unimaginative2
Senior Member
The TTC bought articulated buses from Communist Hungary. Unfortunately, they didn't turn out to have the highest quality. Because of that, the TTC decided to abandon all articulated buses.
|
|
|
Sheppard Subway - Development Impacts
- Thread starter Mike in TO
- Start date
Hypnotoad
Senior Member
After living in Ottawa for a few winters and seeing what sliding and snow can do to articulared buses (check out the pictures, they are around somewhere online) one might actually give TTC some credit for not investing in more.
But seriously, I'd love it if the TTC had double-decker buses like they have in Victoria (and London and Hong Kong). I'm sure there are routes that have high enough trees and lights to allow for double deckers.
taal
Senior Member
But they look so gimmicky outside of London in my opinion. Even in London they are not the most attractive things out there.
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12,492
- Reaction score
- 9,344
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
They work in Victoria, I loved riding the double-deckers there.
I mean, look at the views from the front of the second deck:
GO's getting a bunch coming in soon as well for the 407 service.
TTC has clearance issues, such as some of the bus loops in the subway stations and some low-clearance bridges, but I think it can be done.
I mean, look at the views from the front of the second deck:
GO's getting a bunch coming in soon as well for the 407 service.
TTC has clearance issues, such as some of the bus loops in the subway stations and some low-clearance bridges, but I think it can be done.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
For GO, they're such a good idea. Loading times are less of a factor and an articulated bus for them wouldn't be nearly as comfortable.
Hypnotoad
Senior Member
Yeah, they make sense for GO buses, especially given the relatively comfortable seats and long distance travel for most GO services.
But I justed loved those buses when I lived and went to University at UVIC. It was always a score to get top-deck front row. And they work in Hong Kong especially well and don't seem gimmicky there. What makes them gimmicky in London is that they are all still red like the tourist buses. Victoria and Hong Kong paint their buses to look like any other local bus service. Imagine the London or Mississauga (or TTC for that matter) bus paint schemes on a double-decker -- it wouldn't look horrible or overly gimmicky. But it would take some getting use to.
But I justed loved those buses when I lived and went to University at UVIC. It was always a score to get top-deck front row. And they work in Hong Kong especially well and don't seem gimmicky there. What makes them gimmicky in London is that they are all still red like the tourist buses. Victoria and Hong Kong paint their buses to look like any other local bus service. Imagine the London or Mississauga (or TTC for that matter) bus paint schemes on a double-decker -- it wouldn't look horrible or overly gimmicky. But it would take some getting use to.
doady
Senior Member
Artics are better at handling large amount of passengers than double deckers because there are more exits, so less time is spent at each stop to unload passengers and passengers have more room to move around.
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12,492
- Reaction score
- 9,344
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
It's a matter of passengers adapting, by getting downstairs before their stop - it isn't that big a deal. One of the big advantages of double-deckers is that you can go low-floor easily while maximizing seating capacity (which low-floors don't do very well thanks to space wasted with wheel wells). Victoria's buses had few seats at the bottom level, with plenty of space for wheelchairs, standees and elderly/disabled seating.
doady
Senior Member
Even with regular 40 foot buses, it takes too long for passenger to get off when its crowded...
That said, using higher capacity doesn't automatically mean more efficient operation. Both lots of cites use artics or double deckers, but don't come close to Toronto in terms of efficiency. Toronto is the second most effiecient transit system in North America, right behind GO Transit. Double deckers and artics are a solution to a problem that doesn't exist to begin with.
That said, using higher capacity doesn't automatically mean more efficient operation. Both lots of cites use artics or double deckers, but don't come close to Toronto in terms of efficiency. Toronto is the second most effiecient transit system in North America, right behind GO Transit. Double deckers and artics are a solution to a problem that doesn't exist to begin with.
Hypnotoad
Senior Member
TO revive this topic and the discussion of intensification along Sheppard... I found this OMB decision:
http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions/pl061217-Nov-28-2007.pdf
Summary:
Applicant wants to demolish three houses on three lots on a suburban street, just north of Sheppard (outside of the Secondary Plan) at the SW corner of Dudley and Maplehurst (google it at 181 MapleHurst, Toronto). The case to redevelopm invoked intensification and claimed that the new 3-storey townhouse development would fit the spirit of the secondary plan (eventhough the plan does not affect this area) but not destablize the neighbourhood (claimed it would act as a transition). The lot is aprox. 725m from the subway station,.
The city opposed this development, saying it destablized the neighbourhood and went against the Official Plan. The OMB sided with the city and refused to allow the redevelopment. The OMB does not believe that the argument for intensification of this lot was in canon.
Thoughts?
http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions/pl061217-Nov-28-2007.pdf
Summary:
Applicant wants to demolish three houses on three lots on a suburban street, just north of Sheppard (outside of the Secondary Plan) at the SW corner of Dudley and Maplehurst (google it at 181 MapleHurst, Toronto). The case to redevelopm invoked intensification and claimed that the new 3-storey townhouse development would fit the spirit of the secondary plan (eventhough the plan does not affect this area) but not destablize the neighbourhood (claimed it would act as a transition). The lot is aprox. 725m from the subway station,.
The city opposed this development, saying it destablized the neighbourhood and went against the Official Plan. The OMB sided with the city and refused to allow the redevelopment. The OMB does not believe that the argument for intensification of this lot was in canon.
Thoughts?
dowlingm
Senior Member
If the roughed in Willowdale Station was ever built, maybe - it's about 280m from Sheppard/Willowdale. Until then probably not - it's developments like this which force TTC to run the Sheppard West bus parallel to the subway.
Why not? Its a short 5-10 minute walk to Yonge and Sheppard.
U
Undying42
Guest
Willowdale Stn. will never get built. It's not like they're building up a major urban centre at the intersection to justify it (like was done with the NYCC infill) plus NIMBYs in the area were fiercely opposed to the idea when Sheppard was greenlighted in the first place.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
Redevelopment would justify adding Willowdale station, but redevelopment won't happen without Willowdale station.
nfitz
Superstar
Well that's dealt with. Although subway lines still require a full individual Environmental Assessment (EA), the new Class EA for transit was quite clear that in-fill stations on existing lines, only require a Class EA - which has since become a short 6-month fast-tracked process. So while I'm sure some would squawk, it would be difficult to stop if TTC and Toronto put their mind to it.
But first there would have to be zoning to allow development ...