[Whoaccio]

On the heels of the last thread I started, I've been reading up on the costs of delivering public transit. I've made my way to "Urban Economics" by O'Sullivan. On the subject of mass transit, the author examines the effects of deregulation on the industry. After concluding that deregulation has been observed to decrease costs by between 15-30% ( ! ), the author explains possible reasons. Possible causes, along with increased labor flexibility and more competitive wage structures, was a tend for private providers to move to minibuses. The advantages are relatively clear to me on low ridership routes.

1.) Minibuses have a lower operating costs, less fuel, less maintanence and lower driver qualifications (hence pay).

2.) Increased headways are available to serve low ridership routes, thereby decreasing headways. Increased frequencies decrease the collection phase and attract new ridership.

Has the TTC ever considered implementing minibuses on routes with cost recovery of, for argument's sake, 30%?

p.s. I just hope the TTC could pick a less, ahem, effeminate colour scheme.

 

[RedRocket191]

I don't have a source for this, but my understanding has been that the most expensive item in operating a bus was the operator's salary. The TTC tried 30-foot Orion I buses in the 1980s, but found that they were not cost effective because those cost savings didn't materialize. They do currently operate small Orion II buses on community bus routes, but these used to be in Wheel Trans service so the cost was justified when they purchased them.

The major advantage of these buses are that they can travel deep into neighborhoods where a 40-foot bus would get stuck on the tight curves. Its possible that residents who don't want large buses on their streets might be more comfortable with a bus this size.

 

[ShonTron]

The only way you could do this and save a lot of money are if you had "junior" rank drivers for these buses/routes, much like how pilots are paid more for flying widebody aircraft versus a regional jet or a turboprop. I believe Calgary had something like this going, but this wouldn't fly with ATU 113, who would walkout illegally over something as petty as shift changes for some maintenance crews.

The 400 series routes are (were?) served by Orion IIs, but larger versions than the regular Wheel-Trans fleet, the same model Mississauga used for the City Centre shuttle and some of the GO connections before buying more conventional minibuses.

And I've ridden public transit in Mexico City and Merida, where minibuses rule the roads. Mexico City only has full size buses on some routes, and the Trolebus (Trolleybus) lines and the Metrobus. It's a different system there, but it kind of works.

 

[urbanfan89]

They definitely should be considered for routes into the outer suburbs and rural areas.

Minibuses are the only way to get to small villages in China.

 

[RedRocket191]

The 400 series routes are (were?) served by Orion IIs, but larger versions than the regular Wheel-Trans fleet, the same model Mississauga used for the City Centre shuttle and some of the GO connections before buying more conventional minibuses.

This is correct. The Orion IIs are still on the road. They are longer, but the length was the only difference over the regular Orion IIs, so fleet standardization was kept.

 

[CDL.TO]

Just yesterday I was thinking about how the 33 Forest Hill operates with only 3 or 4 passengers even at the height of rush hour with 40-foot buses. There's got to be a few TTC routes out there that the minimal cost savings due to less gas and maintenance must be justified.

Translink in Vancouver makes good use of minibuses for neighbourhood circulators.

 

[RedRocket191]

The translink example is a great one to use. But then also swap out the minibuses for their full sized cousins during the rush. On 33 Forest Hill this would be necessary when school lets out.

 

[Whoaccio]

The only way you could do this and save a lot of money are if you had "junior" rank drivers for these buses/routes, much like how pilots are paid more for flying widebody aircraft versus a regional jet or a turboprop. I believe Calgary had something like this going, but this wouldn't fly with ATU 113, who would walkout illegally over something as petty as shift changes for some maintenance crews.

Yea, something like this could never really work with the TTC/ATU 133 in charge of it. A minibus service would pretty much have to be deregulated, it would compete more in the taxi market than the "public transit" market. I think we should move the two ends of the spectrum closer together though. For this to work, the ATU 133 would have to be out of the picture, or at least seriously curtailed. I generally tend to be a pretty lefty guy (I vote Green party....) but ATU 133 has become a serious obstacle to improving the TTC.


p.s. Vote Green, or else...

 

[ShonTron]

Or else what?

My vote usually competes between the Liberals and the NDP. As a soft dipper, even I agree that ATU 113 is a problem. It has very few apologists, perhaps the only party would be the Marxist-Leninists.

Yeah, even a route like the 33 does have its peaks, which is why I can see why the TTC wouldn't want to switch buses, as that might defeat much of the fuel savings. But I can't see the 55 Warren Park being a huge hit at anytime. I think it might mean a redesign of some of the routes, and the TTC hasn't done a major route change since 1994, once the trolley buses were gone - inertia is a big problem on the management end.