4 ms·

Living in Seattle I miss the skytrain.

by lurr 9y ago

peatmoss 9y ago
But you have the monorail from Seattle Center to Westlake :-) Skytrain is a big bet transit system. Enormously expensive from a capital perspective, but offers a qualitatively great experience, and with pretty fixed operating costs. Busses done well can offer great performance characteristics at lower costs (with the added benefits of resiliency though rerouting and service refinement). But there seems to be something psychological about a choo-choo that gets people fired up for transit in a way that busses typically don’t. I think it’s because we have North American examples like Seattle’s Rapid Ride line that in the end didn’t deliver a train-like experience that we were sold on. We watered the BRT concept down so far as to make it meaningless. Meanwhile, Link light rail is being delivered at high cost, but they aren’t cutting corners. Thus Link feels so much better than Rapid Ride.
- closeparen 9y ago
  If you have been on both buses and trains it should be obvious. Trains: smooth ride where the tracks are good, smooth power delivery/acceleration, satisfying whooshing sound, forward facing seats, spacious aisle, feels solid and efficient. Makes one acceleration and deceleration per stop, which are at least a few blocks apart. A BMW sailing down a wide-open left lane. Buses: rattles 10x worse than the cheapest car you’ve ever been in. Violent, jerking, loud, desperate-sounding acceleration and braking action. Cramped aisle, mostly inward facing seats, hostile, harsh, and dirty fluorescent interior. Everything about it gets right up to your face and screams in your ear at the top of its lungs, “CHEAP!” A rolling welfare office waiting room. Stops every block, even with a dedicated lane. Usually averages walking speed, or worse when you factor in the wait. (No, these are not symptoms of being old - I have been on some perfectly pleasant 80s New Flyers. I am talking about San Francisco’s newest fleet here). Somehow it still baffles transit planners that people might care about the subjective experience of being in transit rather than the throughput or cost. How the auto industry hasn’t made that blidndingly obvious is beyond me.
  - peatmoss 9y ago
    > If you have been on both buses and trains it should be obvious. It's not that obvious if you've been on a well-done BRT line. The design characteristics of busses that you mention don't hold true universally—in particular, on quality BRT lines, the busses are typically designed to feel very much like the interior of the trains people like. I'll give you acceleration and deceleration comfort in general though. > Somehow it still baffles transit planners that people might care about the subjective experience of being in transit rather than the throughput or cost. It baffles me that people think transit planners control vast sums of wealth and are never forced to make tradeoffs due to cost considerations :-) In all seriousness, if cost were no object, I'm sure we'd all love trains. The reality is that even hyper-premium BRT lines with dedicated exclusive right-of-way and premier station design are cheaper (way cheaper) than building rail infra. EDIT: > How the auto industry hasn’t made that blidndingly obvious is beyond me. The auto industry relies on there being a huge government subsidy to maintaining the infrastructure that their product rolls around on. Nobody ever said cars don't deliver a nice experience (at low levels of congestion). The problem is that we tend to have too many people driving on roads that cannot, due to laws of geometry, space, and time, accomodate that demand.

Living in Seattle I miss the skytrain.

by lurr 9y ago

Living in Seattle I miss the skytrain.

But you have the monorail from Seattle Center to Westlake :-) Skytrain is a big bet transit system. Enormously expensive from a capital perspective, but offers a qualitatively great experience, and with pretty fixed operating costs. Busses done well can offer great performance characteristics at lower costs (with the added benefits of resiliency though rerouting and service refinement). But there seems to be something psychological about a choo-choo that gets people fired up for transit in a way that busses typically don’t. I think it’s because we have North American examples like Seattle’s Rapid Ride line that in the end didn’t deliver a train-like experience that we were sold on. We watered the BRT concept down so far as to make it meaningless. Meanwhile, Link light rail is being delivered at high cost, but they aren’t cutting corners. Thus Link feels so much better than Rapid Ride.

closeparen 9y ago
If you have been on both buses and trains it should be obvious. Trains: smooth ride where the tracks are good, smooth power delivery/acceleration, satisfying whooshing sound, forward facing seats, spacious aisle, feels solid and efficient. Makes one acceleration and deceleration per stop, which are at least a few blocks apart. A BMW sailing down a wide-open left lane. Buses: rattles 10x worse than the cheapest car you’ve ever been in. Violent, jerking, loud, desperate-sounding acceleration and braking action. Cramped aisle, mostly inward facing seats, hostile, harsh, and dirty fluorescent interior. Everything about it gets right up to your face and screams in your ear at the top of its lungs, “CHEAP!” A rolling welfare office waiting room. Stops every block, even with a dedicated lane. Usually averages walking speed, or worse when you factor in the wait. (No, these are not symptoms of being old - I have been on some perfectly pleasant 80s New Flyers. I am talking about San Francisco’s newest fleet here). Somehow it still baffles transit planners that people might care about the subjective experience of being in transit rather than the throughput or cost. How the auto industry hasn’t made that blidndingly obvious is beyond me.
- peatmoss 9y ago
  > If you have been on both buses and trains it should be obvious. It's not that obvious if you've been on a well-done BRT line. The design characteristics of busses that you mention don't hold true universally—in particular, on quality BRT lines, the busses are typically designed to feel very much like the interior of the trains people like. I'll give you acceleration and deceleration comfort in general though. > Somehow it still baffles transit planners that people might care about the subjective experience of being in transit rather than the throughput or cost. It baffles me that people think transit planners control vast sums of wealth and are never forced to make tradeoffs due to cost considerations :-) In all seriousness, if cost were no object, I'm sure we'd all love trains. The reality is that even hyper-premium BRT lines with dedicated exclusive right-of-way and premier station design are cheaper (way cheaper) than building rail infra. EDIT: > How the auto industry hasn’t made that blidndingly obvious is beyond me. The auto industry relies on there being a huge government subsidy to maintaining the infrastructure that their product rolls around on. Nobody ever said cars don't deliver a nice experience (at low levels of congestion). The problem is that we tend to have too many people driving on roads that cannot, due to laws of geometry, space, and time, accomodate that demand.