BusTalk Forum Index BusTalk
A Community Discussing Buses and Bus Operations Worldwide!
 
 BusTalk MainBusTalk Main FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups BusTalk GalleriesBusTalk Galleries   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Volvo Builds The World's Longest Bus

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    BusTalk Forum Index -> Surface Transit - Everywhere Else
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Q65A



Age: 66
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Posts: 1764
Location: Central NJ

PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 7:42 pm    Post subject: Volvo Builds The World's Longest Bus Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Mr. Linsky
BusTalk's Offical Welcoming Committee



Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 5071
Location: BRENTWOOD, CA. - WOODMERE, N.Y.

PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Rick




Joined: 08 May 2008
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 7:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think I saw that on an episode of speed racer when I was a kid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
timecruncher



Age: 73
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 456
Location: Louisville, Kentucky

PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
ripta42
Site Admin


Age: 44
Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Posts: 1035
Location: Pawtucket, RI / Woburn, MA

PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
HwyHaulier




Joined: 16 Dec 2007
Posts: 932
Location: Harford County, MD

PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
timecruncher



Age: 73
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 456
Location: Louisville, Kentucky

PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
HwyHaulier




Joined: 16 Dec 2007
Posts: 932
Location: Harford County, MD

PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
RailBus63
Moderator



Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 1063

PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
ripta42
Site Admin


Age: 44
Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Posts: 1035
Location: Pawtucket, RI / Woburn, MA

PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
timecruncher



Age: 73
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 456
Location: Louisville, Kentucky

PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
HwyHaulier




Joined: 16 Dec 2007
Posts: 932
Location: Harford County, MD

PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    BusTalk Forum Index -> Surface Transit - Everywhere Else All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
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