8 ms·
Are several of those extended buses really more expensive than light rail? There's a lot of upfront cost for light rail and if demand changes, routes are pretty
by samsolomon 9y ago
Are several of those extended buses really more expensive than light rail? There's a lot of upfront cost for light rail and if demand changes, routes are pretty inflexible.
- mulmen 9y agoEvery bus needs a driver and a vehicle with yet another powertrain. I'm not sure what energy consumption is like on a train but I suspect operating costs of all the buses is higher than a train that can cover longer distances. It seems to me a mix is the best solution.
- bjelkeman-again 9y agoI read somewhere that the real benefit of trams or light rail tend to come from the fact that they often come with a redesign of the traffic flows, right of way etc. Whilst busses are often stuck in the old traffic jam.
- dangjc 9y agoBus rapid transit is a great compromise. They have special right of ways with dedicated signaling and lanes. But no need to lay rail so costs are much lower.
- kuschku 9y agoShort-term, that is correct. But long-term the maintenance is significantly higher, as you need to replace the road surface very frequently. A usual bus stop, or a BRT lane, has to be replaced every 6 months if it’s asphalt, and every 18 to 24 months if it’s cobblestone. That’s a significant expense. While you can build and use light rail for decades.
- njarboe 9y agoWhat about concrete? US interstates can go decades with high truck traffic if they are concrete.
- kuschku 9y agoPure concrete leads to significant shifts between the plates over the years, leading to the well-known bump every time you pass between plates. This obviously affects the bus’s suspension, and passengers, negatively. Concrete with asphalt on top of it has the issue of the asphalt having to be replaced frequently. I’m not sure if US interstates with concrete are different, but these were the only options discussed here in Germany.
- DrScump 9y agoThey have special rights of way ... which come at the expense of taking away existing universal-use lanes, worsening all other traffic congestion.
- TrinaryWorksToo 9y agoWhich then gets people on the bus, easing the congestion. This is a well documented effect, where the opposite happens, adding more lanes increases traffic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand#Reduced_demand_.28the_inverse_effect.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand#Reduced_demand_...
- DrScump 9y ago
- so33 9y agoBus rapid transit, of the sort you find in South America, has a lot of benefits of light rail without the initial startup cost of putting in rails for the reasons you describe: Dedicated rights of way, signal priority, and a lack of speed-killing sharp turns.
- konspence 9y agoDemand almost never changes. Most bus routes are still virtually identical to the streetcar routes they replaced. And the required infrastructure for light rail creates more demand for development along the line, as the rail itself signals more permanence to developers: they do not worry about it moving in a decade, like a bus route could.
- zdragnar 9y agoThe development demand is not a guarantee, and it can also come at the cost of destroying local businesses which cannot afford the downturn in customers during construction- many of which are small, minority owned sole proprietorships. As for demand never changing... well, everything changes. Source: Personal anecdata from living in an area where local government has been pushing more and more light rail development hard, in spite of never actually delivering any of the promised benefits to traffic congestion, ridership levels, community or business development.
- WalterBright 9y agoLight rail will create demand to live near and locate businesses near the stations.
- tzerrell 9y agoIn Seattle at least, I would expect the implicit suggestion to upzone near a light rail station would be at least as important as greater land value from demand. I'm not sure how much a light rail station induces Seattle to upzone -- I've heard mixed reports.
- stephengillie 9y agoThis is the claim used to advertise these, but do we really see many Amazonians commuting in from Beacon Hill or Georgetown?
- WalterBright 9y agoAs I recall, Seattle zoning actually worked to prevent increased density and parking near transit stations.
- slackingoff2017 9y agoI have seen this happen firsthand. It took a few years but the "rail line to nowhere" built near me around 5 years ago has giant housing complexes surrounding every station. It runs over capacity during rush hour now. I assume this only happens in places where the roads are overloaded though
- DrScump 9y agoCan you name examples where this oft-predicted result has actually happened (in the USA, anyway)? That certainly hasn't been the result in the Bay Area.
- yesiamyourdad 9y agoDenver. Lots of high density developments near the light rail and A line (technically commuter rail) stops.
- pchristensen 9y agoBusses have higher operating costs per trip/mike/other measures, because there are way more drivers per rider vs rail. They’re obviously less expensive capital cost.