[lrt's friend]

Does any other city use articulated buses as much as Ottawa? I know for years that Toronto used none.

I am starting to wonder whether the claimed benefits of cost savings are real.

It is true that articulated buses allow you to move more passengers per vehicle and there may be merits for using them on the Transitways where the volume of passengers is tremendous.

The argument is that you use fewer bus drivers per passenger, but I am starting to wonder how true that really is.

Perhaps my observations would not stand up under a proper study, but I have noticed over the years that when articulated buses are used, the speed of service declines. The reason for this is that you need to embark and disembark more passengers and make more frequent stops than with a standard bus. From what I have experienced including this morning, this decline in service speed is quite significant. From a passenger's point of view, it is the double whammy, because not only does service frequency decline when articulated buses are used but also your trip time is also extended because of slower runs.

My question, if it takes longer to make a run with an articulated bus compared to a standard bus, and the buses cost more to purchase, operate and maintain, are we actually saving any money? Furthermore, could we actually attract more ridership if we ran standard buses more frequently? As I said, I am not suggesting this on the Transitways but I wonder whether we would be better off in the long run to run standard buses say on Carling Avenue every 10 minutes instead of articulated buses every 15 minutes.

[flar]

I like the articulated buses and don't find them noticeably slower. They also hold more than double the passengers of a regular bus. I hate it when I'm waiting for the bus and a regular bus shows up instead of an artic. Hamilton uses artics on its express routes, and I believe that in the past, some articulated buses were exchanged between OCTranspo and the HSR. I know some of them have had problems, too. Maybe if they get the quality control right, they would realize the cost savings. I have to think that drivers are the biggest expense in running buses if maintanence costs are kept under control.

[Lakche]

Mississauga has a decent number of articulated buses as well, and from my observation, the routes they run them on are primarily the busiest routes.

I do agree that if you take the 2 on Carling, it seems like it takes forever because of all the times it stops and people get on and off.

[Uhuniau]

Perhaps my observations would not stand up under a proper study, but I have noticed over the years that when articulated buses are used, the speed of service declines. The reason for this is that you need to embark and disembark more passengers and make more frequent stops than with a standard bus.

Have you seen the dwell times of 40-footers? There's your delay. (That and the shit bus etiquette of Ottawa transit users.)

I wish Ottawa had a love affair with artics. OC Transpo needs to use more of them, instead of STUPIDLY running Transitway routes, and trunks like the 118, 12, 1, and 7, on 40-footers.

[bradnixon]

I've always found that the artics, with their 3 sets of doors, to be much faster than 40-footers, especially when the buses are fuller.

[Uhuniau]

I've always found that the artics, with their 3 sets of doors, to be much faster than 40-footers, especially when the buses are fuller.

A good chunk of OC Transpo's on-time performance problem can be attributed to their not using the right buses on the right routes.

[JCL]

Does any other city use articulated buses as much as Ottawa? I know for years that Toronto used none.

Toronto did operate articulated buses for a period of time, but none of the two models (GM Articulated, and Orion III/Ikarus) met to their reliability expectations.

[eternallyme]

I find them to be both useful and a pain.

On express and especially Transitway routes, they should use them extensively (in fact, in almost all cases except for lightly-used express routes) due to their higher capacity and speed for service. The rear boarding makes them especially useful, and prepaid fares would help even more. Those holding DayPasses and valid transfers (except when topping up) should also be allowed to board at the rear. Their higher capacity are especially useful on express routes as well, since ridership on those is high enough the frequency decrease is barely noticeable (every 8 minutes versus every 5 minutes at the peak of the rush hour).

On major local routes on city streets (such as the 12 and 85), however, I would reduce their usage to peak periods only and supplemental trips and never after 9 pm or on weekends on those routes. Frequency should be increased accordingly, and I am not sure how many sections have off-peak capacity issues. Routes that operate less than every 15 minutes should never use articulated buses during those time periods.

I also believe OC's next order should be the 30 foot version of the hybrids they currently have, about 50 of them for use on lower-ridership local routes. Since I believe they use less fuel than a 40 foot bus, it could be a money-saver.

[Uhuniau]

On major local routes on city streets (such as the 12 and 85), however, I would reduce their usage to peak periods only

ABSOFRIGGINGLUTELY NOT.

In fact, that's to some degree what's already happening, resulting in crush loads and complete schedule breakdown on the 1, 7, and 12.

Those routes should be artics almost all the time.

I am not sure how many sections have off-peak capacity issues. Routes that operate less than every 15 minutes should never use articulated buses during those time periods.

That is a theory that is at total odds with reality on the roads. Those routes need artics. Period. Full stop. End of sentence. They cannot meet demand with useless 40-footers. City centre transit users are getting the shitty end of the resource-allocation stick as it is.

[lrt's friend]

If the TTC does not use articulated buses, there is a reason. There is more congestion and more transit useage in Toronto. Funny, there are many, many TTC bus routes running much more frequently than the standard 15 to 30 minutes in Ottawa. The world is not coming to an end in Toronto. In fact, the better frequency encourages a transit culture that we will never attain with the type of frequency offered in Ottawa.

There is a problem with some of the thinking here.

What is happening in Ottawa is that they put on articulated buses so they don't have to run them more than every 30 minutes in some cases. It is a way to get around offering decent frequency.

Regarding the 1, 7 and 12. Just think about it. Yes, standard buses can meet the demand. They did for decades when transit modal share was higher in Ottawa than today and when the 1 was the main trunk line from the south before the Transitway and likewise the 12 (the former 2). There is a simple solution, just run them more often. It is as simple as that. Articulated buses are not some sort of magic solution. Can you imagine what it would be like if the 1, 7, and 12 ran every 7 to 8 minutes in off peak hours instead of every 15 minutes. Wouldn't the transit rider be better off? This will also facilitate easier transfers needed as we develop an urban rail network. People are simply not going to like (or put up with) having to wait 15 or 30 minutes after getting off of a train. In a way, it is a false economy because even waiting 10 minutes is a big turn off, when a car will get you awfully far in 10 minutes. I will relay my experience this morning. My car drive to work takes 10 minutes reliably. Today I use transit and there is sort of decent service frequency. Anyways the articulated bus serving our neighbourhood had to stop at every single stop to pick up passengers. The bus just crawled along meandering through our neighbourhood. When I got to my transfer station, I had to wait 15 minutes for the connecting bus. Transfers are killers if you don't offer good service frequency. In the end, it took me just short of an hour to get to work. In the days before articulated buses, bus routes were more direct because you didn't need as many passengers to fill a bus up. Fewer passengers, fewer stops, straighter bus routes. The end result is that it now takes 20 minutes longer to make exactly the same trip.

My original statement still makes logical sense. Articulated buses hold more passengers and therefore you have to stop more often to allow passengers on and off. This does slow the buses down. Maybe I am old fossil, but I remember the days before articulated buses and standard buses do run faster simply because they are not stopping as often. I cannot understand arguments to the contrary except when you are talking about crush loads but we should never design our transit system based on crush loads. And rear entry onto articulated buses is not used regularly away from the Transitways and is limited to passengers who have prepaid.

[eternallyme]

If the TTC does not use articulated buses, there is a reason. There is more congestion and more transit useage in Toronto. Funny, there are many, many TTC bus routes running much more frequently than the standard 15 to 30 minutes in Ottawa. The world is not coming to an end in Toronto. In fact, the better frequency encourages a transit culture that we will never attain with the type of frequency offered in Ottawa.

There is a problem with some of the thinking here.

What is happening in Ottawa is that they put on articulated buses so they don't have to run them more than every 30 minutes in some cases. It is a way to get around offering decent frequency.

Regarding the 1, 7 and 12. Just think about it. Yes, standard buses can meet the demand. They did for decades when transit modal share was higher in Ottawa than today and when the 1 was the main trunk line from the south before the Transitway and likewise the 12 (the former 2). There is a simple solution, just run them more often. It is as simple as that. Articulated buses are not some sort of magic solution. Can you imagine what it would be like if the 1, 7, and 12 ran every 7 to 8 minutes in off peak hours instead of every 15 minutes. Wouldn't the transit rider be better off? This will also facilitate easier transfers needed as we develop an urban rail network. People are simply not going to like having to wait 15 or 30 minutes after getting off of a train. In a way, it is a false economy because even waiting 10 minutes is a big turn off, when a car will get you awfully far in 10 minutes.

My original statement still makes logical sense. Articulated buses hold more passengers and therefore you have to stop more often to allow passengers on and off. This does slow the buses down. Maybe I am old fossil, but I remember the days before articulated buses and standard buses do run faster simply because they are not stopping as often. I cannot understand arguments to the contrary except when you are talking about crush loads but we should never design our transit system based on crush loads. And rear entry onto articulated buses is not used regularly away from the Transitways and is limited to passengers who have prepaid.

For local routes, I agree with you. Running them more often is more useful than putting bigger buses. Using artics on routes that run every 30 minutes is useless, if ridership warrants them why not run them with 40 foot buses every 15 or 20 minutes? That is a significant difference that would create much more ridership. It is one thing to drop from 5 minutes to 8 minutes or so with artics, but another to go from 15 to 30. A good primary service network is key to building off-Transitway ridership, and that would go a long way. During peak periods, I could see a use for artics when capacity is a legitimate concern, but most of the time, a higher frequency is much more useful.

They should never be used on routes running less than every 15 minutes in any circumstances, and ideally only during peak periods when routes run every 10 minutes or less. An exception is on the Transitway where they should be used on most trips and where alternative routes provide high frequency combined services as well.

On the Transitway, the artics are very useful and I find they do speed up service and rear boarding is extensively used. They could use more fare inspections though. In fact, sometimes passengers even don't follow the rules and rear-board on 40 footers when they are sometimes used. Artics should be used on all trips on Transitway routes ideally.

Express routes also have a good use for artics as they would otherwise often be crush-load and have one-way passenger flows for the most part. On those, as long as they run every 10 minutes or more at peak times (and many do), they are useful for capacity purposes.

[lrt's friend]

For local routes, I agree with you. Running them more often is more useful than putting bigger buses. Using artics on routes that run every 30 minutes is useless, if ridership warrants them why not run them with 40 foot buses every 15 or 20 minutes? That is a significant difference that would create much more ridership. It is one thing to drop from 5 minutes to 8 minutes or so with artics, but another to go from 15 to 30. A good primary service network is key to building off-Transitway ridership, and that would go a long way. During peak periods, I could see a use for artics when capacity is a legitimate concern, but most of the time, a higher frequency is much more useful.

They should never be used on routes running less than every 15 minutes in any circumstances, and ideally only during peak periods when routes run every 10 minutes or less. An exception is on the Transitway where they should be used on most trips and where alternative routes provide high frequency combined services as well.

On the Transitway, the artics are very useful and I find they do speed up service and rear boarding is extensively used. They could use more fare inspections though. In fact, sometimes passengers even don't follow the rules and rear-board on 40 footers when they are sometimes used. Artics should be used on all trips on Transitway routes ideally.

Express routes also have a good use for artics as they would otherwise often be crush-load and have one-way passenger flows for the most part. On those, as long as they run every 10 minutes or more at peak times (and many do), they are useful for capacity purposes.

The advantage of articulated buses on the Transitway is that you are moving more passengers but you are not stopping frequently because stops are far apart. This becomes a big disadvantage on local routes (including inner city routes) because you are stopping every few blocks. Express buses fall in the middle because they stop frequently in the suburbs but less so once they hit the Transitway. We are creating a bigger disadvantage now because they have merged certain express bus routes meaning that the trip through the suburbs is longer and longer and therefore slower and slower. This happened in our neighbourhood and the express trip through the neighbourhood can now only be described as a milk run. So, you now lose a lot of time before you actually hit the Transitway where speed finally picks up. Of course, part of this issue is the transit capacity downtown.

[Uhuniau]

There is a simple solution, just run them more often. It is as simple as that. Articulated buses are not some sort of magic solution.

It doesn't have to be a question of running standards more often, or artics less frequently.

I'd do both. Standards on those routes have serious dwell time problems, compounded by the total lack of bus etiquette on the part of the fucktards who inhabit this fucktardville.

These routes need artics.

Can you imagine what it would be like if the 1, 7, and 12 ran every 7 to 8 minutes in off peak hours instead of every 15 minutes.

It's easy to imagine! Just like the 95 on weekends, the goddamn things would still bunch up, run off schedule, and end up overcrowded.

In the days before articulated buses, bus routes were more direct because you didn't need as many passengers to fill a bus up.

Even on 40-footers, the suburban routes are indirect because our fucktard city councils have made 60 years of fucktarded decisions about land use and street layouts

My original statement still makes logical sense. Articulated buses hold more passengers and therefore you have to stop more often to allow passengers on and off.

What does the size of the bus have to do with the frequency of the stop?

What slows the goddamn buses down are the front-door-boarding only 40-footers, multiplied by the fucktards who don't take seats and who block the aisles, and by the crush loads that the fucktards who run OC Transpo insist on running on the 1, 7, 12, and a few other urban routes on 40-footers.

Regardless of frequency of service or density of stops, these routes need artics - just as, to pick up your Toronto example, the comparable Toronto routes are run on large, articulated, streetcars.

I cannot understand arguments to the contrary except when you are talking about crush loads but we should never design our transit system based on crush loads.

These crush loads happen all times of day and night, all week, on the trunk Bank Street and Montreal routes. (Not so much on Wellington/Richmond any more, but still sometimes.)

Don't confuse "crush" and "rush".

And rear entry onto articulated buses is not used regularly away from the Transitways and is limited to passengers who have prepaid.

Is there some principled reason why not? Inspectors can inspect artics anywhere.

Guess what the word of the day is!

[Uhuniau]

For local routes, I agree with you. Running them more often is more useful than putting bigger buses. Using artics on routes that run every 30 minutes is useless, if ridership warrants them why not run them with 40 foot buses every 15 or 20 minutes? That is a significant difference that would create much more ridership. It is one thing to drop from 5 minutes to 8 minutes or so with artics, but another to go from 15 to 30. A good primary service network is key to building off-Transitway ridership, and that would go a long way. During peak periods, I could see a use for artics when capacity is a legitimate concern, but most of the time, a higher frequency is much more useful.

None of this theory meshes with the reality for anyone who, like me, rides the 1, 7, or 12 on a regular basis.

Regardless of frequency, unless you are running a bus every four goddamn minutes, these routes need artics to handle their loads. 40-footers are inadequate, no matter what you theorize, and no matter what the fucktard accountants and transit theoreticians at OC Transpo, who commute to their jobs from Quebec in private vehicles, might think.

They should never be used on routes running less than every 15 minutes in any circumstances

Ride the 12. Much of the day it runs at less than 15-minute intervals. 40-footers cannot handle the load, and you end up with busclusterfucks.

The trunk routes need artics, other than late at night.

Express routes also have a good use for artics as they would otherwise often be crush-load and have one-way passenger flows for the most part. On those, as long as they run every 10 minutes or more at peak times (and many do), they are useful for capacity purposes.

Ah, so it's bad to have crush loads for mollycoddled suburban asses, but fine for urban residents whose routes don't run at a loss?

Gotcha.

[lrt's friend]

What does the size of the bus have to do with the frequency of the stop?

Instead of getting so worked up, just think about for a minute. If there is 60 passengers on a standard bus and 100 passengers on an articulated bus, you will have to stop more frequently to handle those 100 passengers. It is just common sense. If you happen to one of the 40 passengers that is on the next standard bus, the first bus will not have to stop at your stop. It is a simple as that.

It doesn't have to be a question of running standards more often, or artics less frequently.

But that is exactly the case. When our mayor made the announcement that articulated buses would be used on all express routes, it meant that each express route would run less frequently. That is exactly what happened. It is also exactly what is happened on every route away from the Transitway when articulated buses were put into service on that route. I remember clearly when articulated buses were put into service on Carling Avenue for the first time. There was a claim that service frequency was being improved. It was a lie. They replaced 2 routes running every 12 minutes (in other words every 6 minutes) with one route running every 9 minutes. With all our progress since then, we now have one route running every 15 minutes. I would expect that a similar pattern exists whereever articulated buses have been deployed in Ottawa. Service has deteriorated significantly.

Regardless of frequency of service or density of stops, these routes need artics - just as, to pick up your Toronto example, the comparable Toronto routes are run on large, articulated, streetcars.

But frequency is an issue. Toronto's articulated streetcars probably operate every 5 minutes. That is not the case in Ottawa. In any event, Toronto streetcars operate at a snail's pace. They are a legacy of the 19th century. That is why Rob Ford has abandoned the Transit City streetcar plan.


It's easy to imagine! Just like the 95 on weekends, the goddamn things would still bunch up, run off schedule, and end up overcrowded.

Your point being? That less frequent service is better? Your argument is perverse. Sure bunching occurs. So what? I will tell you that someone complained to me yesterday about waiting 1 hour for a bus on a route running every 10 to 15 minutes. The less frequent the service the larger the gaps will be when bunching occurs. If we take your argument to an extreme, we can avoid bunching by running double decker articulated buses every hour.

These crush loads happen all times of day and night, all week, on the trunk Bank Street and Montreal routes. (Not so much on Wellington/Richmond any more, but still sometimes.)

Don't confuse "crush" and "rush".

If crush loads are occurring too often, then you should be complaining to your city councillor or Diane Deans, the transit commission chair. As I said, we should not be designing the system for crush loads, especially away from the Transitways. I do expect that crush loads will become a way of life on LRT however. It is just so much more difficult to increase capacity when trains are involved simply because of platform capacity and the cost and delivery of LRT cars. Also, prepare for 15 minute LRT service at night and on weekends. That is what our future will be. The 3 minute and 15 second talk is only for peak hours. If your trip is not restricted to our fabulous stubway, expect long waits to transfer. The trains may be on time, but expect the buses to be any better than today.

[bradnixon]

In any event, Toronto streetcars operate at a snail's pace. They are a legacy of the 19th century. That is why Rob Ford has abandoned the Transit City streetcar plan.


Whoa!! I thought you were "lrt's friend"?! In any case, I don't think pointing to Rob Ford as a reasoned decision maker is helping the credibility of your argument. :)

I've actually never ridden a streetcar in Toronto but I was very impressed with Amsterdam's tram system from my visit this summer. I think that sort of upgrade would be exactly appropriate for routes like the 12.

[bobert_d]

Instead of getting so worked up, just think about for a minute. If there is 60 passengers on a standard bus and 100 passengers on an articulated bus, you will have to stop more frequently to handle those 100 passengers. It is just common sense. If you happen to one of the 40 passengers that is on the next standard bus, the first bus will not have to stop at your stop. It is a simple as that.

[snip]

But frequency is an issue. Toronto's articulated streetcars probably operate every 5 minutes. That is not the case in Ottawa. In any event, Toronto streetcars operate at a snail's pace. They are a legacy of the 19th century. That is why Rob Ford has abandoned the Transit City streetcar plan.


You're ignoring in the first part that with the articulated bus, 100 people were able to get on. On the standard bus, 60 were able to get on. Now, as you say, this means that the trip on the artic is likely to be longer for the 100 on the artic than the 60 on the standard, but what about the 40 not even able to get on the bus? We've now left 40 people standing out in the cold, with no idea when the next bus will come by. Sure, it might be more frequent, so they won't have to wait quite as long as if we were running artics on that route, but they don't care about that, they care that they are standing out in the cold because that bus just drove by full.

Ok, so I'm stretching a bit there, and I definitely do agree that the greatest sin that OC Transpo has committed is using artics as an excuse to cut service. Just because they have more capacity doesn't mean they should be less frequent, frequency is a huge part of making sure people use transit. If you need to check when the next bus is coming anytime you want to go somewhere, you're gonna get annoyed quickly and find alternate means of transportation.

On to the second point I want to address here, Transit City was to be nothing like the current streetcars in downtown Toronto, and I find it shocking that you are glad that it was scrapped. Aren't you the one that wanted basically this same style of system here in Ottawa? You know, the original plan with the O-Train continuing downtown on surface streets.

[Uhuniau]

Instead of getting so worked up, just think about for a minute. If there is 60 passengers on a standard bus and 100 passengers on an articulated bus, you will have to stop more frequently to handle those 100 passengers. It is just common sense.

No, you won't, in all likelihood. If you've got 60 pax on board, your're going to get a stop request at almost every stop. If you've got 100 pax, you're, um, going to get a stop request on almost every stop.

When our mayor made the announcement that articulated buses would be used on all express routes, it meant that each express route would run less frequently. That is exactly what happened.

But that isn't what *has* to happen. This may come as a shock, but you can replace 40-foot buses with artics, or, for that matter, ice cream trucks, and no one forces you to change the frequency.

I would expect that a similar pattern exists whereever articulated buses have been deployed in Ottawa. Service has deteriorated significantly.

It's been the other way around: On the former 2, now the 2 and 12, they have kept or slightly changed (up and down) the frequencies, but replaced a nearly universal usage of artics with mostly 40 footers. Result? Service deterioration. 40s can't physically handle the load, end up bunching even worse than artics, and have awful dwell times with only one loading door and two egress doors.

But frequency is an issue. Toronto's articulated streetcars probably operate every 5 minutes. That is not the case in Ottawa. In any event, Toronto streetcars operate at a snail's pace.

They operate at the same pace, under the same circumstances, as OC Transpo's trunk urban routes. You couldn't replace streetcars with 40-foot buses. These routes need goddamn artics, regardless of the goddamn frequency. The demand from one run to the next is just too undpredictable, and any delay causes a crush-loading ripple effect on subsequent runs.

Your point being? That less frequent service is better?

An artic every 9 minutes is better than two 40s ever six. Guaranteed. If you need proof, go back in time, ride the old 2 on Montreal Road, and ride the new and improved and cut back and optimized 40-foot goddamn 12.

Your argument is perverse. Sure bunching occurs. So what? I will tell you that someone complained to me yesterday about waiting 1 hour for a bus on a route running every 10 to 15 minutes.

I've done that on route that runs ever 6 to 9. It's called the goddamn 12. And it happens because of (A) the bunching, and then (B) when a bus finally does come along, it's a 40, it's been full for three miles, and so is the next one.

These routes need artics. Independent of frequency, independent of stop density, they need artics. Period. End of goddamn story.

What do you have against artics?

If we take your argument to an extreme, we can avoid bunching by running double decker articulated buses every hour.

You must be confusing me with someone who wants to increase the physical capacity of the buses, and decrease their frequency, so that the notional capacity remains the same. Please go find that person and argue with them.

If crush loads are occurring too often, then you should be complaining to your city councillor or Diane Deans, the transit commission chair.

Neither my city councillor, nor anyone at OC Transpo, believes there is any problem on any of these routes. According to their metrics and surveys and magical tricorders or whatever the fuck else they use, there is nothing wrong, ever, on the 1, 2, or 7. So, yeah, fuck them.

As I said, we should not be designing the system for crush loads, especially away from the Transitways.

We should be designing the system to handle the demand. The system as currently designed on the urban trunk routes, does not do that. For chrissake, I discovered this afternoon there's a late-afternoon train of 2s eastbound on Wellington BY DESIGN. Two 40s, one running immediately behind one another. On purpose.

One fills up. The other runs nearly empty. Two vehicles. Two drivers. If only there were some way to avoid doing this monumentally wasteful bit of stupidity.

And why do you keep raising LRT?

[Uhuniau]

Whoa!! I thought you were "lrt's friend"?! In any case, I don't think pointing to Rob Ford as a reasoned decision maker is helping the credibility of your argument. :)

I've actually never ridden a streetcar in Toronto but I was very impressed with Amsterdam's tram system from my visit this summer. I think that sort of upgrade would be exactly appropriate for routes like the 12.

Too bad in far-sighted Ottawa, we canned the study of future LRT corridors like Montreal Road.

[lrt's friend]

Whoa!! I thought you were "lrt's friend"?! In any case, I don't think pointing to Rob Ford as a reasoned decision maker is helping the credibility of your argument. :)

I've actually never ridden a streetcar in Toronto but I was very impressed with Amsterdam's tram system from my visit this summer. I think that sort of upgrade would be exactly appropriate for routes like the 12.

I have ridden Toronto streetcars and I have driven behind them and they are as slow as molasses in January. Their popularity is a result of the dense neighbourhoods in which they travel, traffic congestion and because there is no faster alternative.

I guess my using Rob Ford's decision reduced the credibility of my argument, however, there has been an ongoing argument in Toronto that questioned the value (and particularly the speed) of surface streetcars. There are a large number of Torontonians who never liked Transit City and are in agreement with Rob Ford's subway plan. Since I don't live there, I have no personal opinion but I simply relayed what happened in Toronto and the reason why Transit City was abandoned was the perceived lack of speed of streetcars even when using a reserved lane.

A streetcar on Montreal Road (or Bank Street or Richmond Road) would only be advantageous if we could reserve a lane for their use. These streets are not that wide, which will pose a difficult problem. I am sure we will hear clearly from car drivers if we attempted to take two lanes away from them.

[lrt's friend]

bobert d and Uhuniau:

I guess what I am thinking is too mathematical to make it easy to grasp.

If you offered the same number of seats with standard and articulated buses, your service frequency will be better with standard buses. That means that your average wait times for a bus will be shorter. Bunching is unavoidable because of traffic conditions but still on average your wait is shorter.

Nobody is being left out in the cold because your wait is shorter. I never suggested that the same number of standard buses replace articulated buses or that we substitute standard buses on certain runs normally served by articulated buses. I know this would be very problematic.

Furthermore, because the buses are running more frequently, there are fewer people waiting for buses at any one time and there are fewer people on each bus. Logically, this tells us that each bus stops less often and can therefore travel a little faster. Of course, both will still stop frequently on busy urban routes, but still standard buses will stop a little less frequently if we provide adequate service frequency to replace the articulated buses.

[Uhuniau]

Again, LRTF, your nice theory dies of a nasty fact: this has not been the experience of the new and improved, entirely 40-foot, route 2.

Since OC Transpo and the city refuse to change operation policies (ops aren't allowed to overtake) or invest in any technology that might help keep buses running on time and well spaced, bunching is going to happen no matter what.

When that happens, on the trunk routes I would much rather have an artic that can handle the bunch loads, than a 40-footer which can't. This is true no matter how frequent (or infrequent) the trunk route is.

Artics are also demanded due to the unexpected surges in demand which cause crushes at random on these routes even under good-weather, on-time running conditions. It's of no import to someone who has to wait 15 minutes for a bus whether they have to wait 15 minutes because that's the schedule, or they have to wait 15 minutes because the first which came on a 7-minute headway was packed to the gills.

This only applies to a handful of routes: 1, 2, 7, and 12, running on city centre main streets.

OC Transpo also needs to seriously get its special-event shit together, too; it NEVER puts extra vehicles, or artics vs. 40s, for Lansdowne events, or things like the Glebe Garage Sale, when extra capacity is desperately needed. They are a total bunch of fucktards.

[Uhuniau]

The LRT's that Rob Ford cancelled were not terribly Toronto Streetcarish in any of their proposed operating characteristics. They were transit vehicles that ran on rails. That was about the extent of the similarity.

[lrt's friend]

Well, my experience today confirmed that a 40 foot bus operating even at crush load runs faster than an articulated bus. Sorry, I have experienced it myself with both types of buses running on the same route this week. Is it because articulated buses are underpowered? Is it because they are more difficult to manoeuvre? I don't know. But the speed difference was noticeable.

[eternallyme]

Well, my experience today confirmed that a 40 foot bus operating even at crush load runs faster than an articulated bus. Sorry, I have experienced it myself with both types of buses running on the same route this week. Is it because articulated buses are underpowered? Is it because they are more difficult to manoeuvre? I don't know. But the speed difference was noticeable.

The articulated buses have a harder time accelerating due to their larger size, although it is not nearly as bad with the current models as it was with the 2001-03 models that they sold away, they had a horrible engine for their size.

[eltodesukane]

I like articulated buses.
But is a double-bus every 30 minutes better than a single bus every 15 minutes?
Better for OC Transpo? Probably.
Better for the user? Probably not.
That may be where the problem is.

[eternallyme]

I like articulated buses.
But is a double-bus every 30 minutes better than a single bus every 15 minutes?
Better for OC Transpo? Probably.
Better for the user? Probably not.
That may be where the problem is.

The answer is generally no. Artics shouldn't be used on local routes except for during peak periods on the highest frequency routes.

For example, the 12 and 85 should go from about every 10-12 minutes with artics to every 7-8 minutes with 40-footers, ideally hybrid-electric buses due to the slower top speeds of those routes being on roads that don't go above 60 km/h (using artics during peak periods for the extra trips needed then). Redirect all the artics to the Transitway routes. Such would also speed up service by reducing somewhat the number of stops needed with about 40-50 people on a bus as opposed to 65-80.

On the Transitway, however, artics should be used extensively. The reason is to encourage rear-door boarding and the fact many people get off at the same stops. If a route has a portion running every 30 minutes but a busy common portion with other routes, that should still use artics on Transitway routes.