3 ms·

You do not need rails to have street cars, in fact it simply is cheaper and better, let alone more flexible, to rely on automated buses going forward. While ini

You do not need rails to have street cars, in fact it simply is cheaper and better, let alone more flexible, to rely on automated buses going forward. While initially you now need a drive going forward automation can play a bigger role. When you go rail you immediately restrict yourself to that route. There is little to not flexibility. Let alone rails on the roads in snowy climates just cause additional issues. As for simulating with buses, you can embed in the roadway or even on light poles or similar along the route where you want the bus to go when automated. Hence its "on rails" without physical rails.

ido 11y ago
The main advantage is that rail is cheaper per passenger/km beyond a certain capacity, since it's more efficient to drive on metal rails than tires on asphalt. So even if it's more expensive upfront after X years you get continuous savings every year from increased efficiency.
chipsy 11y ago
As a modality, rails have two upsides: energy cost and passenger density relative to space use(you can run a much longer train than a bus) and a signalling of intent that changes expectations for the area's other investments. Because a rail stop isn't cheap to move and comes with the expectation of a certain level of service and traffic prioritization, the neighborhood grows around the rail line, not the opposite. A BRT line is more easily neglected. There's a positive feedback loop involved in any transit investment and how it affects the neighborhood, but especially so with rail - unquestionably so as you think at bigger scales. One of the touted benefits of California High Speed Rail, for example, is that it would bring the Central Valley cities into the commuting sphere of the other urban centers. (The worst thing you could do with a rail stop, from a land-use perspective, is put a big surface parking lot around it. That turns it into a transfer point for a car commute, not a prestigious destination that other transit will naturally run toward. One of the problems with the CHSR plan, the last time I looked, is that the Central Valley alignments are a pretty dodgy package.) That said, providing better transit at lower cost is always an upside, since the first-order question for trip planning by transit is always the overall level of service - frequency and coverage, as well as speed. I would expect robobuses to usher in a new era for system planners.

ido 11y ago

The main advantage is that rail is cheaper per passenger/km beyond a certain capacity, since it's more efficient to drive on metal rails than tires on asphalt. So even if it's more expensive upfront after X years you get continuous savings every year from increased efficiency.

chipsy 11y ago

As a modality, rails have two upsides: energy cost and passenger density relative to space use(you can run a much longer train than a bus) and a signalling of intent that changes expectations for the area's other investments. Because a rail stop isn't cheap to move and comes with the expectation of a certain level of service and traffic prioritization, the neighborhood grows around the rail line, not the opposite. A BRT line is more easily neglected. There's a positive feedback loop involved in any transit investment and how it affects the neighborhood, but especially so with rail - unquestionably so as you think at bigger scales. One of the touted benefits of California High Speed Rail, for example, is that it would bring the Central Valley cities into the commuting sphere of the other urban centers. (The worst thing you could do with a rail stop, from a land-use perspective, is put a big surface parking lot around it. That turns it into a transfer point for a car commute, not a prestigious destination that other transit will naturally run toward. One of the problems with the CHSR plan, the last time I looked, is that the Central Valley alignments are a pretty dodgy package.) That said, providing better transit at lower cost is always an upside, since the first-order question for trip planning by transit is always the overall level of service - frequency and coverage, as well as speed. I would expect robobuses to usher in a new era for system planners.