A number of things have been happening with the development of bus transit technology available in the United States in the past decade.
We’ve seen:
- Widespread deployment of Diesel-electric hybrid buses in cities such as New York and Seattle
- British-style double-decker buses on the Las Vegas Strip and now being evaluated in San Francisco
- Special Bus Rapid Transit buses with many of the features of streetcars: Multiple boarding doors on both sides of the vehicle, wheelchair ramps, and articulated sections, with a very recent installation in Eugene and their EmX Green Line.
Also, not yet seen in the USA but frequently discussed are double-articulated high-capacity BRT buses like those in Curitiba, Brazil.
And, of course, transit buses come in several flavors which have been available for a long time but are not currently seen here in Portland, including 60′ articulated models and electric trolleybuses powered by overhead wires. Both types have been used in Portland in the past.
Consider this thread a good place to discuss various transit bus technologies, pros and cons, and how they might be applied here in Portland to improve transit service.
(Thanks to Al and Jason for the San Francisco and Las Vegas links, respectively.)
96 responses to “Where to go with Bus Technology”
I’ve heard that Google has wireless internet service on their employee shuttles. Something like that on bus (and trains) would be sweet!
Please encourage Portland restores articulated bus & trolley buses as I hope that encourage installs “Articulated Bus & Trolley Bus Advocate Service Organization” in Portland. I would like to see that new establishment for Transit Advocate Organization along with new website site in Portland & Vancouver areas. Thanks, smile.
Those high-capacity options are appropriate somewhere, i’m sure; and maybe on a couple of the chronically over-crowded lines, like the 14 Hawthorne during rush hour, they’d be handy.
But on the other hand, our bus system needs frequency of service improvements *way* more than it needs added capacity.
It also needs to offer a clear advantage over driving; if we had dedicated transit streets & lanes in high-traffic areas during rush hour, so that mass-transit could get people home quicker than driving, *then* maybe we’d get enough ridership to need double-articulated buses and such. Transit streets — there’s a technology I’d like to see.
I seem to recall a previous thread about mini-buses for Tri-Met; how they’d be awesome hand-in-hand with increased service schedules, how they’d be more manouverable, how a mini-bus is much cheaper to operate than a full sized bus (duh!) and therefore could help tri-met move some dollars into expanded service ….
But then the big drawback was that the Federal Govt. kicks in dollars for us to buy full-sized buses, but not to buy minibuses. Is that really true?
Maybe the ultimate in bus technology is something that looks like a minibus to locals, but appears to be a full-size bus when scrutinized by the Feds. =)
check out Singapore:
http://gadgetracker.com/wifi-bus-in-singapore/
I’ve heard that the biggest cost is the driver, so mini buses might not be much cheaper. I have no source to offer though.
Put me in the ERIK/NICK camp as being in favor of buses over rail.
I like high speed rail, and I support lines in Portland like the blue and the red, but I really believe that the future of transit is in BUSES, yes thats right BUSES!
Fixed rail is unreliable, subject to security breaches, and the #1 problem from my point of view;
CANNOT BE MOVED.
Buses on the other hand have complete flexibility of route and demand. When one bus breaks down it doesn’t mess up the whole system.
Imagine if Portland had DOUBLE DECKER WIFI express buses connecting GRESHAM, PORTLAND, BEAVERTON, and HILLSBORO, with reliable feeder buses at all those transit centers.
W-O-W!
Buses are the transit of the future, not rail, sorry guys, y’all are wrong about rail.
Buses on the other hand have complete flexibility of route and demand.
Al, this is true to some extent but the difference is not as great as you may think.
Most bus lines today run along the same route (or subsets of the same route) as they did two decades ago. The #14, for example, hasn’t budged much … the transportation demand and development is along that corridor.
If the eastside #12 didn’t run along Sandy Blvd, where would it run?
Buses do have some advantage in being able to detour around problems, but again that isn’t always the case.
Two summers ago, right near my house, an accident stopped traffic on 60th. First one, then two #71 buses were stuck. I chatted with the operators and told them an alternate route around the accident which had adequate clearance for buses to make turns. They did not know the side streets and didn’t want to try it without being dispatched, and they could not leave their bus unattended for a quick walk to see that the route worked. So, there they sat for an hour, with their passengers, waiting for a dispatch that never came.
When MAX suffers a long delay due to an obstruction or event, shuttle buses are dispatched to carry riders around the problem. This dispatching process can take time and cause further delay, but so do (probably necessary) work rules which prevent buses from detouring around a problem.
– Bob R.
That being said, it is my great hope that this topic won’t degenerate into yet another bus vs. rail debate. This thread is set up specifically to talk about what’s going on with bus technology today and how we might use that in Portland. There’s no need to fight out yet another bus/rail battle this morning.
– Bob R.
PS… Freeloading bicyclists.
I need to qualify;
‘buses are the transit of the future’.
Rail is great for long distances, say from Eugene to Portland, or even Gresham to Hillsboro, if it was a fairly straight shot with limited stops.
A city like Portland and other Metro areas that have a fairly spread out population, buses are the ONLY WAY TO GO!
You missed that Seattle is USING double-deckers now. Same ones that are used in London (new, not old).
Apparently they even carry more people than an articulated bus!
haha, ok bob r, that wasnt the intent of my posts, but I can see why you would worry about that.
What I was trying to say, apparently not very effectively, was that technology on buses is only in its infancy, there is so much that can be done there.
“You missed that Seattle is USING double-deckers now”
Do you have any links for that?
Zilfondel –
Do you have a link for Seattle double-decker transit buses?
When searching, I found this one, but that’s for double-decker tour buses, not general transit use, and the fare is $20.
– Bob R.
Yea. that’s what I thought, not for transit use.
Check this out too:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/03/22/volvo-shows-off-hybrid-bus-technology-in-brussels/
and check this out too:
http://www.dpi.wa.gov.au/ecobus/1720.asp
Buses can detour quite easily:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hdaDfenFCM
I never figured out what this one is all about, but it looks interesting.
Is it a bus, tram or mono rail?
They call it a skybus:
http://www.konkanrailway.com/website/ehtm/sky_bus.htm
and here are some pics of some interesting ideas in buses: (this is the end of my knowledge on the subject)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/al_margul/?saved=1
Based on 20 years experience with Trimet buses, I’m sorry, you’ll have to do a huge amount of persuasion before I’ll even speculate that they might render satisfactory service. Light rail on the other hand has much higher credibility, simply because I don’t believe management would allow light rail to become nearly as unreliable as the buses already are.
A bus is a bus is a bus is a bus. So much of the quality of a bus ride is dependent on the operator…I know TriMet Ops who give you a smooth ride, a friendly greeting and are right on time. Unfortunately I know a few who flunk in each department, not matter what they drive.
TriMet would do better to put resources into recruiting, training and retraining their operators than fussing about this bus or that.
Interestingly enough not a few Ops aren’t keen on lightrail…is this an old union viewpoint? More buses means more jobs? Lightrail means more riders per vehicle, hence fewer jobs?
Meanwhile, quieter, cleaner, smoother and easier to operate buses would be the ticket.
Lenny, help me out here. :-) I’m trying to keep bus vs. rail disputes out of this topic.
I think they should adopt trolleybuses on frequent service routes. They are quiet, they don’t cause particulate problems along their routes, and they last forever.
Well… on one hand, Tri-Met is totally unreliable based on their schedules. with the ability to dial-in arrival times, however, I never look at a schedule.
what would be nice is if they updated their schedules to match reality. Given the huge dataset of more-or-less exact arrival times, it shouldn’t be a huge stretch to generate reliable schedules based on live traffic conditions. Not everyone wants to fire up their cell-phone or web browser for trips.
I’d be cool with trolleybuses as long as the transit mall didn’t look like this.
But is there a specific problem with our current system that any of these technologies address, or do people just think it would be cool if the Portland area had as many different forms of transit as possible?
I tend to agree with mykle: More frequent service is a higher priority for me than capacity.
Casey –
That link to the San Francisco photo you provided suggests a consideration to take into account when implementing trolleybus routes: For aesthetic reasons, routes should be selected which seldom cross or intersect, to avoid complex wire clutter above streets.
(Because trolleybuses run on rubber tires, they require 2 overhead wires … one to supply the power and the other to act as electrical ground.)
With advances in hybrid buses and battery technology, it is more practical now to design trolleybuses which can go “off grid” routinely for a block or two and then reattach to the wires. Intersections like the one in the photo could be simplified … especially for seldom-used branches.
– Bob R.
I wonder if Tri-Met has ever consider double-decker buses? A double-decker #15 or #14 would seem to make perfect sense, given obvious capacity and headway issues.
Sure, a streetcar would be preferable, but until then, you could buy double-decker buses tomorrow and put them in service in mid-2008 if the circumstances were favorable…
Garlynn –
Although I think ultimately the best thing for Hawthorne would be conversion to a narrower fixed guideway vehicle, due to the narrow lane widths on the streets, I do think that double-decker buses would be an excellent thing to consider, rather than articulated buses.
The narrow lanes (and constant lane-crossing that buses must perform to operate) on the densest, most crowded stretch of Hawthorne don’t make an ideal environment for articulated buses.
There is also the issue of new operational requirements on the transit mall when it reopens. Some of these will be physical constraints due to rail, but new ADA rules will require all buses to queue and stop at clearly designated stops. Although boarding may be permitted mid-block, all buses must line up clearly with the stop at the front of the queue.
A potential problem then arises when you mix buses of varying lengths into the queue. When you’re dealing with only one bus size, it is easy for operators to judge if there is sufficient room in the queue to proceed into it from across an intersection. With variable length buses, operators will have to approach more cautiously, and the number of buses that can be in any given queue simultaneously will range from 4 40′ buses to 2 60′ buses (there may not be 180′ of clearance.)
A 40′ double-decker bus will give you a big capacity boost without creating queuing capacity issues on the mall, and without taking up any more lane space on Hawthorne than today’s buses.
Are there vertical clearance issues, such as on the Hawthorne Bridge, that might be a problem?
– Bob R.
So far on the Double Decker front, it is COmmunity Transit using them, that is Snohomish County, and that is only one bus. King County Metro, which handles local service within Seattle, has not tried out Double Deckers, yet. I would like to see them do that, though.
Two summers ago, right near my house, an accident stopped traffic on 60th. First one, then two #71 buses were stuck. I chatted with the operators and told them an alternate route around the accident which had adequate clearance for buses to make turns. They did not know the side streets and didn’t want to try it without being dispatched, and they could not leave their bus unattended for a quick walk to see that the route worked. So, there they sat for an hour, with their passengers, waiting for a dispatch that never came.
When MAX suffers a long delay due to an obstruction or event, shuttle buses are dispatched to carry riders around the problem. This dispatching process can take time and cause further delay, but so do (probably necessary) work rules which prevent buses from detouring around a problem.
This sounds like a TriMet management problem and not a problem with busses.
Had TriMet’s management immediately became aware of the service interruption and immediately took action, it could have had field supervisors on the scene within minutes (after all, TriMet insists on giving their Field Supervisors gas-guzzling F-250 trucks; and Fred Hansen himself insists on having a Toyota Prius at his personal disposal paid for by TriMet) to re-route busses and service.
This is just another example of TriMet’s disregard towards bus service.
(Not to mention this entire thread, which proves that TriMet is simply refusing to acknolwedge improvements that could easily be made to the bus system that would improve reliability, capacity and ridership, while reducing fuel consumption and emissions.)
I heard somewhere that Fred Hansen personally reads this forum. I hope he has a “debunking “Where to go with Bus Technology” white paper” ready to post onto TriMet’s Reports and Publications website since he is the guy personally responsible for ignoring the 70% of TriMet riders that use the bus.
Easy there, Erik … I thought you would enjoy a thread devoted to improvements to bus service … I was hoping for a wonkish post or two from you before the angry rants started.
Whenever I read “busses” I think, “This must be Erik commenting.”
Erik –
I Googled around looking for a reference to Fred Hansen having a Prius at his personal disposal. All of the posts I found mentioning it were from you, so I presume you have access to the source of the information.
If it is a line item in the budget (as you mentioned elsewhere), I have a printed copy of the budget. Can you direct me to the page?
I find it interesting that you simultaneously criticize TriMet for moving staff around in F250s and then criticize TriMet for using a Prius to move staff around.
If the Prius in question is merely replacing another vehicle from the fleet which used to serve the same purpose, then that would seem pretty normal. Lots of fleets use the Prius these days. It’s a very reliable car. (#1 in Consumer Reports several years running.)
– Bob R.
Casey –
It is not the most common spelling, but it is an accepted spelling.
I know, but every time I see it I check, and, yep, it’s Erik. Presuming the conversation isn’t about kisses.
“with the ability to dial-in arrival times, however, I never look at a schedule.”
As I recall, the thinking at Trimet is that once you get headways below 15 minutes, most people don’t pay much attention to schedules. That doesn’t mean they stop trying to keep to the schedule, but it becomes less of an issue.
It worries me that operating costs will start to drive a disinvestment in more frequent service. Until you have headways down to every 5-10 minutes, I think adding frequency will also add riders.
So adding higher capacity buses, instead of improving headways, is not such a great idea. Hawthorne may be the only line where there is enough demand now to support both short headways and high capacity buses. And even then it would only be at rush hour.
And I think there is a strong argument that once you get to that level of demand and frequency of service, there are better, unnamed, technologies than higher capacity buses.
I want know if TRIMET are not releasing information about articulated bus & Electric Trolley buses? Just wonder if what kind of model TRIMET decided selected what name of company? Could TRIMET tell me in private information about their choice of bus industry on electric bus and articulated bus with low floor? Could anyone sends e-mail or contact with TRIMET about what do they select making transit bus vehicles included articulated bus and electric bus? Let me know from TRIMET? Thanks. smile.
Hi David –
From my informal chats with various TriMet staffers, I get the impression that trolleybus systems just aren’t on the radar for them.
That’s not to say that there is resistance, but there just isn’t a force from any direction within the agency to go in this direction, as far as I can tell.
I’ve made it a point to bring up trolleybuses when discussing the transit corridor evaluation and the streetcar system plan. It may be that trolleybuses can provide some of the advantages of rail (quiet operation, the impression of route permanence spurring new development) to some degree at a lower cost. I’ve suggested that for potential streetcar corridors which don’t pencil out that trolleybuses be considered as an alternative.
– Bob R.
It may be that trolleybuses can provide some of the advantages of rail (quiet operation, the impression of route permanence spurring new development) to some degree at a lower cost.
Are there other advantages when compared to regular buses? I like the idea of eliminating diesel buses which are a health hazard for people who live near transit routes. But I think ultimately electric hybrids may be a better solution than investment in infrastructure to support trolley buses.
Can the trolley buses share right-of-way and power with light rail and/or streetcar? I understand they need a ground wire. Does that make them incompatible or is that something that can be worked around?
Do trolley buses attract new riders the way street car and light rail do? What are the important attributes of streetcar that are lost? The uneven ride on buses is mostly a question of the operator, as Lenny pointed out elsewhere. I assume trolley buses can have the same problems with acceleration and stopping. We keep talking about the permanence of streetcar being an advantage, but I am not sure that is really what entices new development. The fact is the streetcar is a “sexier” amenity in the sales brochure. Can trolley buses be pitched that same way?
Those are not rhetorical questions. I think it is important that new technology deliver real benefits. If trolley buses can deliver 90% of the benefits of streetcar for less money, then it doesn’t make sense to invest in more streetcar anywhere. Instead, spend the same money on wider use of the trolley buses.
Ross,
—Can the trolley buses share right-of-way and power with light rail and/or streetcar?—
Maybe–it is the ground wire for the trolley bus that would be the problem. In the past, some cities required that their streetcars or trolley busses not use overhead wires at all (Washington D.C. for example). This means that a ground rail has to be installed. This, of course, raises the cost of the system by quite a bit.
—Do trolley buses attract new riders the way street car and light rail do? —
In my opinion-No. Electric trolley busses are a “clean” replacement for busses. Generally, if it looks like a bus and drives like a bus–it’s a bus. Light rail and streetcars are different beasties entirely.
Can the trolley buses share right-of-way and power with light rail and/or streetcar? I understand they need a ground wire. Does that make them incompatible or is that something that can be worked around?
The resulting overhead wire work isn’t very pretty, but it is done routinely in cities such as San Francisco.
I understand that the trick is having the “hot” wire be slightly lower than the ground wire where trains cross intersections with trolleybuses, or, when routes share a lane, the streetcars use a trolley pole rather than a pantograph (example: F-Line on Market Street).
As for utilization, I found a trolleybus manufacturer site (sorry lost the link), which is obviously going to tout favorable press, of course, which referred to a study done showing that ridership is 10-15% higher when trolleybuses are used rather than Diesel. If I can find the link again, I’ll post it.
I don’t think that’s as big of a boost as rail, but there could be corridors in Portland which could be suitable for conversion to trolleybus, but would have various financial or topographical issues with conversion to rail. (Again, this isn’t about rail vs. buses, it’s about what mode would work well in a various corridor.)
– Bob R.
Can the trolley buses share right-of-way and power with light rail and/or streetcar?
Yes, Seattle is doing it now with the new South Lake Union streetcar! The streetcar runs across some of the trolly lines (7,70,49, and some others). The wires up above look a little more complicated but so far I haven’t seen any problems in Seattle.
I really enjoyed riding a double decker bus in Berlin…I was working, but also a tourist. The 14 Hawthorne and 15 NW23/Belmont might be good candidates for trial of these types of vehicles…crowded streets, lots of shoppers.
When I rode the 14 a few years ago on peak hour outbound trips it would pickup as many riders as it dropped off in inner SE. That tells me lots of people were using it for short trips up and down Hawthorne. A double decker bus might just have the “je nais ce qua”…pardon my French…similar to Streetcar.
“which referred to a study done showing that ridership is 10-15% higher when trolleybuses are used rather than Diesel.”
I’ve seen a study like that as well, (and it wasn’t a bus maker, it was a pro-transit site,) which sited that study as well. I can’t find it either, but my memory says the numbers came out of San Fransisco, and had to do with days when there were detours in the route, and they used diesel buses instead of trolley… They went on to say that once you hit 12 minute headways on midday service, the capital costs of the wires tended to paid for itself…
I find it interesting that you simultaneously criticize TriMet for moving staff around in F250s and then criticize TriMet for using a Prius to move staff around.
Bob, you are completely missing the point.
Why does Fred Hansen need a Prius OR ANY OTHER VEHICLE when he has a fleet of over 600 busses at his disposal?
By God, he’s the manager of a transit district. He doesn’t need a personal vehicle at all. He has an annual pass to ride any bus at any time. If he has an appointment to go somewhere, he can get on a bus. In fact it’s simple – there’s a bus stop RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIS OFFICE AT SE 17TH AND CENTER STREET, and according to Google Earth is 220 feet from the front door. In fact here’s the Transit Tracker link for Fred himself:
http://www.trimet.org/arrivals/tracker.jsp?locationID=6849
But, God forbid, he might actually have to, gulp!, WALK in the rain to get to the bus shelter, and walk past the parking lot that holds all of the Center Street business vehicle fleet.
As for the Supervisors who I guess might need a vehicle, why do they need a F-250 pickup? Why can’t they drive a Ford Focus? Or, if you absolutely insist, a Toyota Prius? Or heck, a diesel Volkswagen Rabbit? Anything that gets more than 15 MPG? I have yet to find a single reason why they need a gas guzzling TRUCK, that is supposed to be the symbol of everything TriMet and Metro doesn’t want us to drive?
Erik:
“Had TriMet’s management immediately became aware of the service interruption and immediately took action, it could have had field supervisors on the scene within minutes (after all, TriMet insists on giving their Field Supervisors gas-guzzling F-250 trucks; and Fred Hansen himself insists on having a Toyota Prius at his personal disposal paid for by TriMet) to re-route busses and service.”
And Erik again:
“As for the Supervisors who I guess might need a vehicle,”
I guess the reason they might need a vehicle is so that they can get places where the buses are having a problem… A lot of buses don’t run that frequently during off peak hours, and if the supervisor has to get a call about a problem, and then ride out of the center garage and transfer out to the line with the problem, it could easily be 2 hours… (And lets hope a bus never breaks down after 10pm, or it would be 5am…) And when the MAX has a problem, the trains could be diverted a couple miles away… So should the supervisor walk? (I’m getting the feeling that if they bought the supervisors bicycles that you’d be complaining about that too…)
OK, when I see Fred Hansen personally reporting to a bus operations problem, I’ll shut up about him having a company vehicle for his use.
As for the supervisors – again, why do they need Ford F-250 trucks? Why not smaller, more fuel efficient, less costly vehicles? A Ford Focus (or a Toyota Prius if we are insistant on Hybrid vehicles, but since TriMet won’t buy hybrid busses I say spend $15,000 on a Focus, not $25,000) will “get to the scene” just as fast as a F-250 and will be more environmentally friendly.
I think there was some pressure on Trimet to get rid of the SUV’s. I don’t know what the outcome of that was or why they would still be using them. Its a question that ought to be asked again. But the criteria for what vehicles to include in a fleet is not their least demanding use, but their most demanding.
The stuff about Fred Hansen using transit for every trip, even if he is going to Salem for instance, is plain silly. He does use transit when appropriate. I have seen him on the bus on the way to meetings. But he is also going to have to make trips where transit is not a realistic option. At least until Trimet has an unlimited budget to provide unlimited transit to every destination in the region.
Here’s something new in bus technology … the city of Adelaide, Australia is experimenting with a solar-powered transit bus. The bus is actually a stand-alone all-electric vehicle (which could charge from any source) and they have a stationary solar recharging station.
(I’m guessing that what’s really happening is that the charging station is putting an equivalent amount of energy into the grid as the bus consumes, otherwise the bus would have to sit around charging during the day.)
The bus has a range of 200km, so it’s best suited to small towns or short runs. But if newer-generation Lithium Ion batteries come down in price with mass production and the safety concerns can be worked out, the range could conceivably be tripled or more, depending on the exact battery chemistry.
I don’t see this as an immediately practical technology for general transit applications, but it does give an idea of technologies which may be possible in the future as price/performance ratios improve.
– Bob R.
The stuff about Fred Hansen using transit for every trip, even if he is going to Salem for instance, is plain silly.
Maybe that’s a sign that there should be a push to provide transit and not come up with stupid excuses.
It’s silly that Oregon’s first and third largest cities (make that it’s largest and its Capitol), separated by a mere 45 miles, connected by a six-lane freeway that carries no fewer than 85,000 vehicles a day, that has a well established commute base of residents in either area that commute to the other, that has a number of en-route communities (most notably Woodburn and Wilsoville), has such a pathetic option for commuting save for I-5.
It’s silly that to get from Portland to Salem, you can do the following:
1. Wait until the late evening hours to catch an Amtrak train,
2. Take a Greyhound bus,
3. Take a TriMet 12, 94, or 96 bus to either Barbur Blvd TC or Tualatin P&R, then transfer to SMART 201 to Wilsonville, then transfer to SMART/Cherriots 1X.
It’s silly that the leader of our Transit Agency has to have its “Transit Advocates” come up with reasons why he CAN’T take public transit. We might as well come up with reasons why Portland’s mayor can’t live in Portland.
It’s silly that in Seattle/Tacoma, there are frequent busses that connect Everett, Seattle and Tacoma using long distance style busses (MCI D4500) that feature comfortable, reclining seats, luggage racks, and half-hourly service even on the weekends; yet Portland, the progressive forward-thinking town, can’t provide decent transit options for those who need a ride out of town (or into town, for that matter). And that Sound Transit has 34 busses with wi-fi service ON THE BUS. (Yes, TriMet, A BUS!!!)
Oh, and I should mention that Sound Transit recorded a TEN PERCENT increase in bus ridership alone in the second quarter of 2007. (Tacoma Link streetcar/Light Rail service only increased TWO percent, despite the fact that it’s a fare-free mode.)
I should also mention that Sound Transit and its operating partners also use hybrid busses, articulated busses, or hybrid articulated on many of the long distance routes.
Erik wrote: It’s silly that the leader of our Transit Agency has to have its “Transit Advocates” come up with reasons why he CAN’T take public transit. We might as well come up with reasons why Portland’s mayor can’t live in Portland.
Now you’re being silly.
There’s nobody at TriMet or in local government who is saying that people MUST take transit for every trip, or that they MUST take transit when the trip doesn’t work well for them, or that they MUST live without a car.
It’s not hypocritical for any member of TriMet staff to use a single-occupancy vehicle for trips where it’s needed. It’s not wrong for the public, it’s not wrong for TriMet.
You’re also misstating the argument: Nobody here is justifying why Fred Hansen “CAN’T” take transit. They’re just not buying your assertion that there’s something wrong because he uses a car at all. It’s well established that he rides the bus frequently. You seem to be hung up on the car.
All that really should be required (at least “morally”) of TriMet staff, especially those with influence over policy, is that they ride the system regularly and on a variety of routes so that they can experience the system just like anybody else.
Erik, you’ve always managed to raise some important points about problems with bus service, and areas were you think capital programs have been biased heavily and disproportionately in favor of rail, to the expense of bus service (I hope I have that right in a nutshell.)
But you also frequently manage to combine these criticisms with over-the-top statements which just don’t apply, and you manage to alienate others who are on-the-fence about your policy views.
– Bob R.
Erik, I would like to add that I’m surprised by your comments in this thread. This is a topic that is practically tailor-made for you. You have an extensive knowledge of various types of buses, what we have here and what we used to have here, what’s available elsewhere, etc. I was really looking forward to hearing from you about ideas, new and old, regarding bus technology, perhaps, just for a change, beyond your normal complaints/issues.
I would like to add that I’m surprised by your comments in this thread.
Bob –
I am not. While I appreciate the effort to keep things civil and assume people are here in good faith, that is not always true. The religious zealot on the soapbox is not interested in a theological discussion, even with those who agree with him.
“there are frequent busses that connect Everett, Seattle and Tacoma”
There are over 4.5 million people in the Seattle-Tacoma DMA, almost a million more than the entire state of Oregon. This reminds me of the complaints about local bus service in Tualatin not being equivalent to bus service in Portland.
http://www.achannel.ca/victoria/news_51473.aspx
If you assume that what Fred and the other administrators do behind their desks actually has something to do with making buses & trains show up and transport the rest of us…..then I’m sure you would not want them riding trimet buses to work. If their showing up on time means our buses and trains run better, for god’s sake, keep them off the buses.
Bob,
There is plenty of bus technology out there TODAY, RIGHT NOW, off the shelf waiting to be purchased.
There are transit agencies across the country and in Canada – not to mention Europe – that are taking a true leadership role in developing and using this tried-and-true technology which is working to improve ridership and the rider experiece.
The last time TriMet made any stride towards improving bus service was in 1997 – the year that Westside MAX opened **AND** TriMet began ordering the New Flyer D40LF low floor busses with air conditioning.
That was ten years ago.
King County Metro put in an order for over 700 hybrid busses.
BC Transit has placed an order for commercial hydrogen-cell busses.
Community Transit (Snohomish County) ordered 15 hybrid articulated BRT busses.
SEPTA in Pennsylvania ordered 400 hybrid busses.
Los Angeles County MTA now has one of the youngest bus fleets in the nation and is near 100% CNG powered.
Sound Transit employs over-the-road coaches to comfortably transport commuters on up to 40 mile routes between Tacoma and Seattle, Everett and Seattle, and the Cascade foothills near Snoqualmie Pass to Seattle.
Many agencies have added wi-fi service on their busses.
Now, let’s look at TriMet.
Since 1997, TriMet got a new general manager, Fred Hansen. When Hansen took over, he pointed out that TriMet had a problem in ordering a large quantity of busses at once (around 150-200 at a time) which was causing a financial drain; he set out to order smaller quantities of busses but on a more regular basis – 50 a year. That worked, until he stopped ordering busses two years in a row.
Meanwhile, TriMet was more interested in building out the Red and Yellow Lines without obtaining new funding, that there was only one source of funding left – take it from the bus system.
While TriMet spent millions on light rail lines, new busses never pulled up to the stop, bus stop improvements ground to a halt, older busses were kept in service far longer than they should be, road calls increased and reliability suffered, missed pull-outs went up, on-time performance dropped – and TriMet’s management had no concern over any of this.
Today there is more concern about building a Streetcar line on the route of a bus route that nobody wants to ride than fixing problems with existing bus routes that have capacity problems – even with reliability problems compounded on top of it.
If my comments are “over the top” I invite ANYONE to ride TriMet’s bus service with me, as I do twice a day, five days a week. You will see first-hand what I comment on here, and see why I have absolutely zero respect for Fred Hansen. In fact, I honestly have more respect for George W. Bush than Fred Hansen because at least George W. Bush acknowledges his priorities (and acknowledges that not everyone shares his view).
TriMet could very easily bring this proven bus technology to Portland. There is a validated need to bring hybrid busses to Portland where it would make a positive contribution towards the area’s air quality AND towards TriMet’s fuel consumption. King County Metro also reports improved reliability of a hybrid bus vs. a non-hybrid bus, which has a direct coorelation to operating expense. There are commuter routes that could benefit from having over-the-road busses. There are routes that need additional capacity that can be had in the form of an articulated (or a double-decker) bus that results in no additional labor and very little fuel cost increase. And Portland, being the technologically savvy community it is, would likely embrace on-board wi-fi on its transit system.
Bob, since you feel my comments are “over the top” about Fred Hansen having a total lack of knowledge over what happens on the transit system for which he is the leader of, why don’t you explain to me why there are any valid, good reasons that TriMet doesn’t embrace any of these suggestions – things that other TriMet users have certainly called for? Why is it acceptable that TriMet spends millions on select transit routes, while my transit ride is the equivalent of the city dump in comparison?
The technology is already out there, we don’t need a discussion of what technology COULD be developed. What we need is “how to get this existing, proven technology here to TriMet.” Unfortunately as long as Fred Hansen is in charge of TriMet and as long as he is satisified with zero growth in the bus system, we can count on effectively having two transit systems in Portland – one that is covert, swept under the rug and is in poor condition, and a smaller, gold plated system that serves only a fraction of the area.
Erik –
I know you have serious concerns about TriMet. I hope I articulated the summary of those concerns correctly in my last comment. I understand that you feel _very_ strongly about these concerns. I just don’t see why you have to voice them in nearly every comment that you make here. I know you feel like some people here are not listening, but I humbly suggest that some people here have a different point of view, and that your opinions have been well articulated and have been heard.
When I created this thread, it was based on a user-request, and I viewed this topic as a place specifically to talk about bus technology, and perhaps a place where the constant rail vs. bus debates could be put aside, just for a little while.
When I referred to hyperbole on your part, it was largely in reference to your strong complaints about TriMet staff using F250 trucks and in particular Fred Hansen not riding transit exclusively as part of his job. I hope you saw what I meant and I won’t reiterate my comments here.
Nevertheless, there will be a new open thread on TriMet ridership and priorities in the next couple of days, by request of another commenter, and that will be the perfect place for you to respectfully air your opinions again.
– Bob R.
When I created this thread, it was based on a user-request, and I viewed this topic as a place specifically to talk about bus technology, and perhaps a place where the constant rail vs. bus debates could be put aside, just for a little while.
Post #1:
Lenny Anderson, 12/10/07:
A bus is a bus is a bus is a bus.
Post #2:
Ross Williams, 12/10/07:
So adding higher capacity buses, instead of improving headways, is not such a great idea. Hawthorne may be the only line where there is enough demand now to support both short headways and high capacity buses. And even then it would only be at rush hour.
And I think there is a strong argument that once you get to that level of demand and frequency of service, there are better, unnamed, technologies than higher capacity buses.
Post 3:
Ross Williams, 12/11/07:
Do trolley buses attract new riders the way street car and light rail do?
If you want to remove the “bus vs. rail” debate, then I insist that you demand that Ross Williams refrain from his “pro-rail/anti-bus” rhetoric as much as you request I refrain from my arguments as well. Since you have publicized your argument against me, I fully expect you to call Ross Williams out IN PUBLIC as well and ask him to tone down his discussion which I feel is getting just as old as you feel my points are.
In so long as other contributors are allowed to freely proclaim their anti-bus statements, I feel there is a need for a counter-argument.
Erik, NOBODY here is anti-bus. NOBODY here is making anti-bus statements. Ross said nothing even remotely “anti-bus.”
February 8, 2007 5:49 PM
David Johnson Says:
I did not hear about trolleybus issues in Portland? Why? They never tell me about trolleybus issues, why? I would like to get hear about trolleybus issue? Did they put trolleybus images in this website? I would want seeing trolleybus brings back to Portland which they ablished trolleybus in past years of 1950’s. Please inform me about trolleybus news. Please help me for getting more information.
If my comments are “over the top” I invite ANYONE to ride TriMet’s bus service with me, as I do twice a day, five days a week.
It appears that Eric’s experience with “Trimet’s bus service” is as narrow as his suggestion that Trimet only invest in improving suburban bus service. His experience sounds like a typical suburban commuter.
There are a lot of people who use bus service more than twice a day and more than five days a week. They don’t have a fixed schedule that they repeat five times a week. They ride the bus at a various times and to various destinations. Frequency of service is important to them so they don’t need to carefully plan each trip to avoid standing on street corners for a half hour waiting for their connections.
The question here is how to improve bus service. I think Trimet is correct in focusing on frequency of service on the most heavily used routes. That doesn’t exclude improvements elsewhere, but it means that they are putting their limited resources where they will benefit the most people. That will inevitably leave some people dissatisfied and claiming that their particular route is being neglected.
See this: http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=116&subid=154&contentid=3411
NOTE: Buses get to ride for free!
This is what we should try on Route 26, but of course, we won’t, because it would make MAX look like s*** (not that it’s doing such a bad job doing that by itself). The trainspotters who run the transit agenda in this part of the world would never stand for it.
But I just thought that since this thread is about bus technology….
Erik, Nick, Ross …
Just for awhile, let’s pretend not to be antagonistic about each others’ posts and just talk about bus technology, at least for the purpose of this thread.
I realize that some people on this blog _seem_ to pick a fight about anything, but I’d like to do an experiment where we try, just try, to talk about the topic.
– Bob R.
TriMet studied trolley buses several times in the 70s and 80s.
Also check out this book from the Transportation Research Board which can be ordered…
THE TROLLEY BUS: WHERE IT IS AND WHERE IT’S GOING
http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/default.asp?lbid=203237
Theres a chapter in it called “THE TROLLEY BUS AND SYSTEM DESIGN”…
In this paper, Thomas G. Matoff, Director of Transit Development for the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregan (Tri-Met), Portland views the design of the transit network as the basis for successful introduction of trolley coach operation in most American cities.
In the book there is a small map of the proposed system in Portland
One thing is obvious based on these posts – there’s a lot of new bus technology out there, and a lot of old technologies that are being updated and modernized. TriMet isn’t investing very much (if at all) in them, whereas many other agencies are. And it is this type of investment that’s needed in order to continue technological advances in the industry. Yes, TriMet has invested in other technologies in the past, and the CNG Flixibles went out of service when parts were discontinued (according to the BusDude website) and the 60-ft. articulated buses TriMet now admits it went with a bad manufacturer which left both the agency and others with a bad taste in their mouth.
Now, it would appear it would be an uphill battle for bus tech investment supporters to successfully get TriMet to implement other technologies.
One could argue that TriMet is embracing Biodiesel by switching over to B5… however this is an under-the-hood change that doesn’t make the buses any more rideable than before, it’s more of a feelgood environmental thing. Across the Columbia, C-TRAN is using B20 on its buses, and B100 on its 2095, which has been wrapped with a picture of a sunflower field to tout the fact.
But then the big drawback was that the Federal Govt. kicks in dollars for us to buy full-sized buses, but not to buy minibuses. Is that really true?
They can and do get money to buy smaller buses, and that goes to purchase new buses for LIFT service.
I realize that some people on this blog _seem_ to pick a fight about anything, but I’d like to do an experiment where we try, just try, to talk about the topic.
I’m almost a little surprised nobody’s clicked on my name to see my latest project, which is a message board where anyone can start a discussion on any transit-riding related topic at any time they want. (I’m not mentioning this to try to be annoying, but rather as an attempt to provide another outlet where everyone can discuss early/on-time/late buses, old/new buses, etc., and things could be on-topic here and elsewhere.)
Other than that, I agree with you Bob – now, back to the topic.
I realize that some people on this blog _seem_ to pick a fight about anything, but I’d like to do an experiment where we try, just try, to talk about the topic.
If people use their own experience as authority, then that experience becomes part of a discussion “about the topic.”
And it is this type of investment that’s needed in order to continue technological advances in the industry.
Perhaps. But it is not necessary that Trimet make those investments, especially if the new technologies are unproven. There are a lot of new technologies out there and some of them will likely fail. Even with new, proven technologies new investments need to result in improved service. “New” needs to also be “better” and enough better to warrant the investment.
Bob;
With all due respect;
I think you need to take a long hard look at yourself in how your moderating these discussions.
Bob has my full support in keeping these threads on-topic.
Chris
of course chris,
I never thought for a minute that you would disagree with your main crony.
So I’ll amend my comments to:
I think Bob and Chris need to take a good hard look at themselves and how they are handling the moderation of this blog.
Blatant favoritism is what i see.
http://amargul.blogspot.com/2007/12/pin-heads-of-portland-transportcom.html
Chris, why don’t you just make the group members only so you can pick only the members that agree with your point of view?
Make it easy on yourselves.
Become an exclusive club, thats what you are anyway, why hide it?
Al, here’s the count of recent comment authors. If this is an exclusive club, it looks to me like it’s the “AL M” club.
Nobody gets moderated for disagreeing with me (or anyone else). They get moderated for being off topic, talking about other contributors instead of the topics or endlessly repeating themselves.
And you’re doing it again, having spent 4 comments responding to one comment from me on moderation.
49 AL M
35 Bob R.
24 Ross Williams
18 Al M
11 Matthew
11 Erik Halstead
10 John
9 GTinSalem
8 djk
8 Nick theoldurbanist
8 Lenny Anderson
7 Chris Smith
6 Adron
5 GM
4 Jason Barbour
4 JW
4 Hawthorne
3 zilfondel
3 elee
3 MRB
3 Casey
2 Steve
2 Ron Swaren
2 Mike
2 Mel
2 Joseph Edge
2 Jim Howell
2 Garlynn — undergroundscience.blogspot.com
2 EvergreenTransitFan
2 Dave
1 jim karlock
1 dick barnard
1 david johnson
1 Wells
1 VR
1 The Smooth Operator
1 Terry Parker
1 Ron
1 Randal
1 Mark Mullins
1 Katie
1 James A.
1 GregInOrenco
1 Garlynn
1 David
1 Chris Fussell
1 Brian Bundridge
Thats because i have to spend my time defending myself…
Out of all those comments how many were actually left on the blog?
maybe 2…
just kick me off and get it over with,
i have my t-shirt at the printer:
I’VE BEEN KICKED OFF THE PORTLAND TRANSPORT BLOG!
Your little catch all “off topic” stalinist approach to moderation doesn’t fool me.
It comes right out of the george bush playbook.
I had made of endorsed Frequent complaints from Portland about Light Rail service include trains being over-crowded, slowness through downtown, lack of late-night or owl service, and lack of traffic-prone areas, such as expand Portland International Airport to North I-205 to Vancouver Mall, Subway, 75-articulated buses, 75-trolleybuses; such as installing toll roads service helps paying light rail and transit modes include Subway, Southwest, Northwest, and Beltway lines. II had longest-endorsed term on Electric Multiple Unit trains consisting of many carriages using electricity as the motive power as regional rail increases in the United States and Canada. EMUs are also popular on commuter and suburban rail networks around the world due to their fast acceleration, pollution free operation and quietness. Emus can operate later at night and more frequently without disturbing residents living near the railway lines. I addition tunnel design for EMU trains is simpler as provisions do not need to be made for diesel exhaust fumes. It allows run along the freeways and everywhere and runs into underground downtown lines. I do not want paying higher fares on DMU for riding because of gasoline price, but I love riding EMU and DMU trains that what I want. See Photo of 60-foot Articulated bus on Hawthornestreetcar.org
OK, Al, you have your wish. You are suspended until after Christmas. Have a great holiday.
But it is not necessary that Trimet make those investments, especially if the new technologies are unproven
Ross, please, save yourself the hassle.
EVERY technology that I have advocated is WELL PROVEN in numerous bus fleets in the U.S. and in Canada.
Why would Seattle purchase some 250 hybrid busses, only to order 700 more? If it wasn’t such a proven technology I surely wouldn’t risk nearly $500,000,000 on new busses after investing nearly $200,000,000 if the initial investment didn’t pan out.
Yes – TriMet’s choice of an articulated bus, the Crown-Ikarus 286, was questionable. I don’t know the rationale behind that bus purchase (heck, I wasn’t even in elementary school when those busses were purchased) but those busses eventually did serve a useful 16 year life with TriMet from 1981 to 1997 before being retired, running six days a week span-of-service day (for whatever reason they never ran on Sundays) – so apparently the TriMet’s artics were actually successful save for some minor issues. (The lack of ADA access was concerning, however; but keep in mind that these busses had wheelchair lifts long before ADA was even enacted into law.)
But many transit agencies had bad luck with the GMC RTS-II. Portland had a fleet of over 80 of them and they too served a useful life until retirement. Many transit agencies used the RTS as their sole vehicle. Cherriots had a significant fleet of them. And the RTS is the backbone of New York City’s MTA fleet, and is still in production to this day with its fourth manufacturer.
As for articulateds, many agencies – in fact most agencies – use articulated busses. (New York City MTA is one of the exceptions; however since New York has an expansive subway and commuter rail system it’s questionable whether NYC needs articulated busses.) All of the Seattle metro area agencies use them. So does Vancouver, BC. San Francisco? Yup. Los Angeles? Yes. Chicago? You bet. This isn’t unproven technology that is bound to fail as you claim to think might happen.
If you are concerned about whether TriMet should worry about a product/technology will fail, then why does TriMet rely near-solely on the New Flyer D40LF bus? What if in a couple years a structural flaw is found in the bus requiring the immediate suspension of all of those busses – then what will TriMet do with half of its fleet grounded? Why didn’t TriMet diversify and buy more Gillig Phantoms, or even buy Gillig or Nova Bus or Orion low-floors? (Considering that Orion is a subsidiary of a company headquartered in Portland, it’s peculiar that TriMet never ordered an Orion bus, however Salem did.)
You are fishing for arguments against bus service and you are striking out each and every time with hypothetical arguments that make no sense and only show to prove that you know very little about bus transport outside of what little experience you have in Portland. Please, do some research before you post again here. A good source for information is http://www.metro-magazine.com.
Now, Bob R. (and Chris), where are we on the verbal reprimand of Ross for continuing to create a bus vs. rail debate despite your explicit request NOT to have one?
Erik requested:
Ross also said:
Erik – I reread Ross’s post (the one you quoted from) and the word “rail” did not appear anywhere within. However, given the context, I can see how it could be viewed as a perpetuation of the tiresome rail vs. bus debates, so Ross, please consider this your verbal reprimand. Try to talk just about bus technology, what you think _can_ work and what you think _can’t_ work, and try to be specific as to why. Thank you.
Erik – I hope you now consider the matter closed and will ratchet down the anger level just a tad, at least in this thread.
– Bob R.
New York DOES have articulated buses; I rode them when I was still living there; as of 2000 they were running on some of the Manhattan crosstown lines.
The bus-vs-rail debate should have its own permanent thread, and comments from other threads should be moved if necessary.
“If you are concerned about whether TriMet should worry about a product/technology will fail, then why does TriMet rely near-solely on the New Flyer D40LF bus?”
>>>> I don’t particularly like these buses. They are noisy, rough-riding, and some of the seats have awful legroom. My favorites as a passenger are the 2100’s. Also, the high floor articulateds in Seattle were great. Unfortunately, it looks like Seattle has also bought D40-LF buses.
“Why would Seattle purchase some 250 hybrid busses, only to order 700 more? If it wasn’t such a proven technology…”
It had a lot of it had to do with being able to operate them in the bus tunnel without killing people… So in much the same way that if you have a terminal illness, you might try an unproven treatment more so than you would if you didn’t have a terminal illness, Seattle was more willing to take a risk on an experimental bus rather than not have bus service on a dedicated right of way downtown… And, I believe that, (at the time Seattle ordered them,) they were the largest operator of hybrid buses by far, which would put them fairly far into the experimental category…
Don’t get me wrong, I think we should go with hybrids now, but I can see why TriMet didn’t rush into it the same time Seattle did…
However, given the context, I can see how it could be viewed as a perpetuation of the tiresome rail vs. bus debates, so Ross, please consider this your verbal reprimand.
That is oomplete BS = that statement had nothing to do with rail. It was an explicit response to a discussion of a series of new bus technologies. and I don’t see how it could be interpreted any other way “in context”.
However, I will take your deliberate mis-interepretation of it, as a suggestion that my comments are not welcome here.
It had a lot of it had to do with being able to operate them in the bus tunnel without killing people…
The hybrids have NOTHING to do with the Metro Tunnel – in fact they cannot operate in the Metro Tunnel for the same reason a regular diesel bus can’t operate in the tunnel.
The only busses that can operate in the Metro Tunnel are the trolley busses – the Gillig Phantom 4100 series, and the Breda 4200 series (articulated) – both of which are ZERO EMISSION vehicles. A hybrid, although cleaner than a regular diesel (or a “clean diesel”), still has an exhaust pipe.
OK, correction – according to Metro’s website, Hybrids are allowed in the tunnels.
I guess that should prove to Portland – if a Hybrid is good enough to run in an enclosed tunnel, it is definitely good enough for Portland.
I don’t particularly like these buses. They are noisy, rough-riding, and some of the seats have awful legroom. My favorites as a passenger are the 2100’s. Also, the high floor articulateds in Seattle were great. Unfortunately, it looks like Seattle has also bought D40-LF buses.
I have to agree with you, Nick. The D40LFs are very cramped when it comes to legroom, and in fact have less passenger capacity than a 40′ high floor bus like the 1700/1800s or the 2100s.
I like the 1700/1800s except for the lack of air conditioning. They are very comfortable and ride smooth. However the newer New Flyers – the 2700s and 2800s have the new seat design that is much more ergonomically correct and comfortable.
The articulateds are a mixed bag – I’ve ridden Metro’s D60HFs and they are comfortable (Metro even ordered them with cushioned seats!) but they do tend to “bounce” more, especially in the back because of the articulated joint. This can be rectified by running the articulated busses on improved streets (namely the arterials like Barbur, McLoughlin, T.V. Highway, SE Powell (west of I-205) and SE Division (east of I-205), Stark (east of I-205).
Its CNG buses that cant run in tunnels with overhead electric wires. This is an issue in Boston.
Hey, CNG brings up an interesting point. Why does TriMet, serving the largest Metro area, have polluting and very LOUD diesel buses while Salem, a much smaller area, has technologically advanced quit and very CLEAN CNG buses, nicer transit facilities, etc. even at a lower cost than TriMet?
Just wondering….
“I guess that should prove to Portland – if a Hybrid is good enough to run in an enclosed tunnel, it is definitely good enough for Portland.”
Uhmm, no, you are completely missing the point. Seattle, (and us for that matter, but only with 2,) have ran them for a few years and determined that they don’t have any serious long term problems, so therefor they are good enough for Portland. The tunnel is why Seattle rushed into it more than anyone else did, but the fact that it didn’t kill anyone isn’t really an issue for us. In the other thread I was advocating wood gas buses, but I wouldn’t suggest that they replace all of the buses with it, (without trying it out for a while first.)
My problem with CNG is similar to the problem I have with bio-diesel, the long term marginal natural gas supply in this country comes from places like Qatar and once you’ve liquefied and shipped the NG that far, it is fairly similar (CO2 wise,) to burning coal. (Not that I like oil, but it is far less complicated to transport.) That, and my parents lives in Coos Bay and are fighting an LNG plant that [California] wants to build there, so I have personal feelings about this as well.
I like the 1700/1800s except for the lack of air conditioning.
With the exception of them being almost 20 years old, which is sometimes pointed out, I find them perfectly acceptable from a rider perspective myself (unless it’s an extremely hot and/or humid day and the bus is stuck in traffic).
However the newer New Flyers – the 2700s and 2800s have the new seat design that is much more ergonomically correct and comfortable.
Complete agreement with you there as well. These are probably the most comfortable bus seats that I have the opportunity to ride on a regular basis.
A little over a year ago I took public transit all the way from Portland to Seattle, which spanned five different agencies – When riding the buses with the padded seats I felt like I was going to fall out of them. Might be just me however.
…Salem, a much smaller area, has technologically advanced quit and very CLEAN CNG buses… even at a lower cost than TriMet?
I’ve heard that their next bus purchase might not be CNGs… they might be diesel as well. Also, the RTS’ and Orions (1400s and 1500s) they run are extremely old… I heard up until a few years ago they were running former TriMet 900s!
Also, their fares might be lower, but not everything is… TriMet has an Operating Expense per Unlinked Passenger Trip of $3.08, whereas Cherriots is $3.24 for the same metric. This is all on the NTD website, but I’m digressing.
And, lastly, if TriMet isn’t willing to try out new things, then who will be? Other agencies? Okay, if something is controversial or just won’t work the way its supposed to, fine – there’s a point there. However, there might come a time where they might just become the “other agency” to someone. We’ve all heard that we were one of the first cities to reintroduce what’s now light rail, and a fareless transit zone, but those were in the 70s and 80s. I understand the counterpoint that says TriMet might want to look more into new bus technologies.
A little over a year ago I took public transit all the way from Portland to Seattle, which spanned five different agencies
Sorry to go off topic here, but how did you do that? I looked at making a trip like that a few years ago — Portland to Seattle using only city bus systems — and couldn’t figure out how to get from Longview to Olympia without using Greyhound.
I’ve heard that their next bus purchase might not be CNGs… they might be diesel as well. Also, the RTS’ and Orions (1400s and 1500s) they run are extremely old… I heard up until a few years ago they were running former TriMet 900s!
Really?!!!
I was under the impression that Cherriots was really happy going CNG, and wanted to go 100% CNG. However many agencies have not cared too much for CNG. TriMet tried it for awhile but gave up when the cost for CNG fueling systems was cost-prohibitive. (TriMet contracted with PGE for CNG fueling because at the time PGE had a fleet of CNG fueled trucks right next door to Center Street. PGE stopped using CNG for their trucks. However just a couple weeks ago I saw a PGE hybrid-electric lineman’s truck!)
Cherriots bought a few ex-TriMet 900s because it was in the middle of a route expansion, and the new busses (the Orion VIIs) hadn’t yet been delivered. So the 900s were entirely a stop-gap measure and likely a good choice for Cherriots as its mechanics and drivers were familiar with the type of bus. I believe Cherriots has disposed of all of those busses; however SMART purchased one and it can be seen at Barbur Blvd TC from time to time!! (The TriMet vehicle number is still marked above the driver’s side window, but the bus is otherwise in SMART markings.)
Yes, the Orion Is are old as well as some of the RTSes. However these busses, I believe now are a minority of Cherriots’ fleet now that they have purchased the Orion VIIs (both in 35 and 40 foot variants) as well as the ElDorado National busses (I want to say 28 foot). According to Cherriots’ 2007-2008 budget (which I may want to interject is linked FROM CHERRIOTS’ HOME PAGE – why doesn’t TriMet do this??????) they operate a fleet of 79 transit busses. This includes 9 35′ GMC RTSes purchased in 1980, 21 35′ GMC RTSes purchased in 1985, 6 40′ TMC RTSes purchased in 1989, 8 40′ GMC RTSes purchased in 1984, 10 ElDorado EZRiders purchased in 1988, and 4 40′ Orion Is purchased in 1992. However it is likely that some/most/all of the older RTSes may have been retired, I cannot find an updated Cherriots bus roster, or a count of their newer Orion VIIs.
And, lastly, if TriMet isn’t willing to try out new things, then who will be? Other agencies? Okay, if something is controversial or just won’t work the way its supposed to, fine – there’s a point there.
I believe that Portland was one of the first cities (but not THE first, San Diego’s “trolley” predated MAX by several years) in the 1980s to build a new light rail line.
And Portland was the first city to build a “modern streetcar”; the existing Streetcars in the U.S. were what could be described as “heritage streetcar” lines in that they used refurbished, historic equipment or equipment that was patterned on historic equipment, and the purpose of the system was more geared towards tourism purposes rather than transportation or development purposes.
The only reason why TriMet doesn’t invest more in bus service is because it is a distraction from light rail and Streetcar service. TriMet could be taking the lead in developing bus technology. And the Portland area should have embraced the fact that Freightliner has a headquarters here in Portland, manufacturing facilities that are silent, and that Freightliner owns Orion – a major manufacturer of busses. I would think that Mayor Tom Potter, the entire City Council, all of Metro and TriMet should be marching on down to Swan Island to get Freightliner to move some bus operations here to Portland to create jobs, help innovate the development of new bus technologies (especially clean technologies), and create a home-brewed industry. If we can do it with Streetcar, we should be doing it with busses. Meanwhile, we are helping to support hundreds of jobs in Sacramento, California.
Erik wrote: The only reason why TriMet doesn’t invest more in bus service is because it is a distraction from light rail and Streetcar service.
Erik, you demanded, right here in this very thread, that I admonish Ross for possibly tangentially referring to the bus vs. rail debate, and I did so, at your request. Now, you’ve gone and brought it up again yourself.
I’ve made it quite clear that this thread isn’t for the much-rehashed bus vs. rail debate.
Will you therefore demand that I admonish you for explicitly reviving this topic yet again?
Fine, Bob.
Would you like to address the rest of the paragraph, save for the two small comments making a bus-vs.-rail comparison?
Erik wrote: “Would you like to address the rest of the paragraph, save for the two small comments making a bus-vs.-rail comparison?”
The two small comments? Err…go back and read what you wrote (and wrote and wrote so many times before).
Pot, meet Kettle.
Yes, I agreed with transit buses come in several flavors which have been available for a long time but are not currently seen here in Portland, including 60′ articulated models and electric trolleybuses powered by overhead wires. Both types have been used in Portland in the past. Yes, I was totaled disappointed Trolleybuses powered by overhead wires used in Portland in the past, why restoration??? Let me know! Please release informaton!! Thanks.