Comments on: the horror: AC Transit’s jet lag

By: Michael Krueger

Michael Krueger — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 20:03:48 +0000

I know they are still using Van Hools on some major Transbay lines; I just rode an articulated Van Hool on Line O yesterday! I wholeheartedly agree that they are not as comfortable for long trips as the big, green MCI “freeway cruiser” coaches. However, the Van Hools do handle wheelchairs, luggage, and strollers better, and they are comfortable enough for the shorter Transbay runs. As comfortable as the MCIs are, though, they are incredibly loud (when you’re standing outside), large, and unwieldy. This makes them difficult to use on lines that spend a lot of time off the freeway, especially if the streets are narrow and the turns are tight. No bus is perfect!

By: Freddy Dierckx

Freddy Dierckx — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:39:00 +0000

Reliability and maintenance friendly will be cheaper in the long run. But you have to wait to see. I think a lot of US people are paid to mail negative for a non US product. In the old days, everything had to come from the US. But that is also a while ago.

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 01:07:54 +0000

who are you e
e cummings. or something
you seem to have a
very strange Approach to line breaks
punctuation! And
capitalization

By: david vartanoff

david vartanoff — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 06:24:54 +0000

claim, Van Hools w/ third(or fourth on artics) doors necessary for POP
Reality not even a tentative future date for POP meanwhile AC continues to charge for transfers which in most systems are the Proof.
claim fully low floor
Reality low floor but many seats on raised platforms

collateral issue every different vendor one buys from mean more physical space, inventory capital for spare parts, learning curve time for both operational and maintenance personnel.
And if anyone believes they ride comfortably, check out the apologetic e-mail to Transbay riders promising not to again subject them to the VH’s after apparently loud squawks.

By: Bruce De Benedictis

Bruce De Benedictis — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:18:57 +0000

I think people need to go back to the earlier entry about the Van Hool buses to refresh themselves on what was said then:

http://www.ibabuzz.com/transportation/2007/01/31/van-who/#more-272

There just is not a lot of choice in transit buses out there.

There are some other things to keep in mind: Gillig has never made articulated buses, so if they tried it, it would be a different experiment. It was apparent very early on that the NABI low-floors are not good buses for speedy service: baby strollers tend to clog the rear doorway and slow people getting off, which is probably the reason for the third door on the 40 foot buses.

The noise factor is very big. The Van Hools are probably the quietest buses you will find in the US. Compare them to the Orion(?) hybrid buses on the Muni. The Van Hools are a lot quieter, despite being straight diesels instead of hybrids. (There were supposed to be some Van Hool hybrids at AC Transit, but I am not certain which they are or even if they ever made it here.)

Reliability has been another thing. I have seen very few missed runs because of breakdowns on AC Transit. I think the Van Hools may have something to do with that, but I do not know for certain how reliable they have been.

I have had a lot of misgivings about the Van Hools, but if I were to rate their success, I would say that they are about 75% successful in their improvements. To answer Reedman’s question, I would say yes, they did get their money’s worth.

By: Capricious Commuter

Capricious Commuter — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:36:51 +0000

The way it was put to me was that they’ve done this to make the buses more attractive, more like a light-rail car with more glass and such, to lure more people out of their cars and onto the buses. They deserve credit for taking that chance, I was told, even if they like to party a bit much on the public’s dime.

By: Reedman

Reedman — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 21:50:32 +0000

It appears this whole tempest is due to AC Transit wanting a custom designed and spec’d bus instead of using what other agencies use. The fundamental questions are: Did they get something ‘better’ because they went through all this? And, did they get their money’s worth?

By: Capricious Commuter

Capricious Commuter — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:57:29 +0000

I agree that a comparison might have helped shed light on the significance of the amount. But from where I’m sitting, getting over jet lag in Paris is difficult to justify when most of the riders you serve could never afford to fly the the East Coast, let alone Europe. I also have it on good authority that AC Transit’s directors are similarly concerned. It’s also true that $1 million for European travel over a decade is just a drop in the AC Transit budget bucket. When you’re traveling on the quarters, dimes and nickels of poor people, however, it’s much more difficult to minimize such expenditures. (by the way, thanks for the history lesson… i read it all the way through)

By: V Smoothe

V Smoothe — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:59:51 +0000

I think those numbers would have had a lot more impact if Gammon had offered a comparison – how much do, say, 5 other agencies spend on travel? In a vacuum, I have no idea whether such expense is normal or not. Or to what degree it is abnormal. How much less would we be spending on travel if we were using NABI buses? In a void, that number means nothing.

$157,873 a year is a lot, so I don’t want to make light of expenditures, but on the other hand, it isn’t really a very significant portion of a $300m annual budget.