Monday, January 09, 2006
Two killed by buses; only five passengers on board
Two women were killed in one day in bus accidents in Denver. One was a driver of a car struck by a bus, the other was a pedestrian. At the time of the accidents, one of the buses was carrying three passengers; the other one two. So much for the claim that each bus takes so many automobiles off the road.
Comments:
This is why the city needs to invest in lightrail. Everyone knows lightrail attracts way more passengers than buses.
www.lightrailnow.com
www.lightrailnow.com
This is typical Randal balderdash.
One CANNOT draw any conclusions about the efficiency, or non-efficiency, of the bus service from this incident.
RANDAL, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION here to draw ANY conclusions.
To judge the efficiency of the bus line being operated (NOT the entire system; you have NTD statistics for THAT), you need to know (1) location, is it on the suburban fringe or downtown, or somewhere in-between; (2) time of day, (3) direction of the bus; if inbound when the peak is outbound, small loads would be expected.
If the average load on the specific bus route in question is less than 5 passengers "on board" e.g., 5 passenger miles per revenue vehicle mile, the route is a candidate for being converted to a "flex route."
If average loads are higher than 5, the route is probably providing basic service to transit dependents and paying for itself in various indirect ways, like many bus riders can be spared the expense of owning a car, OR many friends and relatives are being spared having to give rides to their non-car using associates.
As for "everyone knows light rail attracts more passenters than buses" everyone but Randal and his ilk, that is.
In San Jose, if bus transfers are subtracted and Caltrain RAIL ridership is added from Santa Clara County, the bus to rail patronage ratio is more like 2.0-2.5 to 1.0. In other words, even with a still very limited LRT and rail network, rail attracts 1/3 of total Santa Clara County transit patronage.
One CANNOT draw any conclusions about the efficiency, or non-efficiency, of the bus service from this incident.
RANDAL, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION here to draw ANY conclusions.
To judge the efficiency of the bus line being operated (NOT the entire system; you have NTD statistics for THAT), you need to know (1) location, is it on the suburban fringe or downtown, or somewhere in-between; (2) time of day, (3) direction of the bus; if inbound when the peak is outbound, small loads would be expected.
If the average load on the specific bus route in question is less than 5 passengers "on board" e.g., 5 passenger miles per revenue vehicle mile, the route is a candidate for being converted to a "flex route."
If average loads are higher than 5, the route is probably providing basic service to transit dependents and paying for itself in various indirect ways, like many bus riders can be spared the expense of owning a car, OR many friends and relatives are being spared having to give rides to their non-car using associates.
As for "everyone knows light rail attracts more passenters than buses" everyone but Randal and his ilk, that is.
In San Jose, if bus transfers are subtracted and Caltrain RAIL ridership is added from Santa Clara County, the bus to rail patronage ratio is more like 2.0-2.5 to 1.0. In other words, even with a still very limited LRT and rail network, rail attracts 1/3 of total Santa Clara County transit patronage.
>>Everyone knows lightrail attracts way more passengers than buses.<<
What everyone knows is that anyone who says "everyone knows" isn't being logical, objective or scientific. Glittering Generalities aren't the way to do public policy. Especially when what "everyone knows" is often wrong.
>>In other words, even with a still very limited LRT and rail network, rail attracts 1/3 of total Santa Clara County transit patronage.<<
At how many times the cost??? Just love those inefficient socialist solutions that somebody else has to subsidize.
What everyone knows is that anyone who says "everyone knows" isn't being logical, objective or scientific. Glittering Generalities aren't the way to do public policy. Especially when what "everyone knows" is often wrong.
>>In other words, even with a still very limited LRT and rail network, rail attracts 1/3 of total Santa Clara County transit patronage.<<
At how many times the cost??? Just love those inefficient socialist solutions that somebody else has to subsidize.
Don, your point?
Light rail done correctly is cost effective. Unfortunately transit planning in Santa Clara is poor, particularly compared to Portland. Portland has spent about the same capital investment in LRT as Santa Clara County ($2 billion+/-), but has nearly 4 times the ridership with over 100,000 daily LRT riders now.
As for your name calling, Don, well, go to hell. You prove yourself less than a worthy opponent to politely argue with when you resort to name-calling such as "socialist solutions." I frankly think your inane political ideology, and the "ignorance with attitude" it engenders sucks wind, dude.
Light rail done correctly is cost effective. Unfortunately transit planning in Santa Clara is poor, particularly compared to Portland. Portland has spent about the same capital investment in LRT as Santa Clara County ($2 billion+/-), but has nearly 4 times the ridership with over 100,000 daily LRT riders now.
As for your name calling, Don, well, go to hell. You prove yourself less than a worthy opponent to politely argue with when you resort to name-calling such as "socialist solutions." I frankly think your inane political ideology, and the "ignorance with attitude" it engenders sucks wind, dude.
Don, your point?
Light rail done correctly is cost effective. Unfortunately transit planning in Santa Clara is poor, particularly compared to Portland. Portland has spent about the same capital investment in LRT as Santa Clara County ($2 billion+/-), but has nearly 4 times the ridership with over 100,000 daily LRT riders now.
As for your name calling, Don, well, go to hell. You prove yourself less than a worthy opponent to politely argue with when you resort to name-calling such as "socialist solutions." I frankly think your inane political ideology, and the "ignorance with attitude" it engenders sucks wind, dude.
Light rail done correctly is cost effective. Unfortunately transit planning in Santa Clara is poor, particularly compared to Portland. Portland has spent about the same capital investment in LRT as Santa Clara County ($2 billion+/-), but has nearly 4 times the ridership with over 100,000 daily LRT riders now.
As for your name calling, Don, well, go to hell. You prove yourself less than a worthy opponent to politely argue with when you resort to name-calling such as "socialist solutions." I frankly think your inane political ideology, and the "ignorance with attitude" it engenders sucks wind, dude.
When confronted with facts or somoeone knowledgable in the industry, Don resorts to name calling. Sad.
Post a Comment
