tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8765135624404532655.post7670523610498643868..comments2023-04-04T04:38:01.150-04:00Comments on Total Furmanation: For once, the comments on a Pee Dee article made senseHHF3http://www.blogger.com/profile/13106626527766071471noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8765135624404532655.post-91054793706057811632009-12-04T10:39:56.037-05:002009-12-04T10:39:56.037-05:00@Rob,
Good points that I hadn't thought about...@Rob,<br /><br />Good points that I hadn't thought about. But perhaps for some of those really lightly used lines it could be an option. Or for an area trying to start a transit service (though I think that would be crazy). <br /><br />Also, RIP to Lorain County public transit. :(HHF3https://www.blogger.com/profile/13106626527766071471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8765135624404532655.post-84197651065152818422009-12-01T09:29:53.565-05:002009-12-01T09:29:53.565-05:00There was a conversation on this topic recently at...There was a conversation on this topic recently at one of my favorite blogs. It seems the key issue with small buses is that they might not be as big a cost-savings as you'd think, because the primary operating cost for transit systems is labor, and you'll have to pay the driver the same regardless of the size of his/her bus. If you replace one big bus with two small buses, you’d end up spending more. A secondary issue is that buses are often empty at off-peak times, but can sometimes get over-crowded at peak times. Switching the sizes of buses to accommodate these various situations would create a sort of ‘transaction cost’ that could cancel any gains.Robhttp://blog.robpitingolo.orgnoreply@blogger.com