I no longer live in Hopewell Township. When I did I occasionally drove on 206 and 130 as far south as Columbus. I did not drive it during the rush hours; however when I drove it the traffic certainly never compared to the traffic in north Jersey where I live now.
Traffic is not a big problem in this part of Jersey?? Do you drive 130 and 206 between these points very often?
Sort of an analogy wiht long distqnce trains. And the reason given was economic development of a depressed region.
Sam1 Enthusiasts, i.e. transportation, education, etc., have a tendency to adopt a solution before having framed the problem. They become solutions chasing a problem. And all too often they don't put any realistic numbers with their solution. Not a good idea. The United States is a vast country. It has the third largest population in the world. And it is a very diverse country by almost every measure. To assume that there is a one size fits all transport solution, i.e. a true definition of RBT, is unrealistic.
Enthusiasts, i.e. transportation, education, etc., have a tendency to adopt a solution before having framed the problem. They become solutions chasing a problem. And all too often they don't put any realistic numbers with their solution. Not a good idea.
The United States is a vast country. It has the third largest population in the world. And it is a very diverse country by almost every measure. To assume that there is a one size fits all transport solution, i.e. a true definition of RBT, is unrealistic.
Sam,
I try not to personalize things. But I have to say there are certain people on this forum who, when they look at transportation, have the perspective that we really want to move the most people as far as we can for each public dollar we spend. Public transit should be an effective, efficient way to benefit the maximum number of people. You seem to have a position similar to that.
But things frequently don't work that way. Consider New Jersey's RiverLine as an example. It is a light rail line between Trenton and Camden and carries more people than it was projected to so it is a success from that perspective. But it looses a hugh amount of money because the fare is kept artificially low (unlike other buses and trains) and it also required borrowing a hugh amount to buy the line, money we will be paying off for many years and it not available for other transit. There is a parallel bus route. This is in rural southern New Jersey were traffic is not a big problem and people could be carried by bus for a lot less money even with the artificially low fares. So why did we build the RiverLine?
It was built as a political exchange. South Jersey would not oppose transit projects in the northern part of the state provided it got the RiverLine in return. And so it did. But no one has suggested it ever had anything to do with any transportation need. And that is the way things are done in my state.
RBT comes in different variations. The planned system for Austin is different than the system in Eugene, Oregon, which is different from San Antonio. DART is planning RBT along Preston Road in Dallas. None of these systems run or will run on an exclusive right-of-way. The only RBT that I know of that has an exclusive right-of-way is in Adelaide, South Australia. Nevertheless, RBT on a semi-dedicated right-of-way appears to be a good solution for many areas.
Joe Staten Island West
Sam1Several of the posts under this thread assert that Rapid Bus Technology (RBT) must run on dedicated rights-of-way. This is not necessarily true. Austin is planning a RBT route that will run on Lamar Blvd., which is a major roadway in Austin albeit not interstate highway. The route will include rail like stations where riders will be able to buy their tickets in advance, monitor an electronic arrivals sign, and board through multiple entrances. The driver will have some control over the traffic lights, thereby cutting down on the time the bus is stopped for a traffic light. The right hand lane will be stripped for buses as well as other vehicles turning right at intersections or into parking lots, etc.
True bus rapid transit has a dedicated busway. Building a busway is going to be about as expensive as building a railway for light rail vehicles.
The example you give is much cheaper because the costs of building the roadway the bus will use are not considered. On some roads it is possible to create dedicated bus lanes by barring other vehicles except those that must use the lanes: Those who need to turn onto other roads or enter businesses along the route. This is a compromise. Buses will be able to run faster but not as fast as they could on a true busway. It also tends to restrict cars who want to stop at businesses along the route and may reduce the income of those businesses. Speaking for myself, when I am going to stop at a business along a road I look for ease of entry and exit. Not only would crossing a busway discourage me; some businesses do not have parking or adequate parking and curbside parking can be important to them. This may not be the case along Lamar Blvd in Austin; it is certainly the case in most areas of the northeast. Excluding traffic except for buses and turning vehicles and having no parking may be sufficient in some areas but it has limited applicability.
Finally, there may well be regular transit buses running along the same street which stop every block or two. The limited stop buses either get stuck behind them or have to turn into the general traffic lanes and then share the lanes with the rest of the traffic.
At the same time, transit in America must include regular transit buses as well as the kind of limited stop service you describe. But I don't know that those options exclude light rail.
The way I see it....Transit rail lines and Amtrak are trunk lines that buses feed into...the days of building trolley lines everywhere are long gone and too expensive as well as running branch line railroad service. Buses have their place.
Absolutely buses have their place but to feed into rail lines. However use a bus ride as a short haul to rail. California --- both socal and nocal --- have done a good job of feeding the rail lines as I can attest. My many rides have been pleasant in that respect. Bus lines in Ca have many patrons that ride them to the nearest rail line. However a trip more than one hour on a bus is trying. BRT is not rapid transit when it shares a street in any way just like street cars that share a road with autos is not real rail. Best thing aboout streetcars is that multiple units can be controlled by one person & can be split during slower patron loads.
Too many buses feeding into a rail line can be counter productive. An example is the appearance that NJT delibertly keeps some bus lines from feeding into their rail lines otherwise the rail lines would be overwhelmed. That cannot be changed until another tunnel set or sets is built under the Hudson.
In January I had booked a trip on the Coast Starlight from San Francisco to Santa Barbara. Due to weather problems in Washington and Oregon, the train was running 8 hours late. I switched my booking to the San Joaquin to Bakersfield and a Thruway Bus connection to Santa Barbara. The bus was comfortable. It was not full, which gave me some wiggle room, but the run from Bakersfield to Santa Barbara, which takes 3 hours 15 minutes, was a pleasant ride.
Buses are a cost effective way to complement Amtrak's trains. Amtrak has expanded the Thruway concept to North Carolina, with service to Morehead City, Wilmington, and intermediate points. This may have been available for some time; I just noticed it on the schedules.
Passenger trains make sense in relatively short, high density corridors where the cost of expanding the airways and highways is prohibitive. Clearly, most areas of the United States don't meet these criteria. And buses frequently are a better option.
I'll report on Megabus next month. I plan to take the Texas Eagle to Dallas, ride Megabus to San Antonio, and return to central Texas on the Eagle. The Eagle runs once a day. Megabus has numerous schedules between Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, and Houston. And it is less expensive than Amtrak on most occasions.
Several of the posts under this thread assert that Rapid Bus Technology (RBT) must run on dedicated rights-of-way. This is not necessarily true. Austin is planning a RBT route that will run on Lamar Blvd., which is a major roadway in Austin albeit not interstate highway. The route will include rail like stations where riders will be able to buy their tickets in advance, monitor an electronic arrivals sign, and board through multiple entrances. The driver will have some control over the traffic lights, thereby cutting down on the time the bus is stopped for a traffic light. The right hand lane will be stripped for buses as well as other vehicles turning right at intersections or into parking lots, etc.
The estimated cost to implement RBT on Lamar Blvd. is slightly north of $3.1 million per mile. The last time I checked, the cost to build a proposed light rail system from the airport to downtown and on to the University of Texas is more than $50 million per mile. If the bus will do the job for a little more than $3.1 million per mile, I am hard pressed to understand why we should spend $50 million per mile for light rail.
blue streak 1 As a person who had to ride a bus-because there never was rail service on part of my route ---- (I hate a bus becuse of 1. lack of room a .seat pitch of 31 -34 inches instead of 57 inches b. width buses limited to outside width of 102 inches - trains almost 120 inches inside c. # 2 allows wider seats d. hit my head of a bus emergency exit light in aisle - plenty head room in a train. 2. Smelly 3/. Difficult to streach legs on a bus - train can walk length of train 4. Bus Restroom if available is smaller than an outhouse 5. if traveling companion needs snack or drink can get one immediately 6. Train has an attendant - bus driver cannot be one without stopping 7. Bus sways more on curves 8. Bus more noisy especially in back 9. smaller windows on most buses 10. More stop and go on buses due to taffic even on interstates. 11. idiot drivers cause a higher pucker factor on a bus 12 many buses driving axel & tire loads over rated capacity.. Could go on.
As a person who had to ride a bus-because there never was rail service on part of my route ----
(I hate a bus becuse of
1. lack of room
a .seat pitch of 31 -34 inches instead of 57 inches
b. width buses limited to outside width of 102 inches - trains almost 120 inches inside
c. # 2 allows wider seats
d. hit my head of a bus emergency exit light in aisle - plenty head room in a train.
2. Smelly
3/. Difficult to streach legs on a bus - train can walk length of train
4. Bus Restroom if available is smaller than an outhouse
5. if traveling companion needs snack or drink can get one immediately
6. Train has an attendant - bus driver cannot be one without stopping
7. Bus sways more on curves
8. Bus more noisy especially in back
9. smaller windows on most buses
10. More stop and go on buses due to taffic even on interstates.
11. idiot drivers cause a higher pucker factor on a bus
12 many buses driving axel & tire loads over rated capacity..
Could go on.
13. If a kneeling bus can get hung up on any obstruction especially the bus in Decatur Ga. that hit by a CSX train.
14. The problems if more than one person needs the bathroom immediately.
15. Medical professionals tell the public that it is not good for your legs to go more than one hour sitting without moving around. Moving arounds on a bus ride ? ? -- Yeah right . !
16. Stuies are showing that BRT dedicated ROWs coast as much as light rail. Only the cost of CAT. Rails cancel out cost of pavement
17. Light rail or heavy rail takes fewer persons to operate.
18. Maintenance standards are lower on bus.
enough Bonas ? ? ?
BonasIntermodal is where its at man...
From a transit perspective, no truer words were ever written. And I think transit authorities are beginning to realize this but they move at glacial speed. For all of that, transit is all about connections.
Part of the problem, I suppose, is that this is not the forum for "Beese, THE magazine of bussing." People here are generally pro-rail and anti-road -- or they wouldn't be here.
I cannot remember a discussion of intermodal traffic on this forum that included detail on how the road portions were going to be conducted, unless it was in relation to a rail alternative.
By this logic, we should be discussing automobiles as a beneficial method of 'intermodal' operation with suburban commuter railroads -- far more important than any bus in that role.
I do concur that discussion of buses and even BRT *as feeders to a rail service* is legitimate. But most discussions are bus v. rail -- and on a railroad board, you should not expect people to come down on the side of the bus very often. I still remember the flak that Kalmbach took for advertising "Airliners International" in Trains Magazine... and THAT was in the family!
BonasClevelands modest rail and BRT system map shows bus connections.
The big point about Bus Rapid Transit is that it needs a dedicated busway. Putting a bus on city streets and calling it BRT is not rapid transit and never will be. However, if there is BRT in the center city it can move to the streets in the suburbs where streets are less congested and that is an advantage of BRT.
http://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/pdf/maps/System_Map_Rapid_Connect.pdf
Clevelands modest rail and BRT system map shows bus connections. Bostons map is simerler
http://www.mbta.com/schedules_and_maps/subway/ but downplays its commuter rail system. NYC Subway maps also downplay their commuter rail system like LIRR that also serve some of the same stops as LIRR and Metro North. Here in Buffalo http://metro.nfta.com/Routes/Maps.aspx the current map shows no bus connections. Also unless you are a local you would not know that Coach USA runs a modest commuter bus service to Dunkirk,Olean and Jamestown NY that has state subisdised fares. The Coach USa bus service started when the Interurban quit in the 1940s and Erie RR stoped service to Jamestown NY.
BonasWe can not have a good conversation about transit and demonize the big bad bus at the same time. Intermodal is where its at man...
Bus *is* a bad word. Beese are stinky, smelly, and wander around like they are lost, instead of just following the tracks like a respectable vehicle should. (But when a tour bus arrives at the Abbey, the LION will go out to sniff the diesel fumes as a reminder of the Great City.)
Sub chat has its own forum for "BusChat". LION seldom visits there, since him has little to say about beese.
Out here in Bismarck they have a municipal bus line called the "CAT" (Capital area Transit), which I suppose is marginally better than BAT. Poor thing only runs at 1 bhp. About as useless as a bullfrog is to a duck. But Bismarck got the Federal Money because what you offer to one city, you offer to all cities, and because Bismarck can submit a paper correctly and on time, while the geese in New York are still honk about what to do with the money that they do not have, and keep making proposals that are not within the scope of the grant anyway.
Be that as it may there are many good bus ideas out there. Martz Trailways runs more that 50 daily trips from the Poconos (that's in Pennsylvania) to New York City. Those are "Commuter Beese" and the single round trip fare is on the order of $56.00 (if you buy the ticket in Pennsylvania, or $66.00 if you buy the ticket in New York City). A FiveDay (10 Trip) super saver ticket is only $120.00 which puts commuting from Pennsylvania into the realms of possibilities, especially when there is affordable housing out there.
But for real transit beeses... LION has some ideas, but nobody has put him in charge of their transit authority, so we will never know if they will work or not, now will we.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
BonasThe way I see it....Transit rail lines and Amtrak are trunk lines that buses feed into...the days of building trolley lines everywhere are long gone and too expensive as well as running branch line railroad service.
I wish that were true, Bonas. It should be. In Toronto it is. But as far as I can see it usually doesn't happen. For example, where I live now my but is New Jersey Transit's No. 72 which runs between Paterson and Newark. The stop is 3 blocks from my house. The bus runs a good 10 minute walk from NJT's Bloomfield Station on the Montclair Boonton line but doesn't get there. It also runs a 10 minute walk from NJT's Newark Light Rail Grove Street Station but it doesn't get there either. Yet the whole point of buses is that they are supposed to be flexible so they can be re routed for the convenience of riders.
It is true that buses are the cheapest form of mass transit there is. All a transit manager has to do is to get a bus and plop it down somewhere and tell the driver to take it somewhere else. No real management skills or transportation planning is involved.
For all of that, buses are certainly part of our mass transit system and always will be and should be. There are certain things they do very well. But there are some routes that for many years have been very robust. Street cars are more expensive initially but cost less to operate and wiould we better suited to them and would ultimately save money.
The way I see it....Transit rail lines and Amtrak are trunk lines that buses feed into...the days of building trolley lines everywhere are long gone and too expensive as well as running branch line railroad service.
Buses have there place. One is BRT and another is feeding passengers into the main rail transit line. Now I am aware that some citys have yet to reconfigure there bus lines to do exactly that....But there are rail affectionatoes here who refuse to see the forest for the trees and wish to see to clock turned backwards. We can not have a good conversation about transit and demonize the big bad bus at the same time. Intermodal is where its at man...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.