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.
Just to weigh in on the psychological appeal of rail vs. buses... I think rail conveys "permanence" and "infrastructure" in a way that buses don't (and yes, I realize that rail/trolley lines have a long history of being erased, often without a trace--I'm just talking about perceptions). With that sense of permanence comes a sense that living near a rail line guarantees--kind of hardwires--connection to jobs, entertainment, etc. Even people that don't use transit will pay to live/own homes near transit. Unlike buses, rail cars are connected to the ground/constrained in their movement in a more physical way. Buses can always change lanes, head off in different directions if they so choose (or if their driver so chooses, I should say ), be converted into touring vehicles for the Partridge Family, etc. and this flexibility (which one might think is an advantage) is actually a bit anxiety-producing. Tiger Beer sets out some other practical advantages of rail that BrianTH suggests are trumped by dedicated busways, but I think the real allure of rail is embedded in this (maybe inaccurate) perception of permanence. It's all in our heads.
YES, this is so true. The appeal lies in the new development and proximity to it, for a city to see growth that goes beyond more routes. I think there would be numerous areas in Rochester that is primed for investment. It has pockets of commercial areas and tightly knit, good urban neighborhoods that are isolated in many ways. The prime areas that would go from 0 to 60 with the Light Rail hub being there are the transitioning areas in between said pockets.
I have found that the locations of the neighborhoods are to support the transition, the problem is selling the idea to the politicians. I need models of success and projections. I have devised a way to use a hydro-electric power plant in our "falls" district to power the railway for low costs. I have also researched and found a company that makes Electric buses and they have been used in Montreal to a successful result. These E-buses would augment the light rail stations as a way to bring outlying people into the transportation network.
This could interest the posters that were discussing Pittsburgh's bus system. Google: Ecolobus.
In fact, nobody's brought that up, but that's one big downside of buses and perhaps why people shy away from them. If you don't know the streets, how do you know your stop is coming up? I'm talking about now, not in some ideal system, and on the streets, not the busway. Since they don't stop if no one is there and nobody requested the stop, you have to know the route already. If you're taking it for the first time, how is that possible?
GPS. Here in Chicago, every CTA bus is equipped with it. Each bus also has an automated announcement system synced up with the GPS system that announces the next stop a few hundred feet before you arrive there, plus an LED readout that displays the next stop. Before this system was implemented the bus drivers were supposed to announce the stop over a PA system as they were approaching it. Some were more diligent about it than others.
I don't know if someone mentioned this yet but the streetcars actually went all the way up to Butler at one time than you would take a train to other places at one time, but speaking of GM also bought into the rail system with standard oil and in LA and shut it down to go to bus but traffic has gotten so bad that buses was not even feasible anymore by the 60's and started to look at a rail system to alleviate the traffic problem one offer LA got was the most interesting, a company called ALWEG that manufactured monorails offered to build an entire system for LA for free and they would get their money from fares collected, LA council voted no on any rail system. now just imagine how LA would've looked if they had said yes and the money LA would've saved from lawsuits over train collisions. Just a thought for Pittsburgh
IMHO:
1. Petroleum based transportation systems are going to increase in cost of ownership and operation. (Automobile use and ownership is going to decrease as the century progresses)
2. Laws of Physics recommend steel wheel on steel rail, and electric traction power. (lowest coefficient of rolling resistance)
3. Rail requires less surface area to operate, and is ideal in high density population areas.
4. Unlike automobiles on roads, track capacity can scale up by adding cars to a train or increasing the frequency of their operation.
5. Rail and rolling stock have a proven record of durability and longevity in service.
6. We can't afford to keep exporting 400 billion bucks annually to feed our "oil habit".
7. Though maglev has less resistance, it consumes far more energy to levitate the vehicle, and since we have a finite fuel budget, it is not recommended at this time.
The overall winner is electric traction rail transit - in all forms: mainline, interurban, commuter, streetcar, light rail, subway, monorail, funicular, cogwheel, and tram.
IMHO:
1. Petroleum based transportation systems are going to increase in cost of ownership and operation. (Automobile use and ownership is going to decrease as the century progresses)
2. Laws of Physics recommend steel wheel on steel rail, and electric traction power. (lowest coefficient of rolling resistance)
3. Rail requires less surface area to operate, and is ideal in high density population areas.
4. Unlike automobiles on roads, track capacity can scale up by adding cars to a train or increasing the frequency of their operation.
5. Rail and rolling stock have a proven record of durability and longevity in service.
6. We can't afford to keep exporting 400 billion bucks annually to feed our "oil habit".
7. Though maglev has less resistance, it consumes far more energy to levitate the vehicle, and since we have a finite fuel budget, it is not recommended at this time.
The overall winner is electric traction rail transit - in all forms: mainline, interurban, commuter, streetcar, light rail, subway, monorail, funicular, cogwheel, and tram.
Wow, I'm rubbing my eyes right now... That appears to be a fairly conservative-minded view in favor of rail transportation. And to think I thought all conservative types just wanted to favor business interests with the suburbia approach of the last 50 years. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong of course...
Either way I totally agree with you here. I've been a strong proponent of even bringing back major retired streetcar routes in the city. Europe uses modern electric streetcars and Portland and others have jumped on it too. Pittsburgh should seriously consider new streetcars as I think our numerous dense neighborhoods close to downtown would benefit tremendously.
I think there are three major weaknesses to that all-rail case.
First, if you assume densities are variable, then I think you will quickly realize that the higher capital costs of rail on certain possible transit routes simply won't make sense in a world of limited capital, meaning that if you do all-rail, then those routes aren't going to be served at all with rapid public transit in the conceivable future.
Second, buses don't have to run on petroleum, and in fact can be more quickly and efficiently switched to whatever alternatives emerge over time.
Third, if you put these two points together, then an all-rail approach will limit, or at least greatly delay, the amount of switching from cars to transit, and from petroleum-based transport to non-petroleum-based transport.
Again, I very much believe rail in various forms is the right solution for various needs, and we should be investing more in rail of various forms. But rapid bus system that can partially leverage our existing networks of mixed-use roads also have an obvious place in certain sorts of cases, particularly if you want to most rapidly shift to higher energy efficiencies and lower consumption of petroleum on a system-wide basis.
I think there are three major weaknesses to that all-rail case.
First, if you assume densities are variable, then I think you will quickly realize that the higher capital costs of rail on certain possible transit routes simply won't make sense in a world of limited capital, meaning that if you do all-rail, then those routes aren't going to be served at all with rapid public transit in the conceivable future.
Second, buses don't have to run on petroleum, and in fact can be more quickly and efficiently switched to whatever alternatives emerge over time.
Third, if you put these two points together, then an all-rail approach will limit, or at least greatly delay, the amount of switching from cars to transit, and from petroleum-based transport to non-petroleum-based transport.
Again, I very much believe rail in various forms is the right solution for various needs, and we should be investing more in rail of various forms. But rapid bus system that can partially leverage our existing networks of mixed-use roads also have an obvious place in certain sorts of cases, particularly if you want to most rapidly shift to higher energy efficiencies and lower consumption of petroleum on a system-wide basis.
At this time, there is no reasonable alternative fuel or power source for buses that replaces cheap and plentiful petroleum (diesel fuel or gasoline).
Barring a stunning discovery or engineering breakthrough, the overall winner is electric traction rail transit for land transportation.
We may have to "go back to the Future" as in 1890s, when the USA was not a petroleum powerhouse, and reconsider those solutions for moving cargo and passengers in the most efficient manner.
At this time, there is no reasonable alternative fuel or power source for buses that replaces cheap and plentiful petroleum (diesel fuel or gasoline).
I'll bet you dollars to donuts that natural gas bus operations becomes cheaper than diesel bus operations in the United States at some point in the not-too-distant future, if they haven't already. And of course there are already many natural gas buses, hybrid buses, and trolleybuses running around the world, including the United States:
Barring a stunning discovery or engineering breakthrough, the overall winner is electric traction rail transit for land transportation.
All the above is existing bus technology which has already been deployed. The bottomline is that whether you are using rails or tires has nothing in particular to do with the fuel source of the vehicle in question.
And again, the big picture is that buses allow for rapid transit service in lower-volume cases where the capital costs of rail can't be justified. So buses in those cases don't have to beat trains for energy and environmental efficiency, they just have to beat cars, which means it is a tires versus tires comparison anyway.
I'll bet you dollars to donuts that natural gas bus operations becomes cheaper than diesel bus operations...
And again, the big picture is that buses allow for rapid transit service in lower-volume cases where the capital costs of rail can't be justified. So buses in those cases don't have to beat trains for energy and environmental efficiency, they just have to beat cars, which means it is a tires versus tires comparison anyway.
"Capital costs"?
We expend tremendous funds to subsidize a most wasteful transportation system - the petroleum fueled behemoth. Importing 70% and more of our oil consumption is not sustainable. And buses, whether natural gas or diesel, won't resolve the problem in the long run.
Energy efficiency comparisons of transportation:
strickland.ca - transportation energy efficiency (fuel consumption) (http://www.strickland.ca/efficiency.html - broken link)
Passenger miles / gallon (gasoline equivalent)
Full capacity:
Rail - 2000
Bus - 280
Auto - 100
Typical:
Rail - 600
Bus - 78
Auto - 21
The Oil Drum | Multiple Birds – One Silver BB: A synergistic set of solutions to multiple issues focused on Electrified Railroads
Energy and Environmental Benefits Transferring freight from truck to electrified rail trades 17 to 21 BTUs of diesel for one BTU of electricity. Simply electrifying existing rail freight would trade 2.6 to 3 BTUs of diesel for one BTU of electricity. Transferring 100% of inter-city truck traffic (impractical) to electrified railroads, plus electrifying all (not 80%) of the existing rail traffic, would take about 100 TWh/year or 2.3% of total US electrical demand. Electrifying 80% of railroad ton-miles and transferring half of current truck freight to rail would take about 1% of US electricity. 1% is an amount that could be easily conserved, or, with less ease, provided by new renewable generation and/or new nuclear plants.
There's another important aspect to encourage rails to replace asphalt roads. Road damage is roughly proportional to the fourth power of the axle load. A 20,000 lb axle causes 16 times as much damage as a 10,000 axle, and 160,000 times as much damage as a 1,000 lb axle (wider tires mitigate the effect slightly). 99% of the traffic damage to roads and highways comes from trucks and buses.
----------------
The infrastructure used by buses and automobiles is a huge drain on the resources of the nation. There is a constant stream of reports of the dangers of eroding bridges, roads needing repair, pothole patrols, and so on. Worse, the traffic congestion in major metropolitan areas requires building more and more highways - which is unsustainable.
In the bigger picture, though there are substantial capital costs for rail based transportation, those costs can be amortized over a far longer period of time. Rail beds have a far longer lifespan than paved roads. Their load carrying capacity dwarfs pavement. The scalability of rail is far better than automobiles and buses. The amount of surface area required to support rail is far less than any other land based transportation, capable of carrying equivalent passenger and cargo loads.
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.
), be converted into touring vehicles for the Partridge Family, etc. and this flexibility (which one might think is an advantage) is actually a bit anxiety-producing. Tiger Beer sets out some other practical advantages of rail that BrianTH suggests are trumped by dedicated busways, but I think the real allure of rail is embedded in this (maybe inaccurate) perception of permanence. It's all in our heads.
