5 ms·

I believe buses are almost universally better than any kind of city light rail. Please no more light rail in cities, more buses.

quickthrower2 7y ago
Once we have electric buses (battery powered) I think this makes sense. And it would also make environmental sense in some cases to build a new road over a new train route. Because you can then run electric buses (maybe self-driving eventually) which can then easily open up new routes where trains would be unpractical for commuters.
glangdale 7y ago
I used to work with a public transit evangelist tragic (in his spare time) and he hated buses and bus-ways. I could never understand it. I think there's an element of permanance to light/heavy rail where the physical infrastructure is there (ergo it can "never" be taken away, ha ha) while a bus-way can be turned into a road. I think there's some legit reasons (capacity) that light rail is better than buses in many circumstances, but there's a fair bit of fetishism in the anti-bus mob. It also seems to line up pretty well with 'not liking transit unions'.
- bobthepanda 7y ago
  A lot of times buses/busways get trotted out as the anti-transit alternative. Or are super watered down. In general if you have to build new infrastructure doing it with rails vs asphalt cost is not actually that different. In general, for developed countries with high labor costs busways are a rotten deal since buses have such low per-driver capacity. And the most successful busways can't scale and end up getting replaced by light rail anyways. (Ottawa, Seattle, LA's Orange Line)
  - glangdale 7y ago
    Buses are transit yo. The thing about busways is that the buses get to the end of the busway and can then go around different areas and pick people up in places it would be impossible or uneconomical to lay track.
    - bobthepanda 7y ago
      > The thing about busways is that the buses get to the end of the busway and can then go around different areas and pick people up in places it would be impossible or uneconomical to lay track. This is only useful if you have a city geography and demographics conducive to this. A busway would be great in Pittsburgh, which is confined to narrow corridors, but not in Miami, which has a sprawling grid layout and the buses should reflect that. The main problems with busways are that buses have lower driver/passenger ratios (so running costs are higher) and they require a lot more platform space and roadway space for the same capacity. The Lincoln Tunnel XBL in New York is an extremely busy busway, but even the current multistory terminal complex is not enough room to serve all the buses that go there. Likewise, the bus tunnel in Seattle has been converted to LRT because the LRT is much higher capacity. And so has the busway in Ottawa, and they're looking to do that in Los Angeles with the Orange Line as well. You can have tree-branching LRT, like Muni Metro or Philly's Subway Surface or the Boston Green Line. It is more expensive upfront, but LRT also has advantages - being confined to rail, there's less lateral movement and smaller tunnel diameter requirements, and rail systems have lower ventilation requirements.
distances 7y ago
I've lived in a couple of cities with all of these (bus, tram, train plus metro). I'd never take a bus if I can avoid it. They are the lowest form of public transportation that is only meant as a cheap fix when rails aren't practical/affordable.
Grue3 7y ago
Regular buses aren't that convenient, but BRT/guided buses are great. The intervals between buses can be very short, and there's flexibility in the areas outside the busway.

quickthrower2 7y ago

Once we have electric buses (battery powered) I think this makes sense. And it would also make environmental sense in some cases to build a new road over a new train route. Because you can then run electric buses (maybe self-driving eventually) which can then easily open up new routes where trains would be unpractical for commuters.

glangdale 7y ago

I used to work with a public transit evangelist tragic (in his spare time) and he hated buses and bus-ways. I could never understand it. I think there's an element of permanance to light/heavy rail where the physical infrastructure is there (ergo it can "never" be taken away, ha ha) while a bus-way can be turned into a road. I think there's some legit reasons (capacity) that light rail is better than buses in many circumstances, but there's a fair bit of fetishism in the anti-bus mob. It also seems to line up pretty well with 'not liking transit unions'.

bobthepanda 7y ago
A lot of times buses/busways get trotted out as the anti-transit alternative. Or are super watered down. In general if you have to build new infrastructure doing it with rails vs asphalt cost is not actually that different. In general, for developed countries with high labor costs busways are a rotten deal since buses have such low per-driver capacity. And the most successful busways can't scale and end up getting replaced by light rail anyways. (Ottawa, Seattle, LA's Orange Line)
- glangdale 7y ago
  Buses are transit yo. The thing about busways is that the buses get to the end of the busway and can then go around different areas and pick people up in places it would be impossible or uneconomical to lay track.
  - bobthepanda 7y ago
    > The thing about busways is that the buses get to the end of the busway and can then go around different areas and pick people up in places it would be impossible or uneconomical to lay track. This is only useful if you have a city geography and demographics conducive to this. A busway would be great in Pittsburgh, which is confined to narrow corridors, but not in Miami, which has a sprawling grid layout and the buses should reflect that. The main problems with busways are that buses have lower driver/passenger ratios (so running costs are higher) and they require a lot more platform space and roadway space for the same capacity. The Lincoln Tunnel XBL in New York is an extremely busy busway, but even the current multistory terminal complex is not enough room to serve all the buses that go there. Likewise, the bus tunnel in Seattle has been converted to LRT because the LRT is much higher capacity. And so has the busway in Ottawa, and they're looking to do that in Los Angeles with the Orange Line as well. You can have tree-branching LRT, like Muni Metro or Philly's Subway Surface or the Boston Green Line. It is more expensive upfront, but LRT also has advantages - being confined to rail, there's less lateral movement and smaller tunnel diameter requirements, and rail systems have lower ventilation requirements.

distances 7y ago

I've lived in a couple of cities with all of these (bus, tram, train plus metro). I'd never take a bus if I can avoid it. They are the lowest form of public transportation that is only meant as a cheap fix when rails aren't practical/affordable.

Grue3 7y ago

Regular buses aren't that convenient, but BRT/guided buses are great. The intervals between buses can be very short, and there's flexibility in the areas outside the busway.