 |
BusTalk
A Community Discussing Buses and Bus Operations Worldwide!
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dieseljim
Deceased
Joined: 26 Jun 2008
Posts: 548
Location: Perry, NY
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 6:19 pm Post subject: Bad Air Quality in Buffalo, May be Reason to Ban Cars |
 |
|
| We are in an air quality alert for WNY, particularly Buffalo. It makes me wonder why the use of the automobile could not be severely restricted under such condition when the ozone reaches such dangerous levels as it has at this time. Or confine their use to reach park and ride lots and the like. I have begun to get away from my old couch potato ways and would like to step up my physical activities without worrying about getting sick doing it. I have a " spare tire" I am trying to get rid of and this damn pollution is interfering. Any radical changes in our transportation "policies" from the mess we have now cannot come too soon, especially if it means bus service in areas where it has been absent for years. Sooner or later, something has got to give or the air will hardly be fit to breathe. Not that I am a tree hugger or anything like that, but there is simply no excuse not to reform our pathetic excuse of a transportation network to make it more balanced than the lopsided mess we have. That means more trains, more buses, more bicycles, fewer cars. Having all modes complement each other would be the way to go. Use the car to connect to a bus, bus to connect with a plane and a plane to connect with a train would be INTERMODALISM at its best. That's what this country should shoot for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
HwyHaulier
Joined: 16 Dec 2007
Posts: 932
Location: Harford County, MD
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jim -
Now and then, you're going to have that. We are into seasonal high pressure areas. In addition, today might be about the time
the effects of the seasonal Western forest fires are due in the neighborhood...
I'd advise shutting down the area steel mills, but I have heard that may have already happened...
..................Vern............... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
roymanning2000
Age: 75
Joined: 01 Aug 2007
Posts: 198
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jim,
It's simply not practical to restrict automobiles to any significant degree in most areas. There is no alternative to the automobile for most of the trips we take. How would people get to work or do the other things they need to do?
But, perhaps more importantly, the average American has no interest in taking mass transit. They prefer the convenience and flexibility of the private automobile, even if it means greater air pollution, more reliance on foreign oil or anything else.
Roy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HwyHaulier
Joined: 16 Dec 2007
Posts: 932
Location: Harford County, MD
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| roymanning2000 wrote: | | ...They prefer the convenience and flexibility of the private automobile, even if it means greater air pollution, more reliance on foreign oil or anything else...emphasis added |
Roy -
I'm coming around to a view that claim may be wildly overstated. Any common carrier solution carries with it a generous share of inefficiences.
For instance, at "peak" or "rush" hours, a common carrier vehicle is running at fifty (50) percent load factors, maybe a bit better. Assumes full
in the "rush" direction of flow, and few riders on each of the required return trips. "Off peak" becomes a twenty (20) to thirty (30) pct load
factor reality, at best. Compare, private vehicles don't run empty miles...
Another factor that conflicts with common sense, too. The truly long haul, and cheap rail. It enables folks to live conveniently, say, fifty (50) to
seventy (70) miles or so distant the Urban Paradise where they work. As a simple exercise in a study of human behavior, only the most hardy
would set themselves up for extended drives to and from work in their own vehicles. They would opt to live closer to work?...
Then, still another annoying item. Should one take the claimed "fuel burn" numbers for rail, they are not dramatically better than highway
comparable service. (That is, compare a rail car with a Prevost or MCI on the parallel Big Road for comparative efficiencies.) Besides, how does
one run to a drugstore at 2:00 am, so as to get some cough syrup for an ailing child at home?
The wise, old hand in all of this may very well be Dr. Thomas Sowell, at Stanford. He counsels, It's all tradeoffs!"....
...................Vern............... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ripta42
Site Admin
Age: 45
Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Posts: 1035
Location: Pawtucket, RI / Woburn, MA
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HwyHaulier wrote: | For instance, at "peak" or "rush" hours, a common carrier vehicle is running at fifty (50) percent load factors, maybe a bit better. Assumes full
in the "rush" direction of flow, and few riders on each of the required return trips. "Off peak" becomes a twenty (20) to thirty (30) pct load
factor reality, at best. Compare, private vehicles don't run empty miles... |
With only 20 passengers on board, a regular diesel bus gets about 60 person-miles per gallon, better than a SOV Prius. Even assuming the bus makes the return trip empty, it's still getting 30 person-miles per gallon, which is still ahead of most passenger cars. Add that the bus is burning ULSD and not gasoline; a lot of land that would otherwise be needed for parking could be put to much better uses; there are 20 people who can be distracted by their cell phones and not kill someone in the process; etc.
| Quote: | Another factor that conflicts with common sense, too. The truly long haul, and cheap rail. It enables folks to live conveniently, say, fifty (50) to
seventy (70) miles or so distant the Urban Paradise where they work. As a simple exercise in a study of human behavior, only the most hardy
would set themselves up for extended drives to and from work in their own vehicles. They would opt to live closer to work?... |
People frequently live very far from work and often cite the distance as the "need" to drive instead of using mass transit. The case used to be that development would follow the rail lines, then highways; now, the people arrive first, the highways follow, and the rail lines are studied to death for a decade while people scream about children getting run over by trains, and maybe the line gets built eventually.
| Quote: | | Then, still another annoying item. Should one take the claimed "fuel burn" numbers for rail, they are not dramatically better than highway comparable service. (That is, compare a rail car with a Prevost or MCI on the parallel Big Road for comparative efficiencies.) |
Is "rail" heavy, light, commuter; diesel or electric; MU or push-pull? Amtrak cites efficiency of 39 passenger-miles per gallon, certainly less than a full OTR coach, but a DMU hauling two coaches would achieve 234 passenger-miles per gallon if only half full (and 117 if it's returning empty).
| Quote: | | Besides, how does one run to a drugstore at 2:00 am, so as to get some cough syrup for an ailing child at home? |
With the car, like I did last night (though I would have walked the half-mile if it weren't so hot). Simply having one does not mean you have to commute in it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HwyHaulier
Joined: 16 Dec 2007
Posts: 932
Location: Harford County, MD
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ripta42 wrote: | | ...With the car, like I did last night (though I would have walked the half-mile if it weren't so hot). Simply having one does not mean you have to commute in it... |
ripta42 -
Well, certainly, if available and practical transport otherwise available. A difficulty is that much of the economy transformed to trips of
very much other than CBD, to other than CBD travel. That's where various efficiencies (or lack thereof) become obvious...
Years back, Jerry Brown (CA) was trying to tell us something with his concerns of ...finite resources... Some latter day projects move
forward on some arguably very weak basics. The payoff, of course, is the multitude of tax paying saps, regardless any perceived
personal real needs, get to pay for all of it. Can we do better?
...................Vern................ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
BusTalk Main
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
BusTalk Galleries
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
