Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, they aren't greener. Buses use more energy per passenger mile than cars do. They're just misused in this country.
I'm more concerned with traffic congestion / pollution than total energy used. Is there any difference there? If buses can keep our highways less congested, we should be all for it.
The bus on shoulder programs need to be in every city. Chicago and Minneapolis are doing it right!
No, on average buses are more efficient per passenger mile, and the only reason it's even close is because buses are often empty. That's a moot point anyway. City buses are a service for people who can't afford cars or parking/gas.
But commuter buses are usually full. If they aren't, the numbers of trips can be scaled down.
And note that trains are more than twice as efficient as cars!
No, on average buses are more efficient per passenger mile, and the only reason it's even close is because buses are often empty. That's a moot point anyway. City buses are a service for people who can't afford cars or parking/gas.
But commuter buses are usually full. If they aren't, the numbers of trips can be scaled down.
And note that trains are more than twice as efficient as cars!
Did you take a look at motorcycles? They are as efficient as trains twice as efficient as busses.
No, on average buses are more efficient per passenger mile, and the only reason it's even close is because buses are often empty. That's a moot point anyway. City buses are a service for people who can't afford cars or parking/gas.
But commuter buses are usually full. If they aren't, the numbers of trips can be scaled down.
And note that trains are more than twice as efficient as cars!
I don't ride a whole lot, maybe 4k miles a year. Almost none of it serves any purpose at all other than to waste gas and endanger myself needlessly. I'll ride a couple times a year for work and a few errands here and there. For example, during the last BART strikes I road to two jobs in San Francisco although the traffic really wasn't horribly worse than it is normally since people left earlier, carpooled, took the increased bus service. Still, on a regular day the backup onto the bridge is somewhere between 15 minutes and an hour. On a motorcycle it's like an extra two minutes. Likewise, once you're in San Francisco trying to leave it can take anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour to get back on the freeway from downtown. On a motorcycle it doesn't take any extra time at all as long as some too fat to fit in the open lane cruiser/GS with luggage isn't blocking the way.
Let's face it, American's on average don't like to be thought of as part of a larger proletariat. The high degree of individualism that seems uniquely western creates a lot of problems, like the pollution caused by single drivers in every car during the commute. We aren't in the habit of sharing space with strangers either, another downside to any public transit initiatives. Europeans have been living in congested cities for much longer than the western populace, the cost of transportation fuel has been high there for decades and the result is a much wider spread of mass transit usage. Until gasoline costs get to a punitive level here we'll see the same old heavy traffic congestion and pollution that typifies the western problem of transportation.
Forcing people into this mass transit paradigm wouldn't be politically expedient and anybody (pols) who messes with the right to drive in this nation faces some pretty stiff resistance from the suburban crowd who think commuting is a sustainable way of life. The real problem is that America was planned around the car and not mass transit, more suburban sprawl of offices, warehouses, factories, and housing has been the norm, now trying to adjust that sprawl to a central linear mass transit system doesn't make sense. And that is why so many people can say with such authority that these public programs aren't feasible, stop the sprawl and we may see some opportunity to make mass transit do-able...
I don't ride a whole lot, maybe 4k miles a year. Almost none of it serves any purpose at all other than to waste gas and endanger myself needlessly. I'll ride a couple times a year for work and a few errands here and there. For example, during the last BART strikes I road to two jobs in San Francisco although the traffic really wasn't horribly worse than it is normally since people left earlier, carpooled, took the increased bus service. Still, on a regular day the backup onto the bridge is somewhere between 15 minutes and an hour. On a motorcycle it's like an extra two minutes. Likewise, once you're in San Francisco trying to leave it can take anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour to get back on the freeway from downtown. On a motorcycle it doesn't take any extra time at all as long as some too fat to fit in the open lane cruiser/GS with luggage isn't blocking the way.
I live in Salt Lake city. No two points are more than 60 min away... during rush hour. OK maybe more like 90.
I'm looking at an enclosed bike that will use regenerative braking and some other cool stuff. If you keep the lbs. down it will get insane gas mileage. 600 mpg.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
