afransen
Senior Member
Does it not make sense to evaluate how the network fits together? That actually seems like a reasonable thing to get outside professional input on.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Northern Light
- Start date
Towered
Senior Member
What do you mean, wasteful? They're doing due diligence by studying their own study - you know, making sure all the t's are crossed and i's dotted
W. K. Lis
Superstar
It's better than making things up on the go and not telling anyone what you're planning to do in the coming years.
Northern Light
Superstar
Except they aren't making things up on the go.
The high-level plan has a general set of things that will be looked at (rationalized stops, reserved lanes, queue jump lanes, transit-priority lighting and limited-stop services); along a specific set of roads/routes the TTC has already chosen, based on published criteria.
What is there to consult about on that?
The route-specific plans should be subject to consultation as they come up; that part is fine.
Northern Light
Superstar
@W. K. Lis linked to this survey in the TTC: Other Items thread. Its about people's preferences for RapidTO on Jane Street from Eglinton to Steeles:
www.ttc.ca
From the above:
Direct link to survey:
s.cotsurvey.chkmkt.com
RapidTO Jane Street
www.ttc.ca
From the above:
Direct link to survey:
RapidTO: Jane Street | Step 1: Survey
s.cotsurvey.chkmkt.com
Northern Light
Superstar
A report to next week's Executive meeting provides an update on the Jane Street work and seeks approval to study 3 additional corridor segments.
From the above:
The overall plan:
Jane Street update:
Steeles update:
Comments: Too wide a scope of study, too long to deliver useful actions; more focus required, faster delivery required.
Queue jump lanes should be seriously considered except in the most exceptional circumstances. Road widening is contrary to Vision Zero
The focus should be:
1) True Transit Priority lights
2) Remove superfluous stops.
3) Remove superfluous traffic lights
4) Physically obstruct problematic left turn movements that delay buses at non-controlled intersections.
5) Modernize the bus fleet with 100% low-floor buses, with 3 entrances/exits per standard bus, and doors that open/close more quickly.
6) Move fare validation machines away from the doors so riders don't delay others while fumbling for a card.
7) All-door loading, and no cash fares on buses.
From the above:
The overall plan:
Jane Street update:
Steeles update:
Comments: Too wide a scope of study, too long to deliver useful actions; more focus required, faster delivery required.
Queue jump lanes should be seriously considered except in the most exceptional circumstances. Road widening is contrary to Vision Zero
The focus should be:
1) True Transit Priority lights
2) Remove superfluous stops.
3) Remove superfluous traffic lights
4) Physically obstruct problematic left turn movements that delay buses at non-controlled intersections.
5) Modernize the bus fleet with 100% low-floor buses, with 3 entrances/exits per standard bus, and doors that open/close more quickly.
6) Move fare validation machines away from the doors so riders don't delay others while fumbling for a card.
7) All-door loading, and no cash fares on buses.
Last edited:
Bordercollie
Senior Member
But there is no 100% low floor articulating vehicle on the market today. What are they going to do build a custom one?
Northern Light
Superstar
Not sure about Artics off hand.......
But this is what I have in mind:
The above is from Singapore.
360 new 3-door electric buses procured by LTA | Land Transport Guru
landtransportguru.net
But, for Artics...........this Chinese model seems on point.
This is from China: https://chinasyp.en.made-in-china.c...ery-4200nm-Auto-Gear-Box-100-Lower-Floor.html
ssiguy2
Senior Member
The new Hess buses for Brisbane's "Metro" {ie Transitway} are double articulated, 100% battery, and completely low floor accessible. Such vehicles are available but, unfortunately, nearly all buses in NA are from either New Flyer or Nova {both Canadian} due to local content requirements here and in the US. This is also why our buses are very utilitarian looking compared to the stylish ones from Europe.
nfitz
Superstar
Didn't we have the same comment here about streetcars when TTC began the streetcar tendering process about 15-20 years ago?
smallspy
Senior Member
No. 100% low floor streetcars did absolutely exist. But some felt that they wouldn't work well with our network.
There is one major downfall to a diesel-powered 100% low floor bus versus the semi-low floor ones that operate for the TTC today - a consequential loss of capacity. Due to the way that the driveline and mechanical gubbins need to be arranged (vertically, in one corner) some interior space will be loss, and with that is a resultant loss of capacity. That isn't the case with the current breed of vehicles, as those components are mounted under the floor, leaving space above for passengers.
There are some other concerns about maintenance, but these can be somewhat overcome through smart vehicle design and a rearrangement of the maintenance spaces in the garages.
A lot of these issues can also be prevented by going to battery-powered buses, but then arise a whole new set of major concerns that need to be dealt with.
Dan
Northern Light
Superstar
Great info as always Dan.
Question; is there any real world analysis of whether the 'extra' capacity of the mixed floor height is actually taken up such that its a real gain over the 100% low-floor configuration?
To elaborate, it is my perception that between people who want to avoid stairs, have strollers/mobility devices, or simply can't see if there's any available seats up top, that one can have inordinate crowding in the low section of a mixed vehicle even while some space goes unused up top.
If that's sustained in detailed study, then perhaps that added capacity isn't 'real'? Just curious on your take on that.
Also, mixed level vehicles, I gather, preclude having the 3-door model, which I understand to be effective at reducing dwell times. I wonder how much capacity is eaten by longer dwells, due to fewer doors, due to mixed height?
Undead
Senior Member
The bus network also needs significantly better route management and improved stops, including public realm and pedestrian access.
nfitz
Superstar
I hadn't realised that. Where in North America do they have them already?
APTA-2048
Senior Member
I don’t have any official analysis, but the TTC’s fully low floor Orion VI fleet was notorious for its constrained capacity. This probably became part of the TTC’s input when Orion was developing the partial low floor VII. They were able to add ten more seats with the VII. Ultimately I think passengers preferred more seats than standing space. The Orion VI, while available with three doors, was ordered with two (probably to keep more seats). The exit door was at the very rear, and it was not uncommon for difficulty in getting to it if you were in the middle of a crush loaded bus.
I will say, I think the Nova LFS and Van Hool A330 had a better fully low floor design. They feel more spacious and have more seats. The TTC’s first Nova LFS demo was actually able to seat a capacity closer to the partial low floor Orion VII. Both the LFS and A330 were also available with three doors. These buses also had some backwards facing seats, which passengers don’t seem to like. No one ordered the three door option on the LFS, and the standard shifted to the partial low floor design in terms of what agencies and passengers preferred. By 2005, the fully low floor LFS was discontinued.