The vehicle that lasts a decade is the smallest part of the route cost, and even the fuel savings aren't so much up against the costs of switching the vehicles on any given route (which probably doesn't connect with a TTC yard, so you periodically have two vehicles off-route) and then switching them back again. Driver cost doesn't change until you cut the number of runs, and therefore the drivers it takes to do them."When the TTC expanded bus hours in 2008 to match the subways, ridership didn’t grow to fill those vehicles, she said.The cuts will come on buses where there are no more than 12 riders per hour in both directions. In exchange, overcrowded buses will get more service in September."
Why not have smaller buses for these routes ? It will be the seniors who will not be able to walk to a different bus
Anytime vavog... For the record, I love riding my bike when the weather is nice and I take the TTC when it makes sense and/or is more cost effective.Thanks Gameboy. Finally a logical response (on, apparently, an emotional topic... wow!)
Actually trains could NEVER run on TTC tracks. The gauge is different. Always has been. Railway Gauge in NA is 4'-8.5". TTC uses 4'10 7/8"Before GM swindled us into tearing them up, we did have spur lines into every factory and warehouse. They ran right down the streets in industrial neighbourhoods. We had lines in residential areas too. Streetcars ran on them. Carried a coupla dozen taxpaying fare-payers for the cost per mile of one car carrying one guy (who's likely stupid enough to imagine that streetcar's blocking him!)
Too bad the GM geniuses weren't smart enough to tell cities like LA and Ottawa to bury the lines for when the oil runs out instead of ripping them up. But private cars are a fad too. And it'll end when drivers actually have to pay their real costs.
Of course roads are a general good. It's the essence of social responsibility—some would call it social-ism—that the general population owns and pays for such general goods. Who could argue against that?…edit…What you fail to realize is that even people who don't drive benefit from roads. They are shared by public transit vehicles, city service, police, fire, ambulance, delivery trucks etc. How do you think grocery stores, shops restaurants etc. get their product?
Drivers pay lots of tax, the problem is the money that's collected from drivers doesn't go toward roads and public transit. It goes into general coffers. Complain to your government, not drivers.…
Sorry if my haste to respond left an impression I thought streetcar and railway tracks were interchangeable in any way, except perhaps as they 'obstruct' drivers. My point was that we once had tracks everywhere—and built today's society with the enterprises they served—returning to that shouldn't be scary.Actually trains could NEVER run on TTC tracks. The gauge is different. Always has been. Railway Gauge in NA is 4'-8.5". TTC uses 4'10 7/8"
It is unique to Toronto.
It was done so that Trains could not drive down a city road.
http://transit.toronto.on.ca/streetcar/4002.shtml
But it may be the case in other cities, I dunno. Just not Toronto.
The hybrid buses cost $750,000 for lets say a 20 year life spanThe vehicle that lasts a decade is the smallest part of the route cost, and even the fuel savings aren't so much up against the costs of switching the vehicles on any given route (which probably doesn't connect with a TTC yard, so you periodically have two vehicles off-route) and then switching them back again. Driver cost doesn't change until you cut the number of runs, and therefore the drivers it takes to do them.
The real problem for the TTC and for cars is peak-use hours that strain resources then leave that expensive infrastructure underused at other times. Smaller buses is a good idea, but since the system has excess capacity in vehicles for the peak hours, using them makes sense. The real answer for transit and drivers alike is more effort to smooth out the peaks, like time-differentiated fares, road-tolls and parking taxes.
But if you've invested that half million, your bottom line has stayed the same, and the order has gone out to save, not just hold the line. Applying the investment income will save a tad, but then your half million per vehicle's sitting uselessly locked up somewhere looking very attractive to somebody at City Hall. Like the 'surplus' from last year that might better have been 'locked' away for a rainy day, or paid down debt to reduce interest costs instead of being spent to buy taxpayer services, so taxpayers don't have to—pay more taxes that is.The hybrid buses cost $750,000 for lets say a 20 year life span
Smaller bus may be $250, 000
Put that 500,000 into a market fund and after 20 years you have 3 - 4 million dollars
Do that with 50 buses and you have 200 million dollars plus fuel and maintenance savings
Is my logic wrong ??? Of course it is cheaper to provide no service but this means more people will become independent of the TTC as they now buy a car and the TTC has lost a paying customer and we have to build more roads so what have we saved ?
I didn't shoot myself in the foot, nor did I say costs shouldn't be shared by the overall public.edit... But you shot yourself in the foot saying the problem is that what drivers pay doesn't go to roads and transit. It isn't nearly enough to pay for building and maintaining what we have, even if it did. But how do you know that every one of those 'general revenue dollars' that did wasn't collected from a gas tax? The amount still had to be topped up by all the non-drivers. What exactly is wrong with providing some of the necessary costs from the overall public purse and the rest from user fees/driver pays. We do it for all sorts of institutions and purposes from athletic stadiums to hospitals, what makes drivers uniquely oppressesd?
What you did say was:I didn't shoot myself in the foot, nor did I say costs shouldn't be shared by the overall public.
and from general coffers drivers pay for some of the roads as do all citizens. They use more, maybe they even pay more. What then, is the problem? If I misunderstood, please be more explicit, so we can stop this unseemly agreeing that roads are a public good we all pay for.Drivers pay lots of tax, the problem is the money that's collected from drivers doesn't go toward roads and public transit. It goes into general coffers.
But cars aren't. They're a preference.The cost of roads should be shared by all, everybody befits by them. If there was no roads, there be no goods in stores to buy. Roads are are a necessary to just about everybody in some way or another.
Makes sense as they now have more vehicles to house, I suspect they have thought about it and decided not to buy a smaller bus as the finances make no sense. What transit has two sizes of buses ? Another factor may be smaller buses would not be mass produced therefore no discountBut if you've invested that half million, your bottom line has stayed the same, and the order has gone out to save, not just hold the line. Applying the investment income will save a tad, but then your half million per vehicle's sitting uselessly locked up somewhere looking very attractive to somebody at City Hall. Like the 'surplus' from last year that might better have been 'locked' away for a rainy day, or paid down debt to reduce interest costs instead of being spent to buy taxpayer services, so taxpayers don't have to—pay more taxes that is.
I don't claim to know about this stuff, what I posted earlier is my recollection of what I've read over the years from TTC people responding to the idea every time some one thinks it up anew. Their point is always that the added overhead costs—staff, garage, parking, parts inventory etc. but principally wages—negate, if not exceed, any savings from purchase and operating costs. Eventually gas may be priced that high, but it's not there yet. So if you have got this all figured out, I'd suggest you inform TTC, their new Board Chair Karen Stintz, or at the very least your Councillor.
That makes sense. Who really wants to pay to ride "the short bus" ?We do have smaller community buses for a few areas but they are controversial because they are empty quite often
I see what you're getting at, I meant to say the problem is "all" the money that's collected from drivers doesn't go toward roads and public transit. It goes into general coffers. And yes, we're arguing the same point! lolWhat you did say was: and from general coffers drivers pay for some of the roads as do all citizens. They use more, maybe they even pay more. What then, is the problem? If I misunderstood, please be more explicit, so we can stop this unseemly agreeing that roads are a public good we all pay for.
In a country as large as Canada, the automobile is more than a preference.But cars aren't. They're a preference.
What someone's gonna make us drive from here to Moose Jaw? Are there no trains, planes or buses? Why do we have to go there? Have we no choice?Originally Posted by S.C. Joe
The cost of roads should be shared by all, everybody befits by them. If there was no roads, there be no goods in stores to buy. Roads are are a necessary to just about everybody in some way or another.
In a country as large as Canada, the automobile is more than a preference.