8 ms·

I don't grok the framing of this. Why does this piece feel like it's proposing LRT and buses as binary, exclusive choices, instead of components of one system t

I don't grok the framing of this. Why does this piece feel like it's proposing LRT and buses as binary, exclusive choices, instead of components of one system that each have different strengths and weaknesses? Namely, this point: > This is money that could be far better spent, on a per-rider basis, on operating good bus routes; but instead is going to be spent on beautiful, brand new lines that only serve a relatively small catchment area unless they’re already integrated into a dense transit network (which is rarely the case). Specifically: > unless they’re already integrated into a dense transit network (which is rarely the case). What is the case, and why is it rare? In other words, this seems to make the case that because planners are incompetent, they should fund bus route saturation instead of train lines inherently less capable of saturation. But instead, it just leaves me asking why integration of LRT and bus lines (and ability, last-mile, cargo, and scenic/tourism transit options) isn't better, since that seems like the best goal.

URSpider94 7y ago
Not the author, but I’d say because public transit budgets are generally fixed amounts of money, so if you spend millions on a light rail line, you don’t have that money to spend on buses. I agree that a light rail network with feeder bus lines can work well. Boston’s “T” had done this in Cambridge - there’s an underground bus depot at the Harvard Square subway stop, where buses from all over the north side of the river converge so people can move to the train for the trip into downtown Boston.
- joe_the_user 7y ago
  I would note that the "T" isn't a light rail system or at least isn't mostly a light rail system. The "T" is a full subway system with a few light rail additions (parts of the green line).
joe_the_user 7y ago
He makes an argument that light rail is both less efficient and serves a limited population. I think it's good argument and a fairly well-known argument - light rail has been a poor use of transit dollars for a long time, it's only benefit is bragging rights since it can never be faster than ordinary traffic and it inherently costs more than buses. Medium rail and other system capable of faster movement than traffic is a different thing (but that's been neglected since it costs more to start and it doesn't give the cities more obvious bragging right). The only "benefit" of light rail is it makes it harder to abandon when the going gets tough. The flexibility of buses should be advantage but this flexibility means they're easy to gut in a circumstance of budget deficits. All you are saying "why not have both" but if one is strictly worse than the other, there's no reason to have both, you can do better with one.
- icebraining 7y ago
  Until recently, buses meant spewing fumes all over the city, which hopefully we're trying to reduce. BEV buses might be changing this, but they still come with their own logistical challenges.
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    Or natural gas buses, which don't produce that obnoxious diesel soot.
    - WorldMaker 7y ago
      But still produce plenty of Carbon Dioxide point source in the middle of traffic.
- twcach 7y ago
  >since it can never be faster than ordinary traffic Of course it can. Just give them priority at intersections like lots of cities do.
  - kube-system 7y ago
    Of course, you can do the same with a bus too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit
    - bryanlarsen 7y ago
      Sure, but why? The vast majority of the cost for a good rail system is in the dedicated right of way, overpasses for intersections and the stations, a BRT wouldn't be significantly cheaper. https://www.theurbanist.org/2016/10/12/brt-is-not-cheaper-than-light-rail/ https://www.theurbanist.org/2016/10/12/brt-is-not-cheaper-th...
      - kube-system 7y ago

URSpider94 7y ago

Not the author, but I’d say because public transit budgets are generally fixed amounts of money, so if you spend millions on a light rail line, you don’t have that money to spend on buses. I agree that a light rail network with feeder bus lines can work well. Boston’s “T” had done this in Cambridge - there’s an underground bus depot at the Harvard Square subway stop, where buses from all over the north side of the river converge so people can move to the train for the trip into downtown Boston.

joe_the_user 7y ago
I would note that the "T" isn't a light rail system or at least isn't mostly a light rail system. The "T" is a full subway system with a few light rail additions (parts of the green line).

joe_the_user 7y ago

He makes an argument that light rail is both less efficient and serves a limited population. I think it's good argument and a fairly well-known argument - light rail has been a poor use of transit dollars for a long time, it's only benefit is bragging rights since it can never be faster than ordinary traffic and it inherently costs more than buses. Medium rail and other system capable of faster movement than traffic is a different thing (but that's been neglected since it costs more to start and it doesn't give the cities more obvious bragging right). The only "benefit" of light rail is it makes it harder to abandon when the going gets tough. The flexibility of buses should be advantage but this flexibility means they're easy to gut in a circumstance of budget deficits. All you are saying "why not have both" but if one is strictly worse than the other, there's no reason to have both, you can do better with one.

icebraining 7y ago
Until recently, buses meant spewing fumes all over the city, which hopefully we're trying to reduce. BEV buses might be changing this, but they still come with their own logistical challenges.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  Or natural gas buses, which don't produce that obnoxious diesel soot.
  - WorldMaker 7y ago
    But still produce plenty of Carbon Dioxide point source in the middle of traffic.
twcach 7y ago
>since it can never be faster than ordinary traffic Of course it can. Just give them priority at intersections like lots of cities do.
- kube-system 7y ago
  Of course, you can do the same with a bus too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    Sure, but why? The vast majority of the cost for a good rail system is in the dedicated right of way, overpasses for intersections and the stations, a BRT wouldn't be significantly cheaper. https://www.theurbanist.org/2016/10/12/brt-is-not-cheaper-than-light-rail/ https://www.theurbanist.org/2016/10/12/brt-is-not-cheaper-th...
    - kube-system 7y ago