How does rail offer any advantages over busses?
- bus routes can be changed; rail is one place to stay
- the same passenger capacity from one terminal can be staggered over more convenient departure times with busses
- busses can traverse existing roads w/o requiring eminent domain takings
- both rail and busses can be fitted with low-emission propulsion
- busses are more likely to give you a direct route w/o switching vehicles
And it would seem busses are cheaper.
Seems like rail is better at taking semi-trailers off the road between ports and major intermodal terminals.
Seems like telecommuting is more "progressive" than grandiose, dare I say obsolete intra-city passenger rail.
And of course, we always come back to this: why would anyone not using busses suddenly, magically start using a new billion dollar light rail line that only goes between points A & B?
So what am I missing about rail except the GLAMOUR factor that fires the hearts of city/county councils everywhere in their bid to keep up with the Joneses?
Rango: are you saying elitists only ride trains and poor people ride busses? Snobs won’t use transit unless we build them glamorous rail lines? There is a caste system and social warfare in transit?
Have you seen a subway in NYC, incidentally? They seem to be populated by all the "classes".
Moreover, if transit is supposed to ease congestion, then it would seem rail would work against that. If everyone is driving to the terminal at the same time go catch the trains which would seem to only depart at fewer times than could multiple busses, then don’t you still have more car traffic going to the terminal than if people could select from more staggered departure times of the smaller but more numerous busses?
Mail this post
Tagged with: bus routes • busses • car traffic • caste system • congestion • county councils • departure times • elitists • eminent domain • glamour • intermodal terminals • keep up with the joneses • light rail line • ports • propulsion • semi trailers • snobs • social warfare • subway • takings
Filed under: Telecommuting Work
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
The real cost of roads is astronomical; technology is only increasing the costs of upkeep, not reducing them. The people who subsidize the road network understand this.
Direct routes are *possible* with buses, but how often do we actually get them? I’ve only ever had *one* job that was on ‘my’ bus line. It’s just not going to be economic to give everyone a direct route. The hub and transfer system solves that, often reasonably, and works with both rail and bus.
People do use light rail IF it improves their commutes in some way. No car to park in a crowded and expensive city, no traffic jams to worry about, AND you get to use that time to read or work instead of getting road raged from the stress and breathing in everyone’s combustion fumes.
Consolidating travelers makes it more economical in every way except for the most personal. Do we really need all of that hyper-flexibility? The costs we pay for it in pollution, stress and roadworks are high. It makes sense to many Europeans, but it’s a lost concept on most U.S. Americans.
By all means, improve bus services, but it’s car usage we need to reduce, not trains.
In my opinion…
Rails transport more people at the same time, so they eliminate some pollution)
Rails have more direct routes to some destination and those routes are cheaper to maintain (less road work)
Rails are much safer (kinda like airplanes.. if something happens you’re usually screwed, but on the other hand, an accident is less likely)
You have more space in a train.. you can move around and enjoy more convenience (such as onboard restaurants etc.)
In some cases you can reach your destination faster by taking a train (especially in Europe)
etc…
Trains are safer,more comfortable, and use less fuel per passenger mile.
I edited out the line about calss of riders, I apologize, it was meant as a gently tonue in cheek remark to the comment about glamour, i have not been on very many commuter trains but I never saw much glamour in them LOL.
They get traffic off already overcongested highways and roads.
A peice of rail equipment last years and years and years and can be rebuilt endlessly so in the long run, what is really cheaper?
You are right, train tracks are not likely to move, trains are only part of the traffic solution but if trains were suddenly taken away you coulndt buy enough busses to haul all the people. In Europe it seems that buses work well for short distance comuting but trains work well for distance commuting from outlying areas or from city to city.
Consider when a peice of roadway gets worn out, it takes weeks and thousands of gallons of fuel and man hours to rebuild.
When a peice of railroad needs refurbished, it can be done in a day or two with a handful of relatively small peices of equipment and NO disruption of highway traffic. And almost everythig fomr the railorad is recycled, rail, gravel ballast, even ties are used in fencing and landscaping.
A small commuter train can move as many people as dozens of buses, who wants all that extra traffic on the roads?