Bike Forums

Bike Forums (https://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Living Car Free (https://www.bikeforums.net/living-car-free/)
-   -   The Transit option (https://www.bikeforums.net/living-car-free/1065007-transit-option.html)

wphamilton 05-24-16 09:37 AM

The Transit option
 
An email from GA Commute Options invited me to check out how much my commute was costing. Commute Calculator | Save Your Commute | Georgia Commute Options so I went to the page, entered my information, and transit would cost me nearly $600 more per year than driving.

Looking at google maps, the estimate is that transit would take me over twice as long as riding, three times or more as long as the drive. And I feel that's probably optimistic for the bus route. Plus time waiting for the bus.

The mile or so walk at each end would be nice in good weather, but miserable some times.

So more expensive than driving, slow, and sometimes unpleasant. Something just seems out of whack about the whole implementation. I am a supporter of the concept - reducing polution and traffic congestion, giving people an alternative to auto ownership, and providing a way to get around to people who need it - yet I don't see someone having a choice choosing this option.

I realize that it costs more to have more stops, better coverage and express routes. But surely some US city, somewhere, has proven that people will take transit when it's cheaper and convenient? And with more bus riders it's not a money pit for the city?

Rob_E 05-24-16 10:54 AM

I have to wonder about that calculator. I got $1500 a year in transit costs when I punched in my data. I don't know what it's like in Georgia, but here, I can get a bus pass for $45/month, and that would represent my entire transit costs. That's $540/year max. I don't understand how they triple that unless they are in an area that has very high fares.

Personally, my employer subsidizes most of my bus fare, and I get an annual pass for a little more than the cost of a monthly pass, so even the $540 figure is about 10 times my actual expenses. But that's a special circumstance. For normal circumstances, though, I don't see where that number could come from. When I figure it out, it comes to almost $6 per work day. Maybe that's what transit costs in your area? Here, even without a multi-day pass, two trips would total about $2.50.

I do find that if you don't drive a newer, expensive car, then often mass transit is not a huge savings. I don't think I really came out ahead until I got rid of the car entirely. Once you do that, there's certain base fees like tax, registration, and insurance that you can get away from. Otherwise taking transit doesn't actually get rid of those costs.

Currently there's still a car in my household. It's much cheaper for me to occasionally take the train or plane, then it would be for us to have a 2nd car. But it's seldom cheaper for both of us to to take mass transit given that we already have a vehicle at our disposal. That's a bit of math that never quite works out for me. If I want to drive three hours to see my family, I will pay almost as much in gas as I will for a train ticket. Figure in some wear and tear on the car, and maybe I come out ahead. But add my wife into the equation, and all my car costs stay the same, but my transit costs double. If they want to encourage transit, they need to find a way to make it economical for two people to take transit. Sometimes my family makes the trip to see me, in which case there are 4-8. A train trip would be far more expensive than driving. How can it cost less per person to transfer 4 people than it can to transfer 100?

The convenience factor is also an issue. I don't see how they can provide door-to-door service, but there does have to be some balance if they want people to switch to transit. I don't mind biking at any time in almost any weather, so I get around fine. But if I actually wanted to take a bus outside of work hours, service is very limited, which means it's less useful as a full car substitute, and, as only an occasional substitute, it's much less attractive financially.

mconlonx 05-24-16 11:19 AM

For my old situation, in the city, a Transit option would have been cheaper than a car, commute time would have been about the same. Mitigating factors would have been during inclement weather -- walking or riding to a bus stop or the subway would have been messier, and adding a bus to the mix could have lengthened the commute time. Bike commuting was the winner, where it was faster -- nearly cut my commute time in half -- and way cheaper, enough to make up for how messy it could get.

For my current situation, Transit would also be cheaper than a car, but commute time would nearly double from under an hour to nearly two hours, and it would be messier.

1Woman2Wheels 05-24-16 12:32 PM

In Missoula, Montana, transit is fare-free. There are a series of community partners (the university, the hospital, the mall, city govt, etc) which chip in to cover the cost of fare so that passengers don't have to pay. It's an amazing system and has totally transformed our community.

But even if transit wasn't free, there's no way that taking it should cost more than driving. The American Automobile Association puts out an estimate of the cost of car ownership every year, and for 2016 it was $8,556, which is actually a three year low. When you add up gas, insurance, the car payment, oil changes, new tires, parking permits, registration & taxes, and other general wear and tear maintenance, the costs of driving are significant.

wphamilton 05-24-16 12:50 PM


Originally Posted by Rob_E (Post 18793134)
I have to wonder about that calculator. I got $1500 a year in transit costs when I punched in my data. I don't know what it's like in Georgia, but here, I can get a bus pass for $45/month, and that would represent my entire transit costs. That's $540/year max. I don't understand how they triple that unless they are in an area that has very high fares....

The page says "Transit costs are based on a $100 average cost for monthly transit passes" and our local transit page wants $95/month. Which unsurprisingly is the same as the $2.50 per ride fare over a month of commutes. So I guess that it's pretty close to right.


Originally Posted by Rob_E (Post 18793134)
If they want to encourage transit, they need to find a way to make it economical for two people to take transit. Sometimes my family makes the trip to see me, in which case there are 4-8. A train trip would be far more expensive than driving. How can it cost less per person to transfer 4 people than it can to transfer 100?...

Yeh, adding extra to get the family around it would be even more expensive relative to the car.

wphamilton 05-24-16 12:57 PM


Originally Posted by 1Woman2Wheels (Post 18793439)
In Missoula, Montana, transit is fare-free. There are a series of community partners (the university, the hospital, the mall, city govt, etc) which chip in to cover the cost of fare so that passengers don't have to pay. It's an amazing system and has totally transformed our community.

But even if transit wasn't free, there's no way that taking it should cost more than driving. The American Automobile Association puts out an estimate of the cost of car ownership every year, and for 2016 it was $8,556, which is actually a three year low. When you add up gas, insurance, the car payment, oil changes, new tires, parking permits, registration & taxes, and other general wear and tear maintenance, the costs of driving are significant.

The page is comparing to the additional cost of commuting, using the existing car. ie, leaving it in the driveway and taking the bus, what's the cost difference. Since you still have the car, you don't save anything on the cost of ownership.

They're trying to talk people into taking mass transit at least every once in awhile. Asking people to give up their cars completely would be a non-starter in these parts. It's a cultural blind spot.

Even without the cost of ownership, mass transit should really cost less than driving if you wan't people to seriously consider it.

wphamilton 05-24-16 01:06 PM


Originally Posted by mconlonx (Post 18793212)
For my old situation, in the city, a Transit option would have been cheaper than a car, commute time would have been about the same. Mitigating factors would have been during inclement weather -- walking or riding to a bus stop or the subway would have been messier, and adding a bus to the mix could have lengthened the commute time. Bike commuting was the winner, where it was faster -- nearly cut my commute time in half -- and way cheaper, enough to make up for how messy it could get.

For my current situation, Transit would also be cheaper than a car, but commute time would nearly double from under an hour to nearly two hours, and it would be messier.

It's academic to me. I've taken the bus maybe four times in the last ten years because for me the bike is easier, faster and more pleasant. One of those times was a leg to the train station, after which I decided that biking was also preferable for those eight miles. It just seems to me, when I look at it this way, that mass transit is badly broken.

Rob_E 05-24-16 01:11 PM


Originally Posted by wphamilton (Post 18793494)
The page says "Transit costs are based on a $100 average cost for monthly transit passes" and our local transit page wants $95/month. Which unsurprisingly is the same as the $2.50 per ride fare over a month of commutes. So I guess that it's pretty close to right.

Yeah, I went and looked at the MARTA rates. Still confusing because my transit rate was 1500/year, which is more than the 100/month number. Sometimes I feel like the savings associated with not driving are over-inflated, but it's odd to find a site that looks like a pro-transit site which is over-estimating the cost of using transit.

CliffordK 05-24-16 01:14 PM

It has been so long ago that I've been on the local buses, I had to look it up.

That calculator does miss INSURANCE. And, a mentioned, depreciation depends a lot on the age of the vehicle. Older vehicles can require more maintenance, but spare parts can also be much cheaper. Depreciation is both age + mileage.

Anyway, for our local buses.
Lane Transit District
$1.75 per fare
$3.50 day passes
$135 for 3 month pass

PLUS
$7 per thousand payroll tax.

So, for a person earning $100,000 the payroll tax would essentially double the fares. For someone earning under $20K, it is less significant.

For me, getting to the bus line is just not practical, so it doesn't provide me much benefit.

Here are farebox recovery rates around the globe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio

Some of the Asian systems actually turn a profit. Many 3rd world nations aren't listed.

There are many private Jitney bus systems around the globe. I presume most are self-supporting, and turn a bit of a profit.

How can a Jitney be self supporting while a municipal system can't?

P_M 05-25-16 10:49 AM


Originally Posted by 1Woman2Wheels (Post 18793439)
In Missoula, Montana, transit is fare-free. There are a series of community partners (the university, the hospital, the mall, city govt, etc) which chip in to cover the cost of fare so that passengers don't have to pay. It's an amazing system and has totally transformed our community.

Holy catfish! :thumb:

SamSpade1941 05-25-16 01:01 PM

It cost me $45 a month to ride the bus most of my commute. My bike rides on the bus too , parking my bike in the bike room at work is free. Parking my car if i get a permit (very long wait list) cost me $65 to $80 a month. The daily non permit parking is $130 a month. Plus my gas costs.

My public transit costs are taken from my pay pre tax.

Ekdog 05-25-16 02:21 PM


Originally Posted by P_M (Post 18795957)
Holy catfish! :thumb:

A great idea.

Missoula buses will be 'zero fare' beginning Jan. 5 | Local | missoulian.com

I-Like-To-Bike 05-25-16 04:21 PM

Senior Citizens in Philadelphia can ride the subways, buses and trolleys for free 24/7 by showing their Medicare card. The regional rail to/from the suburbs cost one dollar per trip rather than $4.75 -$10 per trip. Recently used the regional rail from the northern suburbs to Center City; $1 each way. I believe the funding for this discount is from the PA Lottery.
SEPTA | Seniors Ride Transit Free on SEPTA

tandempower 05-26-16 09:45 AM


Originally Posted by wphamilton (Post 18793522)
The page is comparing to the additional cost of commuting, using the existing car. ie, leaving it in the driveway and taking the bus, what's the cost difference. Since you still have the car, you don't save anything on the cost of ownership.

About a year ago, Subway changed it's pricing to include the veggie/cheese option on a list of sandwiches that also have meat. The net effect is that when you order a veggie/cheese sub now, you are subsidizing everyone else's meat because they are paying the same price for their veggie/cheese sub . . . plus meat.

So what does that have to do with transit and car ownership? The pricing of automotive staples like fuel, tires, monthly payments, insurance, are all set in ways to promote car ownership; the same as the subs with meat are priced as low as possible to stimulate as many sandwich-purchases as possible. If meat was charged separately, and its price reflected the costs involved with raising and transporting animals, slaugherhouses, refrigeration, etc. the cost of meats would be much higher than bread and vegetables and maybe even cheese. The trick is to redistribute the costs of normal luxuries throughout the inventory to make the expensive stuff seem like a bargain.

Cars are the same, and what's more is that they are even made expensive by selling them on credit with long-term warrantees. People pay $200+/month just for the vehicle payment prior to any insurance, fuel/maintenance costs, etc. This is higher than transit and much higher than cycling.

You have to figure, when you buy a transit pass or single-fare, you are buying a share of a compilation of bus routes. You could look it at it as buying/renting a single bus for a trip and sharing that rental cost with the other passengers. If you would be able to charter a bus and fill it with other passengers for any given trip, that would be cheaper and that is essentially what you're doing when you ride a city bus, only there aren't enough other passengers so you're getting stuck with a larger share of the cost (except that transit is usually subsidized, so you and others are also paying for it with your taxes.)

Speaking of taxes, don't forget about all the road/infrastructure/parking-lot costs you're paying for as part of driving. You may not pay to park, but the cost of the parking lots you park in are tacked onto the prices you pay when shopping. You may not pay for roads and highways directly or even indirectly with your taxes, but wealthy corporations are paying and they are covering their costs with what you're paying them when you buy their products or invest in their stocks before they crash.

Finally, in terms of the veggie/cheese sub parallel, think about why buses and transit systems cost as much as they do. Why are bus parts expensive? Why are stations and administrators and facilities maintenance workers, etc. all paid at rates that afford them car costs? If everyone is supposed to be able to afford both a car AND other modes of transportation, then the other modes, such as bikes and buses, have to employ people at wages sufficient to afford those people all this transportation choice as well. If a significant proportion of the population wasn't paid enough to afford driving as an option, the costs of everything, including driving, would go down.


They're trying to talk people into taking mass transit at least every once in awhile. Asking people to give up their cars completely would be a non-starter in these parts. It's a cultural blind spot.
Sprawling driving-dependent areas assume that car-culture is a bullet-proof part of their past, present, and future but the fact is that we are running out of land and major wildlife corridors are being threatened as existing road corridors are growing too congested. If/once we get to the point of paving and developing our way through these last pristine lands, it will be the last straw. At that point, there will be nowhere left to expand the automotive society and it will have to begin consuming itself in even more aggressive ways than it already does.


Even without the cost of ownership, mass transit should really cost less than driving if you wan't people to seriously consider it.
Congestion permitting is the solution. If people have to pay more to drive during congested times, the transit costs will pay for themselves in savings on the permit.


Originally Posted by wphamilton (Post 18793549)
It's academic to me. I've taken the bus maybe four times in the last ten years because for me the bike is easier, faster and more pleasant. One of those times was a leg to the train station, after which I decided that biking was also preferable for those eight miles. It just seems to me, when I look at it this way, that mass transit is badly broken.

That's the funny thing about sprawling, automotive-oriented areas: biking is a very reasonable option for most trips. I much prefer to bike over taking the bus. Still, most people seem to avoid biking like a plague and so bus transit is the only reasonable form of motor-transit where driving congestion needs to be reduced. Yes, if everyone would ride a bike, the problem would just go away; but they don't.

wphamilton 05-26-16 10:20 AM

@tandempower It's true that driving costs are heavily subsidized through taxes, higher prices and other more labyrinthine mechanisms, and that doesn't even include the external costs of parking. And it should include those costs, because both direct and external costs of just providing space to park our cars is astonishing.

As individuals, we don't really consider those costs in our decision making. We look at the individual impact - out of pocket for example, or convenience. Even with your Subway example. Their vegie sub is an abnormality if they don't charge more for the addition of meat, which is the almost universal practice. When demand drops for that sandwich, the price will be lowered. People do choose options which they perceive to provide the most value.

What you've done is describe the case for the State's interest in maximizing mass transit use. Logically that makes an even stronger argument that bus fares should be lower than the immediate cost of driving. Even zero, as someone mentioned earlier, may be a net positive for the community when you consider the various subsidies.

tandempower 05-26-16 02:47 PM


Originally Posted by wphamilton (Post 18798740)
@tandempower It's true that driving costs are heavily subsidized through taxes, higher prices and other more labyrinthine mechanisms, and that doesn't even include the external costs of parking. And it should include those costs, because both direct and external costs of just providing space to park our cars is astonishing.

As individuals, we don't really consider those costs in our decision making. We look at the individual impact - out of pocket for example, or convenience.

Anyone who's looked into paving a home driveway knows the cost of pavement, but when the numbers for public infrastructure and businesses dissolve into figures that round to 10 and up, most people aren't equipped to consider how much those costs break down to per person, or per purchase, because budgets don't usually break it down to that level. Even if they would though, projecting large numbers of sales/traffic makes such expenditures seem more cost-efficient. Unlike a private driveway that only gets used by a couple people, a public parking lot, road, or highway gets used by many more, so the per capita cost seems to go down.

I've never seen any quantitative breakdowns of how many square miles of pavement there are per person in any area or region, but there is an irony in the prospect of making them more cost-efficient by using them more. The irony is that the more people drive on them and engage in economic activities and spending, the more they're robbing themselves of time to spend on other things that would be better for their health and the environment.

The question is what it takes to get an economic analysis that supports narrower (single-lane) roads, with more transit and bicycle usage, albeit with potentially lower consumption/shopping density per trip; which still functions as cost-efficient and sufficiently supportive of popular economic needs.


Even with your Subway example. Their vegie sub is an abnormality if they don't charge more for the addition of meat, which is the almost universal practice. When demand drops for that sandwich, the price will be lowered. People do choose options which they perceive to provide the most value.
The ugly logic of demand-driven pricing can indeed mean that less efficient products get sold at a lower price, resulting in them being subsidized by more efficient products of lower demand. This is a real failure of the free market, though, because it undermines the freedom to enter markets when no one wants to produce and sell a more efficient product at a lower price because they'd rather focus on less efficient products that make them more money.

In other words, it impedes the free market's ability to allow the invisible hand to reward efficiency and discourage inefficiency. E.g. if some other sandwich maker would make sandwiches of the same perceived quality as Subway for a lower price, then Subway would lose market share to that competitor. However, even though a veggie/cheese sub is technically an adequate substitute for subs with meat, the perception that its not could cause people to ignore a competing sandwich chain that lowered its costs by selling only veggie/cheese subs and no meat. So no matter how cheap a vegetarian sandwich shop would be, unless they win over public taste, they won't be able to compete. The only chance of them beating out Subway would be for the economy to get so tight that people could ONLY afford subs if they were priced at levels that exclude the cost of meat, and then Subway would probably lower the price of the veggie/cheese sub to get more business anyway.

If we extend this same logic to auto markets, we'd have to be dealing with an economy so tight that people would choose cycling and/or transit instead of driving because they simply can't afford to drive anymore. Interestingly, I watched a documentary recently about how there are people in poor rural towns who are going to jail because they can't afford the fees and fines for their traffic tickets. This would be the ideal conditions for driving to lose popularity in favor of biking, transit, ride-sharing, etc. yet I'm guessing that such poor people always manage to find an old junk car to nurse along; though some would probably ride a bike if they could manage to get where they needed to go that way. Probably the distances in such rural towns are so big, though, that they will move somewhere more bikeable (if they can afford it) before going car-free where they are, though they probably don't want to move because of family, etc. They're caught between a rock and a hard place.

Idk what happens to people when they can't afford to drive where they are but they also can't afford to move to an area where they can LCF. Presumably there are drug dealers and other illicit lenders who will give them money to live in exchange for exploiting themselves and others in various ways.


What you've done is describe the case for the State's interest in maximizing mass transit use. Logically that makes an even stronger argument that bus fares should be lower than the immediate cost of driving. Even zero, as someone mentioned earlier, may be a net positive for the community when you consider the various subsidies.
Yes, the logical thing to do would be to subsidize transit and fund the subsidy by selling permits to drive during peak times. That kills two birds with one stone: 1) thins traffic to speed up travel times for cars and buses 2) makes transit use more cost-efficient relative to driving.

Dahon.Steve 05-26-16 08:05 PM


Originally Posted by 1Woman2Wheels (Post 18793439)
In Missoula, Montana, transit is fare-free. There are a series of community partners (the university, the hospital, the mall, city govt, etc) which chip in to cover the cost of fare so that passengers don't have to pay. It's an amazing system and has totally transformed our community.

But even if transit wasn't free, there's no way that taking it should cost more than driving. The American Automobile Association puts out an estimate of the cost of car ownership every year, and for 2016 it was $8,556, which is actually a three year low. When you add up gas, insurance, the car payment, oil changes, new tires, parking permits, registration & taxes, and other general wear and tear maintenance, the costs of driving are significant.

+1000000

Funny how the article did not include none of those costs into it's formula. It also did not include depreciation and replacement cost of the vehicle. I entered numbers that are close to my trip and the commute calculator said my annual cost would be over 2.8K a year! You got to be kidding me because I take express bus, New York City subway and Lighrail each day and it's only 2.5K a year! LOL. The calculator was so obvious the work of the pro-motoring lobby .

I went to the Marta (Atlanta GA) website and a 30 day unlimited pass was $95.00 dollars a month or $1,200.00 a year. That's for bus and rail and weekends are free!

Dahon.Steve 05-27-16 08:51 PM


Originally Posted by wphamilton (Post 18793522)

Even without the cost of ownership, mass transit should really cost less than driving if you wan't people to seriously consider it.

Mass transit cost about 30 cents a mile in New Jersey which is reasonable. Around the country, the price for a city bus is about the same more or less. The days when you could ride the trolley for 5 cents are long gone.

I don't want to see transit become a system of beat up buses that are falling apart. I remember back in the 1970's riding buses with no wheel chair lifts or air conditioning. The fare box increased by 800% since 1975 in my neighborhood but the fleet of buses are much better.

Dahon.Steve 05-27-16 09:04 PM


Originally Posted by Rob_E (Post 18793562)
Yeah, I went and looked at the MARTA rates. Still confusing because my transit rate was 1500/year, which is more than the 100/month number. Sometimes I feel like the savings associated with not driving are over-inflated, but it's odd to find a site that looks like a pro-transit site which is over-estimating the cost of using transit.


I have an expensive transit commute that cost $2500 a year because of convenience. I could easily bring the cost down to $1300 a year by using buses only. However, it would take more time to get to work.

I still believe transit is the key to the carfree movement. Cyclist are usually vocal but they don't have the power or economic resources needed to construct transit oriented development. It's this new development that's creating far more to become carfree than the bicycle movement. The overwhelming majority of those without a car are doing so without a bicycle. I don't see why we have to look at the bus as an enemy.

wphamilton 05-28-16 06:59 AM


Originally Posted by Dahon.Steve (Post 18803127)
+1

Thanks to the internet, it's too easy to catch a lie. I have an expensive transit commute that cost $2500 a year because of convenience. I could easily bring the cost down to $1300 a year by using buses only. However, it would take more time to get to work.

What the OP doesn't understand is transit is the key to the carfree movement. Cyclist are usually vocal but they don't have the power or economic resources needed to construct transit oriented development. It's this new development that's creating far more to become carfree than the bicycle movement. The overwhelming majority of those without a car are doing so without a bicycle. I don't see why we have to look at the bus as an enemy.

The fine print at the bottom says that it's based on a 10-mile round trip to the park and ride, plus $100 monthly transit pass, so the site is not actually actually lying. That was easy to miss so don't feel too bad about it, but maybe go easy on the "easy to spot lie" and "doesn't understand" lines.

That the georgia commute options people even thought it was typical or usual to drive 5 miles to a parking lot before getting on the bus is in line with my feeling that transit is broken here.

Walter S 05-28-16 03:39 PM


Originally Posted by wphamilton (Post 18803624)
The fine print at the bottom says that it's based on a 10-mile round trip to the park and ride, plus $100 monthly transit pass, so the site is not actually actually lying. That was easy to miss so don't feel too bad about it, but maybe go easy on the "easy to spot lie" and "doesn't understand" lines.

That the georgia commute options people even thought it was typical or usual to drive 5 miles to a parking lot before getting on the bus is in line with my feeling that transit is broken here.

Inside Atlanta it works pretty good. Outside the perimeter less so. IMO that's mostly the outlying counties shooting themselves in the foot with racial fears that mass transit to the suburbs invites negros to come visit.

I often commute on Marta. That includes catching a bus about 1/4 mile from my home in Decatur, transferring to the train downtown, ride to Sandy Springs, then walk less than 1/2 mile to the office. I very rarely experience more than a few minutes delay. Things run pretty much on schedule.

Dahon.Steve 05-30-16 10:46 AM


Originally Posted by wphamilton (Post 18803624)
The fine print at the bottom says that it's based on a 10-mile round trip to the park and ride, plus $100 monthly transit pass, so the site is not actually actually lying. That was easy to miss so don't feel too bad about it, but maybe go easy on the "easy to spot lie" and "doesn't understand" lines.

That the georgia commute options people even thought it was typical or usual to drive 5 miles to a parking lot before getting on the bus is in line with my feeling that transit is broken here.

OH! I didn't see that.

You're right then, my apology!

I do know of people who are spending $2,800 hundred dollars (or more) a year in commuter rail or express coach service. However, the are traveling 50 miles or more from the city and thus have a very expensive commute.

I also changed my post.

tandempower 05-30-16 02:34 PM


Originally Posted by Dahon.Steve (Post 18803104)
I don't want to see transit become a system of beat up buses that are falling apart. I remember back in the 1970's riding buses with no wheel chair lifts or air conditioning. The fare box increased by 800% since 1975 in my neighborhood but the fleet of buses are much better.

It would be a good idea to increase the frequency of buses by running some cheaper buses without air-conditioning and wheel chair lifts. Passengers who want those amenities could wait a bit longer for premium buses every half hour or every hour. Maybe some of the cheaper buses could also have wheelchair lifts for disabled passengers who don't mind sacrificing a little comfort to get a ride sooner.

It would be good to have streetcar-like buses that are open-air and go slow enough for people to hop on and off without the vehicle stopping completely. That would save a lot on brakes, tires, shocks, fuel, etc. We have given up the benefits of efficiency in favor of mandating luxuries that drive up costs to stimulate economic growth. Then people who want to cut taxes decimate programs because they cost too much.

Walter S 06-02-16 01:47 PM


Originally Posted by tandempower (Post 18808250)
It would be good to have streetcar-like buses that are open-air and go slow enough for people to hop on and off without the vehicle stopping completely. That would save a lot on brakes, tires, shocks, fuel, etc. We have given up the benefits of efficiency in favor of mandating luxuries that drive up costs to stimulate economic growth. Then people who want to cut taxes decimate programs because they cost too much.

Lawyers will love that! Poor aunt Edna slips and stumbles and her face gets mutilated as the bus (slowly) runs over her.

Dahon.Steve 06-03-16 04:51 AM


Originally Posted by tandempower (Post 18808250)
It would be a good idea to increase the frequency of buses by running some cheaper buses without air-conditioning and wheel chair lifts. Passengers who want those amenities could wait a bit longer for premium buses every half hour or every hour. Maybe some of the cheaper buses could also have wheelchair lifts for disabled passengers who don't mind sacrificing a little comfort to get a ride sooner.

It would be good to have streetcar-like buses that are open-air and go slow enough for people to hop on and off without the vehicle stopping completely. That would save a lot on brakes, tires, shocks, fuel, etc. We have given up the benefits of efficiency in favor of mandating luxuries that drive up costs to stimulate economic growth. Then people who want to cut taxes decimate programs because they cost too much.

You have a point.

However, I believe the wheel chair lifts are federal law and I don't think you can buy a full size bus anymore without the lifts. The air conditioner is also a law and there are no buses made anymore without them.

I don't think they are driving the cost anymore since a city bus will cost over 600K brand new. The insurance on a city bus line is close to 1 million dollars!


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:10 AM.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.