Rebranding of TTC Rocket Buses idea

[wilson_wu]

In the face of flatlining ridership, I was thinking of ways the TTC could boost its ridership.

Ive always felt their Rocket bus network was a little neglected. The Rocket buses are simply assigned a route number like regular buses and don't look any different than conventional services. But I've always felt these buses were higher order transit and should be treated as such.

For instance, in the face of potentially losing ridership to the new Union-Pearson Express, the TTC rebranded the 192 Rocket buses with a special wrap to advertise its frequent, rapid and reliable service. In addition to this, the route was added to the Subway/RT map.

Could such changes be applicable to the rest of the Rocket network? Would it draw ridership in the same way Zum has successfully been doing for Brampton Transit (while the rest of the GTA is seeing falling/flatlining ridership)?

-Assign letters for Rocket Routes to distinguish itself from conventional buses
-Include routes on Subway/RT/Express Bus map, however the lines are thinner to distinguish from rapid transit lines
-Wrap buses to match the appearance of Toronto Rocket subway trains and market these as "Toronto's Surface Rockets"
-Include Wifi on board - The technology is available as it is in use on York Region Transit's 320
-Speed up service by converting the Rocket buses to all door boarding and proof of payment.
-Consider the use of European double-articulated buses for high ridership Rocket routes.
-What would differentiate a regular express bus to a Rocket route would be its frequency and scope of hours of service.

(Click the map to enlarge)

 

[Leo_Chan]

This is a great idea. It would raise awareness that the Rocket routes are different from the normal routes. By the way, great photo editing skills adding the logo and route name

could have been better though
L
Speaking of the Rocket express routes, which ones should be extended or added. I would expect a Steeles Rocket will have decent ridership.

 

[APTA-2048]

Sure but without dedicated ROWs, queue jump lanes, and signal priority, what really is the point. These routes are already very well used.

 

[Tuck]

Sure but without dedicated ROWs, queue jump lanes, and signal priority, what really is the point. These routes are already very well used.

Other municipalities have chosen to brand their express services differently, and except Viva which is only getting the ROW recently, they are all basically BRT Lite. It could make those bus routes more visible and increase ridership. Or, maybe it would do nothing. An interesting idea, though.

EDIT: Agreed 100% that they do not belong on the subway map. I'm not pro-watering-down the subway map just to make toronto rapid transit look more expansive than it is.

 

[amnesiajune]

I agree that there's not much of a point. Those routes are already distinguished on the bus map. They shouldn't be on the rapid transit map because they aren't rapid transit, by Toronto's standards at least. They're only slightly faster than local bus service.

 

[Steve X]

TTC needs to figure out how to solve their fare evasion problems. Catching fare evaders would be easier on a rocket bus as people can't get off within a few minutes.
WiFi is probably not happening. TTC determine it doesn't have to spend more to keep the same people on board. They need someone to pay for it like the subway. Buses would need a cellular connection oppose to hardwire ethernet/optical fiber. Data is expensive. YRT is doing it for the sakes of attracting people.
Letter routes would be confusing especially when they have branches. Interestingly the proposed map has done away the 191 and 199 branches.
TTC isn't going to buy more articulated buses. They are going to be wasted on weekends camping at garages. Only 20% of the artics enter service on weekends mainly on the 7 and 29.
Are bi-articulated buses even legal in Ontario? I don't think so. Anyways, they can't get around current stations and would need new terminals built for them.

The proposal is great. TTC would need a lot of funds and have the Highway Traffic Act changed to have this done. As mention above, they'll need priority queues to get around or they'll end up slower than current buses for slow acceleration and risk of blocking intersections.

The 196 is the only rocket that partially operates like a BRT with dedicated lanes. The 185 Don Mills have HOV lanes in peak hours. All rockets operate like regular buses right now. If they want to turn the into BRT, they need transit priority, POP and better platforms with a special branding. First should be jump queue lanes which the transportation turn down a few years ago claiming it's visually unappealing to have patches of green grass turn into a bus lane. Something need to convince them to change their mind.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

There is one rocket route that has dedicated buses for it the Airport Rocket from Kipling station but it's mainly because they eliminated some seat to put in shelves fro luggage for people heading to the airport to use.

 

[crs1026]

The 192 is a good candidate for further makeover, and could be a good place for artics. The current baggage racks are insufficient, and the loads are solid 7 days a week. A bigger bus would be an improvement. Although not premium fare, it is a route that would benefit from a bit of upscaling.

The wraps are not a very distinctive or appealing visual enhancement, IMHO. Lots of room to improve.

- Paul

 

[reaperexpress]

I made a similar proposal in 2015 in the Fantasy Maps thread here. Needless to say, I agree that creating a visual distinction for Rocket routes could help improve customer perception of those services, which could increase ridership (assuming there is any spare capacity to absorb said ridership - which is not currently the case).

My main difference is that I don't think it makes sense to have rocket bus routes identified using a completely separate system from our rapid transit, LRT, streetcar, local bus, and non-rocket express bus routes. My proposal is to use to use the 200 series of route numbers. Take for example route 199 Finch East Rocket. I'd change it to 239, which would create the following route structure on Finch Ave East:
39 Finch East
139 Finch East - Don Mills
239 Finch East Rocket
339 Finch East Night

Sure but without dedicated ROWs, queue jump lanes, and signal priority, what really is the point. These routes are already very well used.

The point of highlighting these particular bus routes is that many of them fill in gaps in the rapid transit network even if they themselves are not necessarily rapid transit services. In particular, the Scarborough Centre Rocket extends the Sheppard Line to Scarborough Centre, the Don Mills Rocket creates an eastern north-south link from the Sheppard Line to the Bloor Line, and the Airport Rocket connects the subway to the airport.

Some portions of Rocket routes already have some transit priority features. The 196 York University Rocket is already a BRT line by any definition, operating almost entirely in dedicated bus lanes and busways, and with very effective priority at the three intermediate traffic signals on the busways. Obviously the 196 will be discontinued later this year when the subway extension opens, but the busway will continue to be used by the 199 Finch Rocket.

Routes 185 Don Mills Rocket and Eglinton East have HOV lanes along the bulk of their routes, which can help reduce the impact of traffic congestion.

Most of the traffic signals used by route 195 Jane Rocket already have transit priority. The problem is that the system was installed prior to 2004 when there was no express service. The system is timed based on the assumption that buses will be stopping at each stop, which means that at intersections with near-side stops, express buses arrive at signals way earlier than the system expects and basically get no priority. As a result, the Jane Rocket is only marginally faster than the Jane local service. Moving forward, I'd say that local stops along Rocket routes should be located on the far side of the intersection, so signal priority can benefit the express services which don't stop there.

The key opportunity at the moment is the current federal government's Public Transit Infrastructure Fund (PTIF), whose TTC items include:
- $10 Million for "Installation of signal priority equipment at existing signalized intersections or new signal equipment, and queue jump lanes" (page 10 of Appendix B here) and
- $2.5 Million for "Deploy LED displays at up to 250 shelters, LED/LCD displays at 6 TYSSE stations and Alternate Energy Pilot at 5 stops" (page 11 of Appendix B)

As long as the City doesn't put up roadblocks preventing the implementation of queue-jump lanes and signal priority, the TTC could choose to use this funding to upgrade the Rocket routes similarly to what was done in Brampton for Züm and York Region for the initial implementation of Viva, with fancy bus shelters and LED next-vehicle screens, queue jump lanes to bypass traffic congestion at major intersections and signal priority to avoid red lights at minor intersections in between. So in other words, this hypothetical Rocket-upgrade project could already be funded.

 

[reaperexpress]

Are bi-articulated buses even legal in Ontario? I don't think so. Anyways, they can't get around current stations and would need new terminals built for them.

A bi-articulated bus with rear-wheel steering (such as the VanHool Exquicity 24 pictured above) has exactly the same swept path as a single-articulated bus without rear steering (such as the existing TTC NovaBuses).
Similarly, a single-articulated bus with rear-wheel steering (such as the VanHool AG300 used by Viva) has the same swept path as a non-articulated bus.

First should be jump queue lanes which the transportation turn down a few years ago claiming it's visually unappealing to have patches of green grass turn into a bus lane. Something need to convince them to change their mind.

They definitely need queue jump lanes at many of the major intersections in the suburbs. Queue jump lanes could be a big attractor to get people out of cars and into transit - which is the most effective way of dealing with traffic congestion. It even fits in with mayor Tory's trend of targeted road improvements.

I think the best chance at getting queue jump lanes finally approved by the City is a public demand for improved bus service that motivates politicians. If City council decides that we actually need to approve some queue jump lanes (which are already funded by the feds!!) even though staff are whining about the loss of some grass (which was provided specifically as space for road widening!!), those lanes will get done. If it just keeps being an argument between TTC staff and City staff, I don't know if anything will actually get built, especially since this federal funding is time-limited.

 

[amnesiajune]

The point of highlighting these particular bus routes is that many of them fill in gaps in the rapid transit network even if they themselves are not necessarily rapid transit services. In particular, the Scarborough Centre Rocket extends the Sheppard Line to Scarborough Centre, the Don Mills Rocket creates an eastern north-south link from the Sheppard Line to the Bloor Line, and the Airport Rocket connects the subway to the airport.

It would probably be good to only highlight those "gap-filler" routes then. The 190, 192 and 196 (which will still be a Sheppard West express bus starting next year) and 199 are the only real candidates for that at the moment. Once the LRT subway opens on Eglinton, the 185 could join them. But when you put a route like the Jane or Wilson rocket buses on the map, you might as well be putting all the express branches which have a similar role.

 

[W. K. Lis]

"Transit signal priority", deliberately in quotes, means something different to the transportation departments (traffic signals, roads) than to the transit user. The transportation department looks at the number of "motor vehicles" not the number of people inside the said vehicles. They see three or four motor vehicles occupied by a single occupant (the driver) as "3" or "4", and sees the bus (or streetcar) as "1", instead of the 20 - 100+ people inside the said transit vehicle. So those "3" or "4" vehicles making a left turn go first at intersections.

 

[amnesiajune]

They see three or four motor vehicles occupied by a single occupant (the driver) as "3" or "4", and sees the bus (or streetcar) as "1", instead of the 20 - 100+ people inside the said transit vehicle. So those "3" or "4" vehicles making a left turn go first at intersections.

Yeah... That's how left turn signals work, basically anywhere in the world (except civilized cities where one-way streets are the norm and those signals aren't needed as often). They put a sensor in the road, under where the second or third car would normally stop, and activate the advance turn signal if there's a car above the sensor.

Transit signal priority is something totally different, where traffic lights can detect an approaching bus and hold a green light slightly longer so the bus can get through. And it's utterly ineffective when near-side transit stops are used, which is why the St. Clair streetcar and Viva BRT lanes were built with far-side stops instead.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Yeah... That's how left turn signals work, basically anywhere in the world (except civilized cities where one-way streets are the norm and those signals aren't needed as often). They put a sensor in the road, under where the second or third car would normally stop, and activate the advance turn signal if there's a car above the sensor.

Transit signal priority is something totally different, where traffic lights can detect an approaching bus and hold a green light slightly longer so the bus can get through. And it's utterly ineffective when near-side transit stops are used, which is why the St. Clair streetcar and Viva BRT lanes were built with far-side stops instead.

The Viva Bus Lanes were built on the far side of the intersection because there was not enough space to widen the roadway to accommodate for same side stop facing one another. However, it has puzzled my to why the non same side stops were on the far side, so your reasoning makes sense. GJ!

 

[amnesiajune]

The Viva Bus Lanes were built on the far side of the intersection because there was not enough space to widen the roadway to accommodate for same side stop facing one another. However, it has puzzled my to why the non same side stops were on the far side, so your reasoning makes sense. GJ!

Where the stops are on the same side, it seems to be done to reduce the impact on car traffic. Allstate Parkway is a good example - there's a lot of cars turning right to go from Allstate Parkway to Highway 404, so they seem to have put the bus stops on the east side so there would be fewer pedestrians crossing on the west side and getting in the way of right-turning traffic.