Grand River Transit

[danbrotherston]

I never understood this, I wouldn't think they'd have much lower cost of operation, maintenance and depreciation should be basically the same, operator is the same, maybe it uses a little less fuel, and less land to store.

I'm not sure what the benefit is, since there's also a significant logistics cost of managing multiple sizes of bus.

Not to sound overly optimistic about KW's Vision Zero plans, but would the tighter turning radius that these shorter buses can make allow the Region to modify some residential intersections with tighter corners/shorter crossing distances? 

The operational costs of these buses is likely similar to the standard buses. But if the capital cost is less, than the savings should allow for some extra buses if larger orders are made. This video from RM Transit has stuck with me, specifically the idea of having different buses be "different tools in the tool chest." 

Also, I hope that these buses are outfitted with bike racks. The bus in the promo photo doesn't have one.

Even KW's VZ plans are building intersections where full size GRT buses can turn on everything but residential street to residential street (rare for a bus route).

This is what's shocking about the Region's intersection designs, they're not designed for anything rational, the expectation is you could turn a full sized tractor trailer on every road except maybe a cul-de-sac, and that you could turn that same vehicle at speed on every arterial.

I have seen RM's video on the topic. But ultimately everything is a trade off. I'd be surprised if this is a trade off which is actually profitable. Maybe there are differences in price that I'm not aware of, but the smaller the margin on savings the bigger the scale you need to offset the increased fixed costs. I guess it would be a good thing if we are at that scale, but I'm still dubious.