Going with the previous two entries here are some reasons why heavy rail options really take the lead when vast volumes of people are trying to move through a corridor of travel.  The North East Corridor comes to mind as a prime example.  Even the most ardent supporters of auto, pro-bus, or other forms of transport can’t argue against the efficiency of rail when this volume of passengers are concerned.  With Amtrak, New Jersey Transit, and numerous other transit agencies running trains in and out of the major cities one can expect to see trains every 2-5 minutes, or even every minute during heavy travel times, in this corridor.

Legitimate Reason #1:  Heavy rail passenger volume can't be touched by any other mode of transport.  In addition the speed it attains is very high for such volume, often higher than automotive transport which usually leads other modes.  But the number one reason heavy rail leads the pack is the ability to achieve volumes in excess of 50,000 and some volumes as high as 70,000 riders per hour.

Legitimate Reason #2:  Heavy rail is generally the cheapest thing going once total costs are considered.  This is absolutely true for high volumes, but even for low volumes rail often offers a low price point per rider.  When extremely low volumes achieved, often that does not validate commuter unless their is existing track that is already usable without upgrades.

The WES is an example of economically unreasonable commuter rail.  TriMet will need to achieve over a 400% increase if the WES is to achieve the same price parity as bus service in the corridor running the same passenger count.  Approximately 800% within the next 2-3 years to achieve the same price parity as light rail service per passenger.  That is based solely on operations.

On the other side of the spectrum, the Sounder Commuter Rail Operations in Seattle is approximately 30-35% more economically efficient than bus service.  In other words, it costs 30-35% less to carry a single passenger via the Sounder versus their similar bus service.

Another prime example of passenger rail service that is successful, yet has low volumes is the Cascades rail service between Portland and Seattle.  Above rail operations are almost break even (one more frequency is needed).  The service operates at approximately 25-30% less than comparable bus service operations.

Legitimate Reason #3:  This one can be argued, but with a great deal of absurdity.  Passenger rail is almost always the most comfortable, smooth riding, fastest, efficient mode of transport to carry passengers – low or high volume.  Now mind you, the privately operated buses on the east coast and some other cities, that offer real space and amenities close to passenger rail often do provide a similar level of comfort, but those services are rare.  Almost all passenger trains in the US though offer 2×2 seating, sometimes 2×1 seating, wide aisles, the ability to walk about while in transit, and other amenities of this grade.

The other reasons include almost all of the ones I’ve outlined in the previous entries for streetcars and light rail.

I started a series of modal advantages a number of days ago. This entry is kicking those back off. The last entries covered light rail for the light rail fan kids, streetcars for the streetcar fan kids, and now it is down to the buses.  Without further adou, I'll jump right into these work horses of transit authorities across the world.

Legitimate Reason #1 – Existing Infrastructure

Because Governments have spent the last 100 years pouring trillions of dollars into roadways across the planet (the the adoring love of every automobile manufacturer), it doesn't need to be mentioned but I will, there are millions of miles of roadways on the planet.  Because of this buses often are the least expensive by an order of magnitude in capital startup costs.  Rarely are the costs of the roads ever connected to buses.  So with a mere couple million dollars a city can have a bus line with a decent frequency and amiable service levels.

Legitimate Reason #2 – Flexible Remote Routes

Buses can carry a reasonable amount of people, and make connecting remote locations more economically reasonable than running any sort of rail to remote locations.  The higher long range cost is overshadowed when it comes to lower ridership routes, where a minimal fluctuating system is needed.  The only tangible mode that can operate on routes that are distant and highly fluctuating are buses, and sometimes in really low ridership routes, vans.  But I'm sticking to buses right now, since most countries won't utilize vans as a mode of transport within a transit authority.

Legitimate Reason #3 – EXTREME Flexibility

Again, because of the vast investment in roads, if one is blocked, buses can go around.  If there is a wreck, buses can go an alternate route.  If a bridge is out, buses can go over another bridge.  If there is a car parked a couple of feet too far into the road, a bus can simply go around.  What happens if ridership drops to unreasonable levels, you can cancel the bus line and the road can still be used by autos, bikes, and even foot traffic.

Legitimate Reason #4 – Choices in Vehicles

Buses come in multiple options.  40' buses, extended buses, intercity buses, urban buses, luxery buses, etc.  In today's day and age, if you want choice in options, the bus provides that in droves.  Since infrastructure costs are often mitigated by general budgets and taxes, buses are seen as an efficient mode of transport and the market centers more on this mode than any other.

Legitimate Reason #5 – Acting Starters for High Volume Routes

Buses can also play a relatively new role, as a primary corridor mode on dedicated right of way.  This slightly newer technique, per the light rail transit nomenclature is referred to as bus rapid transit, or BRT.  BRT has been used as a starter system predating a light rail line, handling the initial years when an area is unsure of the need for higher volume light rail capacity, but knowing a higher volume dedicated corridor is needed.  In this service, buses often range from 40', to the more common 60' buses.  BRT is an inexpensive way to create a dedicated right of way when the future is uncertain, because this leaves the corridor in a position to transition to road only use by other vehicles without the rail investment being made that usually requires greater capital funding usually ranging 2-5x as much.

So that's the list I have, which I'm sure there are readers who could add another dozen points.  These however, are the main, obvious and outstanding points of advantage for any bus system.

Any word on the big headline at www.trimet.org?

“WES Service Disruption

Due to an truck accident affecting the Grahams Ferry bridge in Tualatin, all WES trips for the morning commute on Thursday, July 9, will be served by shuttle buses. Trains are not able to travel along the tracks because of damage caused by the accident. Shuttle buses will serve all stops between Wilsonville and Beaverton Transit Center starting with the first trip from Wilsonville at 5:19 a.m. Riders should plan to add about 20 minutes to their commute. WES service is expected to be on schedule for the afternoon commute.

Updated: 4:26 a.m., Thu. Jul. 9, 2009”

I’d sure love some extra information if anyone has it.

UPDATE:  It was really NOT the WES this time.  A truck peeled back its top running into the trestle the WES goes over.  Truck 0, Trestle 1.  It boils down to massive truck driver #FAIL