|
BusTalk A Community Discussing Buses and Bus Operations Worldwide!
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Q65A
Age: 66 Joined: 17 Apr 2007 Posts: 1769 Location: Central NJ
|
Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 7:42 pm Post subject: Volvo Builds The World's Longest Bus |
|
|
Check out the following link from Busworld to learn more about an 89-foot long artic (conisdered to be the world's longest bus) built by Volvo for a transit agency in Colombia:
http://www.busworld.org/news/article/663#start
Imagine seeing this unit working the M14D! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Linsky BusTalk's Offical Welcoming Committee
Joined: 16 Apr 2007 Posts: 5071 Location: BRENTWOOD, CA. - WOODMERE, N.Y.
|
Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bob,
I've seen the Volvo B12MA Bi-Artic and, at 89 feet long with a passenger capacity 240, we're now talking rail road train!
I can't even picture one New York City street that could support a vehicle of this length - can you imagine it on the Q44 (or whatever number has replaced it) attempting to make the turn-around across Queens Boulevard at Union Turnpike?
Let me also tell you that any bus of this dimension will require a conductor because no driver alone would be able to control that many doors and riders simultaneously!
These buses might do fine in Bogota but forget them in North America.
Mr. Linsky - Green Bus Lines, Inc., Jamaica, NY |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rick
Joined: 08 May 2008 Posts: 14
|
Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think I saw that on an episode of speed racer when I was a kid. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
timecruncher
Age: 73 Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 456 Location: Louisville, Kentucky
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is a BRT design. Note that the doors are high-entrance affairs. There are probably doors on the curb sides as well, since Columbia drives on the right. This is set up for "island" station platforms.
One person could in fact drive this creature because the route would be exclusive to the bus.
I'm not convinced that Bus Rapid Transit is the way transit should go. It makes conservative pundits feel good because it isn't rail and because it is not quite as costly to build as rail. Even so, I am not convinced that BRT will attract as much ridership as rail. Its an image thing...
timecruncher |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ripta42 Site Admin
Age: 45 Joined: 15 Apr 2007 Posts: 1035 Location: Pawtucket, RI / Woburn, MA
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 8:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
timecruncher wrote: | ...I am not convinced that BRT will attract as much ridership as rail. Its an image thing... |
I agree, but it's better than nothing when light rail is cost prohibitive, and if done right, it creates a right-of-way that can be converted to LRT relatively easily. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
HwyHaulier
Joined: 16 Dec 2007 Posts: 932 Location: Harford County, MD
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sigh! I'm cranky today...
May someone kindly explain why a taxpayer provided service, with no future hope at all to return net surpluses to pained taxpayers,
ought to be built to those with tastes for the finest of champagne and Beluga caviar? The latter "target audience" may, or may not,
ever ride, depending whether their cars are in the BMW shop...
Geez! It is a taxpayer provided service, guys! Whatever shows up reliably at the stop ought to be good enough. It is a little tiresome
that I can't afford a Mercedes Benz Roadster, as my taxes pay for the transport of others. And, OMG! We have at least two bridges in
very serious need of repair. Where did all the upkeep reserves go? Geez! You had to ask...
..................Vern................ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
timecruncher
Age: 73 Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 456 Location: Louisville, Kentucky
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Point well taken.
The entire argument for transit's existence is that we help reduce congestion, pollution, teenage pregnancy, gay marriage and maybe accidentally provide transportation for people to and from jobs that don't pay enough to own a private auto. The first and second items we don't do at all, the last item we might do somewhat, and the other two items I'm not sure about.
The environmental argument is used because there are so many who wouldn't or won't use the service under any circumstance. Nobody, including our choice riders, really buys into the enviro-whacko argument. It makes good press, makes politicians feel all warm and fuzzy, and must be documented with doctored numbers in order for the Federal $$ to be allocated. It also seems to sell the elite on the worth of a transit project whether they intend to ride or not. It is a selling point, nothing more.
Transit service is not really that inefficient except that we are all now required to run demand-response service for the disabled that mirrors the fixed-route service we provide. The cost of that service easily consumes over 20% of most transit budgets. This is money that was never allowed for when funding mechanisms were put in place, but which Congress requires in order for us to exist.
In the absence of any government regulations requiring transit to be accessible, pollution-free, union-protected and whatever, even then public transit would not be self-supporting regardless of whether we ran Mercedes-Benz systems or Ford Pinto systems.
The whole thing about specialized transit projects, be it bus rapid, light rail, heavy rail or subway, is that with the government regulations that must be met, the cost of building/operating these systems is far more than it would be if it were simply built and operated to less-stringent rules with the goal of carrying a lot of riders in mind.
I wouldn't spend the money for a Mercedes or a BMW if I had it. My Toyota Sienna is reliable, gets me to the park & ride lot and home, and doesn't guzzle gas (too much).
Hey -- its Wednesday. You're allowed to be cranky today. Think of it this way: If more people rode that shiny new light rail line, there would be less traffic in your way enroute to the BMW dealership.
timecruncher |
|
Back to top |
|
|
HwyHaulier
Joined: 16 Dec 2007 Posts: 932 Location: Harford County, MD
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
timecruncher wrote: | ...Hey -- its Wednesday. You're allowed to be cranky today. Think of it this way: If more people rode that shiny new light rail line, there would be less traffic in your way enroute to the BMW dealership... |
timecrucher -
Sigh! I'm way out in the 'burbs. No plans I might be anywhere near one of them new fangled light rail contraptions! In the burdensome
"fairness doctrine" which prevails, however, those of us in the outback will still get to pay for it...
The fine minds promoting the concept in an urban setting, however, talk in terms of illusory and imagined passengers filling very real,
and costly seats. Never mind present schedules have a (less than) forty (40) seat bus running, at best, every twenty (20) minutes.
Sorry, I have no idea how to do new math, on the question of how to fill the proposed trains. Nuttiness run amok? Sigh!
....................Vern............... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RailBus63 Moderator
Joined: 16 Apr 2007 Posts: 1063
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The mentality seems to be that building a shiny new light-rail line makes you a real city, but a BRT line is just a bus. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ripta42 Site Admin
Age: 45 Joined: 15 Apr 2007 Posts: 1035 Location: Pawtucket, RI / Woburn, MA
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
HwyHaulier wrote: | Sigh! I'm way out in the 'burbs. No plans I might be anywhere near one of them new fangled light rail contraptions! In the burdensome
"fairness doctrine" which prevails, however, those of us in the outback will still get to pay for it...
The fine minds promoting the concept in an urban setting, however, talk in terms of illusory and imagined passengers filling very real,
and costly seats. Never mind present schedules have a (less than) forty (40) seat bus running, at best, every twenty (20) minutes. |
I understand part of your crankiness, since I live three miles from the city center on one of those bus routes that runs every 20 minutes at peak hour, on a route once served by trolleys every seven minutes throughout the day. Then there are the seven routes near my office, six of which run on 40-minute headways on the same street yet all show up together, and the remaining route scheduled to run every 12 minutes but shows up every 35 due to traffic, along a thoroughfare with a wide grassy median that once carried local, express, and interurban cars on their very own right-of-way until 61 years ago.
Quote: | Sorry, I have no idea how to do new math, on the question of how to fill the proposed trains. Nuttiness run amok? Sigh |
Example - my aforementioned route runs every 20 minutes peak. Off-peak (which begins around 6:35 p.m. - I'll have my wife pick me up at work if I stay slightly later) it's 55 to 70, and after 11, it's not at all. On Sundays it's worse - 50 minutes all day, nothing after 8. If I want to go to downtown on Sunday for a show or shopping or dining, the bus as scheduled isn't a very attractive option, and if it's in the evening it's impossible. Likewise to a baseball game - there's a bus that stops at the stadium's door, but the last one is at 7 p.m., and game time is usually 7:05. It's only a two mile walk home, but try that with tired kids at 10:00. It might be useful for a Sunday afternoon game, if route ran on Sunday. And heaven forbid its operating hours be extended on game days - the FTA might consider that a Charter! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
timecruncher
Age: 73 Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 456 Location: Louisville, Kentucky
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ripta, Hwy,
Quote: | The entire argument for transit's existence is that we help reduce congestion, pollution, teenage pregnancy, gay marriage and maybe accidentally provide transportation for people to and from jobs that don't pay enough to own a private auto. The first and second items we don't do at all, the last item we might do somewhat, and the other two items I'm not sure about. |
See above.
We cannot afford to operate service at 7-minute, 10-minute or even 20-minute headways any more. It costs "around" $100 per hour to run a city bus nowadays, believe it or not. In reality, it varies from $95 to $135 depending upon which city we're discussing. Amazing, ain't it? Anyway, that's why our transit services are no longer a viable alternative in this day and age.
Standard operating practice for private transit companies in the fifties was that 3 passengers per mile would be enough to break even. Buses were relatively cheap, could be easily maintained and lasted 25 years. None of that applies today.
As for the "I don't live in town and pay taxes for it anyway," keep in mind that we all pay taxes for a lot of stuff we don't "use" regularly.
Good discussion anyway.
timecruncher |
|
Back to top |
|
|
HwyHaulier
Joined: 16 Dec 2007 Posts: 932 Location: Harford County, MD
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
timecruncher -
Thanks! I had the per hour figure extrapolated from trucking experience. Good to see your confirming data...
Part of this present "lay of the land" traces to a very odd thing: The conjunction of deregulation, and wide publicly financed operation.
Along with it, a subtle (yet vital) change in role of a common carrier. In the bad, old days, a common carrier could define exactly what it
would do, in publication of public tariffs. The Rules Tariff provided definition of the services. The published schedules defined when the
vehicles would run.
With the increasing public participation, operators became common carriers with nearly absolute liability. In the Bad, Old Days, absolute
liability avoided like the plague, and so stated in the applicable Tariffs. No more. These days, it is much the maxim of, "...having a tiger by
the tail..."!
As a sidenote, I have had a long running, albeit somewhat dumb, discussion on another forum. There, we have a colleague who whines
and whines about some conspiracy theory about smaller tires on steers of LF coaches. I keep telling him that the tire engineering won't
allow prudent use of small tires on the steers. Loads exceed maximum weights, dictated by engineering and technology. How hard can
that be?
....................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
|