"Should texting while driving be banned?"

Why is this question even asked for?  Nobody's life is worth texting---or even talking---on the cell phone so the only answer should be YES.

On the flipside, I fully support people using either a hands-free device, earpiece or even the speak function on their cell phones---as long as they know what they're doing and solely trying to concentrate on driving.

A couple on a tandem bike on the shoulder was slaughtered by a motorist recently, leaving a small daughter an orphan, and the police didn't have the guts to charge the driver with a crime.

Two people are dead, and no crime. What the heck is wrong with this State?

@Cedric Collins

Hands free!!! FREE ME FROM HOUSTON!!!

@Peter Wang

Hmmmmm, Sounds like American Slavery. People dead and no criminals.

@Metro

Where are the MCI D4500 buses on the 163 route?

Various ways to get out of Houston...one way:

Walk, drive, Greyhound, SW Airlines, CO airlines, bicycle, motorcycle, Amtrak, Delta, Sky Blue....even METRO, in a way, to Katy and the Kingwood.

A 4800+ MCI would be a waste on the 163.  Too many stops and you have to climb up into that puppy.

Now, back on target....unless you got some sort of program with converts text to phone (voice) hands free, it should be banned.

Mary, you may want to check on it, but I think the State of Utah has some of the strongest anticell by driving ANYWHERE! measures anywhere.

Dominic,

I---hate---you!  Just kidding.  Just send him on the Airport Direct bus to Bush IAH and I'll be happy enough.  Oh---and you forgot Yellow Cab (or any other cab company willing to put up with---well......).

Anyhoo, what I said still stands and I think law enforcement agencies need to PERMANENTLY crack down on anybody who "illegally" uses a cell phone---if you catch my drift.

Texting while driving should definitely be banned. Anyone who does it is criminally negligent (unless they are sending a 3-word message while waiting at a red light or something).

Although I sometimes use my cell phone while driving, it wouldn't break my heart if the practice were outlawed. I try to avoid doing it when I'm on busy streets, on routes I don't know well, or in any place where there are likely to be pedestrians (like parking lots), but too many people out there don't.

@DominicMazoch

"A 4800+ MCI would be a waste on the 163.  Too many stops and you have to climb up into that puppy."

<A waste? Like Houston or Metro? LOL>

<I know the 102 goes to the airport. But Metro still uses 45ft buses on that route. So why not the 163.>

@Cedric Collins

"I---hate---you!  Just kidding.  Just send him on the Airport Direct bus to Bush IAH and I'll be happy enough.  Oh---and you forgot Yellow Cab (or any other cab company willing to put up with---well......)."

<Please send me....... Removed from "The Hole of the South" for GOOD!!!!>

The 108 and the 102's have been attacked by Vikings lately:  the NF 4700's.  They  have been running 4700's on the 102 for years.

But on the 1xx buses, they DO need to place a more comfortable seat on the bus, due to the distance.  But they did place P&R seats in 4400 artics and the 29.9' NeoPod buses.  So, if METRO can place these in regular transit buses, why can't they do it again!  And not-quite-those-seats on the Bugs Bunny bus DO NOT COUNT!

A nice seat and a low floor bus would be a better fit on the 102, 8, or 63.  I would even go so far to say METRO could do a P&R seat setup on new lowfloor HB's, then they could be used on any 1xx, 2xx, and even the 500.  As they get older, and newer units come in, the seats could be changed for local service.  Fewer platforms the BOF's have to deal with, and I would say lower costs, and lower on/off times.

OK, Wi11ie and other ops on this blog, what do YOU think about this suggestin for the fleet?

Wi11ie and company of ops:

I trust your judgement on bus equipment.  You have to use the stuff to MOVE PEOPLE.

Wi11ie and company of ops:

I trust your judgement on bus equipment.  You have to use the stuff to MOVE PEOPLE.

"<I know the 102 goes to the airport. But Metro still uses 45ft buses on that route. So why not the 163.>"

Ummm---what?  The 163 mainly consists of either the 40' NFIs or the artics---mainly those taken from Northwest.  "The 108 and the 102's have been attacked by Vikings lately:  the NF 4700's.  They  have been running 4700's on the 102 for years."  BINGO!  If that was not the case, then how come I was lucky one day---TWICE---riding one of those Vikings on the 102?

@DominicMazoch

Capital Metro has a LF Gillig  with suburban seats,

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27884592@N07/3355760708/

@Cedric Collins

At least Metro should test it out. And since the artics are being replaced with 45ft buses; I might get my wish.

HoustonHater,

How is that Gillig a suburban model?  That looks like a normal transit-style Gillig LF model to me.

Also, the artics that Hiram Clarke will probably stay on a little longer so until they are replaced by more new 45' buses (most likely more of those MCI hybrids), you'll just have to contend with seeing the artics claiming dominance on the 163.

@Cedric Collins

"How is that Gillig a suburban model?  That looks like a normal transit-style Gillig LF model to me."

<I rode the bus. There is another pic in Metrobus's photo stream. If you look closely you can see the seats.>

"Also, the artics that Hiram Clarke will probably stay on a little longer so until they are replaced by more new 45' buses (most likely more of those MCI hybrids), you'll just have to contend with seeing the artics claiming dominance on the 163."

<Until the bellows split. And if call barely getting over 20 mph's dominance you're crazy like this city.>

<163 will be served by 45ft MCI's or Prevost buses in the next 5 years.>

CT Transit in Connecticut has a number of D40LFs with suburban seats and without a rear door. They are used express routes out of Hartford.

Didn't METRO experiment with nicer seats on the two New Flyer hybrid retrofits? I have yet to ride in one, but I see them on the 42 and 26/27 so they must be out of Polk. They are easy to spot with their old NF styling, roof hump, and odd-colored destination signs.

P.S. When is Mr. Wilson going to stop by and chat again?

Mary:

Notice we are talking EQUIPMENT!  I still say we need a thread where we can talk until the cows come home about EQUIPMENT, and this would prevent hijacking of threads.

Bloggers, what do you think?

When has METRO givin the people what they want?

Before I started reading this blog, I had no idea that there was a rung below trainspotters on the ladder of transportation fanatics. In any case, yes, bus nerds like Dominic and JamesL need their own forum for their entirely-too-enthusiastic discussions of equipment. :)

"<I rode the bus. There is another pic in Metrobus's photo stream. If you look closely you can see the seats.>"

Still, I need to see INTERIOR pics for you to support that claim.  All the while, METRO needs to get the Gillig BRT low floor hybrid---not THAT!

JamesL said:  "Didn't METRO experiment with nicer seats on the two New Flyer hybrid retrofits? I have yet to ride in one, but I see them on the 42 and 26/27 so they must be out of Polk. They are easy to spot with their old NF styling, roof hump, and odd-colored destination signs."

You're right!  They still do have those seats on them and for record (to all), fleet numbers are 4103-4106.  They're former LNG buses when METRO first purchased them.

"CT Transit in Connecticut has a number of D40LFs with suburban seats and without a rear door. They are used express routes out of Hartford."

Correct but if you wanted a two-door version of a "suburban" New Flyer product, see OCTA.  They have a number of C40LFRs that have suburban seating.  Fleet numbers are numbered in the 51xx series and IIRC, they replaced the D40HF suburbans they had.

Steve Palmer said:  "In any case, yes, bus nerds like Dominic and JamesL need their own forum for their entirely-too-enthusiastic discussions of equipment. :)"

Agreed.  Hopefully I won't stay up all night talking about anything concerning buses---much less any other type of equipment.

@Cedric Collins

"Still, I need to see INTERIOR pics for you to support that claim.  All the while, METRO needs to get the Gillig BRT low floor hybrid---not THAT!"

<Metrobus is a Capital Metro Bus Driver. I'm pretty sure you can ask him and he'll tell you(Just look at the comments). METRO needs to purchase C40LFR New Flyers. Or more of my personal favorite. DE40LFR's>

"METRO needs to purchase C40LFR New Flyers."

No, they don't.

"Or more of my personal favorite. DE40LFR's"

We already have those---though they're called DE41LFRs.  Still, I would like to see these=>http://www.ttmg.org/pages/nfi/wmata-nfif.html

@Cedric Collins

"No, they don't."

<OK, Some H40LFRs.>

"We already have those---though they're called DE41LFRs.  Still, I would like to see these=>http://www.ttmg.org/pages/nfi/wmata-nfif.html"

<I think they need about 100 more.>

"<OK, Some H40LFRs.>"

This is NOT BC Transit (Canada).  You MUST look at what they're doing (they have only one) before you can say we need this or we need that.

Whether or not you care, I think ALL transit agencies---including METRO---needs to have a more diverse fleet.

@Cedric Collins

"This is NOT BC Transit (Canada).  You MUST look at what they're doing (they have only one) before you can say we need this or we need that."

<Seeing as BC Transit is better; You'd think Metro would follow suit.>

"Whether or not you care, I think ALL transit agencies---including METRO---needs to have a more diverse fleet."

<So 40ft diesel buses from NF, NABI and Orion.>

"<Seeing as BC Transit is better; You'd think Metro would follow suit.>"

Son---do you know ANYTHING about BC Transit?  Have you even talked to ANYBODY who currently rides (and/or works for) BC Transit?

"<So 40ft diesel buses from NF, NABI and Orion.>"

You're only half right.  Not just by manufacturers but also by the length of the bus.  Why would you want to see a 40' bus run a route that's more suitable to be operated by a SMALL bus, hmmmmm?  Think about it.

"Son---do you know ANYTHING about BC Transit?  Have you even talked to ANYBODY who currently rides (and/or works for) BC Transit?"

I'm sure they'd say their TA is worthy.

"You're only half right.  Not just by manufacturers but also by the length of the bus.  Why would you want to see a 40' bus run a route that's more suitable to be operated by a SMALL bus, hmmmmm?  Think about it."

Same reason I don't favor 60ft buses . 40ft and 45ft buses are suitable in houston.

No route in Houston, save for the 82 and 53 warrant 60 foot buses.  Ridership has fallen so drastically in the past decade that the artics are overkill on routes that once needed them like the 2, 4, 56, 65 etc.  The artics on the 4 are usually empty so it's a waste of money even running them.  

METRO has already wasted money worrying about rail so wasting money on buses that y'all think they don't need shouldn't be a problem.

Sorry but I don't think anybody would want to ride a bus looking like sardines.

Until somebody can tell me how METRO can better put nothing but 40' or 45' buses on routes that would warrant an artic so people won't be packed on there like sardines, artics would solve the problem.

Having two or more buses back-to-back running at the same time would be the only solution that I can think of that would solve the problem.

F.Y.I., METRO is NOT getting double decker (DD) buses because of height issues so DD buses are out of the question.

Perhaps you should converse with your Metro contacts as they are the ones pushing for fleet uniformity.  Your bus fan rantings will fall on deaf ears there.

"Perhaps you should converse with your Metro contacts as they are the ones pushing for fleet uniformity.  Your bus fan rantings will fall on deaf ears there."

Doesn't prove your point---if there is a point.  Perhaps you should converse with your new best friend, HoustonHater, as I don't know who's worse at hating METRO or hating certain decisions they make.