From the New Flyer website, we find a video highlighting the EmX route in Eugene – which uses New Flyer’s low-floor articulated model – as well as a brochure page touting the advantages of bus rapid transit. Eugene’s application of BRT includes dedicated lanes, large station platforms, and as mentioned is a low-floor bus that allows for quick and easy boarding/deboarding for wheelchairs and bicycles, for which internal racks are provided, much like light-rail.
Bus Rapid Transit, or BRT, is gaining momentum in North America as a way to move mass transit riders quickly to a central location. Instead of building a fixed infrastructure, such as seen in rail applications, BRT uses rubber tired buses, express lanes, priority signals, and in some cases, dedicated lanes. Routes can be redirected quickly in the case of minor obstructions, or if traffic patterns change, new routes can be reconstructed without any major impact to investments already made.
New Flyer has been supplying buses to BRT systems for almost 20 years. Articulated, or 60-foot buses, are preferred for their high capacity and low cost of ownership. Advancements in vehicle and propulsion technolgy, coupled with New Flyer’s modular design, enables us to offer buses suited to any city’s BRT system requirements.
Additionally, here is a link to the FAQ page about EmX on the Lane Transit District’s website.
74 responses to “Eugene EmX in Action”
Here are some additional resources regarding EmX:
A news video posted to YouTube about people’s reactions to EmX. (This may be an independently-produced resume piece):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQj6jKyGeuQ
A Register-Guard article on the original EmX mini-scandal when some small children were accidentally left behind at a stop, separated from their father:
http://rgweb.registerguard.com/news/2007/01/24/a1.leftfolo.0124.p1.php?section=cityregion
A Register-Guard article from May, 2007 about EmX ridership:
http://rgweb.registerguard.com/news/2007/05/18/d1.cr.ltdridership.0518.p1.php?section=cityregion
A blog entry from May, 2007 showing an EmX bus collision with a pickup truck in the dedicated bus lane:
http://www.eugenelocalnews.com/2007/05/emx-bus-crash-on-west-11th-in-eugene.html
A KVAL news story (text and video) from May covering danger-spots along the EmX right of way after the 5th collision in 5 months:
http://www.kval.com/news/local/7543042.html
A Register-Guard guest editorial critiquing a proposed corridor for EmX expansion:
http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=39754&sid=5&fid=1
An article from May, 2007 detailing neighborhood opposition to EmX expansion:
http://rgweb.registerguard.com/news/2007/05/08/a1.noemx.0508.p1.php?section=cityregion
A November, 2007 Register-Guard article regarding opposition to EmX’s proposed westward expansion corridor:
http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=27834&sid=1&fid=1
It is fascinating to see how BRT systems can face the same kinds of issues of streetcars and light rail, albeit on a smaller scale: Controversies regarding corridor selection and development, issues faced by riders who are (a bit) more isolated from the operator, regular motorists not staying clear of the ROW, infrastructure costs, arguments about allocation of transit resources to regular bus lines, etc.
I see that Bob R is right on top of trying to find arguments against this type of bus service.
I’m not going to address each of the links, because all those concerns are applicable to light rail also!
From my point of view, THIS IS TRANSIT OF THE FUTURE!
It doesn’t require HUGE capital investment,
it has FLEXIBILITY which light rail does not,
and it possess all the ADVANTAGES of light rail.
There is no competition in my mind, ADVANTAGE BUS.
Of course I realize this type of service is not “sexy”.
Americans are in love with ‘sexiness’ which is why they prefer light rail.
People of the Pearl wouldn’t want a bus, its not sexy enough. (not you Mike)
Its the same reason someone would drive a Cadillac Escalade over a Ford Escort.
I see that Bob R is right on top of trying to find arguments against this type of bus service.
Al, I’ve been gathering EmX links for awhile because I was planning on doing a post about it. Joseph beat me to it so I’m posting the links as added references.
Those are all news reports about how people in Eugene-Springfield are reacting, not my personal opinion. The ridership news article is positive, so I haven’t just posted negative stories.
If you detect an overly-negative bent to the news stories, don’t blame me. Perhaps these kinds of issues will come up whenever there is a major investment in transit infrastructure, whether bus or rail.
Bob, I know your pro rail.
It’s OK!
Its a free country, you have a right to be pro rail!
And there is no comparison in the words:
“major investment”
when comparing that bus to the light rail!
By the way, Al … you’ve previously stated opposition to Fareless Square (although you mentioned you were re-evaluating that opposition based on an informal survey of your riders), and you’ve criticized the streetcar for having artificially-high ridership due to operating a significant portion of the route in Fareless Square.
The entire Eugene-Springfield EmX line is completely fareless. What’s your opinion about that, and how do you think that impacts ridership?
Eugene is not Portland Bob.
And I’ve also said that making the entire system fareless I would support.
I do not support transit apartheid which allows one group of people advantage over another group of people.
And there is no comparison in the words: “major investment” when comparing that bus to the light rail!
To light rail, no … to streetcar, maybe.
Here are some more resources:
An article from a BRT-advocacy web site with many details about the EmX system:
http://www.gobrt.org/Eugene.html
An EmX TV commercial produced for the Lane Transit District (pretty fancy):
http://www.ltd.org/movie/EmX_TV_ad.wmv
A video clip showing two buses arriving at a station. Note the “trackway” which curves between protected trees, and how the 2nd bus approaches contra-flow because most of the busway is “single tracked”:
http://www.ltd.org/pdf/emx%20movies/Agate_01.wmv
(Note also how the reality of riding EmX doesn’t _quite_ live up to the TV commercial. Of course, our own local transit agency has been guilty of some pretty fluffy commercials of their own.)
…I’ve been gathering EmX links for awhile because I was planning on doing a post about it. Joseph beat me to it so I’m posting the links as added references.
Sorry to hijack your topic, Bob, I wasn’t aware of your plans. Thank you for providing these links. I, for one, find it very interesting that many of the same issues arise with this mode in Eugene as do with light rail in Portland.
There are certainly cases to be made for each mode (BRT vs. LRT), depending on the specific application. I do not believe that they are mutually exclusive and both modes can (and should) be utilized to create a well-rounded and complete transit network. I’ve always felt that implementing certain characteristics of BRT is a good “first step” to creating (and/or measuring potential for) ridership demand in a travel corridor before investing in dedicated right-of-way and laying down rail. Some corridors may never require the capacity that rail can provide; some argue that no corridor in Portland (or Eugene) will require that level of capacity in the foreseeable future, but I believe the 26/84 corridor as well as 5/205 are close enough to requiring that capacity to warrant the investments that we have made installing MAX over the last 20+ years.
Again, I have to stress that BRT and LRT are not mutually exclusive and it seems ridiculous to argue that we should have one OR the other.
I do not support transit apartheid which allows one group of people advantage over another group of people.
But isn’t that what EmX does, at least by your definition? The rest of the LTD system has fares, so riders who do not use the EmX route as the sole part of their journey do not benefit.
(It should be noted that some articles state that LTD has plans to add fare machines to EmX platforms at some point in the future, and that going fareless is intended as a temporary measure to promote ridership.)
Sorry to hijack your topic, Bob
It’s not a hijack at all … I’ve got plenty else going on right now … thanks for getting this discussion started!
I was hoping to maybe organize a little PortlandTransport day trip to Eugene so anyone interested could take a tour. I haven’t had time when in Eugene to try it out yet.
I was hoping to propose a non-car journey, but unfortunately, organizing that day-trip via Amtrak/Cascades doesn’t work very well unless an overnight stay is involved. However, there may be bus and/or shuttle options available which I haven’t looked into yet.
If all else fails, does 4 people in my Prius (including me) appeal to anyone? (We can make it 5 people if intimacy issues aren’t a problem for the 3 in the back, but I wouldn’t recommend it.)
I think it’s important also to note that Eugene/Springfield has always stated that they see BRT as a precursor to light rail, once the region develops enough to warrant that investment. The BRT alignments preserve the ROW for the LRT system.
Al, you stated that Americans prefer light rail over bus, finding it more “sexy”. I don’t think buses will ever go away entirely, but if our goal is to get significantly more people to ride transit, it seems that light rail lines represents our best opportunity to do that.
EmX is worth a look. I looked at it when I went down to Eugene last summer. But I would say it has all the disadvantages of light rail with all the disadvantages of a bus. It has a costly fixed guideway (and rather narrow too along Franklin Blvd. that has to be driven on and steered like a bus and therefore must go quite slow). Sure if there is an accident it can go around it but its not all that flexible in that a good deal of money was spent building this line so this bus line must utilize the investment. In fact theres not really any reason for this route to have its own lanes and right of ways since there is plenty of lane space for the bus in mixed traffic and does infact use regular lanes in Springfield. In downtown Eugene they built a single concrete lane in the existing street which seems completely useless and a waste of money. For rail you have to rip up the streets to place rails but for a bus why rip up the streets to add a concrete lane? Theres definately places where rapid bus lines on their own right of way make sense but this is not it IMO.
The whole MAX system should have been built as BRT. Then we would have private rights-of-way, as well as the flexibilty of buses.
If there were a corridor in Portland that looked suitable for rail, then we should go with full rapid transit, instead of a half-assed LRT.
Nick;
I still think the blue and red lines were the right way to go.
The only (serious) mistake was putting it on the streets through Portland.
(typical pin head planning)
Several of KING COUNTY METRO’s proposed RapidRide routes, while being touted by some BRT Proponents as a cure-all, will also be acting as feeders to Central LINK LRT. One route will connect with it at the South end at Sea-Tac, and run down Pacific Highway So, while 3 others will connect with it and SOUNDER in Downtown. Now these routes were going to start in 2010, but it has been pushed back to 2011. I guess due to a backlog at New Flyer. This should not have the problems that LINK had. Now there is more potential for RapidRide BRT Upgrades for Feeder and Trunk Routes on the system. Route 101(Renton Rocket, LINK can’t do that route, the hill on Martin Luther King Way/SR900/Sunset Highway is too steep, and a portion of it is set for 50MPH), Route 106, Route 140(connecting Renton with Burien, including Sea-Tac Airport and soon to be finished LINK, as well as the perma-temp SOUNDER station in Tukwilla(also a stop for Amtrak Cascades, but not the Starlate), Route 150(Kent-Tukwilla-Downtown Seattle). Route 150 is a legacy of the old interurban, but has been cut-back in recent years. it used to run to Auburn, but it was not rapid. In fact, before the hybrids came(not sure if they kept this practice for the short period after that the 150 still ran through to Auburn), they had to switch buses in Kent to continue the trip. Theoretically, since once it hits the on-ramp to I-5 at Interurban Ave, it has no stops until Busway and Spokane St. The 150 could be truncated to terminate at the Boeing Access Road station for LINK, but it was defered. Now prior to 1973, Seattle had a sort-of good bus grid, while the rest of King County had sporadic at best. Metro should concentrate more on the Trunk Routes outside of the city, and try to get as many routes within converted to trolleybuses, so they can free up the Diesel buses(and Hybrid replacements) for other services. I am warming up to the idea of using Jitneys for local services in parts of South King County, as well as East King County. It may provide better service, possibly at lower cost.
http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/transitnow/rapidride.stm
First of all, let me emphatically state that I agree that Bob R.’s choice of links towards news articles is clearly biased against EmX; I would strongly doubt that he would search for news articles on the Portland Streetcar or MAX and give “equal time” to negative news articles regarding those modes of transport as he would positive articles.
Bob – if you want to dispute it, then either:
1. Link to a post in which you provided an equal amount of positive and negative coverage, or
2. Start a new thread that provides for the same.
Back on topic, the bus bashers around here often criticize the cost effectiveness of BRT.
EmX cost $24 million, or $6M a mile (four mile project).
In comparison:
WES costs $117.3M, or slightly less than $8M a mile. (Note that WES will only operate at 30 minute headways, weekday rush hours only.)
Eastside MAX cost $214M, or $14.3M a mile – in 1980s-era dollars.
Westide MAX cost $963M, or $53.5M a mile. (This cost is unusually high due to the cost of the Robertson Tunnel; but nevertheless was a component of the project; other options such as recreating the original Oregon Electric or Red Electric routes over the West Hills that did not require a tunnel were not constructed – in part because of the insistence in serving Washington Park over densely populated residential neighborhoods to the south.)
Airport MAX cost $125M, or $25M a mile. (Even considering that Bechtel covered 23% of the cost, the “public” cost of Airport MAX was still over $19M a mile.)
Interstate MAX cost $350M, or over $60M a mile.
The original Portland Streetcar line cost $57M, or $11.9M per mile.
Portland Streetcar extension to Riverplace cost $16.0M for .6 mile.
Portland Streetcar extension to SoWa cost $15.8M for another .6 mile.
Conclusion: EmX provides most if not all of the benefit of these other forms of transport, at roughly half the cost if not far less.
I can’t find operating cost of EmX compared to Streetcar, but given that EmX has far less maintenance costs (there is little to no trackage maintenance involved), plus EmX uses modern hybrid-electric vehicles, I see no reason why the operating cost would be significantly greater than a Streetcar.
Finally, it should be noted that the LTD has recorded increased ridership (in fact a 7.3% increase) – TriMet’s total ridership is practically flat, and its bus ridership is down.
This shows that investment in high capacity transit that does not require cutting back in other services; as well as investments in bus services, provides tangible benefit to transit users and promotes transit ridership growth. Disinvestment in bus service, on the other hand, provides for discouraging ridership.
BTW, my sources for the ridership information is clearly located at http://www.ltd.org, under the “About LTD” link at the top of the page, and click on “reports and publications” where you can also find comprehensive reports on LTD’s budget, CAFR, and monthly performance reports showing LTD’s month-by-month ridership statistics and goals.
All of which…conveniently MISSING from TriMet’s website.
It should also be noted that LTD’s fare is $1.25, or $2.50 for a day pass; LTD has one of the lowest per-boarding costs of comparable transit systems, and one of the lowest per-hour costs. (An interesting comparison is between Eugene and Salem.)
Bob – if you want to dispute it, then either:
Erik, stop being so easily offended about anything remotely critical of buses. This is really tiresome.
I’ve linked to pro-BRT articles in the past. In fact, I’ve linked to an EmX article from a BRT advocacy web site, and I’ve done so weeks before now and not just on this blog.
It’s not my fault that the press writes articles which contain criticism of major transit investments. It’s not my fault there were 5 collisions in the dedicated EmX right-of-way in the first 5 months.
I direct you to this December 19th post on WorldChanging.com, a blog with a national audience, where I made the first comment about BRT/EmX:
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007699.html
Although I did question the capacity limitations of the system, my comments were primarily positive.
In that very same blog comment I specifically note that the infrastructure costs of BRT are significantly lower than light rail or streetcar.
FYI, your comparison of the cost of EmX vs. other projects should note that EmX is primarily single-tracked (especially where they spent the bulk of the money) … comparisons should be based per track-mile.
The single-track limitation will become a big factor if demand significantly increases.
Instead of building a fixed infrastructure, such as seen in rail applications, BRT uses rubber tired buses, express lanes, priority signals, and in some cases, dedicated lanes.
BRT is a really faddish buzzword these days, used typically to promote buses instead of rail systems, especially in cities like Eugene that have no rail systems.
Metropolitan Eugene’s population is about 300,000; the city is scarcely more than 100,000. MAX carries 100,000 riders a day. There’s a difference in scale.
In the Portland context, it’s obvious we could make some improvements to the bus system without going to a full-bore dedicated-lane BRT:
— buy some new diesel-electric hybrid articulated buses, like they’re buying hundreds of in Seattle
— on as many main roads as possible, give the buses signal priority. TriMet buses have a little transponder of some kind above the destination sign — do we already have signal priority here?
— improve a bunch of bus stops so they’re easier for wheelchair passengers
Maybe more dedicated bus lanes, but Portland has a lot of narrow streets without enough space for dedicated lanes.
To some extent we already have BRT downtown — it’s called the Mall.
I agree with those who argue that in building high-capacity rail lines, we shouldn’t give short shrift to improving the bus system. We also shouldn’t improve the bus system at the expense of the rail network. It shouldn’t be either-or; we need both-and.
Greetings Mike,
I am going to dare to opine on these statements that you made.
— buy some new diesel-electric hybrid articulated buses, like they’re buying hundreds of in Seattle
*** I have been thinking about why TriMet hasn’t switched over to a “green system” yet. I think that the biggest factor would be start-up costs. Not just the busses themselves. It would require a LOT of training time for mechanics(Union rules). Also, this would complicate the parts supply chain. One of the goals at TriMet is to simplify this as much as possible. ***
— on as many main roads as possible, give the buses signal priority. TriMet buses have a little transponder of some kind above the destination sign — do we already have signal priority here?
***IIRC the busses are all ready to go with signal priority–it is the signals that are not. Many of the signals in the Portland area are obsolete. I think that this falls on the head of the folks down in Salem that failed to increase funding for roads…for the last 12 years…***
— improve a bunch of bus stops so they’re easier for wheelchair passengers
***I am not sure what to say here–I think that the vast majority of stops are just fine for wheelchair passengers. That plus the imminent retirement of most of the high-floor busses should do the trick.***
That is my 2 cents
Smooth Operator said:
*** I have been thinking about why TriMet hasn’t switched over to a “green system” yet. I think that the biggest factor would be start-up costs. Not just the busses themselves. It would require a LOT of training time for mechanics(Union rules). Also, this would complicate the parts supply chain. One of the goals at TriMet is to simplify this as much as possible. ***
Plus, at this point there is great controversy over which “green” bus technology to go with — hybrid, natural gas, clean diesel, whatever. If TriMet is just waiting until it all shakes out, letting other cities make the mistakes, I’d applaud that.
There are 2 hybrid buses out there, though — what’s happening with them?
And they’re already running a substantial amount of biodiesel, IIRC.
***IIRC the busses are all ready to go with signal priority–it is the signals that are not. Many of the signals in the Portland area are obsolete. I think that this falls on the head of the folks down in Salem that failed to increase funding for roads…for the last 12 years…***
Ugh. OTOH, that should arguably come (at least in part) out of transit funding, since it would speed the buses up.
[ASIDE: when I first got here in 2006, I marveled at the high degree of signal timing — on Everett, Sandy, Interstate, and other arterials, it wasn’t unusual for me to get a green wave. Back in the DC area, the politicians always talk about how signal timing is a “low-hanging apple” because the computerized light systems are already in place. Yet somehow they never get around to investing the manpower in actually sync-ing the lights.]
***I am not sure what to say here–I think that the vast majority of stops are just fine for wheelchair passengers. That plus the imminent retirement of most of the high-floor busses should do the trick.***
I haven’t seen any bus-purchase plans. When will the high-floors be history?
That is my 2 cents
Thanks! The upshot is we could get most of the benefits of BRT with relatively small investment. IMO, TriMet ought to work harder to push the limits of performance of the existing bus system . The system is, IMO, quite good now, but it seems to be falling behind other cities for lack of investment. But not at the expense of rail development, where we are ahead of most other cities our size. JK and others argue that rail doesn’t pencil out, but it’s not just about money.
Mike
I once heard somewhere (might have been the old defunct “TriMet Watchdog” site) that the weight of the batteries on the hybrid buses negated any fuel savings.
And they’re already running a substantial amount of biodiesel, IIRC.
I believe they’re using B5 on all the buses now, although I can’t find a reference on their website. The last thing I could find was the press release from 2006 that all the Lift buses were using B5.
BTW, for those that think transit systems should be using more biodiesel in higher blends, there was a small blurb at the end of last week in the O that C-TRAN, which was using B20 systemwide, had to temporarily switch back to B5 because the low temperatures were causing the B20 to gel and the newer engines were losing power. We have to remember that biodiesel is a fairly new fuel technology, not all the bugs have been worked out, and this is ultimately a stopgap measure, as even B20 is 80% regular diesel.
I haven’t seen any bus-purchase plans. When will the high-floors be history?
***I know that this is off this discussion topic, but I am going to answer anyhow. FIRST my information comes from TriMet’s employee newsletter not from an official budget. In last October’s newsletter there was an article stating that we could expect delivery of the first 40 new busses of a 5 year contract(40 busses per year for a total of 200). Yes, this is in contradiction to the published budget–I cannot explain why that is, but the new bus information does jibe with several informal conversations that I have had with employees involved with purchasing at TriMet. Of course none of that was “on the record”. Anyway, from all of the information that I have been able to glean, I conclude that TriMet is going to replace the oldest busses in the fleet i.e. 1400’s, 1700’s and 1800’s [154 busses] over the next 5 years or so.
This is for Erik:
Here is a link to a custom Google search for all Register-Guard articles with “EmX” anywhere on the page from the past year. As of today, it returns 16 results.
Result 1: The EmX should improve a neighborhood, not raze it
http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=39754&sid=5&fid=2
Editorial advocating for alternative route considerations. I already posted this earlier.
Result 2: EmX rolls with strong ridership
http://rgweb.registerguard.com/news/2007/02/14/f1.cr.emx.0214.p1.php?section=cityregion
I did not post this February article because I posted a May article about ridership.
Result 3: Eugene needs to do EmX right
http://rgweb.registerguard.com/news/2007/01/14/ed.col.emx.0114.p1.php?section=opinion
An opening-day editorial questioning the need and cost of the system. I did not post this one, I felt it more relevant to post articles published after the system opened.
Result 4: Extending EmX bus line raises route, cost issues
http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=27834&sid=1&fid=1
An article which discusses proposals, including opposition to some corridors, for westward EmX expansion. I posted this one.
Result 5: Father gets scare when bus leaves his children behind
http://rgweb.registerguard.com/news/2007/01/23/a1.leftbehind.0123.p1.php?section=cityregion
I did not post this one. I posted one article which summarized the outcome of this controversy. I referred to it as a “mini-scandal”.
Result 6: 2007 delivered resolutions to community
http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=41936&sid=4&fid=2
A 2007 year-in-review article which mentions EmX and refers to the mini-scandal. Not an EmX-focused article.
Result 7: 2007 delivered resolutions to community
http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=41936&sid=4&fid=1
Same as, or substantially similar to above.
Result 8: This Week in History
http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=41996&sid=4&fid=2
Minor mention of EmX pre-testing not meeting schedule goals. I did not post this both because it was not an EmX-focused article and because it was a pre-opening-day story.
Result 9: 2007 delivered resolutions to community
http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=41936&sid=50&fid=1
Same year-in-review yet again.
Result 10: LETTERS IN THE EDITOR’S MAILBAG / Another nutty Eugene idea
http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=38502&sid=47&fid=1
A reader letter strongly opposing the repaving of Franklin boulevard as a priority and seems to imply that EmX was a bad idea. I did not post this.
Result 11: (Assorted)
http://rgweb.registerguard.com/news/2007/01/24/home.php
A collection of Register-Guard headlines linking to other articles, including one that mentions EmX.
Result 12: 2007 year in review: Civic challenges tell ups & downs
http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=41775&sid=1&fid=1
Only mentions EmX to mention that EmX wasn’t a top-10 story. Not posted.
Result 13: 2007 year in review: Civic challenges tell ups & downs
http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=41775&sid=4&fid=1
Same as above.
Result 14: Group aims for traffic solutions
http://rgweb.registerguard.com/news/2007/05/08/a1.wecollaborative.0508.p1.php?section=cityregion
Briefly mentions “Residents for Responsible Rapid Transit, a citizen group concerned about LTD’s plans to extend EmX bus rapid transit service to west Eugene”. I did not post this.
Result 15: Springfield to pull off light switch
http://rgweb.registerguard.com/news/2007/07/26/f1.cr.springlights.0726.p1.php?section=cityregion
Article about how Springfield is switching the type of streetlight used, which will change the color of lighting, including along the EmX route. Not posted.
Result 16: Eugene’s business community is healthy, vibrant and growing
http://rgweb.registerguard.com/news/2007/01/24/ed.col.hauser.0124.p1.php?section=opinion
Guest editorial which briefly mentions EmX among a series of accomplishments. Not posted.
Now, for whatever reason, this limiting the Google search to 1 year omits some of the links that I did post … one of the mysteries of Google, I guess.
Nonetheless, I think that list clearly shows that I did not exhibit selection bias when listing articles from the Register-Guard.
Also, on YouTube, I found exactly 3 videos which were about EmX (the BRT line) and not EMX (the Korg product) … two of which were the same clips (one was part of a compilation) from the reporter that I linked to, and one of which shows an impeachment protester and a one-person-drum-circle standing outside an EmX Bus. Sorry that I didn’t link to that one.
If you want me to do an exhaustive search of KVAL and other sites, let me know. I really want to remove the stain from my reputation of having you pronounce that my selection of links was “clearly biased”.
(Or will nothing ever prove it to you?)
The New Flyer video shows a bunch of takes of buses that say “Not in Service”… If New Flyer can’t even find buses that are working as designed, (you know, carrying people,) what does that say about the chances that I as a rider would be able to use it?
“If New Flyer can’t even find buses that are working as designed, (you know, carrying people,) what does that say about the chances that I as a rider would be able to use it?”
Pleeeeeeeeeeeze!
Not to worry Bob;
The pro rail faction is clearly in control of things around here!
I think your reputation has not been too badly tarnished!
lol
Ummmm, does anybody have any idea whether this emX runs more reliably than plain regular buses on plain regular streets?
Matthew –
Was that a joke? :-) Seriously, if you’re going to have a camera operator standing in the bus lane (as was the case for the “Not in Service” buses that I saw), you’re going to want to use an out-of-service bus to get the shot, for reasons of production coordination and safety. I’m sure if Siemens were to produce a video about MAX and had a camera operator standing in the trackway, they wouldn’t want to jump out in front of just any revenue-service train. (Sorry if I’m completely misinterpreted your intentions.)
elee –
According to this BRT advocacy web site:
http://www.gobrt.org/Eugene.html
According to a June paper about EmX here:
http://www.oregonite.org/2007D6/paper_review/C8_301_Hanks_paper.pdf
From a March Register-Guard article:
http://rgweb.registerguard.com/news/2007/03/04/a1.emx.0304.p1.php?section=cityregion
Jumping back to earlier in the page on the BRT advocacy site, they also say:
The reason I bring up that last point about narrow lanes, is that it is a big reason as to why I’ve chosen to advocate for streetcar service on Hawthorne Blvd. On Hawthorne, lanes are only 9.5 feet wide, in mixed auto/bike traffic, narrower than Eugene’s dedicated busway. This means that adding articulated buses to the route will only complicate matters. A streetcar is a narrower vehicle, operating in a fixed guideway so that its boundaries are known and predictable. This may be one of the few cases were a limitation of rail transit (the inability to move around obstacles) is clearly outweighed by the need to operate within a narrow multi-use lane without creating conflicts for road users immediately adjacent to the transit vehicle.
elee –
An additional note: I realize the above snippets don’t directly answer your question, because they don’t offer comparisons with ordinary buses in regular traffic. LTD’s web site says that EmX runs up to 6 minutes faster at peak hour than the bus line that it replaced. However, EmX makes fewer stops with a greater spacing between stations (a similar scenario is how Interstate MAX replaced the #5 bus for much of that corridor and has greater stop spacing).
I do not know if an analysis was done to see how simply reducing the number of stops and making other low-cost improvements would have altered trip times compared to building EmX.
LTD claims that in the future as congestion increases, there will be greater time savings due to the dedicated ROW, up to 11 to 12 minutes in 20 years compared to standard bus service.
No, I don’t seriously think that the EmX rolls a lot of Not in Service buses, but it still looks bad from a marketing standpoint…
If you’re going to have a camera operator standing in the bus lane (as was the case for the “Not in Service” buses that I saw), you’re going to want to use an out-of-service bus to get the shot, for reasons of production coordination and safety.
Yes, but you’d get the label on the bus to say something other than, “Out of Service.” Or at least I’d do that if I was the one filming it. Given that there isn’t so much as an overhead wire on the bus way, zoom lens on booms would have worked very nicely anyways…
“I’m sure if Siemens were to produce a video about MAX and had a camera operator standing in the trackway, they wouldn’t want to jump out in front of just any revenue-service train.”
So I should be able to find some pictures of not in service trains all over Siemens marketing material too, right?
Here is the best example I could find:
http://w1.siemens.com/pool/en/about_us/siemens_worldwide/corporate_videos/10-max_train_portland_1163933.pdf
It is a train headed to Civic station, which isn’t a real turnaround point. (It was a turnaround point for a few months before they’d opened the Westside, and TriMet can stash a train there for an event, so that sign is probably still in the “roll” but…) However, if you don’t ride MAX regularly, you wouldn’t know that, so it works fine as advertising. (Unlike “Not in Service” which is clear to everyone, even someone like me who has never ridden the EmX.)
I did find a picture of a train that said “not in service” though:
http://www.lightrail.com/photos/portland/portland13.jpg
(Note the train next to it, which isn’t going to go to Gresham until the put the wheels back on it…)
I’d like to back to something I said up near the top:
It has occurred to me that EmX incorporates many qualities, subjective and objective, which have been criticisms from various quarters about rail transit as implemented in Portland. I’m going to list a few, below, but as paraphrases without naming names or linking to comments here (please don’t make me go digging for these).
Here we go:
– EmX is entirely fareless
– EmX has greater station spacing than the bus line it replaced, average about .4 miles per segment.
– EmX stops at every station, too, except the Glenwood station.
– EmX has automated bilingual stop announcements, too.
– EmX’s schedule has it completing a 3.75 mile run in 16 minutes, or 14 miles per hour. MAX as a whole has an average speed of 19.3 miles per hour. For a completely non-freeway route, Interstate MAX covers 7 miles at peak hour in 32 minutes (including all the downtown stations), or just over 13 miles per hour.
– EmX took lanes away from vehicles along many portions of the route.
– The Register-Guard reports that a handful the homeless ride EmX.
– The Register-Guard reports “Most riders are veterans of the old Route 11 and are divided on whether EmX is an improvement.”
– The Register-Guard reports “Others, however, complain that the EmX requires them to make more, rather than fewer, transfers.” and “‘I got to work faster on the 11,’ he says. “Sometimes I’m late to work now.”
– Whether true or not, this accusation has been levelled in Eugene by multiple EmX critics.
– Similar criticisms were levelled during EmX construction and by individuals concerned about future EmX corridors.
– A Eugene-area critic wrote “The frustrating point is we apparently have no problems coming up with millions of dollars for the EmX bus system or any other pet projects, however, when it comes to our basic protection, we seem to fall flat on our faces.”
– The current planning process to expand EmX to West Eugene has created controversies along multiple route proposals.
– The Register-Guard reports “Traffic Collisions along EmX Line Prompt Review of Safety Measures”
– Yep, somebody actually made that comparison about EmX. No kidding.
– A recent letter-to-the editor about EmX stated “The middle-of-the-road route is an accident waiting to happen. Who is responsible and accountable for this fiasco? Where did the money go? I don’t have to guess where it will come from to fix the problems.”
– The same criticisms have been applied to EmX.
– Google returns 134 hits for Eugene EmX Boondoggle, although not all of those may apply.
And so on…
Just to be clear: My point is NOT to diminish EmX or BRT in general, or to pit one mode against another.
There are two points I’m trying to convey here:
1. BRT is not a magic bullet and doing a full BRT implementation brings up similar problems (in quality if not in scope) to rail projects.
2. There will be some degree of public opposition to any significant transit investment beyond ordinary buses operating conventional service.
I have always thought rail to be a much better solution than BRT for most applications, but I recently spent some time in Brisbane, Australia, which has a really great BRT line. It’s entirely grade separated from traffic, elevated through the inner city and then runs along a highway with it’s own ROW, with beautiful stations. It was amazing to ride out to visit friends at highway speeds. The busses were new and very clean and just an overall pleasure to ride, not like any other bus I’ve ever been on.
I don’t think it’s necessarily better than rail, but it certainly has its place. The difference here is the Brisbane line is true bus rapid transit.
On Hawthorne, lanes are only 9.5 feet wide, in mixed auto/bike traffic, narrower than Eugene’s dedicated busway. This means that adding articulated buses to the route will only complicate matters. A streetcar is a narrower vehicle, operating in a fixed guideway so that its boundaries are known and predictable
Actually one can order a bus in a narrower width – only in recent years has the 102″ width become standard; previously busses were typically manufactured to a 96″ width.
Likewise – “Streetcar” is not a class in and of itself, it is just a version of light rail. They too, come in different sizes; just as the Vintage Trolley which operates on MAX, and is a much smaller vehicle than even the Portland Streetcar vehicles.
The New Flyer video shows a bunch of takes of buses that say “Not in Service”… If New Flyer can’t even find buses that are working as designed, (you know, carrying people,) what does that say about the chances that I as a rider would be able to use it?
TriMet has the following headsign displays that can be used for “promotional” purposes (none of these will display any type of a route number):
“Air Show”
“Downtown Only”
“Charter”
“City Center”
“City of Roses”
“Coliseum”
“Coliseum Shuttle”
“Convention Center”
“County Fair”
“Express”
“Floral Parade”
“Gateway Express”
“Hollywood Express”
“To Burnside”
“Union Station”
“Service to PSU”
“Lloyd Center Express”
“Music Festival”
“Parade Special”
“Portland”
“PGE Park”
“Races at PIR”
“Rose Festival”
“Rose Garden”
“Rose Quarter”
“Shuttle”
“Blue Shuttle”
“Green Shuttle”
“Red Shuttle”
“Yellow Shuttle”
“Special”
“Starlight Parade”
“Thanks for Riding”
“Tri-County”/”Metropolitan”/”Transportation”/”District”
“TriMet”
“VIP Coach”
“ZOO Bluegrass”
“Zoo Jazz”
“Ride Free Today” (here’s one that doesn’t get used at all)
There is also a display that is a promo for the hybrid bus, but the actual words aren’t listed on the spreadsheet I have. (Nor is there any need for TriMet to have it, given the HUGE number of hybrid busses they own…)
Actually one can order a bus in a narrower width – only in recent years has the 102″ width become standard; previously busses were typically manufactured to a 96″ width.
Yes … sorry if I oversimplified.
Are there any narrower buses which are also articulated, readily available in the US? I’d be concerned about capacity reductions if narrow 40′ buses were substituted on Hawthorne. Headways are already just under 6 minutes for non-express #14 buses at peak hour. (11 regular #14 runs from downtown between 4:30 and 5:30).
However when considering a bus we must also consider the margin-of-error and natural deviation from lanes that occurs when driving a vehicle which is steered. This adds to the effective width of a bus.
Although I certainly would not recommend it, MAX trains could actually fit in a Hawthorne lane without ever crossing lane boundaries during operation.
I should qualify my question about narrow articulated buses “readily available in the US” … Obviously, all the current Portland Streetcar vehicles were purchased from overseas without direct federal funding.
But let’s assume for a moment that it is desirable (at least for the sake of consistency) for bus procurements to come from US (or buy-USA compatible) sources. Plus, there is a well-publicized effort underway to kick off US-based streetcar production. By the time a potential Hawthorne streetcar project is underway (fingers crossed), most streetcar orders might be built in the USA.
Erik, thanks for the statistics. Very interesting to see the cost per mile comparisons between the different transit lines.
Although I would like to see BRT being implemented in many corridors all over Oregon, I don’t believe that it should replace the MAX.
Specifically, the MAX has a huge advantage in that it uses electric propulsion (faster acceleration and no street-level pollution or noise), MUCH higher capacity, and a smoother ride.
As far as the streetcar, perhaps not as big of an advantage, but still similar.
One thing will be interesting to see is how long those concrete guideways will last before wear and tear starts to take its toll. 1,2,5, 10, 30 years? Its a good thing they used concrete.
Are there any narrower buses which are also articulated, readily available in the US?
Were there any “Streetcars” when Portland decided to bring them back to town?
No.
Therefore your argument is moot; the vehicles could be sourced if the will was there to locate it. There are already bus manufacturers that, if given an opportunity to source a vehicle, would provide it. Bus manufacturers such as New Flyer have jumped the BRT bandwagon even though there are only a handful of BRT systems in the U.S.; they are also pioneering new fuel sources (including a hydrogen-cell vehicle being used in Vancouver, BC)…
Meanwhile, the first U.S. Streetcar is how many years away? And it requires a massive federal subsidy just to build a prototype; why doesn’t TriMet get with the FTA to start a fleet of new alternative fuel vehicles in Portland?????????? Wouldn’t it be great for Portland to claim the first hydrogen-cell bus fleet in the U.S.?
Specifically, the MAX has a huge advantage in that it uses electric propulsion (faster acceleration and no street-level pollution or noise), MUCH higher capacity, and a smoother ride.
Again – Seattle, Vancouver and San Francisco all have trolley busses; BRT could easily be implemented as a trolleybus system.
However MAX (LRT) does have a higher capacity than Streetcar (also LRT) or an articulated bus. When ridership warrants, LRT makes sense. But TriMet and Metro are more interested in using transit as a development tool rather than solving current problems (like constant overcrowding and reliability problems on the 12 line).
One thing will be interesting to see is how long those concrete guideways will last before wear and tear starts to take its toll.
Rails require to be re-ground and/or replaced on a regular basis, as do ties and other trackway components; as well as the contact wire.
I believe TriMet has the MAX line reground once every few years; this is essentially the same as repaving a road.
I would like to see a comparison between BRT trackway vs. LRT trackway maintenance costs after 10, 15 or 20 years.
Were there any “Streetcars” when Portland decided to bring them back to town?
Yes there were, from plenty of vendors, just none in the US, which I made a specific point of mentioning. However, nothing Portland did with the streetcar required the development of a new vehicle.
So, I’ll expand my question since you are an expert in these matters … are there any narrow (say 8′ or less) articulated buses currently available, anywhere in the world, which can legally operate on US streets?
why doesn’t TriMet get with the FTA to start a fleet of new alternative fuel vehicles in Portland???
I thought bio-Diesel was an “alternative” fuel, even when used in small blends. It may not be glamorous, but it is still an emerging technology.
Wouldn’t it be great for Portland to claim the first hydrogen-cell bus fleet in the U.S.?
Only if you believe that hydrogen is the answer to our problems. That hasn’t been demonstrated yet, even in the land of academia.
Suppose TriMet started buying expensive Hydrogen fuel cell buses (in real-world costs of millions each) instead of upgrading service on, oh, say the #12 line, for example. How would you feel about that?
I would like to see a comparison between BRT trackway vs. LRT trackway maintenance costs after 10, 15 or 20 years.
So would I. I’d like to see the true life-cycle costs compared between all transit modes — it can only help us to make educated decisions even if we have differing priorities and opinions.
Register-Guard article:
LTD’s EmX line wins award for ‘sustainable transportation’
Suppose TriMet started buying expensive Hydrogen fuel cell buses (in real-world costs of millions each) instead of upgrading service on, oh, say the #12 line, for example. How would you feel about that?
Well, since Metro thinks that Portland ought to be modeled after Vancouver, BC…
http://www.coastmountainbus.com/news/news_releases/2007/07/17/17_0707170833-875?pageNumber=2
http://www.newflyer.com/index/news-app/story.49
Meanwhile, you once again demand that bus service be disinvested upon, by forcing the question “what would you rather choose, new busses or better service?” Why not both?
If I had asked the same question, but replaced the word “bus” with “light rail” and “12” with “MAX” how would you answer?
Let’s try it:
Suppose TriMet started buying…light rail cars (in real-world costs of millions each) instead of upgrading service on, oh, say the MAX line, for example. How would you feel about that?
“Meanwhile, you once again demand that bus service be disinvested upon, by forcing the question “what would you rather choose, new busses (sic) or better service?” Why not both?”
That is an interesting question from someone that complains that it is an either/or game for MAX and buses. Apparently you believe we could have both hydrogen buses and better service on the 12 line at the same time. But why can’t we do the same instead use MAX instead of hydrogen buses?
“you once again demand that bus service be disinvested upon”
He did not say or imply ANYTHING like that.
Erik said
Actually one can order a bus in a narrower width – only in recent years has the 102″ width become standard; previously busses were typically manufactured to a 96″ width.
I made a quick trip to the specs pages of New Flyer, Orion, and Gillig — the 3 biggest suppliers of urban buses in the US — and found a number of lengths (30′, 35′, 40′, artic 60′) and power systems (diesel, natural gas, hybrid), but no width mentioned other than 102″.
Maybe 96″ buses can be special-ordered or imported from Europe or Asia. Interestingly, the Skoda streetcars — as seen on the Oregon Iron Works unitedstreetcar.com site — are 96″ wide.
Mike
But why can’t we do the same instead use MAX instead of hydrogen buses
MAX is not designed to replace bus service – making multiple, frequent stops. But if you want to come up with the billions of dollars to replace every bus line with MAX…fine by me. What will Oregon’s effective tax rate be to pay for it? And what will the benefit be to convert every bus line to MAX standards? (Yes, even the 84 Kelso/Boring line with exactly ONE evening trip and TWO morning trips serving Boring!)
He did not say or imply ANYTHING like that.
Yes, he has implied, by implying that bus improvements are held to a different standard than MAX improvements, continuing to support the policy of rejecting any improvement towards bus service, and perpetuating the belief that all transportation technology improvements are rail based, while completely discounting ANY improvement in bus service.
Maybe 96″ buses can be special-ordered or imported from Europe or Asia.
And the Oregon built Streetcar is built to a European spec, is it not?
The U.S. has a long history of purchasing mass transit equipment based upon European specs:
Tri-Met Crown-Ikarus 286 articulated bus
TriMet Type I LRV
King County Metro Breda trolley bus
King County and Spokane Transit Authority MAN standard and articulated busses
Los Angeles MTA and OCTA Neoplan busses
Plus Alexander Dennis (the manufacturer of the London Double-Decker bus) actively markets its products for the U.S. market; Volvo has acquired bus manufacturing companies in the U.S.; NABI is owned by Hungarian interests; Freightliner (a manufacturer of bus chassis and participant in Daimler Busses North America) is owned by a German company…
So explain to me again how a 96″ bus is so difficult but a Streetcar was “built to order” – when the “built to order” Streetcar couldn’t be procured in the United States, and that the only domestic built Streetcar (which, by the way, not a single one has actually been completed) is an exact replica of the same European design. Not “based upon”, but the same thing.
It should also be noted that many transportation projects in the U.S. are “one-of-a-kind”, BART immediately comes to mind, being built as a driverless system and using a track gage of 5’6″ (nearly 10″ wider than “standard gauge”).
So explain to me again how a 96″ bus is so difficult
Nobody’s’ saying that it’s so difficult. (And I never said to disinvest in bus service, but you keep bringing up that tired accusation.) You’ve been asked to provide examples, that’s all.
My last question to you, which you did not answer, was: “are there any narrow (say 8′ or less) articulated buses currently available, anywhere in the world, which can legally operate on US streets?”
Are there?
Or are you just going to keep accusing me of bias, even though I’ve provided ample, itemized evidence to the contrary (as though I should have to …)
Yes, he has implied, by implying that bus improvements are held to a different standard than MAX improvements, continuing to support the policy of rejecting any improvement towards bus service, and perpetuating the belief that all transportation technology improvements are rail based, while completely discounting ANY improvement in bus service.
You probably should look up the difference between “infer” and “imply.” You are drawing all kinds of wild inferences from stuff Bob never said and never even hinted at. NOBODY here has suggested disinvesting in bus service.
Continuing to insist that people are saying stuff that they haven’t said and arguing against points nobody has made just makes you come across as paranoid. It also means people aren’t likely to listen to you when you actually are saying something worthwhile.
Bob, you have the patience of a saint.
New EmX news blurb / press release…
From EarthTimes.org:
London, Paris Edge Out Guatemala City, Guatemala; Eugene, Oregon; and Pereira, Colombia for 2008 Sustainable Transport Award
OK, Bob, I have found five manufacturers and it looks like the standard European width is 2500mm, or 98 inches.
Regardless, you still did not address the fact that a manufacturer could provide it as a custom model if so asked; just as Portland was able to find a company (with zero experience in building transportation vehicles) to build Streetcars, why couldn’t Portland recruit Freightliner to use idled production space to build a new generation on inner-city busses?
Regardless, you still did not address the fact that a manufacturer could provide it as a custom model if so asked;
The Portland Streetcar is not a custom model, it is an off-the-shelf product. I’ve already (at least twice, and once prior to your complaint) expanded the scope of my question to include international vendors, so your complaint isn’t just a false equivalence, it’s also not relevant. (More to the point, I’m not going to keep bending over backwards to prove my sincerity to you, since you’ve failed to acknowledge any evidence presented to counter your claims of bias.)
So, what are these five manufacturers/models?
it’s also not relevant
Well I thought we were discussing EmX, so isn’t Streetcar irrelevant?
So, what are these five manufacturers/models?
Alexander Dennis,
Volvo,
MAN,
Mercedes Benz,
and I can’t think of the fifth because I’m at work and not at my home computer. It might actually be Inkeon (yup, the manufacturer of the Streetcar, they make busses too).
What’s interesting is that I’ve already made mention of European-spec busses in use in the United States but apparently you won’t acknowledge. It should also be noted that Inkeon-Skoda’s Type 10T Streetcar does not appear to be “off the shelf” as you mention, but is a derivative model of a European model, because according to their website the only users of the model are U.S. users. (Just as the type I MAX cars are a derivative of a Brazilian light rail car, IIRC.)
BTW – the original dispute regarding your bias against bus (in this thread, anyways) was actually noted by TWO other participants prior to myself.
the original dispute regarding your bias against bus (in this thread, anyways) was actually noted by TWO other participants prior to myself.
And, like you, they were BOTH wrong, as I have proven with dozens of references to source materials. If you think the source materials are incorrect or biased, that’s fine, but the materials I presented (as “additional resources”, I might add) were a representative sample.
Rather than discuss the issues, which you are free to do (nobody’s censoring you), you just keep coming back claiming “bias” “bias” “bias”. You then went on to completely falsely accuse me (yet again!) of supporting “disinvestment” in bus service, when I said nothing of the kind. I’d accuse you of twisting my words, but in fact I said nothing remotely twistable. You just made it up.
Well I thought we were discussing EmX, so isn’t Streetcar irrelevant?
The original comments I made where I dared to use the word “streetcar” were only to illustrate my point that EmX/BRT has suffered some of the same criticisms in the media as rail transit, which is absolutely true, well documented, and relevant to EmX. You’re the one going off on tangents and trying to turn this into yet another “bus vs. streetcar” war.
If you want EmX to expand or BRT systems like it to be installed in other Oregon cities, you’re going to have to deal with some of the same arguments and issues, but from a smaller crowd.
Alexander Dennis, Volvo, MAN, Mercedes Benz, [and maybe] Inkeon
Well, that’s a start. Some actual facts to go on. I look forward to seeing the links.
Some actual facts to go on. I look forward to seeing the links.
Alexander Dennis’ website: http://www.alexander-dennis.com/homepage.htm
Volvo: http://www.volvo.com/bus/global/en-gb/
MAN: http://www.mn.man.de/en/Products_and_Solutions/MAN_Bus/MAN_Bus.jsp
http://www2.mercedes-benz.co.uk/content/unitedkingdom/mpc/mpc_unitedkingdom_website/en/home_mpc/buses.html
And some more:
Neoplan: http://www.neoplan.de/en/Products/City_buses/City_buses.jsp
Van Hool: http://www.vanhool.be/products_bus.asp?ParentID=9
Scania: http://www.scania.com/products/bus/
Erik – Thanks for the links, I’ll go over each of them, hopefully today. Here’s what I’ve found from the first link.
Alexander Dennis
They do make a variety of narrow buses, including their Enviro 200 model which is only 2400mm wide (94.5″), but no articulated versions.
They do make a very attractive (cute, really) double-decker, the Enviro 400. Less cute but equally practical is the left-side drive USA version of the Enviro 500. The double deckers are 2550mm wide (100.4″), but that’s about the same as the current buses TriMet uses — in the Hawthorne case, this wouldn’t solve the lane boundary problem. They would be interesting to consider, however, for other routes.
Next Up:
Volvo
Erik, I looked at all the transit and intercity buses listed, including the 7700, 8500, and 8700 series, and these all appear to be standard 2550mm (100.4″) designs. I also looked their subsidiary, Nova, and it’s model also appears to be standard width. If there’s a specific narrow-body model that I missed here, please let me know.
MAN
Now we’re on to something. The MAN Lion’s City G is articulated, and is 2500mm (98.4″ / 1’2.4″) wide. Not quite as narrow as the streetcar, but it does shave about 3.5″ off the width of a standard bus, which as tight as things are on Hawthorne, could help a bit.
There is also a City GL version which is a bit longer.
Well done.
Now what is the excuse for Portland not to be investing in quality bus service? Eugene has done it and is growing ridership. Seattle has done it and is growing ridership. Vancouver, BC has done it and is growing ridership.
Portland is not doing it and is losing ridership.
http://www.iveco.com/en-us/products/pages/PRO%20-%20BUS%20-%20URB%20-%202.aspx
http://www.wrightbus.com/site/default.asp?CATID=32
New Register-Guard Guest Viewpoint:
EmX remarkably popular in first year
New Register-Guard article about future plans and funding/performance issues:
LTD looking to double bus ridership in 10 years
Excerpts:
Read the whole article for more information about current costs and potential future funding ideas.
It also appears that LTD is experiencing similar issues (but to a much smaller degree) to TriMet with regard to bus fleet replacement and expansion:
New Register-Guard article about budget issues being faced by the Lane Transit District:
LTD looks at possible service cuts in 2009
Excerpts:
New Register-Guard article about the planning of a new EMX route:
LTD Board to choose options for EmX route extension
I’m all for MAX and BRT, both make sense in different situations. But the streetcar seems like a complete waste. What is it’s average speed and how does that compare to the EmX and MAX? In my experience going between PSU and NW 23rd I can usually walk faster than it would take to ride the streetcar (I’ve timed it…)
Isaac W says:
I’m all for MAX and BRT, both make sense in different situations. But the streetcar seems like a complete waste. What is it’s average speed and how does that compare to the EmX and MAX?
Streetcar serves an entirely different purpose than a regional light-rail or bus rapid transit line and as such should not be directly compared to those other modes. LRT/BRT is designed to move large numbers of people over longer distances with fewer stops (every 1 mile or so); streetcar serves a smaller area and stops as frequently as a regular bus (every two or three blocks). Streetcar is best used to replace local bus service on corridors/main streets with extremely high ridership.
“…the streetcar seems like a complete waste…”
I might think so as well, because a brisk walk can almost keep pace with the streetcar (on a day when the traffic is bad, and basically only through the pearl district/CBD portion of the route). However, it is always jam packed full of people. I’d say that people are finding it to be useful or why would it be so heavily used?
Of course, someone on a bicycle can easily outrun the streetcar, or virtually any local busline. In urban areas with a lot of traffic, bicycles can get home faster than cars in many cases. Your average bike rider (one in reasonable shape) can go around 20MPH, and traffic often slows to that speed.
But there are many reasons that people might prefer to sit on a bus or train (or even behind the wheel of an auto) over cycling/walking any distance. Some of us are just fat and lazy. :) Others may want to avoid staining clothing with sweat, being subjected to inclement (or excessively hot) weather, or wish to be able to do other activities that can be accomplished while seated on a vehicle, but which cannot be accomplished while riding a bike or walking.
As to why the streetcar is heavily used, there’s an interesting question that has boggled transport planners for years. There remains a substantial part of the public who, for whatever reason, will ride trains but not busses. Whether it’s a more comfy ride (trains don’t need bouncy suspensions–that said, MAX can get pretty bouncy at times), nicer amenities on the trains (many busses in town still don’t have A/C), dislike of diesel exhaust and diesel engine noise, a fear of encountering undesireable elements on the bus (violent individuals, winos, folks who aren’t bothered with personal hygiene), or simple class prejudice (the belief that the bus is for “poor people”, but its OK for yuppies to ride trains)–I don’t know.
JHB says:
“…the streetcar seems like a complete waste…”
I might think so as well, because a brisk walk can almost keep pace with the streetcar
By referring to streetcar as a “waste” in this context, do you mean the streetcar specifically, or any transit along the corridor? (because I don’t believe a bus would fare any better along the same route)
Don’t forget that many potential transit users are also disabled or otherwise may have a physically difficult time getting around by foot or bicycle. Simply because a streetcar or bus may average a speed under what a healthy, able-bodied person can normally walk doesn’t mean the bus/streetcar does not provide an important service to members of the community. Additionally, even the physically fit among us may not want to walk very far (or very quickly) after gorging oneself at Henry’s Tavern or another nearby establishment.
This does not address the question of whether to put in a bus or a streetcar along a particular route. Again, I believe that is a matter of ridership and density of destinations along a route.
I could outwalk a popular bus on the old bus mall, it was common with the old mall that if I’d just missed my bus I’d just walk down a few blocks and get on it there.
The streetcar is slow because it stops every other block in mixed traffic. If you put the same number of passengers on a bus with the same stops in mixed traffic and it will be, at best, the same speed, (slower if they all try/have to get in the front door and/or if you have to deploy the boarding plate very often, even for a low floor bus.)
I rode the streetcar for a few stops in both directions Sunday afternoon/evening and it was packed. Far more packed than I expected or had planned.
The new bus mall will have greater stop spacing (on average) than the old bus mall. In addition to buses, MAX trains will stop every 4-5 blocks instead of every 2-4 like on the current Red/Blue/Yellow alignment. This should translate into improved trip times through the mall. The thing which remains to be seen is how well the operating pattern of “serpentine” trains, signal systems, and bus operating procedures will mesh, compared to predictions.
Pro or con, if you look at the Eugene EMX westide project from the beginning of its BAT lane, the length of the extension is just over 6 miles. Based on the last projection of cost from LTD @ $106 million, that’s about $17 million a mile.
Better, the time savings promoted since the inception of this project are now not projected to meet the ‘marketing material’ for 20 years (that’s from the website).
Tell me again the value of BRT as a cost-effective concept for mass transit…I’m listening…