Nova LFS in the Papers!

[Grand Concourse]

I was thinking though: at the cost of 2 seats total [1 per side], why not turn the one facing backwards into a single interior seat with a semi platform to step up towards it? That or they turn the 2-seater that's facing the front into a single interior facing seat and then maybe you clear up the problem with the lack of leg space?

[ciboii22]

Maybe in your own world, a SHITLOAD of people complained about them. It's one reason why I rather not see new buses in Manhattan for a while.

 

 

Well yea i heard a few complaints about those , atleast the bus gets them to where they gotta go . They just making up stuff , Im 6'1 and i dont hit my head on the top that bus has enough room for everybody , these have more standing room , only 34 seats but its good .

[Blitz]

Well the museum fishbowl 5227 has seats that are similar to what you are describing where the seats are all interior facing.

 

this is exactly what i'm talking about. the only difference should be an arm rest included every 2 or 3 seats to keep ppl from stretching out and sleeping on the seats like they do on the trains.

[engineerboy6561]

The LFSAs seem to have some room, Ive seen people big getting thru there.. The LFS, looks a bit less tho.

 

As for head room, I dont have a problem with that, Im tall and im not complaining...

 

 

 

If this is a test fleet, then whats the purpose of ordering a bunch of buses for..? A test fleet would be like 2 to 6 buses. Correct me if im wrong.

 

2 to 6 buses really isn't enough to gauge how these buses will perform across a variety of depot, terrain, and clientele issues. A 50-100 bus order allows the buses to be spread simultaneously across 15+ routes of different lengths in different boroughs on different quality roads through different neighborhoods. Let me give you a hypothetical example of why this matters:

 

Say we were considering ordering 40' Gillig BRTs to flesh out the fleet, and tested two of them. If you sent one to 126 St and one to CAS you'd figure you'd get a good range of conditions, right? Wrong! In each case you'll have exactly one operator trained to use them, so they'll most likely only see service on one route. For a bus like the Gillig, which seems to have a rep for unreliability, they'd most likely avoid putting it out during rush and on bad roads, leading it to test better than it should in SI. In Manhattan, the bus at 126 would almost certainly wind up on either a crosstown bus or the M31; decent crowds, short runs with 2 to 3 minutes in between each one, and some of the best maintained roads in NYC. Again, it would be difficult to get the bust to behave poorly under those circumstances unless it was a real piece of crap.

Now assume that buys 200 of them for long-term use with a couple of hundred more on option. If that happens a fair amount of those buses will wind up at depots like CS, FLA, and UP, which run heavy-duty routes. Once bought for real, there is little to no chance that these buses would be lucky enough to stay off these heavy-duty routes even during rush. This means Gilligs on the B6, the Q44, etc. overloaded, run hard to keep schedules, driven at 25+ mph over roads with potholes, etc. All at once, all of the problems with these buses that only show up under stress and thus were never seen in testing will appear in force and we could wind up with a smaller version of the Flxible mess on our hands.

A good way to avoid this is a designated test fleet of 50-100 buses, sent out to a limited number of depots and tried on a wide variety of routes so as to determine not only if there are design flaws, but also under what circumstances they occur and how easy they are to fix. That way, if there are actual serious flaws in the bus it's a smaller loss to the fleet and it would most likely be much easier to call the manufacturer to account for those problems.

[SoSpectacular]

 

Now, if only they'd do that with the rear section of most of the low floors here, we'd all be good to go.

[Grand Concourse]

The NG's have pretty much that layout and still you have to force people to move to the back. No, that sort of seating is needed for the front. The back of the bus should be mainly the forward facing seats. that way you might entice some people to move to the back.

 

this is exactly what i'm talking about. the only difference should be an arm rest included every 2 or 3 seats to keep ppl from stretching out and sleeping on the seats like they do on the trains.

 

Totally agreed. That's why I hate the bucket seats because they were designed for either super skinny people or the designers thinks we don't have arms that need their own space. Even a shared armrest would be nice. Obviously the buses are for short distance and they want to pack us in like sardines, but at least make the ride bareable for the $ we pay to ride.

[Infamous85]

I can't fit in the back corner seats of RTS's without sitting like a frog, sitting in between 2 people (any bus) is also uncomfortable as I can't really move my arms. I have to watch out for feet constantly while standing in the back of the NG's, I always hit my head on the handle things while standing in the middle too. No transit bus I've ridden was really ergonomically designed.

 

I've never ridden in an LFS so I can't speak, however I don't see people banging their heads, the NG's ceiling in the back is about 7 feet high, how different can an LFS be? Legroom idk, why would so many people complain about that if there wasn't an issue.

[Fresh Pond]

Oh this has got to be be the biggest pot of a-hole soup I've ever seen

 

I'm 6'2" with some long ass legs (some of you met me before and know how tall I am). Although I've been on the LFS once, I did a little test since the bus was empty. In every single seat on that bus (except for maybe the rear facing ones) I was able to sit in the seats AND still have ample amount of leg room; whereas on the other models on the road, I'm only able to sit in certain seats (the side facing & rear seats). Now if I can fit in those seats with no problem, then damn near everyone else can.

 

As for the rear of the LFSs. That excuse they made is even worse. I can stand back there without worrying about hitting my head, except on the rearmost platform in front of the rear seats. But even so I can still stand back there and have some headroom...except when it goes over a pothole, that's a different story lol

 

Although I ride the LFSAs about 5 days a week when I go to work I usually just stand by the back door since I'm only going 1 stop

 

These people need to grow up...at least they have new buses

[SoSpectacular]

I can fit in any seat on any bus as well, same height as Mr. Fresh Pond, I love the rear corner seats on the RTS but my ass will get sore if I sit in that position for too long lol

[SIR North Shore]

Oh this has got to be be the biggest pot of a-hole soup I've ever seen

 

I'm 6'2" with some long ass legs (some of you met me before and know how tall I am). Although I've been on the LFS once, I did a little test since the bus was empty. In every single seat on that bus (except for maybe the rear facing ones) I was able to sit in the seats AND still have ample amount of leg room; whereas on the other models on the road, I'm only able to sit in certain seats (the side facing & rear seats). Now if I can fit in those seats with no problem, then damn near everyone else can.

 

As for the rear of the LFSs. That excuse they made is even worse. I can stand back there without worrying about hitting my head, except on the rearmost platform in front of the rear seats. But even so I can still stand back there and have some headroom...except when it goes over a pothole, that's a different story lol

 

Although I ride the LFSAs about 5 days a week when I go to work I usually just stand by the back door since I'm only going 1 stop

 

These people need to grow up...at least they have new buses

 

You're not getting the big picture though, the older buses have more space than the newer buses and that is a problem in my book. The LFS are here to stay for a decade or more, and ridership is only going to increase on most routes so this is definitely something that should be addressed by the MTA. Even if they have to change up the seating like they did with the OGs. Try catching a LFS on the S53 at the height of rush hour and you'll be saying otherwise!

[Via Garibaldi 8]

With these Upper East Side folk? It appears that we have forgotten about the shitstorm they created over the LFS Artics.

 

 

 

Agreed. And I find it ironic that Staten Islanders didnt raise hell over these buses and their routes get crush loads every day at almost every hour. I had a feeling that the Ulmer Park peeps would be doing the bitching first since these buses will be their newest since the mid-90s.

 

I actually got to ride them Saturday and Sunday on the S53 going over to the express bus. I agree that they are too small, BUT they are still way better than those NGs. I think overall we prefer the new buses to the NGs because even though they have fewer seats, there is more aisle room, which is non-existent on the NGs. Plus the seating is more comfortable and cleaner, not to mention better climate control. Quite frankly I wouldn't mind having all of the NGs shipped elsewhere. My only beef with these new buses is that it takes forever for the damn doors to open, both the back and front doors. They need to get real with that. Those doors are not appropriate for NYC buses because they slow down the boarding process and slow down the buses overall.

 

Also, I do feel that the seat layout in the back should be addressed. Those seats facing each other was a terrible idea and I would never sit there because for starters there is no leg room, not to mention that I do not want someone that close in my face with their stench and hot breath and God knows what else. :eek: You'd be surprised, but I find that a lot of folks aren't so up to speed with their hygiene and so I avoid sitting next to folks on the local buses. I'd rather stand.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The funny thing is how people complain that the buses are old and run down but when new ones come they still complain. And they are also comparing low floor to high floor. If they compared LFS to NG's it would make a little more sense.

 

Considering that this taxpayer dollars, people have the right to complain about how their money is spent.

[FamousNYLover]

When I gathering petition from N4 riders at Jamaica Center every day before MTA Hearing at Hosfras, not all passengers on N4 went all the way into back inside. There was like 3-4 spaces in rear were open.

[4P3607]

wow... it looks like the LFS 40 ft was a terrible idea .

I've never ridden in an LFS (I will when QV's batch comes). The only thing I hate about the LFS so far is the signage (I have pretty good vision and I cant even see that microscopic "s" on the sign from a block away) & the doors on some of those buses.

 

I'm ~5"4', so I bet I will fit into the back of an LFS.

[R188 7857]

The problem with crowding has nothing to do with NGs and LFS. Via Garibaldi 8 just hates the NGs so he mentioned it, but thats NOT the problem. The problem here is that the bus is semi-low floor. All low floor buses such as the Orion 06 is fine. Its just a high floor bus with no steps. The high floor buses have more room and more seats. Theres a divider between the bottom and the top of semi-low floor buses that takes up space for 1 seat. The Orion V's and RTS's have a seating arrangement that avoids crowding. Exept that I prefer foward facing seats that side facing seats, low floor and high floor buses are fine. The crowding problems are just because the bus is semi-low floor. Also, I rode a LFSA and my head was like an inch away from the ceiling. I felt my hair touching the ceiling when I go walk over the other seats and go to the back. With the NG's I have the same problems, exept the ceiling is a little lower. Probably by half or 3/4 of an inch. With the Ecosaver IV, I actually hit my head. Oh well. The problem is that if the semi low floor bus is crowded, people won't want to move in the back because their afraid they will hit their head. THEY'RE WRONG!!! High floor buses and the high floor part of semi-low floor buses are the same inches wide. Maybe high floor buses are a little lower, but still, it doesn't really change. OMG!

Besides, if you order the LFS and give it to Casey Stengel, IT WOULD FAIL!!!! The lines like Q28,Q13,Q44,Q20,Q12 and other lines are PACKED when they are going to flushing. I've been on a packed orion v on the Q28 (my home route), there was a wheelchair passenger on, and the bus had no more standing space and seats. See what I mean, the more you put buses with little space at depots with crowded routes, the more complaints, GOSH!

 

[Far Rock Depot]

From what I've seen, the LFS are easiest to catch on the lesser-used routes like the (S42), (S52), (S54), (S57), (S66) & (S93). The few times I caught the LFS on the 46, 53 & 90, it wasn't a bad ride just extremely cramped. I wish Daimler buses was still making Orion Vs because it's becoming more clear that these low floors aren't cutting it for new york.

 

they can cut it here in nyc. The MTA just needs to begin the practice of what routes exactly benefit from low floors. Routes like the M22 in Manhattan which does see elderly and WC passengers are where LF buses make sense. But not frequently crowded routes Like the Q44 and Q53 for example.

 

The problem with crowding has nothing to do with NGs and LFS. Via Garibaldi 8 just hates the NGs so he mentioned it, but thats NOT the problem. The problem here is that the bus is semi-low floor. All low floor buses such as the Orion 06 is fine. Its just a high floor bus with no steps. The high floor buses have more room and more seats. Theres a divider between the bottom and the top of semi-low floor buses that takes up space for 1 seat. The Orion V's and RTS's have a seating arrangement that avoids crowding. Exept that I prefer foward facing seats that side facing seats, low floor and high floor buses are fine. The crowding problems are just because the bus is semi-low floor. Also, I rode a LFSA and my head was like an inch away from the ceiling. I felt my hair touching the ceiling when I go walk over the other seats and go to the back. With the NG's I have the same problems, exept the ceiling is a little lower. Probably by half or 3/4 of an inch. With the Ecosaver IV, I actually hit my head. Oh well. The problem is that if the semi low floor bus is crowded, people won't want to move in the back because their afraid they will hit their head. THEY'RE WRONG!!! High floor buses and the high floor part of semi-low floor buses are the same inches wide. Maybe high floor buses are a little lower, but still, it doesn't really change. OMG!

Besides, if you order the LFS and give it to Casey Stengel, IT WOULD FAIL!!!! The lines like Q28,Q13,Q44,Q20,Q12 and other lines are PACKED when they are going to flushing. I've been on a packed orion v on the Q28 (my home route), there was a wheelchair passenger on, and the bus had no more standing space and seats. See what I mean, the more you put buses with little space at depots with crowded routes, the more complaints, GOSH!

 

 

 

People dont move to the back of LFs cause theyre afraid of hitting their head, they dont move to the back cause a) its a pain in the a$$ to get back there and they fell it will be the same to exit. theu think its ok to stand in the front where there is no seats over the front axel cause it 'looks easy and inviting.

Full LF buses like the O6 were good, but it was a higher maintenance cost for the agencies for 2 main reasons: no standard rear T-drive axel and unusual engine placement. When the LFS was first introdused in the 90s, it too was a full low floor. I believe the MTA still has the 3 "test" buses operating for B&T now. Look what happened to both designs:

Orion: designed the O7 and discontinued the O6

NovaBus: redesigned the LFS to a "semi" LF.

 

The main problem with LFs are simple....Engineers have yet to fully make use of all interior space efficiently! I personally like the New Flyer D/C40lf. they tried to make use of every inch of interior space. NovaBus should get many props on the way they try to add seats on sections where other manufacturers dont.

 

as far as the return of HFs. the problem is no one is really offering HF models anymore. Its become the standard because it cost less to maintenance a WC ramp compared to a lift. and you can manually operate the ramp by hand.

The lack of HF buses hurt the riders in the long run. Agencies cant utilize equipment by using them on routes depending on the needs. LFs also weigh less, traditionally now run on smaller diameter tires, increasing the fuel efficiency and acceleration, as well as reducing overall stress levels of the vehicle. Manufactures need to realize that they are hurting the transit agencies by causing them to hurt the riders by only offering LF models. Sure the maintenance cost is lower and the boarding times are increased, But the cost is rider comfort and a shortcoming of providing consistent service.

[SoSpectacular]

I just hate the bottlenecking problem that arises when you are on the upper platform, the bus only has standing room only AND there's people standing on the upper platform...

[aemoreira81]

I can't imagine them on the (Q111). 30 seats?

 

33 actually (and 52-54 for artics).

 

As for the rear, unless it has to come that way, why doesn't the MTA go to bench-style seating in the rear section? That also shows the difference between Orion and all other vendors, in that Orion tries to maximize the interior space of a bus.