501 streetcar has a more advanced fare procedure than the Ottawa Transitway?
|
|
|
- Thread starter Ansem
- Start date
Rainforest
Senior Member
I doubt that this is a good model for long trips within Toronto, or between Toronto and near 905.
Maybe 407 express and other GO bus lines work pretty well for long distance regional travel (I do not have data to confirm or deny that, but the model seems reasonable).
However, within Toronto with its higher density and much higher transit modal share, the stop spacing that GO bus lines provide is way too large (and if they try to stop more often, they will be indistinguishable from TTC's express buses). It leaves many riders with decent local service (at least, compared to places outside 416) but no practical connection to GO lines. Case in point, SELRT will not connect to any E-W GO bus line (it will only connect at Agincourt to N-S buses that complement Stouffville train service off-peak).
For Toronto, ideally you need something that stops at every concession (every 2 km) and runs faster than TTC's subways (say at 40 or 50 kph). GO trains are actually not far from that (GO's target is stops every 4 - 6 km, but some more stops within 416 can be added); however, they all run to Union.
So, I would not dismiss building rail infrastructure on the 401. Yes it would be expensive, cause opposition from drivers, and possibly jurisdictional issues (401 is of federal importance). But what else will fit this role? Sheppard subway is out; Finch hydro corridor has its own issues; 407 and CN's York sub are too far north.
Dan416
Senior Member
Yet another thread turns into a debate about the SELRT. Quelle surprise.
As far as I am concerned, Thomson has the most realistic plan, even if her projections are somewhat "optimistic". Yes, she pretty much blatantly ripped off someone else's map and just cut things out she didn't like. But it's still the best plan out there. It's the only one that actually HAS the DRL. It's the only one that provides a funding solution. I might like Smitherman because he's gay, and I like his plan because he's the only one that proposes a subway to Sherway, but I couldn't choose him over Thomson. I feel that if SOS had to choose a candidate, at this point Thomson is the only candidate.
As far as I am concerned, Thomson has the most realistic plan, even if her projections are somewhat "optimistic". Yes, she pretty much blatantly ripped off someone else's map and just cut things out she didn't like. But it's still the best plan out there. It's the only one that actually HAS the DRL. It's the only one that provides a funding solution. I might like Smitherman because he's gay, and I like his plan because he's the only one that proposes a subway to Sherway, but I couldn't choose him over Thomson. I feel that if SOS had to choose a candidate, at this point Thomson is the only candidate.
Fresh Start
Banned
^ I'm so glad that you feel that way CC. Any plan that neglects subway expansion isn't worth a dime.
Justin10000
Banned
That's not correct. All articulated buses running on the Transitway routes (95,96,97) are POP, and all-door boarding is utilized. I shudder to think if the 95 was front door loading only, and even Gweed has to agree with that. The Transitway routes are too heavily used not to have POP/all door boarding. Like the TTC, the majority of riders buy passes, and tickets instead of using cash.
Anyone who purchases a cash fare must take a printed time transfer, in case a security enforcement officer boards a bus to check fares.
Last edited:
Ummm, last time I checked, OC Transpo does allow all-door boarding if you have a transit pass (which I lot of daily riders do). Yes, they could have ticket kiosks at Transitway stations so that all you need to do is flash it when you get on the bus. They also do have fare inspectors.
And the "boondoggle" they're about to build is the best thing this city has thought up yet. The only "boondoggle" is mayoral candidates who think that at-grade through the downtown should suffice. The numbers will tell you that that's simply not the case. I'm 100% in support of the DOTT.
Justin10000
Banned
I am actually incredulous that you're so full of it. Honestly. You are really full of it. I do not normally say that about people either.
So I'll make it brief, since I've heard this about Bogota's BRT a couple of years ago:
1) The Bogota model cannot work in North America. Takes up far too much road space. Good luck trying to convince residents they should build a 4 lane roadway for buses. Of course it's easy to allocate that much land in a country where the government can just TAKE the land, yeah?
I should also mention the massive amount of land required for turning facilities. Those buses must have wide turning radii.
Not to mention building larger garages for those massive Volvo articulated buses.
2) Carbon Credits: It's sounds nice and dandy, until you think of something: Why is it that a BRT system can receive carbon credits, but a rail system cannot? hmmm.. Maybe because only 3rd world countries are eligible for the Carbon Credits, and a Bogota style BRT system built in North America will NOT be eligible for the credits? And that the Bogota Government made a convincing case that replacing it's old, and really dirty buses with newers buses should qualify for Carbon Credits. Yep. You read right! Buy newer buses, and qualify for Carbon Credits! Gotta love consultants.
When those engines start spewing black smoke near the end of their useful life(10 years), I wonder if the UN will change the rules to make sure BRT systems cannot apply for the credirs?
3) Capacity. If you really used Bogota's Systems, then you would know in those huge buses, there are far fewer seats in each bus, and the loading standards are much more relaxed. North Americans will not accept being packed like sardines. I am pretty sure the Yonge Capacity issue could be solved if we just took out most of the seats! 45,000 on Latin buses, I believe it. 45,000pph on buses here? Not a chance.
The largest LRV currently in operation in North America is DARTs expanded LRVs. They are around 130ft. The largest bus in operation obviously are Artics at 60 ft. The Dallas SLRV has a capacity of around 175 riders, and can seat 100. The NFI BRT vehicle has a capacity of up yo 115 passengers(I'll bet it's lower), and can have up to 62 seats. An LR carry far larger than 10%-15%, and is equal to 1.5 buses. Do you really need to make up stuff? You cannot really fool anyone with your false claims.
The largest tram IN service is in Budapest, Hungary and they have a capacity of 350 riders.
Quick lesson Dentro... Fresh Start: LRV are modular, and can be extended. Buses cannot.
Who wants to wait 10-15minutes for a bus that may be full? At least you afdmit that.
Your second paragraph was total nonsense, and not really worthy of a reply. It's really amazing the stuff you post.
Last edited:
Juan_Lennon416
Senior Member
You guys are a big bunch of babies! 
MindMe
New Member
My qualifier was "if possible". The economy the last year didn't really encourage people to make major purchases like a car. Transit systems all around the world I think have been experiencing increased ridership. The explanatory factor might not be improved bus service. It might be the crashed economy.
nfitz
Superstar
No ... Transit systems throughout North America have been seeing decreased ridership in 2009. See Downturn in Public Transit Ridership Reflects Economic Times and First Quarter 2010 Public Transit Ridership Declines at Slower Rate
Recession Continues to Impact Transit Revenues, Leading to Higher Fares and Service Cuts
Many systems have been cutting service ... Toronto didn't, and expanded service instead, and saw increased ridership. Even Mississauga ridership is down.
Justin10000
Banned
Many agencies in the US have cut service by as much as 5 percent.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
On top of service cuts, some American transit systems are used almost exclusively by people who can't afford to drive, so when people lose their jobs, they stop taking transit.
Are you talking about the TTC's route 190? The 190 Rocket runs at a completely unbearable 330 second frequency and it overlaps a route running at an absolutely atrocious 240 second frequency. The route kilometres on the 190 have easily doubled or tripled since the route started running - service has been improved every year....and it still leaves people behind in the bus bay at Don Mills, every day.
You are whining with multiple emoticons. My cat is more mature.
Are you talking about the TTC's route 190? The 190 Rocket runs at a completely unbearable 330 second frequency and it overlaps a route running at an absolutely atrocious 240 second frequency. The route kilometres on the 190 have easily doubled or tripled since the route started running - service has been improved every year....and it still leaves people behind in the bus bay at Don Mills, every day.
You guys are a big bunch of babies!
You are whining with multiple emoticons. My cat is more mature.
Fresh Start
Banned
I haven’t needed to rely on the 190 route for a few years now so my mind thought back to when that route schedule was less frequent, particularly during the mid-day off-peak hours when I typically use it. At those combined headways between Don Mills and Midland that exist now though, it’s pretty feasible to insist that subway levels of demand are already occurring along this section of Sheppard East.
But you actually did respond to my second paragraph, idiot. My whole post you've dissected.Yes, NIMBYs have more talk nowadays as Toronto’s waited for too damn long to implement a proper surface rapid transit network before neighbourhoods densified and property values soared. Who’s fooling who here, me or yourself? Bogota’s system is just an example that the forum can look at as to how BRT, when properly instated, can achieve better results than light-rail. It should come as no shock that the BRT installations in Curitiba and Bogota are among the few transit systems in the world that can boast that their fare box revenues cover operating costs.
The main reason longer buses are rare is that cities get a choice: longer vehicles, or just increase services. In most cases an increase in services is by far preferable, but by the time they get to needing such large capacities 'per service' they have already exceeded the capacity that could be offered with light rail. (which requires longer headways for safety as the braking distances are longer). In the case of light rail, an increase of services typically means more services doing the same thing (all stops) so you don't gain that advantage, and many light rail lines are already at the closest safe headway so adding more vehicles wouldn't work.
Keep in mind you need to put in rails for LRT, you need to in the same way provide for longer buses with routes designed for them. You can't just slap them in existing roads and pretend you've got a system, because then it's just a bus, not BRT, and not in anyway comparable. A lot of the time the reason trams have higher capacities listed is because they have less seats. People are listing trams with the SAME internal volume as a bus, but with a higher capacity, the only reason is the seat layout. If you have them down the sides you will get a greater standing capacity. That's an internal layout issue and totally unrelated to the mode of transit. You can just as easily do that with a bus, but it's not done as often.
As well, it only takes one line stoppage to bring most cities tram systems to their knees. At least buses can route around a blockage. As well, if you have 1x 300 person tram, or 2x 150 person buses; you can perform 2 separate routes with those buses, along the same core and give a better quality of service by running one express (proper BRT having an allowance for passing at stations), or by doubling the frequency for more sparse routes.
Sure you require an extra driver, but you drive more usage out of the system with a higher quality of service and generate more revenue. Even a small bus is enough to pay for the driver in revenue if full.
MindMe
New Member
In the USA, public transit ridership reached its highest level in 52 years:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...03/08/AR2009030801960.html?hpid=moreheadlines
According to the article the motivation is exactly what I hypothesized: its about saving money.
For my own part, if I can get there by subway or street car I'll take that over my car. If I have to take a bus, I'll take my car.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...03/08/AR2009030801960.html?hpid=moreheadlines
According to the article the motivation is exactly what I hypothesized: its about saving money.
For my own part, if I can get there by subway or street car I'll take that over my car. If I have to take a bus, I'll take my car.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
The 190 was leaving people behind on the platform 5 years ago, pretty much as soon as it started running, even. That's why the frequency and hours of the route have been improved so subtantially...there's at least 5 times as many people using the 190 as predicted.