3 ms·

Well they would most all be in better off shape if they did not waste their resources on heavy rail. About the only need for such is to airports, past stadiums,

Well they would most all be in better off shape if they did not waste their resources on heavy rail. About the only need for such is to airports, past stadiums, and possibly central commercial districts. However their cost per mile to install, maintain, and operate, all wreck budgets. Worse many bus routes get co-opted to serve rail nodes which worsens the bus experience and not really help the rail. The key reasons buses are better is that they can go where people need to go and are not locked in to where they are built out at. The sad part is that in many parts of the world ridership doesn't increase much with the cost going down, even to free. hopefully autonomous fuel cell / battery cars and buses will make point to point more manageable and viable overall.

Nullabillity 11y ago
Rail is much more reliable then buses since it doesn't compete with car congestion, plus you can make it run much more frequently, both of which are very important for adoption.
- ajmurmann 11y ago
  Totally agree. Unless you do it like SF with its T line and have intersections that serve both train and car and give the car precedence ...
- coryrc 11y ago
  Not if your rail isn't grade separated. You can just as easily build grade-separated for buses or, even easier, have bus-only lanes.
- protomyth 11y ago
  > Rail is much more reliable then buses since it doesn't compete with car congestion That is not true in some places. MN built its light rail in such a way that interacts with normal traffic quite a lot (including killing people because of a really badly designed interaction on a former turn). I get the feeling someone in the planning office had taken no lessons from street cars.
takno 11y ago
I'm guessing you mostly mean light rail, since there's not a lot of money going into urban heavy rail. There are a couple of reasons why these can be better than buses: - You can invest around them. Because unlike a bus, a tram can't just be upped and moved somewhere else developers are able to build housing and services confident that there will be service. - They are easier to segregate and run at speed so that you can run limited stop services that are credible. I suspect this is what you are getting at with airports, but I'm not sure why you think an airport is the only reasonable use for fast limited-stop operation - They can carry more people easily. 2 or 3 car trams are the norm, and the smoother ride and increased safety means that it is much safer to carry lots of standing passengers - People like them. You can actually get people out of cars onto a tram, where faced with a bus they will assume that it is going to be dirty and they will be robbed (however untrue that is)

Nullabillity 11y ago

Rail is much more reliable then buses since it doesn't compete with car congestion, plus you can make it run much more frequently, both of which are very important for adoption.

ajmurmann 11y ago
Totally agree. Unless you do it like SF with its T line and have intersections that serve both train and car and give the car precedence ...
coryrc 11y ago
Not if your rail isn't grade separated. You can just as easily build grade-separated for buses or, even easier, have bus-only lanes.
protomyth 11y ago
> Rail is much more reliable then buses since it doesn't compete with car congestion That is not true in some places. MN built its light rail in such a way that interacts with normal traffic quite a lot (including killing people because of a really badly designed interaction on a former turn). I get the feeling someone in the planning office had taken no lessons from street cars.

takno 11y ago

I'm guessing you mostly mean light rail, since there's not a lot of money going into urban heavy rail. There are a couple of reasons why these can be better than buses: - You can invest around them. Because unlike a bus, a tram can't just be upped and moved somewhere else developers are able to build housing and services confident that there will be service. - They are easier to segregate and run at speed so that you can run limited stop services that are credible. I suspect this is what you are getting at with airports, but I'm not sure why you think an airport is the only reasonable use for fast limited-stop operation - They can carry more people easily. 2 or 3 car trams are the norm, and the smoother ride and increased safety means that it is much safer to carry lots of standing passengers - People like them. You can actually get people out of cars onto a tram, where faced with a bus they will assume that it is going to be dirty and they will be robbed (however untrue that is)