3 ms·
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. BR
by 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 agoFrankly, 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.