Re: You Can Scoff at Bises. but Northeast Corridor Has More Than 10 Lines
Scott M. Kozel
It's heresy to promote buses on a railroad newsgroup ...
"Sancho Panza" <otterpo...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Back on the Bus
> We Got on Board, Too, To See What's Driving the Boom
>
> By Andrea Sachs
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Sunday, August 30, 2009
>
> There is a new generation of bus riders traveling between Washington and New
> York, and these are some of their faces: an FBI lawyer, a Northwestern
> University undergraduate, a Brooklyn uncle, a government consultant, a
> preschool teacher from California and a London lad working at a summer camp
> in New Jersey. You can also see my visage pressed against the large tinted
> window, and I'm sure I've seen yours, too. We are a tribe, and we're
> growing.
>
> The bus is making a comeback. That once maligned mode of transportation --
> search terms: Greyhound, runaways; Chinatown, fire -- is becoming the au
> courant form of travel along the Northeast corridor. All the early adopters
> are taking it. But so, too, are people on budgets, Washingtonians who loathe
> the 233-mile drive to the Big Apple and bons vivants with an itch to head
> for New York at midnight to catch the after-hours parties.
>
> The appeal is prodigious. The buses are cheap, convenient, well kitted-out
> and eco-approved. They are relatively hassle-free, especially because
> someone else is stuck navigating traffic. Baggage rules are more lax than on
> other forms of transportation, and there are no sneaky taxes or rules
> against carrying liquids, unless they have alcohol content. In addition,
> your pals, relatives and co-workers are hopping aboard. Do you really want
> to be left at the curb?
>
> "I take it all the time. All my friends do, too," said Alan Henderson, a
> Howard University student who was waiting in line recently to board a
> Megabus in New York.
>
> Between 2005 and 2007, according to the American Bus Association, nationwide
> ridership surged by 20 percent, increasing from 631 million passenger trips
> to 751 million. "We move about the same numbers as domestic [air] carriers
> each year," said ABA spokesman Eron Shosteck, a bus rider himself, "and more
> people in two weeks than Amtrak does all year."
>
> As Shosteck put it, "This is Transportation 2.0."
>
> On a more local level, new bus lines are popping up like wildflowers on a
> median strip: DC2NY (inaugurated July 2007), BoltBus and Megabus (spring
> 2008), Tripper Bus (February), Hola (July). The motor coaches form a dotted
> line from Dupont Circle to 15th and K streets, over to the parking lot at H
> and Ninth streets, and south to Sixth and I streets in Chinatown. You can
> also trace the perimeter of Penn Station in New York and run out of fingers
> and toes counting the buses.
>
> Despite outward appearances -- it's a bus, after all, with doors, windows,
> wheels, etc. -- no two are identical. They vary in amenities, service and
> style, pickup/drop-off locations and sometimes cost. Even on short-haul
> journeys, those distinctions matter.
>
> To shake out the good from the bad, the comfortable from the dismal, I
> dedicated a month of my life to riding the buses to New York, boarding
> nearly a dozen to figure out what makes these vehicles go 'round and
> 'round -- or flat.
>
> * * *
>
> It was hard to nail down an exact count of bus lines. I initially found 10,
> but then an 11th (Hola) popped up, and then a 12th (MVP). Part of the
> confusion stems from the fact that some of the major lines oversee several
> brands (Greyhound co-owns Bolt with Peter Pan, for instance, and Megabus is
> a subsidiary of Coach USA); forge partnerships (Greyhound and Peter Pan); or
> go by multiple aliases (Chinatown buses). It was so easy back in my
> grandmother's day: skinny racing dog, infantile boy who can fly or
> Trailways.
>
> Of the riders I met during my busathon -- and they were of all ages,
> professions and financial standings -- many said that the main factors they
> weighed in deciding which bus to take were price, location and times.
>
> "I had five choices just for today," said Jonathan Kaspari, a 24-year-old
> transplant from Minneapolis who works at a Washington consulting firm. "For
> price and schedule, this was the right bus for me." That bus was Washington
> Deluxe. Cost: $21 one way. Pickup in Dupont Circle and on 15th Street NW at
> the corner of K Street.
>
> "When I went on the Internet, there were a ton of Chinatown buses," Julie
> Fishman, a 30-year-old West Coast teacher visiting East Coast friends and
> family, told me as we cruised along one Monday afternoon in a half-empty
> Hola bus. "I don't have a car, so location mattered most." Hola departs from
> Sixth and I streets in Chinatown and is one of the few buses to drop off
> near the Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York.
>
> In the other camp are travelers who profess an unshakable loyalty to a bus
> line and can't be tempted away, even by the $1 fares some lines offer,
> depending on availability. (If they do stray, they always come back.) "This
> is the bus company I started taking in 2007, and I have stuck with them ever
> since," said Chris Comis, a D.C. resident who works in the restaurant
> industry and rode DC2NY round-trip for a sandal-fitting on the Lower East
> Side. "I tried Bolt just to see what the other buses were like. See where I
> am now?" . . .
Philip Nasadowski
<03fa8a36-2bc5-4d0e...@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@comcast.net> wrote:
> It's heresy to promote buses on a railroad newsgroup ...
True, but bus travel is quickly losing its bad image around here.
My guess is we'll see the $10 chinatown buses get squished out,
ultimately, as the marginally more expensive and more 'reputable' ones
catch on.
I think one or two of them (Mega, or Bolt?) offers onboard wifi.
Something Amtrak doesn't offer (though ironically, the precussor to
cellular phone service was deployed on the NEC in the 60's), AFAIK.
Once they shake their old image, bus travel could easily become a big
headache for AMtrak, since it offers more or less car speed without
driving - and generally Amtrak doesn't, off the NEC.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> My guess is we'll see the $10 chinatown buses get squished out,
> ultimately, as the marginally more expensive and more 'reputable' ones
> catch on.
The NYT did an expose on such cheap buses and found how the cut
corners with bad maintenance, drivers working extremely long hours,
frequent breakdowns, etc. For college kids it's part of the adventure
but how long such a service will be sustainable remains to be seen.
Many NEC riders go cheap now via commuter trains.
> I think one or two of them (Mega, or Bolt?) offers onboard wifi.
> Something Amtrak doesn't offer (though ironically, the precussor to
> cellular phone service was deployed on the NEC in the 60's), AFAIK.
On-board train mobile phone service was introduced in the NEC and on
certain other main line trains in 1948. In 1969 a cellular style
service was introduced on the new Metroliner which allowed automatic
handoffs and direct dialing which at the time was an innovation. A
Bell Labs writeup of the technology is somewhere on the web.
Going back to the 1920s trains had phones that were plugged in while
at major stations so passengers could make city calls.
Most train stations had telegraph service, and on major trains the
crew would accept and deliver telegrams for passengers. Until about
1960, sending a telegram was cheaper than long distance telephone; and
sometimes faster, too.
After 1960 technology improved so that voice toll rates could drop and
WU wanted out of the single message business and into data comm, fax,
and private wire.
> Once they shake their old image, bus travel could easily become a big
> headache for AMtrak, since it offers more or less car speed without
> driving - and generally Amtrak doesn't, off the NEC.
You forget that Amtrak _already is_ a major bus operator. Amtrak
extensively utilizes dedicated buses as feeders to its trains
throughout the nation. It also offers connections with many non
dedicated bus routes, too.
Intercity buses and bus stations still have a long way to go to "shake
their old image". A good deal of bus service has been cut back as bus
carriers have done very poorly. Most passengers want the comfort of a
train. Further, in many areas, even rural ones, traffic is a mess and
the bus crawls along with everyone else.
gl4...@yahoo.com
<ee758389-bcd9-45bb...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Sep 14, 9:58=A0pm, Philip Nasadowski <nasado...@usermale.com> wrote:
>
> > My guess is we'll see the $10 chinatown buses get squished out,
> > ultimately, as the marginally more expensive and more 'reputable' ones
> > catch on.
> Intercity buses and bus stations still have a long way to go to "shake
> their old image". A good deal of bus service has been cut back as bus
> carriers have done very poorly. Most passengers want the comfort of a
> train. Further, in many areas, even rural ones, traffic is a mess and
> the bus crawls along with everyone else.
I'm going to fall halfway between you two.
Even with this "competition" it is a good thing. It means that some
people that might have thought about flying or driving are thinking about
ground transportation, and are at least willing to try something other
than driving.
As far as "most passengers want the comfort of a train" the problem is
that people have one bad experience with one particular mode, and many of
them will not be back. With airlines or buses they will change carriers,
but Amtrak is only one carrier.
--
-Glennl
Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam, and most e-mail sent to this address are simply lost in the vast mess.
Merritt Mullen
gl4...@yahoo.com (gl4...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> As far as "most passengers want the comfort of a train" the problem is
> that people have one bad experience with one particular mode, and many of
> them will not be back. With airlines or buses they will change carriers,
> but Amtrak is only one carrier.
In most parts of the country, Greyhound is the only intercity bus
carrier. Sometimes there may be a different company, but even then
there is often only one service on a particular route.
Merritt
George Conklin
"Philip Nasadowski" <nasa...@usermale.com> wrote in message
news:nasadowsk-10FB5...@news.optonline.net...
Buses use far less energy per passenger mile than passenger trains do. So
they are much better for the environment.
George Conklin
"Merritt Mullen" <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:mmullen8014-3D72...@netnews.asp.att.net...
Kind of like Amtrak's monopoly, right? I do not think Amtrak's commuter
cars are more comfortable than a modern long-distance bus. Commuter cars
are what Amtrak runs on long-distance trains through NC. Somehow an 11-hour
trip is longer than a commuter car was designed for. Only business class
(extra fare) gets the standard long-distance coach, and then all the cars
show tons of wear.
Clark F Morris
Last month I rode a standard Bombardier regional coach and a chartered
Van Hool long distance bus on my trip from Jackson, Mi to Chicago
(someone decided to commit suicide by train outside of Kalamazoo). I
guarantee you that the standard Amfleet/Bombardier 20+ year old
coaches have more leg room, seat room and ride comfort than the fairly
nice and decent riding bus. It at least had somewhat decent leg room
so that my knees weren't knocked and the windows were better than the
coaches on the train. I doubt the washroom was nicer based on the
equally new Prevost buses that serve Bridgetown, NS.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I do not think Amtrak's commuter
> cars are more comfortable than a modern long-distance bus. Commuter cars
> are what Amtrak runs on long-distance trains through NC.
FALSE TO FACT:
Amtrak does not normally use "commuter cars" in its regular trains.
> Only business class
> (extra fare) gets the standard long-distance coach, and then all the cars
> show tons of wear.
FALSE TO FACT:
Amtrak's "long distance" Amfleet II cars, which have wider seat
spacing and leg rests, are _normal_ fare, not extra fare. Amtrak's
regular coaches, Amfleet I and Horizon have wide comfortable seats,
bigger than a commuter train and certainly bigger than a bus or plane
seat.
Stephen Furley
On 16/9/09 12:54, in article v7CdnZxZ_-ZdTy3X...@earthlink.com,
"George Conklin" <n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Buses use far less energy per passenger mile than passenger trains do. So
> they are much better for the environment.
What sort of buses? What sort of passenger trains? How long? How heavily
loaded? Using what sort of motive power? If you compare a long, heavy
passenger train with a bus, each carrying just a few passengers then I'm
sure you would be correct. The same number of passengers on a short,
lightweight train would give quite different figures, as would a long train
fully loaded, compared with the number of buses which would be needed to
transport the same number of passengers.
No single means of transport is the best answer to every situation, and you
can truthfully claim just about anything if your claims are as vague as
"Buses use far less energy per passenger mile than passenger trains do."
Next week I will be travelling from London to Bradford; a distance of about
330 km. I will be going by coach (long distance bus) and the journey takes
almost exactly five hours if the coach isn't delayed. During this journey
the coach stops twice to pick up and set down passengers, once about an hour
after leaving London, and the other about half an hour before arriving at
Bradford. It also stops very briefly about half way to change drivers.
There's no opportunity for passengers to get off and stretch their legs at
any of these stops, and a five hour continuous journey is about as long as I
can take; I have problems with my legs. By train the journey would take
about three hours, including having to change to a local train for the last
few km to Bradford, and I could stand up and walk along the train any time I
wanted. The main reason that I choose to go by coach is that it's much
cheaper. If the cost was the same I would probably go by train. While I am
in Yorkshire I will travel mainly by local train, because the fares are low,
but I do want to take a look at the short guided bus system in Bradford
while I am there.
Of course, a bus can get you to many places that a train can't. Neither
buses nor trains would be much use if I was going to New York; for that I
wouldn't have much choice than to fly, surely the most unpleasant way to
travel; I would have neither the time nor the money to go by sea. If I was
going to the supermarket, only about 3 km from home, then I wouldn't use the
bus or the train, I would walk. Choose the most appropriate mode for the
journey.
Larry Sheldon
>
>
> On 16/9/09 12:54, in article v7CdnZxZ_-ZdTy3X...@earthlink.com,
> "George Conklin" <n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Buses use far less energy per passenger mile than passenger trains do. So
>> they are much better for the environment.
>
> What sort of buses?
[Bagged and tagged.]
Has somebody got this on a cronjob someplace.
As a VP of a large organization used to say in running a large
contentious board would say:
Does anybody have anything new to contribute to this discussion?
Stephen Furley
On 15/9/09 02:37, in article
03fa8a36-2bc5-4d0e...@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com, "Scott M.
Kozel" <koz...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> It's heresy to promote buses on a railroad newsgroup ...
No it's not. On uk.railway recently somebody was asking for the best way to
get between two places by train. There is no sensible way to get between
these to places by train, one of them isn't served by a railway, and the
railway line which would have covered most of the route closed in 1968. To
do the journey today you'd have to start by bus or cab, and then take
several trains, going far off the direct route. The sensible advice to
give, on a rail group, in this case is to go by road.
In any case, a rail newsgroup is a forum for discussing railways; it's not
restricted to pro-rail views.
George Conklin
"Stephen Furley" <aoo...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:C6D71230.3E143%aoo...@dsl.pipex.com...
Further, the rail group is NOT a "passenger" rail group. RRs are most
efficient hauling heavy loads, not light loads like people. They actually
make money doing that, since freight pays for the cost of transportation,
unlike USA-style passengers, who demand and get (for most routes) a huge
subsidy.
George Conklin
>
>
>
> On 16/9/09 12:54, in article
v7CdnZxZ_-ZdTy3X...@earthlink.com,
> "George Conklin" <n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Buses use far less energy per passenger mile than passenger trains do.
So
> > they are much better for the environment.
>
> What sort of buses? What sort of passenger trains? How long? How heavily
> loaded? Using what sort of motive power?
Btu's per passenger mile.
George Conklin
<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:4a7cb37f-194f-4986...@z28g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
FALSE TO FACT:
FALSE TO FACT:
---
Sorry Charlie, but you once again don't know what you are talking about.
That 11-hour run I just mentioned uses commuter cars, and that is all she
wrote. There is ONE regular long-distance car on the run, and it is
extra-fare.
James Robinson
>
> "Merritt Mullen" <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>
>> In most parts of the country, Greyhound is the only intercity bus
>> carrier. Sometimes there may be a different company, but even then
>> there is often only one service on a particular route.
>
> commuter cars are more comfortable than a modern long-distance bus.
Amtrak doesn't have "commuter" cars, since they aren't allowed to run
commuter services, except under contract. They do have short distance
cars with more seats per car, but even they have more hip and leg room
than a "modern" long distance bus. Amtrak's long distance cars have even
more legroom.
> Commuter cars are what Amtrak runs on long-distance trains through NC.
Again, Amtrak doesn't own any commuter cars.
Long distance trains like the Crescent, Silver Star, Silver Meteor and
Palmetto all run through North Carolina, and they all use long distance
coaches as their normal stock. The Piedmont uses equipment owned by the
state, and the seat pitch in those cars is the equivalent of that found
on Amtrak's other long distance services.
So we are left with one train out of six, the Carolinian, which uses
short distance equipment for coaches. Not commuter equipment.
> Somehow an 11-hour trip is longer than a commuter car was designed
> for. Only business class (extra fare) gets the standard long-distance
> coach, and then all the cars show tons of wear.
The Carolinian tends to get second tier equipment. It is not the norm for
Amtrak services across the country, and isn't even the norm for service
in North Carolina.
George Conklin
"James Robinson" <was...@212.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C8971614C0...@94.75.244.46...
> "George Conklin" <n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > "Merritt Mullen" <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> In most parts of the country, Greyhound is the only intercity bus
> >> carrier. Sometimes there may be a different company, but even then
> >> there is often only one service on a particular route.
> >
> > Kind of like Amtrak's monopoly, right? I do not think Amtrak's
> > commuter cars are more comfortable than a modern long-distance bus.
>
> Amtrak doesn't have "commuter" cars, since they aren't allowed to run
> commuter services, except under contract. They do have short distance
> cars with more seats per car,
Oh dear. Our press calls the commuter cars. What about cattle cars, which
is what they are also called?
Clark F Morris
If you mean the standard Amfleet I and Bombardier regional service
cars that were derived from the NJT Comet cars, they definitely are
not commuter cars. Seat spacing is at least 38 inches back to back
and the seats recline. Most commuter cars have non-reclining seats,
32 inch spacing back to back and in the North-east 3-2 seating. The
Amtrak cars seat 68 - 72 people depending on configuration. Single
deck commuter cars seat 100 - 125 depending on configuration. Commuter
cars have at most one washroom per car (and many none). The Amtrak
cars have a regular washroom and a handicapped accessible washroom.
The cars you refer to have wider seats spaced further apart than
either standard highway bus or air coach (both 32 inches and 17 - 18
inches wide). If you don't believe me measure the seats the next time
you are on a bus or plane and then on the Amtrak cars. I have ridden
the standard NE corridor/regional coaches for 8 - 10 hours in a day
and taken JAL for 10 hours, San Francisco - Tokyo. Amtrak regional
and corridor would have been more comfortable since it was equivalent
to airline business class in seat spacing.
Clark F Morris
I suggest that they take a bus or plane to Washington, take MARC to
Baltimore and then take the Carolinan back to North Carolina. As part
of the trip they should measure the size of the restrooms on each
vehicle and the number of them as well as the width of the seats and
the space from the back of one seat to the back of the next. They
will be enlightened.
Adam H. Kerman
What's wrong with these cars, reduced leg room?
George Conklin
"Clark F Morris" <cfmp...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:baa5b59h9v7k1n5t1...@4ax.com...
Those cars are quite uncomfortable compared the standard long-distance
coaches available as "business class" at extra fare. The trains have only
one such coach. The others are called commuter coaches in the press.
George Conklin
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:09:23 -0400, "George Conklin"
> <n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"James Robinson" <was...@212.com> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9C8971614C0...@94.75.244.46...
> >> "George Conklin" <n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Merritt Mullen" <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In most parts of the country, Greyhound is the only intercity bus
> >> >> carrier. Sometimes there may be a different company, but even then
> >> >> there is often only one service on a particular route.
> >> >
> >> > Kind of like Amtrak's monopoly, right? I do not think Amtrak's
> >> > commuter cars are more comfortable than a modern long-distance bus.
> >>
> >> Amtrak doesn't have "commuter" cars, since they aren't allowed to run
> >> commuter services, except under contract. They do have short distance
> >> cars with more seats per car,
> >
> > Oh dear. Our press calls the commuter cars. What about cattle cars,
which
> >is what they are also called?
> >
> I suggest that they take a bus or plane to Washington, take MARC to
> Baltimore and then take the Carolinan back to North Carolina. As part
> of the trip they should measure the size of the restrooms
I don't spend much time riding between cities in the toilet.
George Conklin
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote in message
news:h8ud28$gvt$4...@news.albasani.net...
Not the norm? You mean every day for years and years is not the norm? Of
course it is. You have to pay extra for standard long-distance seating.
James Robinson
Amfleet I cars were intended for shorter distance runs, and therefore
have two vestibules and 84 seats.
Amfleet II cars were intended for long distance trains. They have only
one vestibule, so they have a bit more interior room, and 60 seats.
The end result is a seat pitch of about 37 inches for the short distance
cars, and 60 inches for the long distance cars.
Compare that to coach on a typical airline with 31 inch pitch, and a long
distance bus with about 34 inches.
The Carolinian is unique in that it is a longer distance train, that has
predominantly shorter distance cars. The Business Class car is typically
an Amfleet II car.
Merritt Mullen
"George Conklin" <n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Sorry Charlie, but you once again don't know what you are talking about.
> That 11-hour run I just mentioned uses commuter cars, and that is all she
> wrote. There is ONE regular long-distance car on the run, and it is
> extra-fare.
That train has what NC is willing to pay Amtrak to provide. They are
NOT commuter cars, regardless of what the press may call them (the press
in LA calls light rail vehicles (ie, trolleys) "commuter trains", that
does not make them such).
A typical commuter train has 3x2 or perhaps 3x3 seating, often on two
levels, and often without toilets. The cars used by the Carolinian (one
of several trains in NC) are short-distance intercity cars. Everyone
agrees that such coaches are not appropriate for the distance the
Carolinian travels, but if it wasn't for NC paying Amtrak, the train
would not run at all.
So ante up if you want better equipment. In California, we OWN the
equipment that Amtrak operates within the state, and it is very nice and
comfortable, although not in the same class as Amtrak's long-distance
equipment. Perhaps NC should buy some California cars and locomotives
for their train.
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
"George Conklin" <n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Those cars are quite uncomfortable compared the standard long-distance
> coaches available as "business class" at extra fare. The trains have only
> one such coach. The others are called commuter coaches in the press.
Which simply says that NC's state rail passenger service is not up to
Amtrak's standards. Apparently, the state feels it is good enough for
Carolinians.
Merritt
George Conklin
It is 100% Amtrak equipment.
Adam H. Kerman
Thanks for looking up the information about seat pitches.
Jishnu Mukerji
>
> Perhaps NC should buy some California cars and locomotives
> for their train.
California cars will not work on the Carolinian which runs on the NEC to
New York. Won't fit through the tunnels.
Jishnu.
Jishnu Mukerji
> It is 100% Amtrak equipment.
The Carolinian is, but the Piedmont(s) aren't. They use state of NC
equipment.
Jishnu.
Larry Sheldon
If the need for rail passenger service is so great, why does the state
have to pay for it?
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information:
http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
Clark F Morris
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
Amfleet I was 38 inches and Warrington rebuilds may have increased
that to 41 inches, either of which would be considered quite adequate
in Europe for 6 - 12 hour trips. Amfleet II and superliners are
probably 50 inches not 60. The original California Zephyr and other
Burlington, Great Northern, and Northern Pacific overnight coaches had
47 inch spacing in their overnight coaches. I believe that 47 inches
was the ex-Canadian Pacific seat spacing for the Canadian and
Dominion.
Stephen Sprunk
> Merritt Mullen wrote:
>> Which simply says that NC's state rail passenger service is not up to
>> Amtrak's standards. Apparently, the state feels it is good enough for
>> Carolinians.
>
> If the need for rail passenger service is so great, why does the state
> have to pay for it?
"Need" alone does not guarantee that the service will be
self-sufficient, even operationally. That's a big part of what the
government does: fund services that the electorate feels are "needed"
despite being unprofitable; if they were profitable, the private sector
would already be providing those services.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Isaac Jaffe
James Robinson
>
> Merritt Mullen wrote:
>>
>> "George Conklin" <n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Those cars are quite uncomfortable compared the standard
>>> long-distance coaches available as "business class" at extra fare.
>>> The trains have only one such coach. The others are called commuter
>>> coaches in the press.
>>
>> Which simply says that NC's state rail passenger service is not up to
>> Amtrak's standards. Apparently, the state feels it is good enough
>> for Carolinians.
>
> If the need for rail passenger service is so great, why does the state
> have to pay for it?
The same question could be asked of airlines, coastal and inland waterways
and of highways, all of which are subsidized.
The answer is that governments feel they get increased economic activity by
supporting the various modes of transportation.
Stephen Sprunk
Can you not read what you quoted above? This is not the "norm" for
Amtrak, just the equipment used on one particular state-supported
service. Better equipment would cost more money, and apparently NC
isn't willing to fund that.
Stephen Sprunk
Most journalists are ignorant, which can be easily seen in their
articles about nearly any topic. Calling a long-distance coach a
"commuter car" or "cattle car" does not make it truth; calling an
airliner a "cattle car" or "flying sardine can" does not make those true
either.
A rose by any other name is still a rose.
Stephen Sprunk
Who owns (or leases) it and who pays for it are entirely different
matters. Follow the money.
Adam H. Kerman
. . . and many times when the benefits aren't expected to outweigh the
costs, but because they are appeasing a local constituency.
Miles Bader
>>> Which simply says that NC's state rail passenger service is not up to
>>> Amtrak's standards. Apparently, the state feels it is good enough for
>>> Carolinians.
>>
>> If the need for rail passenger service is so great, why does the state
>> have to pay for it?
>
> "Need" alone does not guarantee that the service will be
> self-sufficient, even operationally. That's a big part of what the
> government does: fund services that the electorate feels are "needed"
> despite being unprofitable; if they were profitable, the private sector
> would already be providing those services.
Another thing they do is try to find things that are beneficial for the
future, but which may not be profitable right now, and need time to
develop into something more sustainable.
In most cases the best thing is a good mixture of transportation types,
but the bulk of the U.S. has been forced into one mode (POVs), partly
because of massive government subsidies for things like the highway
system -- so it really makes quite a bit of sense for the government to
realize this and try to be a bit more thoughtful in their future
investments.
-Miles
--
A zen-buddhist walked into a pizza shop and
said, "Make me one with everything."
gl4...@yahoo.com
> Merritt Mullen wrote:
> > In article <6JKdnYHxSOPGVy_X...@earthlink.com>,
> > "George Conklin" <n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Those cars are quite uncomfortable compared the standard long-distance
> >> coaches available as "business class" at extra fare. The trains have only
> >> one such coach. The others are called commuter coaches in the press.
> >
> > Which simply says that NC's state rail passenger service is not up to
> > Amtrak's standards. Apparently, the state feels it is good enough for
> > Carolinians.
>
> If the need for rail passenger service is so great, why does the state
> have to pay for it?
Last I checked, the subsidy rate for roads (highways plus local roads) was
somewhere around 40%. That is, the taxes levied on drivers and their
vehicles only cover 60% of their costs.
Amtrak depends on the year, but there have been years that they were as
high as 80%.
Apparently, we need Amtrak more than roads, if we are measuring things by
the rate of subsidy.
Of course, then there's all the grain and soybean subsidies. Obviously,
using this same logic, people don't need to eat, because if they did need
to eat we wouldn't subsidize food prices.
--
-Glennl
Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam, and most e-mail sent to this address are simply lost in the vast mess.
gl4...@yahoo.com
Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> So ante up if you want better equipment. In California, we OWN the
> equipment that Amtrak operates within the state, and it is very nice and
> comfortable, although not in the same class as Amtrak's long-distance
> equipment. Perhaps NC should buy some California cars and locomotives
> for their train.
The State of Wisconsin is buying two Talgo trains. The ones we have in
the northwest are fairly nice. For example, all seats have 120 volt
outlets for computers, portable DVD players, or I suppose even waffle
irons if you wanted. Just tack on an order for some more Talgo trains
once the production gets going again. Those tilt, so you might be able to
run them faster than some of the conventional equipment, in the right
spots.
george conklin
"Miles Bader" <mi...@gnu.org> wrote in message
news:871vm31...@catnip.gol.com...
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> writes:
>>>> Which simply says that NC's state rail passenger service is not up to
>>>> Amtrak's standards. Apparently, the state feels it is good enough for
>>>> Carolinians.
>>>
>>> If the need for rail passenger service is so great, why does the state
>>> have to pay for it?
>>
>> "Need" alone does not guarantee that the service will be
>> self-sufficient, even operationally. That's a big part of what the
>> government does: fund services that the electorate feels are "needed"
>> despite being unprofitable; if they were profitable, the private sector
>> would already be providing those services.
>
> Another thing they do is try to find things that are beneficial for the
> future, but which may not be profitable right now, and need time to
> develop into something more sustainable.
>
Moving people from buses to trains increases global warming, which, I
suspect you are going to deny, is LESS sustainable.
James Robinson
Moving from buses and trains to planes increases global warming. Let's
ground all aircraft.
george conklin
Trains, cars and air are quite close in overall efficiency, but trains
are the lowest of the three by a little. But real savings come from the
long-distance buses, even while transit buses hardly or do not beat cars.
Bolwerk
> Trains, cars and air are quite close in overall efficiency, but trains
> are the lowest of the three by a little.
Saying something you know to be false is called lying.
Energy intensities (Btu per
passenger-mile, 2007)
Cars 3,514.0
Personal trucks(a) 3,946.0
Motorcycles 1,853.0
Buses b
Transit 4,315
Intercity(d) b
Air b
Certificated route(e) 3,103
General aviation b
Rail 2,586
Intercity (Amtrak) 2,516
Transit (light & heavy) 2,577
Commuter 2,638
(a) Includes passenger cars, vans, and small buses operating in
response to calls from passengers to the transit operator who
dispatches the vehicles.
(b) Data are not available.
(c) Energy use is estimated.
(d) Only domestic service and domestic energy use are shown on
this table. (Previous editions included half of international
energy.) These energy intensities may be inflated because all
energy use is attributed to passengers�cargo energy use is not
taken into account.
(Partial table "Passenger Travel and Energy Use, 2007" at
http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb28/Spreadsheets/Table2_12.xls or see
http://cta.ornl.gov/data/chapter2.shtml)
> But real savings come from the
> long-distance buses, even while transit buses hardly or do not beat cars.
Even if that ad hoc scenario is true, I don't see the use of the
proposition. Do you think LD buses can replace local transit or something?
Larry Sheldon
> george conklin wrote:
>> Trains, cars and air are quite close in overall efficiency, but
>> trains are the lowest of the three by a little.
>
> Saying something you know to be false is called lying.
Old news.
Why are you feeding the troll?
Bolwerk
I prefer to see FUD answered, or it spreads.
Larry Sheldon
By people that quote it at length.
I'll do my part--I filter, off people that insist on quoting it.
george conklin
"Larry Sheldon" <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7hl1onF...@mid.individual.net...
> Bolwerk wrote:
>> Larry Sheldon wrote:
>>> Bolwerk wrote:
>>>> george conklin wrote:
>>>>> Trains, cars and air are quite close in overall efficiency, but
>>>>> trains are the lowest of the three by a little.
>>>>
>>>> Saying something you know to be false is called lying.
>>>
>>> Old news.
>>>
>>> Why are you feeding the troll?
>>
>> I prefer to see FUD answered, or it spreads.
>
> By people that quote it at length.
>
> I'll do my part--I filter, off people that insist on quoting it.
TABLE 1. Fuel Intensity of Competing Modes of Intercity Passenger
Transportation
(in ascending order of Btu consumption per passenger-mile)
Mode of Transportation Btu per Passenger-Mile Btu per Pass.-Mile
Compared to Amtrak
Intercity buses 953 36 %
Autos, trips over 75 miles 2,625 99
Amtrak 2,646 100
Autos, all trips, including local 3,593 136
Air, certificated route, domestic 4,482 169
Air, general aviation 8,582 324
george conklin
"Bolwerk" <bol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1KydnVBqraRm1yjX...@earthlink.com...
> george conklin wrote:
>> Trains, cars and air are quite close in overall efficiency, but
>> trains are the lowest of the three by a little.
>
TABLE 1. Fuel Intensity of Competing Modes of Intercity Passenger
rsh...@gmail.com
> On Sep 14, 9:58 pm, Philip Nasadowski <nasado...@usermale.com> wrote:
>
> > My guess is we'll see the $10 chinatown buses get squished out,
> > ultimately, as the marginally more expensive and more 'reputable' ones
> > catch on.
>
> The NYT did an expose on such cheap buses and found how the cut
> corners with bad maintenance, drivers working extremely long hours,
> frequent breakdowns, etc. For college kids it's part of the adventure
> but how long such a service will be sustainable remains to be seen.
> Many NEC riders go cheap now via commuter trains.
>
> > I think one or two of them (Mega, or Bolt?) offers onboard wifi.
> > Something Amtrak doesn't offer (though ironically, the precussor to
> > cellular phone service was deployed on the NEC in the 60's), AFAIK.
>
> On-board train mobile phone service was introduced in the NEC and on
> certain other main line trains in 1948. In 1969 a cellular style
> service was introduced on the new Metroliner which allowed automatic
> handoffs and direct dialing which at the time was an innovation. A
> Bell Labs writeup of the technology is somewhere on the web.
>
> Going back to the 1920s trains had phones that were plugged in while
> at major stations so passengers could make city calls.
>
> Most train stations had telegraph service, and on major trains the
> crew would accept and deliver telegrams for passengers. Until about
> 1960, sending a telegram was cheaper than long distance telephone; and
> sometimes faster, too.
> After 1960 technology improved so that voice toll rates could drop and
> WU wanted out of the single message business and into data comm, fax,
> and private wire.
>
> > Once they shake their old image, bus travel could easily become a big
> > headache for AMtrak, since it offers more or less car speed without
> > driving - and generally Amtrak doesn't, off the NEC.
>
> You forget that Amtrak _already is_ a major bus operator. Amtrak
> extensively utilizes dedicated buses as feeders to its trains
> throughout the nation. It also offers connections with many non
> dedicated bus routes, too.
>
> Intercity buses and bus stations still have a long way to go to "shake
> their old image". A good deal of bus service has been cut back as bus
> carriers have done very poorly. Most passengers want the comfort of a
> train. Further, in many areas, even rural ones, traffic is a mess and
> the bus crawls along with everyone else.
Sorry to say, the market in the NEC is so very huge it distorts
everything.
the only place in the US where intercity bus transportation is
increasing is the NEC.
Otherwise it is dead.
I would have to believe this:
"We move about the same numbers as domestic [air] carriers
each year," said ABA spokesman Eron Shosteck, a bus rider himself,
"and more
people in two weeks than Amtrak does all year
is heavily distorted by charter and tours which is booming.
But as I said intercity bus transportation in the US outside of the
NEC is dead
One for instance, Cumberland, MD has NO Greyhound service. The only
intercity transportation is provided within Allegheny County by the
public transit system.
James Robinson
>
> "Bolwerk" <bol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> george conklin wrote:
>>>
>>> Trains, cars and air are quite close in overall efficiency, but
>>> trains are the lowest of the three by a little.
>
> TABLE 1. Fuel Intensity of Competing Modes of Intercity Passenger
> Transportation
> (in ascending order of Btu consumption per passenger-mile)
>
> Mode of Transportation Btu per Passenger-Mile Btu per
> Pass.-Mile Compared to Amtrak
> Intercity buses 953 36 %
> Autos, trips over 75 miles 2,625 99
> Amtrak 2,646 100
> Autos, all trips, including local 3,593 136
> Air, certificated route, domestic 4,482 169
> Air, general aviation 8,582 324
That data is over 15 years old, and the "trips over 75 mile" figure
leaves out small trucks and SUVs, both of which use much more energy.
People who drive suburbans to rural cabins use far more energy than the
average, significanly driving up the average number.
Further, the auto number is very sensitive to average vehicle occupancy.
They assumed 2.2 people per auto in that study, so if anyone thinks they
can get that kind of energy intensity when they drive alone, they would
be mistaken.
Most travelers on Amtrak tend to be by themselves, so they would be
saving significant energy riding Amtrak over driving alone, particularly
if the vehicle was a Chevy Suburban. And of course, every additional
passenger on the train would reduce consumption on the margin, since the
train is running anyway, and the passenger could be carried for virtually
no extra energy expenditure.
James Robinson
>>>>
>>>> Another thing they do is try to find things that are beneficial for
>>>> the future, but which may not be profitable right now, and need
>>>> time to develop into something more sustainable.
>>>
>>> Moving people from buses to trains increases global warming,
>>> which, I suspect you are going to deny, is LESS sustainable.
>>
>> Moving from buses and trains to planes increases global warming.
>> Let's ground all aircraft.
>
> Trains, cars and air are quite close in overall efficiency, but trains
> are the lowest of the three by a little. But real savings come from
> the long-distance buses, even while transit buses hardly or do not
> beat cars.
Long distance buses do have good energy efficiency, but few people want
to ride them. Bicycles do even better, but seem to be rather
inconvenient for 500 mile trips.
Transit buses do far better than autos/SUVs for short journeys. Your
claim, as has been pointed out many times before, is simply wrong.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Most travelers on Amtrak tend to be by themselves, so they would be
> saving significant energy riding Amtrak over driving alone, particularly
> if the vehicle was a Chevy Suburban. And of course, every additional
> passenger on the train would reduce consumption on the margin, since the
> train is running anyway, and the passenger could be carried for virtually
> no extra energy expenditure.
Also, many motorists not driving alone are serving as a chauffeur, so
they should not be counted. For example, a parent driving their kid
to school.
Trains provide on board services, such as food, while bus passengers
have to get off to get food. For a fair comparison, the energy
consumption of roadside dining for bus passengers must be added in to
bus riders' usage.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> is heavily distorted by charter and tours which is booming.
The news seems to report many nasty accidents involving charter
buses. Are they accident prone?
The NYT reported that the "Chinatown" buses seriously cut corners on
safety regulations.
Robert Heller
Plus hotels / motels for both bus and auto passengers, since neither
provide on board sleeping (yes, a *passenger* can 'sleep' in a car or bus
seat, but neither is really equiped for that purpose).
>
>
--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software -- Download the Model Railroad System
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows
hel...@deepsoft.com -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/
rsh...@gmail.com
The classier operations, no, I don't believe so. There will always be
someone, somewhere that will cut corners for someone looking for a
lower price, esp with trnasportation deregulated
I am sure you are aware there are charter operations that have been in
business for many years, that use the best equipment, and have the
best drivers.
The chinatown busses are a niche operator taking advantage of the huge
market in the nec.
I know they have had problems with the City of Boston, finding
locations to load and unload. The city does not want pickups and drop
offs on the street, but wants all intercity buses to use the
facilities at S Station.
Of course that would involve paying rent, which the Chinatown buses do
not want to do.
Another thing, the chinatown busses are taking advantage of a
deregulated market place, as are a lot of others.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > The news seems to report many nasty accidents involving charter
> > buses. Are they accident prone?
>
> > The NYT reported that the "Chinatown" buses seriously cut corners on
> > safety regulations.
>
> The classier operations, no, I don't believe so. There will always be
> someone, somewhere that will cut corners for someone looking for a
> lower price, esp with trnasportation deregulated
>
> I am sure you are aware there are charter operations that have been in
> business for many years, that use the best equipment, and have the
> best drivers.
Just today: http://www.1010wins.com/Greyhound-Bus-Slams-Into-Tractor-Trailer-on-NJ-Tpk/5262881
Sure, there are good charter operators, but with deregulation there
are many flight-by-night operators, too.
From time to time the govt has surprise truck inspections (presumably
intercity bus, too). It is amazing how many vehicles are ordered out
of service on the spot because they are too dangerous to operate.
Then a great many more vehicles get written up for modest defects.
While railroads are extremely strict in observing hours-of-service
law, truckers allegedly falsify their official log books so they could
more than the law allows.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> locations to load and unload. The city does not want pickups and drop
> offs on the street, but wants all intercity buses to use the
> facilities at S Station.
>
> Of course that would involve paying rent, which the Chinatown buses do
> not want to do.
In the 1960s many freight railroads closed down passenger stations and
relocated boarding to ugly sheds in freight yards, back alleys, and
grade crossings. (Some of this was due to new highways taking up the
space, pushing the train station to be in an ugly grimy alley or
tunnel near the highway).
Amtrak was roundly criticized for having such dumpy station
facilities. Over the years Amtrak has improved a great many of them,
and rebuilt old station buildings still in use.
Why is it laudable for Chinatown buses to load on a mere streetcorner,
but Amtrak held to a much higher--and expensive--standard?
James Robinson
> On Sep 20, 9:36�pm, "rshe...@gmail.com" <rshe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I know they have had problems with the City of Boston, finding
>> locations to load and unload. �The city does not want pickups and drop
>> offs on the street, but wants all intercity buses to use the
>> facilities at S Station.
>>
>> Of course that would involve paying rent, which the Chinatown buses do
>> not want to do.
>
> In the 1960s many freight railroads closed down passenger stations and
> relocated boarding to ugly sheds in freight yards, back alleys, and
> grade crossings. (Some of this was due to new highways taking up the
> space, pushing the train station to be in an ugly grimy alley or
> tunnel near the highway).
>
> Amtrak was roundly criticized for having such dumpy station
> facilities. Over the years Amtrak has improved a great many of them,
> and rebuilt old station buildings still in use.
In many cases, Amtrak was the one that moved the station to a dumpy part
of town after they took over the services from the railroads. They
didn't want to pay the rentals the railroads charged for use of a station
located on prime real estate, and they didn't want to pay for the upkeep
of a building that was larger than they needed.
St. Louis is the prime example, as are Buffalo, Detroit, Kansas City and
Cleveland.
> Why is it laudable for Chinatown buses to load on a mere streetcorner,
> but Amtrak held to a much higher--and expensive--standard?
People are charged more for Amtrak service.
rsh...@gmail.com
> On Sep 20, 9:36 pm, "rshe...@gmail.com" <rshe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The news seems to report many nasty accidents involving charter
> > > buses. Are they accident prone?
>
> > > The NYT reported that the "Chinatown" buses seriously cut corners on
> > > safety regulations.
>
> > The classier operations, no, I don't believe so. There will always be
> > someone, somewhere that will cut corners for someone looking for a
> > lower price, esp with trnasportation deregulated
>
> > I am sure you are aware there are charter operations that have been in
> > business for many years, that use the best equipment, and have the
> > best drivers.
>
>
> Sure, there are good charter operators, but with deregulation there
> are many flight-by-night operators, too.
>
> From time to time the govt has surprise truck inspections (presumably
> intercity bus, too). It is amazing how many vehicles are ordered out
> of service on the spot because they are too dangerous to operate.
> Then a great many more vehicles get written up for modest defects.
>
> While railroads are extremely strict in observing hours-of-service
> law, truckers allegedly falsify their official log books so they could
> more than the law allows.
I would have to presume that has a lot to do with the rr unions as
much as anything else.
as opposed to the non union trucking and bus operations.
I don't know if you remember several years ago around Christmas there
was a flurry of bus accidents on the GS Pkwy with buses bound for AC.
Then the NJSP started inspecting the buses at their insp area about 20
miles up the pkwy from AC.
One of the problems in NJ is the NJSP are responsible for all
inspections of all commercial vehicles.
Plus everything else they have to do. If you notice the NJ weigh
stations are only open in the weekday mornings, if that.
In addition, there are no weigh stations on the Tpk, and except for
the one I just mentioned, none on the pkwy.
I like the way states like NC and FL handle it.
They have a separate motor vehicle enforcement agency. That man insp/
weigh stations.
rsh...@gmail.com
What can I tell you? Again, the market in the NEC is so huge, there
is enough people just wanting to get from say, Washington to NYC, that
they will take a bus that stops on a street corner. Just get me
there.
Another thing, I am sure you are aware, PABT is NOT the most pleasant
experience. Alot of people want to avoid that at all costs.
But again, the NEC is such a very huge market, the low cost buses
stopping on a street corner does not work anywhere else.
http://greyhound.pissedconsumer.com/
there are bunches of other sites about Greyhound. One of the biggest
source of complaints is the condition of the stations, and the lack of
them, or closing and leaving passengers to wait in the elements when a
bus is delayed.
But with cities like Cumberland, MD, having no intercity public
transportation, I think we are in the midst of a public transportation
crisis.
I have mentioned this before, as have others. I do believe the future
requires some sort of subsidized intercity transportation.
It is already happening in states like CA, MI, PA, where for profit
carriers have to have subsidized runs, or the public transit
authorities make the runs
Jimmy
> I know they have had problems with the City of Boston, finding
> locations to load and unload. The city does not want pickups and drop
> offs on the street, but wants all intercity buses to use the
> facilities at S Station.
>
> Of course that would involve paying rent, which the Chinatown buses do
> not want to do.
A problem bigger than the rent is that there are no vacant gates in
the South Station bus terminal. The established bus companies would
rather lease extra gates and have them sit empty than allow any
competition.
Things have gotten a little better since Boston first harassed the bus
companies out of Chinatown. At first, Fung Wah and Lucky Star had to
share a single gate, which was really tricky on busy days when they
run 3-4 buses per hour. Now they have 2 gates each. But there's
still no spare gates for any other startups.
Cambridge is just as bad about not letting buses stop on the street.
They shut down Vamoose's NYC-Harvard Square service about a week after
it started.
The cities are violating the law with these efforts. They have no
legal right to regulate intercity services under Massachusetts law.
Megabus found a way around this. They wanted to run double-decker
intercity buses, which are too tall to fit into South Station until a
construction project is finished. So they made a deal with the MBTA,
rather than Boston, to use the bus driveway at Back Bay Station.
Jimmy
Jimmy
> A typical commuter train has 3x2 or perhaps 3x3 seating, often on two
> levels, and often without toilets.
I've never seen any kind of train with 3x3 seating. What train are
you thinking of?
I can't imagine how that would work. 3x2 seating is already kind of
cramped in a train of standard U.S. loading gauge.
Jimmy
James Robinson
Some commuter cars had a fixed bench with three seats on one side, and a
fixed bench with two seats on the other. Attached to the shorter bench was
a simple fold-down seat with no back that could be used if the rest of the
seating was full. When the fold-down seat was down, nobody could pass
using the aisle, and the occupant would have to stand up to let them by.
Clark F Morris
<JimmyG...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>"rshe...@gmail.com" <rshe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I know they have had problems with the City of Boston, finding
>> locations to load and unload. The city does not want pickups and drop
>> offs on the street, but wants all intercity buses to use the
>> facilities at S Station.
>>
>> Of course that would involve paying rent, which the Chinatown buses do
>> not want to do.
>
>A problem bigger than the rent is that there are no vacant gates in
>the South Station bus terminal. The established bus companies would
>rather lease extra gates and have them sit empty than allow any
>competition.
>
>Things have gotten a little better since Boston first harassed the bus
>companies out of Chinatown. At first, Fung Wah and Lucky Star had to
>share a single gate, which was really tricky on busy days when they
>run 3-4 buses per hour. Now they have 2 gates each. But there's
>still no spare gates for any other startups.
>
>Cambridge is just as bad about not letting buses stop on the street.
>They shut down Vamoose's NYC-Harvard Square service about a week after
>it started.
>
>The cities are violating the law with these efforts. They have no
>legal right to regulate intercity services under Massachusetts law.
So busses have a right to park anywhere , block traffic and cause air
pollution while loading and block sidewalks with people waiting for
the bus with their luggage.
Clark F Morris
One of the Danish sets has 3 - 3 seating within their loading gauge
which may be slightly wider than North American. The cars involved
are shorter.
rsh...@gmail.com
>
> Cambridge is just as bad about not letting buses stop on the street.
> They shut down Vamoose's NYC-Harvard Square service about a week after
> it started.
>
> The cities are violating the law with these efforts. They have no
> legal right to regulate intercity services under Massachusetts law.
>
But cities do have a right to control their streets, and they have
police powers over those streets
esp in terms of bus stops
George Conklin
"Jimmy" <JimmyG...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:edb5c030-f71a-4abc...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> "rshe...@gmail.com" <rshe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I know they have had problems with the City of Boston, finding
> > locations to load and unload. The city does not want pickups and drop
> > offs on the street, but wants all intercity buses to use the
> > facilities at S Station.
> >
> > Of course that would involve paying rent, which the Chinatown buses do
> > not want to do.
>
> A problem bigger than the rent is that there are no vacant gates in
> the South Station bus terminal. The established bus companies would
> rather lease extra gates and have them sit empty than allow any
> competition.
>
> Things have gotten a little better since Boston first harassed the bus
> companies out of Chinatown.
Yes, it takes harrassment to make Amtrak function best.
Clark F Morris
George, we'll set up a bus stop on the street outside your house.
Based on my experience on the Bloomfield Transportation Committee,
many people and businesses don't want transit bus stops in front of
their property, let alone long distance bus stops. If Fung Wah bus
company wants a place to load buses and luggage, let them purchase or
lease a property or pay some entity for the right to stop on its
property. I believe that the only on street stops for the Halifax -
Digby bus line are in Bridgetown and Annapolis Royal.
Adam H. Kerman
>On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 07:49:53 -0400, "George Conklin" <n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jimmy" <JimmyG...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>>news:edb5c030-f71a-4abc...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>> "rshe...@gmail.com" <rshe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > I know they have had problems with the City of Boston, finding
>>> > locations to load and unload. The city does not want pickups and drop
>>> > offs on the street, but wants all intercity buses to use the
>>> > facilities at S Station.
>>> >
>>> > Of course that would involve paying rent, which the Chinatown buses do
>>> > not want to do.
>>>
>>> A problem bigger than the rent is that there are no vacant gates in
>>> the South Station bus terminal. The established bus companies would
>>> rather lease extra gates and have them sit empty than allow any
>>> competition.
>>>
>>> Things have gotten a little better since Boston first harassed the bus
>>> companies out of Chinatown.
>>
>> Yes, it takes harrassment to make Amtrak function best.
>>
>George, we'll set up a bus stop on the street outside your house.
>Based on my experience on the Bloomfield Transportation Committee,
>many people and businesses don't want transit bus stops in front of
>their property, let alone long distance bus stops.
That's like too damn bad for them. There are objections to transit bus
stops, sure, but they should be ignored. Frontage on the public way
doesn't give one exclusive use of the public way.
Any requirements for intercity bus companies to have a presence should
be absolutely minimal. Too many cities can and have used building codes,
traffic regulations, and zoning to thwart transportation enterprises.
They're not protecting their citizens from a damn thing.
>If Fung Wah bus company wants a place to load buses and luggage, let
>them purchase or lease a property or pay some entity for the right to
>stop on its property.
And what if the municipality won't give them a business license or
deliberately makes things so onerous that it's actually attempting to
discourage them from stopping in town?
Clark F Morris
While in many ways I agree with you transit and long distance bus
stops can overrun the capacity of the sidewalk to deal with it. Also
riders can be a real problem to the adjoining property owner. In the
cases that I have first hand knowledge of by virtue of having been on
the committee that got the complaints there were legitimate and not so
legitimate concerns.
The bus stops on Bloomfield Avenue at Broad Street and Glenwood Avenue
(continuation of Broad Street on the other side of the avenue) and on
the cross streets became major transfer stops for various reasons.
This meant that there could be 50 and more people waiting at a given
time on a 10 - 12 foot wide sidewalk between the street and the
building line. On Bloomfield Avenue and Glenwood Avenue people
waiting for the bus would stand in shop doorways blocking the entrance
for people wanting to shop. Unlike most of the Chicago stores, the
entrances were in alcoves set in from the building line. On Broad
Street some youth would climb on the wide and somewhat high window
sill and look in the bank. At the time I lived a block and a half
from the corner so could personally verify that this did occur and
that the sidewalk could be overcrowded. Unfortunately this was
overlaid by racial fears since most of the bus patrons were black
while Bloomfield was still predominantly white.
Some of the bus stops on the DeCamp bus routes to New York along the
residential portion of Broad Street also got opposition. In this case
it was because the riders who were from the neighborhood of the bus
stop would trample the lawn and litter (cigarette butts, etc.).
In the case of the Fung Wah buses, imagine three bus loads of people
waiting with luggage on the average downtown Chicago sidewalk. It
would be difficult for the average pedestrian to get through the
crowd. It not only would be the number of people but all of the
luggage.
In Bloomfield, the merchants prevailed especially since it was
taxpayers versus out of towners and the bus stops were moved to
inconvenient locations. On Broad Street I think one or two stops may
have been adjusted but I suspect that not much was done. I do
sympathize with the home owners who should not have to pick up after
the transit riders. In most major cities, there is an off street long
distance bus terminal (and used to be more than one). A major on
street pick-up drop-off long distance bus location would have a
significant impact on street and pedestrian access to the adjacent
properties as well as the ability to pass through on the sidewalk or
street.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Clark F Morris <cfmp...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>"George Conklin" <n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>I know they have had problems with the City of Boston, finding
>>>>>>locations to load and unload. The city does not want pickups and drop
>>>>>>offs on the street, but wants all intercity buses to use the
>>>>>>facilities at S Station.
>>>>>>Of course that would involve paying rent, which the Chinatown buses do
>>>>>>not want to do.
>>>>>A problem bigger than the rent is that there are no vacant gates in
>>>>>the South Station bus terminal. The established bus companies would
>>>>>rather lease extra gates and have them sit empty than allow any
>>>>>competition.
>>>>>Things have gotten a little better since Boston first harassed the bus
>>>>>companies out of Chinatown.
>>>>Yes, it takes harrassment to make Amtrak function best.
>>>George, we'll set up a bus stop on the street outside your house.
>>>Based on my experience on the Bloomfield Transportation Committee,
>>>many people and businesses don't want transit bus stops in front of
>>>their property, let alone long distance bus stops.
>>That's like too damn bad for them. There are objections to transit bus
>>stops, sure, but they should be ignored. Frontage on the public way
>>doesn't give one exclusive use of the public way.
>While in many ways I agree with you transit and long distance bus
>stops can overrun the capacity of the sidewalk to deal with it.
Then you might have to take away on-street parking to re-allocate more
of the public right of way to sidewalk.
>Also riders can be a real problem to the adjoining property owner.
So? They either live or work or have business in the neighborhood already.
They're there already. You take the good with the bad about your location.
>In the case of the Fung Wah buses, imagine three bus loads of people
>waiting with luggage on the average downtown Chicago sidewalk.
We have MegaBus and other dirt cheap non-Greyhound carriers in Chicago.
They have blocked sidewalks in front of Chicago Union Station in the on
street taxi-boarding area, but that's entirely Amtrak's fault as the
taxi-boarding area inside the station house has been closed since 1991.
The solution was to move the bus boarding point a block south. It's still
at Chicago Union Station but you have to cross a street to get there.
We have tour buses that board right next to Sears Tower where the
sidewalk isn't wide enough but they don't do it during rush hours so we
put up with it.
There are never going to be ideal situations but you don't want to
prevent this business from taking place.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> >George, we'll set up a bus stop on the street outside your house.
> >Based on my experience on the Bloomfield Transportation Committee,
> >many people and businesses don't want transit bus stops in front of
> >their property, let alone long distance bus stops.
>
> That's like too damn bad for them. There are objections to transit bus
> stops, sure, but they should be ignored. Frontage on the public way
> doesn't give one exclusive use of the public way.
They set up a bus stop in front of my mother's house. She had no
objection at first. Nor did she mind, at first, that people would
wait under her awning (on her property) to keep warm or out of the
rain.
But then she discovered the riders, especially the school kids, left
behind litter. She took pride in her home and didn't like dirt on it
or near by. As she got older, it was difficult for her to clean it
up.
As an aside, allow me to mention that I know people who live next to
park 'n ride lots and their problems are far worse. They find far
worse things on their property than candy wrappers or cigarette butts.
> Any requirements for intercity bus companies to have a presence should
> be absolutely minimal. Too many cities can and have used building codes,
> traffic regulations, and zoning to thwart transportation enterprises.
> They're not protecting their citizens from a damn thing.
Not true. All those city regulations were established for reason for
the public good, such as safety, orderliness, appearance, fair burden
of taxes, etc.
Those bus companies are running a business on city streets and should
pay their share of taxes accordingly. The host railroads who provide
Amtrak with station and track space are certainly paying dearly.
Those costs are passed on to Amtrak and then to us. It's only fair
the bus companies pay, too.
> >If Fung Wah bus company wants a place to load buses and luggage, let
> >them purchase or lease a property or pay some entity for the right to
> >stop on its property.
>
> And what if the municipality won't give them a business license or
> deliberately makes things so onerous that it's actually attempting to
> discourage them from stopping in town?
The only reason a town would do it is to protect the town. It's not
there's a competing private company that as a vested interest in
keeping the bus company out (as there might have been in the old
days).
People who are active in municipal affairs soon learn that many
applicants for business licenses would be a negative, not a plus for
the town, especially if the newcomer won't pay its fair share of
costs.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> >While in many ways I agree with you transit and long distance bus
> >stops can overrun the capacity of the sidewalk to deal with it.
>
> Then you might have to take away on-street parking to re-allocate more
> of the public right of way to sidewalk.
Removing parking spaces is not fair to existing businesses whose
customers use those parking spaces.
Further, an intercity bus service may require parking places for its
passengers.
> >Also riders can be a real problem to the adjoining property owner.
>
> So? They either live or work or have business in the neighborhood already.
> They're there already. You take the good with the bad about your location.
That's not how zoning and nusiance laws work.
Adam H. Kerman
>>>While in many ways I agree with you transit and long distance bus
>>>stops can overrun the capacity of the sidewalk to deal with it.
>>Then you might have to take away on-street parking to re-allocate more
>>of the public right of way to sidewalk.
>Removing parking spaces is not fair to existing businesses whose
>customers use those parking spaces.
What planet do you live on, hancock, in which local businesses own the
right of way exclusively and don't have to share? So it's fair that a well
used transit bus stop has too little room for the number of expected boarding
passengers?
>Further, an intercity bus service may require parking places for its
>passengers.
Then it's not going to get passengers that require long-term parking if
the bus company doesn't own a parking lot. Neat how that works. Bus
passengers don't get to leave their cars on that street for a week at a
time themselves.
>>>Also riders can be a real problem to the adjoining property owner.
>>So? They either live or work or have business in the neighborhood already.
>>They're there already. You take the good with the bad about your location.
>That's not how zoning and nusiance laws work.
Yes, I know hancock. The complainers do try to take advantage of
privilege, but society doesn't actually owe it to them.
Adam H. Kerman
>>>George, we'll set up a bus stop on the street outside your house.
>>>Based on my experience on the Bloomfield Transportation Committee,
>>>many people and businesses don't want transit bus stops in front of
>>>their property, let alone long distance bus stops.
>>That's like too damn bad for them. There are objections to transit bus
>>stops, sure, but they should be ignored. Frontage on the public way
>>doesn't give one exclusive use of the public way.
>They set up a bus stop in front of my mother's house. She had no
>objection at first. Nor did she mind, at first, that people would
>wait under her awning (on her property) to keep warm or out of the
>rain.
Then she can ask them to stay off her property, and if they don't, she
can file a trespass complaint with the cops. But she doesn't have the
right to eliminate the transit stop just because people are assholes.
>>Any requirements for intercity bus companies to have a presence should
>>be absolutely minimal. Too many cities can and have used building codes,
>>traffic regulations, and zoning to thwart transportation enterprises.
>>They're not protecting their citizens from a damn thing.
>Not true. All those city regulations were established for reason for
>the public good, such as safety, orderliness, appearance, fair burden
>of taxes, etc.
As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.
George Conklin
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote in message
news:ha8o74$fme$2...@news.albasani.net...
services but also the efficient use of the private car. Cities use transit
to cause congestion so they can get more transit dollars.
George Conklin
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote in message
news:haao8g$5i3$2...@news.albasani.net...
No, cities DO want buses to stop tansporting people UNLESS they are
city-run buses running at huge losses "for the benefit of the public."
George Conklin
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote in message
news:haaugn$he6$3...@news.albasani.net...
> >Not true. All those city regulations were established for reason for
> >the public good, such as safety, orderliness, appearance, fair burden
> >of taxes, etc.
>
> As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.
City regulations for transit are set up to protect the city-run
franchise and to discourage any alterntive.
rsh...@gmail.com
> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote in messagenews:haaugn$he6$3...@news.albasani.net...
>
> > >Not true. All those city regulations were established for reason for
> > >the public good, such as safety, orderliness, appearance, fair burden
> > >of taxes, etc.
>
> > As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.
>
> City regulations for transit are set up to protect the city-run
> franchise and to discourage any alterntive.
georgie boy, you are such a LIAR, you really should know better
you know full well the reason transit is subsidized
you also know full well that people regularly vote for those subsidies
now quit your lying
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> What planet do you live on, hancock
The one where people engage in a conversation without rudeness.
George Conklin
<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:28605d4e-7654-4e3e...@l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 3:51 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> What planet do you live on, hancock
The one where people engage in a conversation without rudeness.
Anyone who likes trains always consider himself just marvelous.....
Jimmy
> Jimmy <JimmyGeldb...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> >A problem bigger than the rent is that there are no vacant gates in
> >the South Station bus terminal. The established bus companies would
> >rather lease extra gates and have them sit empty than allow any
> >competition.
>
> >They shut down Vamoose's NYC-Harvard Square service about a week after
> >it started.
>
> >The cities are violating the law with these efforts. They have no
> >legal right to regulate intercity services under Massachusetts law.
>
> So busses have a right to park anywhere , block traffic and cause air
> pollution while loading and block sidewalks with people waiting for
> the bus with their luggage.
No, not anywhere. But federal law gives intercity buses the right to
use any city bus stop with a mile of the interstate highways they
travel on.
If Boston and Cambridge worked with the bus companies to find
intercity bus stops that would be convenient for passengers, bus
operations, other traffic, and nearby properties, that would be fine
with me. (NYC has done just that -- they've allocated on-street
intercity bus and commuter van stops all over the place, and they have
far bigger traffic and pedestrian circulation constraints than Boston
will ever see.)
Instead, they have over-exerted their authority under state law, and
banned intercity buses from their streets citywide, which has resulted
in the shutdown of several otherwise-thriving private bus lines.
Jimmy
Adam H. Kerman
>No, not anywhere. But federal law gives intercity buses the right to
>use any city bus stop with a mile of the interstate highways they
>travel on.
It does? May I ask for a citation? I'd like to learn about this.
Jimmy
While I don't have a legal citation, the owner of a bus company told
me this at a city licensing hearing. And http://www.subchat.com/buschat/read.asp?Id=163703
is a discussion about how commuter buses from NJ to NYC aren't subject
to state franchise regulations, because they have interstate operating
authority.
Jimmy
George Conklin
Which is why transit and Amtrak CAUSE the congestion they are supposed to
help.
rsh...@gmail.com
> "Jimmy" <JimmyGeldb...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
now, georgie boy, quit lying, please quit lying, please, please,
please
show some respect for other people's intelligence
no one on mtra is anywhere as stupid as you think they are
are you suggesting Manhattan traffic would move freely without subways
or busses
I sincerely doubt it
plus a lot of people would use their own vehicles, making things
horrible
same in Chicago, Boston, Philly, and DC and you know it
and before you say anything, I sincerely doubt if the slug lines could
handle any serious number of commuters replacing busses and trains
If you think they could, please provide a cite
Jimmy
> "Jimmy" <JimmyGeldb...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> > Instead, they have over-exerted their authority under state law, and
> > banned intercity buses from their streets citywide, which has resulted
> > in the shutdown of several otherwise-thriving private bus lines.
>
> help.
What does the City of Cambridge shutting down several intercity bus
lines have to do with Amtrak or transit (by which I assume you mean
local transit, not the intercity buses themselves)? They did it to
prevent supposed traffic delays for cars, and possibly sidewalk
congestion for pedestrians.
Harvard Square does has traffic problems because of the many chartered
tour buses that park on Mass Ave in the very center of the square.
The city encourages this, and even reserves several blocks of street
frontage for them. When there's more buses than curb space, they
double park, causing a big mess.
I don't see how 3 or 4 scheduled intercity bus trips per day, stopping
in the proposed location on a much quieter block in front of the
Charles Hotel on the outskirts of the square, would cause any traffic
problem at all.
Jimmy
George Conklin
> "George Conklin" <n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > "Jimmy" <JimmyGeldb...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> > > Instead, they have over-exerted their authority under state law, and
> > > banned intercity buses from their streets citywide, which has resulted
> > > in the shutdown of several otherwise-thriving private bus lines.
> >
> > Which is why transit and Amtrak CAUSE the congestion they are supposed
to
> > help.
>
> What does the City of Cambridge shutting down several intercity bus
> lines have to do with Amtrak or transit (by which I assume you mean
> local transit, not the intercity buses themselves)? They did it to
> prevent supposed traffic delays for cars, and possibly sidewalk
> congestion for pedestrians.
>
No one worries of city transit stops in front of your house. To stop
long-distance buses but to encourage transit stops is simply doubletalk,
designed to defeat competition and to force people onto subsidized services.