3 ms·

>I think that busses are only included in the system due to the convenience of not having to have a line to the depo Busses are just a lot more flexible in gen

by smeyer 11y ago

>I think that busses are only included in the system due to the convenience of not having to have a line to the depo Busses are just a lot more flexible in general. The costs with starting and stopping bus lines are much less than other forms of transit, the vehicles tend to be more interchangeable, the infrastructure is less substantial, and so on. I'm not saying I generally enjoy riding busses, but the costs to the system are very different than other forms of transit.

timthelion 11y ago
The bus line you are seeing on that map is literally a "bus only road". It could as easilly have rail on it. I realize that the flexibility is lower. But I thought that America is the richest bestest country ever, and why should you have something that is horribly uncomfortable just because doing it right is "kinda hard"?
- farnsworth 11y ago
  Are you talking about the orange "Bus rapid transit" line? That's not a bus only road, I'm pretty sure that's I-405, where busses will soon run on the shoulder, or in traffic, wherever there's room. You can't put rail on an interstate shoulder.
  - timthelion 11y ago
    Aha, it was origionally proposed to be placed on the Cross Kirkland Corridor trail: http://seattletransitblog.com/2016/03/12/kirkland-st-struggling-to-agree-on-st3/ http://seattletransitblog.com/2016/03/12/kirkland-st-struggl...
- hamburglar 11y ago
  The rapid ride roads are shared but have many sections where buses have dedicated lanes to bypass congestion (and often get signal priority). And you really can't "just as easily" put rail on that road. Laying rail is expensive. To make a dedicated bus lane, you just paint it. Much much cheaper.
  - teacup50 11y ago
    Much cheaper, and much less useful. For "BRT" to rival trains, you have to set up a degree of dedicated infrastructure that costs nearly as much as trains. BRT sucks, and study after study after study shows that people do not want to ride a bus (even BRT).
    - hamburglar 11y ago
      Frankly, I think the rapid ride buses in seattle are a huge win, and I think you really have to try them to see it. The couple of lines I'm familiar with (D and E) form a very nice (and fast) north-south backbone that meets up with east-west lines in some really strategic spots. They bypass a ton of traffic due to judicious use of bus-only lanes. I used to ride an "express" bus that practically dropped me off door-to-door with only three stops in between, and recently when I missed the last one, I used the rapid ride as a workaround, expecting it to totally suck because it involved using a regular bus and a transfer. Well, due to the speed of the rapid ride, my two-bus trip actually beats my one-bus "express" route by nine minutes. I've since tried the other rapid ride backbone combined with a short regular bus jaunt and it also compares favorably to the express route. No, they're not trains. But they're here right now, and very little infrastructure actually needed to be added to support them.

by smeyer 11y ago

timthelion 11y ago

The bus line you are seeing on that map is literally a "bus only road". It could as easilly have rail on it. I realize that the flexibility is lower. But I thought that America is the richest bestest country ever, and why should you have something that is horribly uncomfortable just because doing it right is "kinda hard"?

farnsworth 11y ago
Are you talking about the orange "Bus rapid transit" line? That's not a bus only road, I'm pretty sure that's I-405, where busses will soon run on the shoulder, or in traffic, wherever there's room. You can't put rail on an interstate shoulder.
- timthelion 11y ago
  Aha, it was origionally proposed to be placed on the Cross Kirkland Corridor trail: http://seattletransitblog.com/2016/03/12/kirkland-st-struggling-to-agree-on-st3/ http://seattletransitblog.com/2016/03/12/kirkland-st-struggl...
hamburglar 11y ago
The rapid ride roads are shared but have many sections where buses have dedicated lanes to bypass congestion (and often get signal priority). And you really can't "just as easily" put rail on that road. Laying rail is expensive. To make a dedicated bus lane, you just paint it. Much much cheaper.
- teacup50 11y ago
  Much cheaper, and much less useful. For "BRT" to rival trains, you have to set up a degree of dedicated infrastructure that costs nearly as much as trains. BRT sucks, and study after study after study shows that people do not want to ride a bus (even BRT).
  - hamburglar 11y ago
    Frankly, I think the rapid ride buses in seattle are a huge win, and I think you really have to try them to see it. The couple of lines I'm familiar with (D and E) form a very nice (and fast) north-south backbone that meets up with east-west lines in some really strategic spots. They bypass a ton of traffic due to judicious use of bus-only lanes. I used to ride an "express" bus that practically dropped me off door-to-door with only three stops in between, and recently when I missed the last one, I used the rapid ride as a workaround, expecting it to totally suck because it involved using a regular bus and a transfer. Well, due to the speed of the rapid ride, my two-bus trip actually beats my one-bus "express" route by nine minutes. I've since tried the other rapid ride backbone combined with a short regular bus jaunt and it also compares favorably to the express route. No, they're not trains. But they're here right now, and very little infrastructure actually needed to be added to support them.