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.
I would be curious to know how much better buses in NYC of SF would be (as well as heavily used rail systems). They still wouldn't always be full, such as during off-peak, counter peak direction or on the less busy part of any given route.
I would be curious to know how much better buses in NYC of SF would be (as well as heavily used rail systems). They still wouldn't always be full, such as during off-peak, counter peak direction or on the less busy part of any given route.
That's just using the same data I cited but from two years ago. I can't find the old ones or I'd link to the source material rather than an agenda-driven site. Data is data, however.
edit: Never mind, that's just the auto data. The transit data is tabulated on their own.
One inefficiency of rail is many agencies run the same size trains off hours when volume is lower. It's easier to let the extra cars sit there and waste energy than decouple. Boston uses 6 car diesel trains for the commuter rail, but off hours often closes 4 of them, leaving only 2 out of 6 cars usable.*
*Maybe I got mixed up, and as the train gets closer they open more cars?
I would be curious to know how much better buses in NYC of SF would be (as well as heavily used rail systems). They still wouldn't always be full, such as during off-peak, counter peak direction or on the less busy part of any given route.
You don't need many pasengers for a bus to be "efficient". That number is 5 in a small bus and 7 in a large bus. It was in human transit I believe.
One inefficiency of rail is many agencies run the same size trains off hours when volume is lower. It's easier to let the extra cars sit there and waste energy than decouple. Boston uses 6 car diesel trains for the commuter rail, but off hours often closes 4 of them, leaving only 2 out of 6 cars usable.*
*Maybe I got mixed up, and as the train gets closer they open more cars?
I suspect this has a lot to do with the rail cars needing to be in certain places. It complicates things considerably to deadhead out to a yard, decouple, make some runs, then deadhead back to the yard to pick up the cars again when they're needed.
You don't need many pasengers for a bus to be "efficient". That number is 5 in a small bus and 7 in a large bus. It was in human transit I believe.
might depend on the bus. A lot of transit companies keep their buses for a while and have some rather old and inefficient, as well as pollution spewing diesel buses. Most transit companies have been replacing their fleet with newer, cleaner buses recently, but it'll take a while.
More importantly most cars spend 85% of their time idle in a parking spot taking up valuable land...
Really? Where do you get this 85% figure? I work 56 hours a week which is 33% of the time in a given week. Factoring in trips to stores and other events my vehicle may be parked on valuable land up to 50% of the time. The other 50% of the time it is parked at home and both my current house and prior condo had parking underneath the home which is quite common in the northeast. Parking underneath the home does not take up any additional valuable land.
I suspect this has a lot to do with the rail cars needing to be in certain places. It complicates things considerably to deadhead out to a yard, decouple, make some runs, then deadhead back to the yard to pick up the cars again when they're needed.
That sounds very inefficient but so does generating the power to run several empty rail cars all day between rush hours.
Really? Where do you get this 85% figure? I work 56 hours a week which is 33% of the time in a given week. Factoring in trips to stores and other events my vehicle may be parked on valuable land up to 50% of the time. The other 50% of the time it is parked at home and both my current house and prior condo had parking underneath the home which is quite common in the northeast. Parking underneath the home does not take up any additional valuable land.
Agreed. I work 16-24 hours a week. So my car is parked at work 18-27 hrs/wk. Factor in maybe 4-6 hrs a week for shopping, eating out, other activities where it is parked on "valuable land", e.g. land in commercial areas. High end, 33 hrs a week. That is 20% (rounded up) of the time. The other 80% it is parked in my garage, which is below the master bedroom in my house.
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.
