3 ms·
Cost and flexibility. Buses are cheaper and more responsive to changing traffic patterns than trains. They are not as nice though. If for instance people in
by dantheman 8y ago
Cost and flexibility. Buses are cheaper and more responsive to changing traffic patterns than trains. They are not as nice though.
If for instance people in a given community want to start traveling to a different part of a city they either have to create new rail routes or people have to take long inconvenient trips.
- CaptainZapp 8y ago> They are not as nice though. Ha! Apparently you haven't used Northern in the UK. Nice! (chuckle) I don't think it's really about nicety, but about capacity. A subway train can carry up to 1'000 passengers, depending on length and construction. You can have frequencies of a train every 90 seconds (example: line C in Prague, during rush hour). So you can transport up to 40'000 people per hour in each direction. Buses, while certainly much better than private vehicles, can never match that capacity. Alas, they're much cheaper and certainly more flexible.
- sulam 8y agoThe flip side is that they’re on the same roads as cars, which means exposed to the same congestion. And to the degree they get some people out of cars, they get other people into them.
- ocschwar 8y ago> Buses are cheaper and more responsive to changing traffic patterns than trains True, but not very useful. The #1 Bus line in Boston takes a route that a trolley once took. And before that it was a horse drawn railcar. And before that it was a 10 seat omnibus carriage route. Same route for a mighty long time.