From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Pro-rail bias in Adrian's transit
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:28:26 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Aug26.201519.21740@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
> In article <p1n2sts@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> |> In article <1992Aug26.003317.10867@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
> |> > Sorry Jeremy, I know you're a bus fan, but I'm not convinced as many
> |> > people will ride a bus for the same distance, and as frequently as
> |> > they would a train.
> |> 
> |> But for trips under an hour, it is negligible.  How much can you get
> |> up and walk around on an LRT, anyway?  Or a Caltrain, for that matter.
> |> There is an undeniable advantage to Amtrak, where you can walk around
> |> and get food, and the corridors are wide enough to do so.  But for
> |> urban transit trips under an hour (the vast majority), it just isn't
> |> there.
> 
> I still disagree.  Rail has far better ridership "drawing power" than
> bus for any distance or trip length.  Part of it is based on real
> differences and part may be based on perceived differences or image
> problems.  I don't know for sure.  There are many who would either
> not take transit if it meant riding the bus, or choose rail over bus
> if given the choice.  The fact (as you point out) that there are
> plenty of people that are willing to ride buses today doesn't refute
> this point.

There are many who would not take transit if it meant riding a bus,
because buses are typically much slower, since they provide local
service in traffic.  The real question is:

	Given identical travel times and operating frequencies between
	bus and rail, how many people would not take transit if it
	were a bus but would if it were rail?  And why?  In answering
	this question, you have to discount the novelty of the train
	(they are pretty novel in most American cities), since novelty
	quickly wears off.

The first question isn't really fair, though, since it ignores teh
operational advantages of buses:

	Given that a bus either is faster than the train or runs more
	frequently (lets give it a number, 10 minutes versus 20 minutes)
	or requires less transfering, how many people would still not
	take the bus, but would take the less frequent or slower or
	more transfer requiring train?  And why?

I don't think any study has ever been done on these issues (or the
reverse).  There is only very empirical evidence.

It's very interesting that there seems to be something
magically bad about 40 foot rubber tired vehicles that is suddenly
better if the rubber tired vehicle is shortened to 18 feet, or gets
steel wheels.  I've heard complaints about being thrown around and
rough rides, but if the bus has its own roadway, these shouldn't be
a problem, since the pavement is under control of the bus authority,
and most sudden stops are required to avoid running into an auto
that pulls a stupid maneuver.

Note also that many people "just seem to prefer" BART to Caltrain,
but I don't see you supporting BART based on that.  You realize
that there are reasons for this, and a little education might be
necessary.  I think the same applies here.

> As I recall, the Vasona Corridor Study examined busway vs. light rail,
> and light rail won out in the ridership department.  Not surprising.

This study was quite flawed in a number of areas.  Not surprising
considering that the agency doing it didn't want buses anyway.  To
give specific examples, travel time was a strong factor in the
ridership model.  Now, for some reason, they had the buses divert
off the busway into the park and ride lots to pick up people, "for
convenience".  Just also happened to take a lot of extra time.
Also, the projected travel time from the Caltrain depot to 1st and
Hedding (the county and city offices, a large employment draw) was
far longer than not only the current express service (180), but also
the local service (line 10).  Gee, I wonder why the ridership was
so low?

> 
> Your argument, as I understand it, is either to deny this point, or
> to explain it away by saying that buses are (or can be) much better
> than people think.   You may be right about buses being min-understood,
> but unless and until that changes, people will continue to have a
> strong preference for rail.

Just like with Caltrain vs. BART.  To get the best for the least,
someone has to bring up these issues.

> All that said, I'd like to point out that I'm not anti-bus either.
> Buses are an important part of a transit network.  Every mode has
> its place and role.  (i.e. nobody would dream of building rail lines
> into neighborhoods to feed a busway, or heavy rail to feed light rail,
> etc., right?)
> 
> -- 
> 
> Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
> UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
> ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov

jeremy