Fastest-Growing Form Of Intercity Travel In The US In 2010 - Buses

[hatrack]

Buses were the fastest growing mode of intercity transportation in the USA last year, outpacing rail and air travel, thanks largely to the expansion of "curbside operators" such as BoltBus and Megabus, according to researchers at DePaul University in Chicago.

Intercity bus operations overall expanded by 6% in 2010, while curbside operators — which don't run out of established terminals but pick up and drop off passengers at curbside — grew by 23.9%, says the study by the Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development at DePaul.

Curbside operators now have about 440 departures daily, says Joseph Schwieterman, director of the Chaddick Institute and co-author of the study. That total does not include Chinatown operators, whose operations are harder to gauge, he says.

"There was almost a perfect alignment of the stars," Schwieterman says. "There was a new bus model that offers super cheap fares, technological changes that made people willing to take a mode of transportation slower than air travel, and the high fuel prices."

EDIT

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-01-31-buses31_ST_N.htm

[Warren Stupidity]

1. time for the TSA to make bus travel as friggin awful as plane travel.

My kids take the cheap intercity buses everywhere 'cause they are incredibly cheap and generally comfortable.

[txlibdem]

2. Buses: all of the downsides and none of the benefits

You get stuck in traffic
You are susceptible to the weather and icy roads
Everyone else on the road puts your life in constant danger --40,000 people die each year in auto crashes
Frequent stops between you and your destination --picking up, dropping off, driver break time
Bus does not pick you up at your house and does not drop you off at your real destination
Buses waste fuel unless they are full, which they mostly aren't
Uses imported oil, supporting terrorists

Bus = FAIL.
=============================
Contrast that with PRT
=================================
No traffic, no waiting
Protected from the weather, even stations are indoors if desired
No dangers from other vehicles --each vehicle is controlled by computer and traffic flows are coordinated
No stops between your starting location and your destination --plus you get to enjoy whatever media you prefer on the way
PRT picks you up at your home and drops you off at your final destination --no walking, no inconvenience
PRT is the most fuel efficient mode of transportation
Runs on electricity --increase the amount of renewable energy and it gets even more clean and green

Conclusion: PRT wins hands down.

[NickB79]

3. So, how much would it cost to implement a PRT system to replace buses in the US?

The infrastructure, the vehicles themselves, the computer control systems, all of it. Any estimates on that?

[txlibdem]

4. You couldn't do such a comparison

PRT has none of the down sides, none of the waste and inefficiency, none of the redundancy, almost none of the massive maintenance costs of bus fleets. The math is far beyond my abilities.

You're welcome to attempt it.

PRT needs no gas, no tires, no brakes, no drivers, no supervisors for the drivers, no supervisors for the supervisors for the drivers, no on-staff large engine maintenance crews, no giant towtrucks, no snow plows to keep the PRT system running in winter, no military personnel stationed on land and at sea to keep the "fuel" flowing for the PRT system, no taxpayer subsidized road system, no "gasoline tax" to further subsidize bus service, fewer huge stations (the size of PRT vehicles and stations per passenger per mile is far less.

What you might be able to do is to assume a PRT system that only has 1% of the track needed to service a given area, since bus service never serves more than 3.5% to 5% of any city population (unless you're in a super high density city like New York). Then assume a PRT system that contains at most 1/3rd the number of vehicles you would truly need, forcing PRT riders to wait up to an hour for a free vehicle to arrive at the station (just like with buses). Then assume that each PRT vehicle has to carry around a 55 gallon drum of crude oil that gets dumped out at the end of each day. Then purposefully sabotage between 1/4th to 1/2 the PRT vehicles at some point during any given month so they will need to be serviced. Also purposefully make sure that 90% of the PRT vehicles takes a rider either farther away or not far enough to their intended destination --so they have to walk, or take a taxi to end up where they want to go.

I'd never attempt to do such a crazy mathematical adventure.

[caraher]

5. I'm very confused by the responses here

First, the OP is about inter-city travel, not travel within cities. Based on what I've been able to read about PRTs it sounds like they're intended for travel within a city/metropolitan area.

Second, I'm not sure how one can advocate strongly for any transportation system (whether PRT or something else) over another without doing some kind of analysis of costs. It would be nice to do that for a change in this country. I'm fascinated by the fact that there used to be interurban rail systems 100 years ago... and streetcar systems in major cities, and more trains in general, largely replaced by the automobiles/trucks/buses. I do know how some of that happened - GM's dismantling of streetcar systems to sell buses is the obvious example, and that was a deliberate act by people who knew exactly what they were seeking (profit) and how to do it. Other elements of change occurred thanks to massive effective subsidies for one form of transportation over another - tax money spent on interstate highways, airports, etc.

The problem right now is that the entire network of subsidies for road transportation is so well-established as to have become virtually invisible. But that doesn't mean one couldn't, for instance, add up the costs of running a bus system, including estimates of things like the need to maintain the roads, and make a reasonably sound comparison to something like a PRT.

My worry about ideas like PRT is that they seem pitched mainly to make their use palatable to those accustomed to a car culture. Although my father made his living in the auto industry, I think the car culture has been really damaging even beyond the obvious environmental impacts. We've grown accustomed to walling ourselves off in these little metal capsules and spending large parts of our days guiding them around, viewing other people doing much the same thing less as humans than potential obstacles or hazards. We're used to going where we want, whenever we feel like it, rather than accepting modest constraints on our ability to travel a mile, 30 miles, or 300 miles in exchange for getting there in an energy-efficient yet reasonably fast way.

In short, I can see how PRTs might very likely be much better than buses using fossil fuels running on fixed schedules for certain types of travel. But I don't have a problem with a system that runs on a fixed schedule and might require one to walk a little or (shudder) bump into other people on occasion. Maybe catering to the car culture is necessary to get people to adopt alternatives, but I'd rather go with whichever affordable transit system minimizes negative environmental impacts - assuming people have the ability to accept whatever tradeoffs and changes in habits might accompany that.