http://voices.washingtonpost.com/getthere/2009/04/avoid_long-suffering_benning_r.html#comments (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/getthere/2009/04/avoid_long-suffering_benning_r.html#comments)
It looks like two lanes in each direction on Benning Road will be paved by July. Will WMATA finally get the 60BRT's onto the X2 and off of the exile of the U8 and R's by then, or are those nice and fancy buses fated to a life of tucked-away anonymity?
Yes.
Or No.
All we can do is assume that they are going to do what they said they would do with them.
You really, really think that they'd keep relatively new buses under passenger abuse in far eastern DC or under suburban anonymity when the X2 needs them?
If for some reason they ditch them on the X2 after the reconstruction, WMATA'd better have a good reason why.
Quote from: Scrabbleship on April 29, 2009, 11:26:42 AM
You really, really think that they'd keep relatively new buses under passenger abuse in far eastern DC or under suburban anonymity when the X2 needs them?
If for some reason they ditch them on the X2 after the reconstruction, WMATA'd better have a good reason why.
They're at Bladensburg Division, what do you expect?
Quote from: NewFlyer97BCT on April 29, 2009, 12:42:27 PM
Quote from: Scrabbleship on April 29, 2009, 11:26:42 AM
You really, really think that they'd keep relatively new buses under passenger abuse in far eastern DC or under suburban anonymity when the X2 needs them?
If for some reason they ditch them on the X2 after the reconstruction, WMATA'd better have a good reason why.
They're at Bladensburg Division, what do you expect?
Given that prior to this Bladenburg's artics spent 99% of their time on the X2 and to not put them on the X2 would mean some schedule adjustments if they de-artic the route, I'd expect them on there.
Why a couple haven't been wrapped into the Express scheme and put onto the 79 doesn't just amaze me, but miffs me. Would be a better way of getting them out there than hiding them on the U8 or the R's.
Realize though that now H Street is jacked up with the utility relocation for the streetcars...
Quote from: Tristan on June 08, 2009, 05:40:32 PM
Realize though that now H Street is jacked up with the utility relocation for the streetcars...
So much money wasted on the 60BRT's then. Is there any coordination of any sort between WMATA and DDOT?
At this point, I'd rather "ruin" the buses on the X2 and have them be visible than have them be ruined in a different way on the U8. Anyone agree?
Coordination? You mean "Hey DDOT, we got these shiny new buses we want to run on H Street, you think maybe you could put that trolley project on hold for about 15 years until they wear out?"
Metro got these SORELY NEEDED articulateds on a piggyback deal with MTA (LA) that saved a lot of money...I'd rather that than them having to spec them all from scratch, have to spend tons more money, and not address overcrowding on routes that need help. I know it hurts to see these things stuck in a corner, but I promise you, the X2 isn't much better (didn't they used to be one long route?) anyway, so you're barking up the wrong street here.
Honestly, what's the point of "hiding" these buses? Why must they ALL go to the X2? Aren't there other Bladensburg routes that actually could use artics?
Too bad they can't repaint the buses into an express scheme of some sort and use them on the 79 (does that get crowded) or something.
Quote from: Tristan on June 09, 2009, 12:28:56 PM
Coordination? You mean "Hey DDOT, we got these shiny new buses we want to run on H Street, you think maybe you could put that trolley project on hold for about 15 years until they wear out?"
Metro got these SORELY NEEDED articulateds on a piggyback deal with MTA (LA) that saved a lot of money...I'd rather that than them having to spec them all from scratch, have to spend tons more money, and not address overcrowding on routes that need help. I know it hurts to see these things stuck in a corner, but I promise you, the X2 isn't much better (didn't they used to be one long route?) anyway, so you're barking up the wrong street here.
As bad as the "bus not running on the X2" situation may be, the fact that construction is in this phase for the streetcar project is much worse. By the time we get these trolleys running here (well, there in DC), they will be aged already...
Quote from: Tritransit Area on June 09, 2009, 02:31:15 PM
Honestly, what's the point of "hiding" these buses? Why must they ALL go to the X2? Aren't there other Bladensburg routes that actually could use artics?
Too bad they can't repaint the buses into an express scheme of some sort and use them on the 79 (does that get crowded) or something.
Surely there are other Bladensburg routes that can use artics, but my theory is that some of them can't handle artics due to small roads/tight turns, etc (for example: D6, H2/H3/H4)
One way of trying to reveal these buses was to put them on the R line during PM rush, not the X2 but it's the next best thing (like Tristan said, the X2 isn't much better either).
With the streetcar thing (for streetcars which may never run because nobody has a pair to get the overhead wire ban amended), you then run into the problem of how long the 5200's can hold up. And if they can't hold up anymore and it isn't time for a new CNG order, what do you do then? Restructure the entire route by making it 40'-only and deprive other Bladendburg routes of buses?
No other city in America would needlessly coddle buses like we do. Put them on the X2 and let things happen as they may? What's the worst that we can happen?
You're pushing for them to put these buses on a route where they will be physically pounded for 60% of the line versus keeping them in a relatively safe place until the project is done. Yes, they're getting....their share of damage on the U8, but it's interior damage -- writing, seat slashes, window etching (I've never witnessed any of this but I'm assuming that this is the type of stuff that would happen) -- that is easier to repair than mechanical, physical damage.
MTA had frame crack issues with not only Neoplans but also New Flyers, and I think a big part of it is the fact that they are driving these vehicles through sinkholes several times a day (looks like Baltimore has done some street paving recently, but some problem areas still exist), and I would expect the same type of thing to happen to the NABIs under the same conditions.
Most TA's would not have any problems running new buses on routes which are undergoing construction. Why would WMATA be so concerned?
Besides, H Street isn't as bad off as many roads up north...and TA's up there run new buses there like it's no problem. Why should WMATA be so different?
Maybe it's time to do an even split of the 70 and the X2 between Bladensburg and Northern...
Quote from: Scrabbleship on June 11, 2009, 07:53:41 AM
Most TA's would not have any problems running new buses on routes which are undergoing construction. Why would WMATA be so concerned?
Besides, H Street isn't as bad off as many roads up north...and TA's up there run new buses there like it's no problem. Why should WMATA be so different?
Maybe it's time to do an even split of the 70 and the X2 between Bladensburg and Northern...
...as mentioned before, construction on H Street might pose a greater danger of the buses suffering exterior damage, and imo I'd rather have my buses to get interior damage only and not both.
Although the U8 isn't any better in that case...I remember a couple of months ago when someone reported that one of the new NABI artics had an accident while on the U8, and IIRC it was because of a tight turn.
H Street is to quote "Tore up from the floor up", putting a brand new $500,000 plus bus on there would be a waste in the investment they made. And then there is this, NABI hasn't been doing a good job lately of producing a quality vehicle to begin with, so maybe it would be wise to run it on smoother streets just to make sure that if the bus is falling apart prematurely, that it isn't the street but the manufacturer.
You have to ask yourself. You buy a brand new car, would you rather make a left turn and drive on a smoother road even though it might take you a little longer to get to work, or take a right, roll on a street filled with potholes, possibly ruining your suspension and other things just to get to work faster.
Quote from: WES on June 11, 2009, 11:25:14 AM
H Street is to quote "Tore up from the floor up", putting a brand new $500,000 plus bus on there would be a waste in the investment they made. And then there is this, NABI hasn't been doing a good job lately of producing a quality vehicle to begin with, so maybe it would be wise to run it on smoother streets just to make sure that if the bus is falling apart prematurely, that it isn't the street but the manufacturer.
"Smoother streets" and the roads most Bladensburg routes run are two things that contradict each other. The U8 route physically isn't all that better than Benning has been or H Street will be to be honest. Your main option for "smoother streets" in Bladensburg territory would be the R's, the 80-series routes that Bladensburg has, or the D6 and everyone hates the idea of them on the latter two.
QuoteYou have to ask yourself. You buy a brand new car, would you rather make a left turn and drive on a smoother road even though it might take you a little longer to get to work, or take a right, roll on a street filled with potholes, possibly ruining your suspension and other things just to get to work faster.
This analogy seems so flawed that it's laughable. Most people don't have nearly 250 cars to play around with like Bladensburg does and even then most people with multiple cars use some common sense. Like not putting their new six-figure roadster in the roughest part of town where it won't get eyeballs. Maybe it's time for us to have balls, like the Twin Cities or my old haunt of Albany, and launch new buses with no regards to the roads*.
Two random questions: How feasible would it be for Bladensburg to swap part of the X2 to Northern for part of the 70? And outside of the possible layover point troubles, would artics work on the 38B?
* Though, pound for pound, WMATA's Orion VI's are in a LOT better shape now than CDTA's were at that age. Then again, CDTA's were built like crap and WMATA's maintnence has never been as bad as theirs had been.
The D6 doesn't need artics, nor does the 38B. The R routes are pretty busy and the stops are well suited to artics since there isn't really street parking along most of the route, so it is easy to put them out there. I can't really speak for the U8. That said, it seems to me as if the current allocation is appropriate and working in light of the ongoing construction projects, even if it isn't an ideal situation.
Columbia Pike needs Artics as does the 16Y. Then maybe all this trolley folley would go away.
Quote from: Scrabbleship on June 11, 2009, 10:49:00 PM
Quote from: WES on June 11, 2009, 11:25:14 AM
H Street is to quote "Tore up from the floor up", putting a brand new $500,000 plus bus on there would be a waste in the investment they made. And then there is this, NABI hasn't been doing a good job lately of producing a quality vehicle to begin with, so maybe it would be wise to run it on smoother streets just to make sure that if the bus is falling apart prematurely, that it isn't the street but the manufacturer.
"Smoother streets" and the roads most Bladensburg routes run are two things that contradict each other. The U8 route physically isn't all that better than Benning has been or H Street will be to be honest. Your main option for "smoother streets" in Bladensburg territory would be the R's, the 80-series routes that Bladensburg has, or the D6 and everyone hates the idea of them on the latter two.
QuoteYou have to ask yourself. You buy a brand new car, would you rather make a left turn and drive on a smoother road even though it might take you a little longer to get to work, or take a right, roll on a street filled with potholes, possibly ruining your suspension and other things just to get to work faster.
This analogy seems so flawed that it's laughable. Most people don't have nearly 250 cars to play around with like Bladensburg does and even then most people with multiple cars use some common sense. Like not putting their new six-figure roadster in the roughest part of town where it won't get eyeballs. Maybe it's time for us to have balls, like the Twin Cities or my old haunt of Albany, and launch new buses with no regards to the roads*.
Two random questions: How feasible would it be for Bladensburg to swap part of the X2 to Northern for part of the 70? And outside of the possible layover point troubles, would artics work on the 38B?
* Though, pound for pound, WMATA's Orion VI's are in a LOT better shape now than CDTA's were at that age. Then again, CDTA's were built like crap and WMATA's maintnence has never been as bad as theirs had been.
You are kidding me right. When was the last time you were on Benning Road? Comparing the way Benning Road is now and Nannie Helen Burroughs now is like comparing Susan Boyle and Willam Hung. Both aren't great to look at, but at least Susan Boyle has a nice voice. You can get shot on Benning Road and Nannie Helen Burroughs, but at least you'll have a smoother ride on Nannie Helen Burroughs, Minnesota Ave, and Benning Road, before the bridge than being on Benning Road near from the Stadium to Florida Avenue. As I said before, maybe putting those BRTs on the U8 and the Rs yielded a different purpose than putting them on the X2. Say these buses fell apart while on the X2 how could WMATA prove if it was the street and not NABI's build quality. If that happened NABI could have the case that "Hey it wasn't our fault, Benning Road killled those buses". Now since they are running on the U8 or the Rs and fall apart, then WMATA has a better case in their favor.
If this was during the Barry/Dixon administrations that would have made sense to put these buses on the X2, because back then all of DC's streets were F'ed up, but after they left, the roads were made somewhat smoother. As someone else said MDMTA's Flyer's and Neos developed cracks because B'more's streets are like DC's streets back in the 80s and 90s, so with that said you think it is still "BALLS" to put a new bus on practically destroyed streets, it doesn't make sense.
Sometimes have "BALLS" is the same as not being too bright and having the smarts means protecting the tons of money you had just invested into a new buses with high tech equipment that you don't want to screw up as of yet. You can go to 6th Street and tell WMATA to put those new buses they just bought on the X2 and see them laugh in your face as they tell you the reasons why they ain't doing it.
It does make sense to put them on the 79 on some runs as the times I have been on it, they have been packed. It does make sense to put it on some U8 runs, and yes the U8 does get packed, in fact, they actually put the first group of NABIs on that same route years back. It makes sense to put them on the 83, the Rs.
Finally that analogy does make sense so I will explain it a little better.
Buying a new car and destroying your investment on a bad street is the same as WMATA destroying their investment by putting new buses on a bad street. When you buy a new car let me know so I will tell the corresponding DPW know so they can completely destroy the streets in where you drive so we can see you want to drive on streets f'ed up. Hey have balls man your car can take it.
Quote from: Antozilla on June 12, 2009, 07:25:57 AM
Columbia Pike needs Artics as does the 16Y. Then maybe all this trolley folley would go away.
Your trolley's going to run a lot sooner as the H Street trolley...
You do make a good point though. An ideal distribution for the 60BRT's would look like this:
- 11 to FMR. Split them between the 5A and the 16's depending on demand. Maybe also the 38B in rush hour.
- 11 stay in Bladensburg. Wrap 2-3 for the 79 and use the remainder on the R's, 80, 83/86 and U6. Maybe put a couple on the X2 in rush hour as a control experiment and since everyone I know on the D6 complains about crowding, a couple on there as a control experiment too.
- An ideal third thing would be to try to get 15-20 artics secondhand (I'm thinking Houston's Neos, NYCTA's D60HF's, or if they're not worse off MTAMD's 9600's) to run ragged on the X2 for a year or two as well as to give a bunch to Landover for the F's/B30.
Is this solution sensible, or insane?
Quote from: Antozilla on June 12, 2009, 07:25:57 AM
Columbia Pike needs Artics as does the 16Y. Then maybe all this trolley folley would go away.
Columbia Pike doesn't need artics nor the 16Y. The combined headways on the 16 line ranges from like every 5-15 mins all day. The 16Y mainly gets commuters going into downtown DC.
The 16Y needs artics when you look at the passenger load. It is exactly what BRT is about.
The B30 doesn't need 60fts. The suburban 6200's would be better.
It's cheaper to operate 40 footers than artics, so it has to be an extreme case to 'need' artics on a line. What are the passenger loads of these buses? Nobody likes to stand, they'll always bitch and moan about overcrowding, but is it 3 people standing or is it 30? Is it so crowded that nobody can get on? The low floors exascerbate the problem because nobody goes to the upper level to stand, so that's even less people on a bus. Is it crowded the whole trip or for 10 minutes? Artics should be deployed very carefully and make sure that it needs to be on there. If it's a sustained load, I would put them in, but if it's for just a small portion of the trip, let them stand. That's how I do my vehicle deployment in Vegas. I'm very careful to put 60's on a route unless I know for sure it's going to be worth it, otherwise, I put the 40's on as much as possible.
Perry, that's very intriguing! What makes an artic more expensive to run - more fuel and wear and tear? I've noticed that SEPTA (somewhat) has been redeploying their articulated buses elsewhere, moving them to packed routes like the 14 and away from less than packed routes like the 27 and 65. Even on the 14, they use 40 footers when reasonably possible.
In Vegas, outside of the 109 and 201, what are the routes that are dominated by artics?
They get horrible fuel economy and as you said more maintenance costs to keep up with normal wear and tear. For us, we also pay a higher contracted rate per mile because of the maintenance aspect, so whenever possible, we put on 40 footers during times when we know that will be enough capacity (late evenings, weekends, etc.)
Right now the 101, 108, 109A, 115, 201, 206 and 219 have them. The 101/115/219 are interlined with each other, but in January we're going to break up that combination and put 40 footers on the 101/219 and double decks on the 115.
Quote from: OrionFlyer on June 14, 2009, 05:16:58 PM
The B30 doesn't need 60fts. The suburban 6200's would be better.
Why not just keep the current Orion Vs there, especially since the 6200s would need to have luggage racks installed?
Quote from: WayneNYC on June 18, 2009, 02:25:42 PM
Quote from: OrionFlyer on June 14, 2009, 05:16:58 PM
The B30 doesn't need 60fts. The suburban 6200's would be better.
Why not just keep the current Orion Vs there, especially since the 6200s would need to have luggage racks installed?
Because the B30 gets jam packed and the luggage racks took away 4 seats that could've been in that place. And we get tired of seeing the same buses. :)
Quote from: WayneNYC on June 18, 2009, 02:25:42 PM
Quote from: OrionFlyer on June 14, 2009, 05:16:58 PM
The B30 doesn't need 60fts. The suburban 6200's would be better.
Why not just keep the current Orion Vs there, especially since the 6200s would need to have luggage racks installed?
I'd love to see coach buses on those two airport routes (if WMATA even decides to go that option). IIRC, these lines don't interline with anything and the dwell times would still be about the same either with a regular bus or coach bus. As for the high back suburbans, the 2700s could use the luggage rack treatment since most of those buses were meant for the 5A.
Quote from: landoverdivision on June 18, 2009, 05:08:05 PM
Quote from: WayneNYC on June 18, 2009, 02:25:42 PM
Quote from: OrionFlyer on June 14, 2009, 05:16:58 PM
The B30 doesn't need 60fts. The suburban 6200's would be better.
Why not just keep the current Orion Vs there, especially since the 6200s would need to have luggage racks installed?
Because the B30 gets jam packed and the luggage racks took away 4 seats that could've been in that place. And we get tired of seeing the same buses. :)
Ever ride the 5A? That has a low floor, suburban seating, no luggage racks, and lots of crowding. I'd rather see the Orion Vs stay where they are, that arrangement seems to work fine.
Quote from: 79MetroExtraMD on June 18, 2009, 06:11:26 PM
Quote from: WayneNYC on June 18, 2009, 02:25:42 PM
Quote from: OrionFlyer on June 14, 2009, 05:16:58 PM
The B30 doesn't need 60fts. The suburban 6200's would be better.
Why not just keep the current Orion Vs there, especially since the 6200s would need to have luggage racks installed?
I'd love to see coach buses on those two airport routes (if WMATA even decides to go that option). IIRC, these lines don't interline with anything and the dwell times would still be about the same either with a regular bus or coach bus. As for the high back suburbans, the 2700s could use the luggage rack treatment since most of those buses were meant for the 5A.
If WMATA ordered a coach bus, you know it would be on every route aside from the 5A and B30. I think it is much easier to keep the fleet standardized than to get coach buses to cover a few trips on two airport routes. Also, I predict the 5A will be eliminated before the useful service life of such a coach ends if it were to be ordered now.
Quote from: 79MetroExtraMD on June 18, 2009, 06:11:26 PM
Quote from: WayneNYC on June 18, 2009, 02:25:42 PM
Quote from: OrionFlyer on June 14, 2009, 05:16:58 PM
The B30 doesn't need 60fts. The suburban 6200's would be better.
Why not just keep the current Orion Vs there, especially since the 6200s would need to have luggage racks installed?
I'd love to see coach buses on those two airport routes (if WMATA even decides to go that option). IIRC, these lines don't interline with anything and the dwell times would still be about the same either with a regular bus or coach bus. As for the high back suburbans, the 2700s could use the luggage rack treatment since most of those buses were meant for the 5A.
I've...never heard that. I thought the 5A was no more than a 4-bus operation. Why would Metro order 30 buses (or even 16, by your logic) to cover 4 buses? That's one hell of a spare ratio. Please cite your sources.
Huh?? Okay, I'm officially confused now. I thought those bars on the 2700's and 6206 - 6217 were luggage racks. You know those bars that those coach bus lights are attached to? I thought those were luggage racks. Back when the N22 was still operating I rode one of the 2700s and those bars actually look like luggage racks. Somebody on here told me they was too.
Thats why I thought of the idea of the suburban 6200's on the B30.
They are, but I don't think a large suitcase would fit on those.
I guess by luggage racks they mean the large, floor-to-ceiling racks next to the ADA bench. I think, with a swinging, latching gate, the area above the front wheel well would serve that purpose.
Quote from: WMATAGMOAGH on June 18, 2009, 08:47:54 PM
They are, but I don't think a large suitcase would fit on those.
yeah plus it would be hard for some people to lift up some large and heavy bags to place them up there
Seriously whoever said the NABI 60-BRTs weren't needed on the 79 was DEAD WRONG. Just about all of them were jam packed. Man the 60-BRTs seem perfect for the 79. Am I wrong?
Quote from: landoverdivision on June 25, 2009, 12:39:39 AM
Seriously whoever said the NABI 60-BRTs weren't needed on the 79 was DEAD WRONG. Just about all of them were jam packed. Man the 60-BRTs seem perfect for the 79. Am I wrong?
Are you basing that on observations from the past few days? If so, these aren't normal ridership conditions, you can't base much of anything off this.
Quote from: WMATAGMOAGH on June 25, 2009, 01:10:03 AM
Quote from: landoverdivision on June 25, 2009, 12:39:39 AM
Seriously whoever said the NABI 60-BRTs weren't needed on the 79 was DEAD WRONG. Just about all of them were jam packed. Man the 60-BRTs seem perfect for the 79. Am I wrong?
Are you basing that on observations from the past few days? If so, these aren't normal ridership conditions, you can't base much of anything off this.
Yesterday. It is normal though. The 79 maybe limited stop but it is still artic worthy IMO.
Quote from: landoverdivision on June 25, 2009, 02:05:53 AM
Quote from: WMATAGMOAGH on June 25, 2009, 01:10:03 AM
Quote from: landoverdivision on June 25, 2009, 12:39:39 AM
Seriously whoever said the NABI 60-BRTs weren't needed on the 79 was DEAD WRONG. Just about all of them were jam packed. Man the 60-BRTs seem perfect for the 79. Am I wrong?
Are you basing that on observations from the past few days? If so, these aren't normal ridership conditions, you can't base much of anything off this.
Yesterday. It is normal though. The 79 maybe limited stop but it is still artic worthy IMO.
You are right in the sense that Limited-Stop routes tend to get crowded at times (as seen with the 79, and J4 as well)...though I believe that lately, the 79 is getting more ridership because of recent events driving people to avoid taking the metrorail.
Although I do agree that the artics should stay on the 79 for now until they can be put on the X2 because even before all this happened, the 79 still gets a large amount of riders.